THE United States (US)-Iran agreement, the first signed by an American and an Iranian President since Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, is being hailed by its backers as the deal of the century.

    But for Tehran’s adversaries across the Middle East, from Israel to Gulf States and factions in Lebanon, it looks more like the curse of the century: An accord that could leave Iran more secure, more ‌legitimate and ultimately more influential.

    US President, Donald Trump, and Iranian President, Masoud Pezeshkian, signed the interim deal on Wednesday, June 17, ending a three-month war.

    Trump chose to formalise it at Versailles, on the sidelines of the G7 Summit, a setting widely seen as symbolic of the remaking of international order after conflict.

    The 14-point agreement extends a ceasefire by 60 days, including in Lebanon, to allow negotiations on a permanent settlement and address issues, such as Iran’s nuclear programme.

    “For Washington and Tehran, this is a grand bargain, the deal of the century, with no turning back,” said Lebanese commentator, Sarkis Naoum.     “The probability of success outweighs the risk of failure. Iran cannot endure further economic pain under sanctions, and Trump has no incentive to start a new war.”

    Israeli analyst, Danny Citrinowicz, described the agreement as a strategic “catastrophe.” What had been framed as a joint US-Israeli campaign to weaken, or even topple ⁠the Islamic Republic has, in his view, flipped into American recognition of Iran?

    “We went to topple the regime with US backing and ended with Washington effectively giving legitimacy and strengthening the same regime we wanted to bring ​down,” said Citrinowicz, a senior Iran researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies.

    He said the deal delivers none of Israel’s core demands: No curbs on Iran’s missile programme or proxies and no clear path to dismantling its nuclear facilities.

    Even Israel’s campaign in Lebanon has been constrained by the ceasefire framework imposed at Iran’s insistence.

    The fallout is both political and strategic. The deal undercuts Netanyahu’s narrative on Iran and exposes the limits of his leverage with a US president seen as closely aligned with Israel.

    And in some ways very personally attacked.

Citrinowicz said Iran has gained room to manoeuvre and the deal risks entrenching its position, while deepening Israel’s isolation.

    “Everything is bad,” he said bluntly. “And it’s only going to get worse.”

    If the agreement holds, Iran appears to secure the stronger outcome: An end to the war, phased sanctions relief, renewed oil exports and the prospect of vast reconstruction funds, alongside implicit acceptance of its political system.

    Washington, by contrast, falls short of goals it shared with Israel: Toppling the clerical establishment, dismantling Iran’s nuclear programme and curbing its regional reach. Rather than reshaping Iran’s position, the deal restores it.

    The US and Israel launched the war on Iran on February 28, assassinating the 86-year-old Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and other senior figures ‌in the ⁠first days.

    The conflict spiralled, killing over 7,000 people, mostly in Iran and Lebanon, while driving up energy prices and raising fears of a food crisis in developing states.

   For Lebanon, the agreement tilts the balance toward Iran, reinforcing the role of Tehran-backed Hezbollah and folding the country into a broader US-Iran framework, while sidelining Beirut-Israel talks.

    It binds Lebanon into the 60-day ceasefire, committing all sides to halt operations across all fronts.

    Lebanese President, Joseph Aoun, warned last week that Iran cannot negotiate on Lebanon’s behalf on issues, such as the ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal from southern territory.

    But sources close to Hezbollah argue the opposite: That the US-Iran track strengthens Lebanon’s position by elevating it into a higher-level negotiation.

    In their view, Tehran and Washington can pressure their respective allies, ⁠Hezbollah and Israel, to deliver a settlement.

    Alarm is sharpest in the Gulf, where Iranian attacks have shaken confidence in long-standing security arrangements. Gulf States have emerged as the war’s main losers, spectators to decisions that reshaped their security landscape and now left to absorb the fallout.

    Gulf sources said the deal is already reshaping strategic thinking: Eroding confidence in US protection, entrenching Iran as an enduring regional force and accelerating a shift toward accommodation, rather than confrontation.

    Iran expert, Alex Vatanka, however, pushes back against that anxiety. Rather than capitulation, he sees ⁠the agreement as the least bad outcome after years of failed coercion.

    “They tried to take Iran down militarily. They couldn’t. The alternative would have been catastrophic, a wider war could have devastated the Gulf for decades,” said Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington.

    The real test lies ahead, in implementation of the deal, in the unresolved nuclear negotiations and in the regional reactions it will provoke.

    He said: “It’s big, but it’s not the end of it. It’s ⁠just the beginning.”

    Some analysts see Israel as the main wild card. While unlikely to derail a process owned by Trump, they warned the risk remains, particularly in Lebanon.

    “Israel has been isolated, after this war, both in the region and in the world,” said one Iranian official, who declined to be named.

    “Iran got what it wanted…We did not abandon our friends, such as Hezbollah, rather, we were even prepared ​to go to the extent of walking away from the table and returning to war because of them,” added another.

    Meanwhile, US Vice President, JD Vance, lashed out at Israeli critics of the Iran deal on Thursday, saying Trump is Israel’s only ally, in a sharp rebuke that referenced the billions in US defence aid the country receives.

    According to Reuters, Vance ‌was defending the deal reached this week to end the war with Iran that critics in the US and Israel have slammed for failing to curb Iran’s missile programme and providing no clear path to dismantling its nuclear facilities, while constraining Israel in its war with Hezbollah militants in Lebanon.

    Trump has repeatedly criticised longtime ally, Israel, spiking tensions nearly four months after the two countries partnered to attack Iran. The war has roiled markets and global oil supplies, as Tehran responded by closing the critical Strait of Hormuz supply route.

    Vance, asked at a White House news briefing about a report that Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was fuming over the agreement, said he had not heard such comments from Netanyahu, but criticised members of the Israeli leader’s cabinet, ⁠who he said have attacked the deal and personally attacked Trump.

    “My message to them would be twofold. No. 1: Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time,” Vance told reporters at the White House.

    “If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world.”

    He said he would also remind those cabinet members that two-thirds of the defensive weapons that have protected Israel “have been built by American hands and paid for by American tax dollars.”

    The US provides Israel with roughly $4billion in military assistance a year, but the two countries are negotiating a new aid agreement.

    “The problem for Israel is not Donald J. ​Trump, and anybody in Israel who thinks their biggest problem is the president of the United States needs to wake up and smell the reality of the situation that country is in,” Vance added.

    Israel’s far-right National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, a linchpin in Netanyahu’s governing coalition, has harshly rebuked the deal and insisted Israeli troops would remain in Lebanon.

    Vance had criticised Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister, Beazley Smirch, in a New York Times interview released earlier on Thursday.

    “What is your ⁠exact proposal? You’re a country of nine million people. You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have,” Vance said.

    “I find this whole freakout in Israel a little bit odd, because I think that it comes from a place of mistrust, and I think that America has earned the trust of that region of the world,” Vance said.

    Ben-Gvir responded to Vance’s ⁠remarks on X, saying: “This is the proposal … To deal with the Nazis of the 21st century, just as the US dealt with the Nazis of the 20th century.”

    Trump, in a social media post after Vance’s remarks on Thursday, said he encouraged everyone in the Middle East to maintain their commitment to allowing negotiations to take place.

    “We expect a complete ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon, Hezbollah and Israel,” Trump wrote.

    Netanyahu’s office and Israel’s Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Israeli senior officials, speaking anonymously, have said the deal terms were bad for Israel, because they failed to ‌address concerns over ⁠Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programme, a view they said is shared across Israel’s leadership.

    Trump tried to play down Israel’s concerns during closing remarks on Wednesday at the Group of Seven summit in France. Netanyahu could use a “softer touch” in the fight against Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, Trump said.

    In his first comments since the deal, Netanyahu said at a public event that Israel appreciated its relationship with the US, but would continue to occupy southern Lebanon to maintain security for citizens living near Israel’s northern border.

    “This requires maintaining the security strip in southern Lebanon; it requires that we not leave there as long as Israel’s security needs require it,” Netanyahu said.

    Israel published a map on Thursday ⁠showing an expanded military control zone in southern Lebanon and said it would not rule out carrying out attacks beyond it, challenging the terms of the US-Iran pact.