While waiting for the agreement?
Given the latest available evidence, an imminent agreement would probably not yet be a peace, but rather a strategic truce dressed up as a political accord. The information refers to a text including an extension of the ceasefire by 60 days, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of the American blockade on certain Iranian ports and exemptions allowing Iran to sell oil; but the nuclear issue still seems to be partially postponed for further negotiation.
If the deal goes ahead without an obvious dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program, the big tactical winner will be Iran.
But if the agreement does impose a suspension of enrichment, the elimination of the stock of highly enriched uranium, and serious negotiation under pressure, then the big winner becomes Washington, DC, with Israel as an indirect beneficiary.
Window 1: Iran: military loser, narrative winner
Iran may have lost militarily but won politically if the deal allows it to keep what matters most—the regime, some of its military equipment, the capacity to stir up trouble in the region, and most significantly, the narrative that it has not given up.
The paradox is that, despite appearing stronger in the story, Iran is actually weaker. If Tehran makes sure that oil exports continue and that its role in Hormuz is subtly acknowledged, it can present the agreement as a victory of resistance.The Iranian dictatorship hopes to persevere, engage in coercive negotiations, and then turn its survival into an intellectual victory.
Window 2: The US: strategic triumph or covert retreat?
A settlement could be seen by Trump as a win since he will have knocked. So the real question is: disarmament agreement or breathing agreement?
If it’s a breathing space agreement, Iran is buying time. If it’s a disarmament agreement, Washington is winning the sequence.
Window 3: Israel: military winner, possible diplomatic loser
Militarily, Israel will be able to say: we have hit Iran, destroyed or reduced part of its capabilities, and put the Iranian threat back at the center of the global game.
But diplomatically, Israel risks becoming the relative loser if Washington accepts a compromise that Jerusalem deems insufficient.
So, for Israel, the danger is this: to win the military phase, but to allow the US to close the sequence with a flawed political agreement.
Window 4: The Gulf monarchies: the true silent winners
The biggest practical winners could be Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Oman. Their priority is not ideology. It is stability, oil, maritime routes, insurance, ports, investments.
Window 5: China as an economic winner, strategic loser?
China would benefit from appeasement if oil flows again and prices calm. Beijing does not like energy instability.
However, if the US comes out of the crisis stronger, a settlement might also be detrimental to China strategically. Why? Because Washington can focus its economic, military, and diplomatic efforts on Taiwan, the Indo-Pacific, and competition with Beijing once the Iranian front is stabilised. Thus, China wins if the agreement permanently weakens US credibility. She loses if Trump can say: I have neutralized Iran, secured Hormuz, then I can now return to China.
Window 6: What this foretells for the future.
Coercive diplomacy is becoming the norm: you strike, you block, you threaten, then you negotiate. This is not classic diplomacy. It’s diplomacy under a vise.
Hormuz is officially becoming a global geopolitical weapon. It is no longer just a strait. It is a negotiating lever between Iran, the United States, the Gulf, China, and the markets.
the relationship between Washington and Israel could enter a more complex area. Israel wants a deep neutralization of Iran. Trump may want a visible, quick agreement. The two objectives are not always identical.
If the deal is weak, Iran will be the big narrative winner, Israel the big frustrated, and Donald Trump the short-term media winner.
If the agreement is solid, verifiable, and nuclearly binding, the US will be the big winner, Israel will have achieved an indirect strategic victory, and Iran will have saved its regime but lost some of its strategic depth.
My personal view : the true winner will be known only on one condition: whether or not Iran keeps its nuclear leverage. Everything else(Ormuz, oil, ceasefire, sanctions) is relatively random . But the crux of the matter remains: does Iran emerge from this war as a weakened but still nuclearly dangerous regime, or as a regime forced to retreat on its main deterrent?
