Limits of America: On the U.S.-Iran agreement
Israel and the U.S. launched their war on Iran on February 28 to bring about regime change in Tehran, destroy its nuclear and missile capabilities and end its support for non-state actors such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis. More than 100 days later, on June 15, the U.S. reached a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Iran to end fighting, lift the blockades in the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman — disruptions that did not exist before the war — and pave the way for more substantive talks on the nuclear question, while Israel, frustrated and isolated, is watching from the sidelines. That U.S. President Donald Trump pushed ahead despite Israeli objection underscores how dramatically the region’s strategic landscape has shifted. Left with few viable military options to make Iran submit to America’s maximalist demands, or to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, Mr. Trump ultimately turned to a phased diplomatic approach: a preliminary agreement now, followed by negotiations on a final deal. Iranian officials say the arrangement would include the release of some frozen assets and reparations for Tehran as part of a broader regional ceasefire agreement. Core issues such as Iran’s nuclear programme and western sanctions would be discussed next. The MoU is only the first step on a long and difficult road to peace and stability. Mr. Trump’s immediate challenge is to prevent a fresh outbreak of hostilities between the U.S. and Iran, or Israel and Iran, while nuclear negotiations remain under way. His biggest strategic mistake was his belief, shared by Israel, that there was a military solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. Washington underestimated Iran’s resolve, strategic depth and geographical advantages. As Henry Kissinger put it, “the guerrilla wins if he does not lose”. Iran won this war by not losing while the U.S., the most powerful country, lost it by failing to achieve its goals. With the nuclear talks set to resume, Mr. Trump finds himself in a weaker position today than the one Barack Obama occupied when he held talks with Iran in 2013-15. Nevertheless, the prospects for a negotiated outcome are still real as Iran urgently needs long-term economic relief. One potential disruptor, however, could be Israel, which has said it would not withdraw from occupied Southern Lebanon. Iran and the U.S. should rein in their respective allies, Hezbollah and Israel; Tehran should also take measures to instil confidence in the process. It has already demonstrated its deterrence by taking control of the Strait of Hormuz. It must now reopen the waterway in exchange for the U.S. removing its blockade. Iran and the U.S. should remain focused on diplomacy, resist potential Israeli efforts to sabotage the process, and work towards restoring stability in West Asia. Israel-US strikes on Iran / missile systems / nuclear policy / diplomacy / economic sanction / West Asia / Donald Trump
- 1The US-Iran war and subsequent MoU illustrate the constitutional tension between presidential war-making authority and legislative oversight in democratic systems. Under Article II of the US Constitution, the President is Commander-in-Chief and conducts foreign policy, but the War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires congressional authorisation for sustained military action. India's constitutional framework, by contrast, vests treaty-making power in the Union Executive under Articles 53 and 73, while Parliament's role in foreign policy commitments remains advisory — a distinction CLAT aspirants should note when comparing constitutional systems on Separation of Powers doctrine.
- 2The MoU marks a pivotal shift in West Asian geopolitics, with the Strait of Hormuz — through which approximately 20% of global oil trade passes daily — at its centre. The framework mirrors the structure of the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) of 2015, from which Trump himself had withdrawn in 2018 triggering the 'maximum pressure' policy that preceded this war. For India, which imports over 80% of its crude oil and hosts over nine million diaspora workers in West Asia, stability in the Gulf directly affects energy security, foreign exchange earnings, and the Indian rupee's stability.
- 3The US-Iran conflict intersects multiple layers of international law: Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against another state's territorial integrity, while Article 51 permits self-defence. Economic sanctions against Iran — imposed under US law and reinforced by UN Security Council resolutions — constitute a contested domain of international economic law. The reference to Iran's 'frozen assets' relates to disputes dating to the 1981 Algiers Accords, which resolved the Iran hostage crisis and established the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal at The Hague as an arbitration mechanism, a landmark example of international dispute resolution.
- 4Iran's economy contracted significantly after the US withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 and reimposed 'maximum pressure' sanctions, creating the urgent economic need for relief that the article identifies as the primary driver of Iran's willingness to negotiate. The Strait of Hormuz blockade during the conflict sent crude oil prices sharply higher, demonstrating the physical geography's direct economic consequences for energy-importing nations. Henry Kissinger's strategic principle that 'the guerrilla wins if he does not lose' has broader application to asymmetric conflicts globally — from Vietnam to Afghanistan — and reflects a classic challenge in international relations theory that is frequently tested in CLAT's Legal Reasoning and GK sections.
Related from CLAT Tribe Blogs
- Operation Sindoor — CLAT Current Affairs Guide
Master Operation Sindoor for CLAT 2026, Phalgam attack, legal angles, IWT suspension, key persons, weapons used & 10 practice MCQs. Your complete GK guide.