The Geopolitical Consequences of the Iran War

With Iran and the United States expected to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to end the war on Friday, commentators across the spectrum have published opinions on the state of affairs in the Middle East. Mainstream outlets across the spectrum have mostly published negative or critical opinions.

Positive Take: Andrew Day of The American Conservative (Lean Right bias), which has been one of the most critical conservative outlets of the Trump administration's handling of the war, argued that to the dismay of American war hawks, "thanks mostly to Trump, [Iran]'s beginning to look like a normal nation-state with which the U.S. can cooperate." Day said "Israel Firsters" Mark Levin (Right), Marc Thiessen, and Mark Dubowitz are "freaking out" and that "liberal analysts have emphasized that the 'deal' is actually just a preliminary 'memorandum of understanding'" and "insist that it won't lead to" an improved nuclear deal. "Both groups miss the point," he wrote. Day concluded, "Trump seems to have arrived at this reframing not through any naively liberal tendency to trust an America-hating theocracy, but as the result of a war in which Iran demonstrated that it has real leverage rooted in military power… Of course, just as Trump swung wildly from frenzied bellicosity to peace-loving diplomacy, he can swing back again. But that's kind of the point. Trump's uniquely nonideological and erratic approach to governance has raised the novel possibility of genuine peace, based on a realistic acceptance of Tehran's illiberal regime and a recognition that Iran does not actually pose a threat that justifies costly war."

Lukewarm: The editorial board of Financial Times (Center) described President Trump's agreement as the "least bad exit" from his "war of choice." The board noted that "hawks in the US," "ultra-hardliners in Iran," and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have all been critical of the deal, and that the Iranian regime, despite suffering "devastating blows," has "been empowered," maintaining its ability to close the Strait of Hormuz. The board said for the deal to succeed, it is "imperative" that Trump "contain[s] Netanyahu" and that showing less patience with him would benefit both the US and Israel. Similarly, Peter Morici, in an opinion for Washington Times (Lean Right), said the US military "significantly degraded" Iran's military forces and operations, but that Iran "can still effectively keep the Strait of Hormuz closed and harass neighbors."

Critical: Several outlets, including the progressive outlets Jacobin (Left) and The Intercept (Left), published headlines that said Trump achieved "nothing" with the war. Nick Turse of The Intercept said, "Trump was forced to return to the status quo with the Strait of Hormuz open and no nuclear deal in place." He added, "The same regime is in power and it maintains missile capabilities, still has a navy, and still supports regional proxies." Andrew C. McCarthy (Right) of National Review (Right) has published several Trump-critical Iran opinions this week. McCarthy emphasized that no agreement has been signed or made public. He wrote, "The president is an impetuous man who would not be able to contain himself if the written MOU were of even marginal benefit to the United States… The fact that the Trump administration refuses to publish the MOU – refuses even to brief the Gang of Eight on it – is powerful implication that it is at least as bad as close watchers suspect it is."

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.