Iqbal Jassat
The deal struck by the Islamic Republic of Iran with the United States has been defined as a significant moment in its short yet dynamic and challenging history since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
While a great deal of speculation on the details contained in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) exists, what remains clear is that the Trump regime has conceded defeat.
Equally stark is the fact that notwithstanding the military might and power it possesses, the US failed in the most humiliating way to subdue Iran and impose its will on the country.
That none of the goals it set out, having been misled by the settler colonial regime’s notorious war criminal Netanyahu, that a joint US-Israel war would lead to the collapse of the Islamic Republic and result in regime change, added to Trump’s frustration and woes.
He realised, as did his rightwing war cabinet led by zionist fanatics such as Pete Hegseth, that Iran is not Venezuela.
The strategic calculus behind the February 28, 2026 decision appeared unmistakable: replicate the “Venezuelan model,” decapitate the leadership, and the regime’s behavior would change, if not collapse altogether.
The gambit failed.
The reasons for that failure reveal the Islamic Republic’s durability and ideological strength, and yet again vindicated by Trump’s admission of defeat.
Given that Iran has remained steadfast in defence of the Axis of Resistance, one would expect the Arab regimes to display a modicum of “independence” by resisting Israeli dictates.
The situation in Lebanon for instance and how its government relates to Israel’s bombing and carnage is both revealing and shocking.
We learn from Amal Saad, a scholar on Hizbullah, that the ceasefire agreement signed by Lebanese representatives with Israel and the US belongs to a category of political submission with little or no precedent.
“Lebanon, a state under attack, co-signs a document that conditions a ceasefire not on the withdrawal of the occupying power from its territory, but on the withdrawal of its own citizens from their land,” she wrote.
Any framework for negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, if tilted in favour of zionist expansionism and occupation, will repeat a fundamental contradiction that has long shaped Lebanon’s security and political landscape: the Lebanese state conducts diplomacy and negotiates agreements, while Hizbullah remains the country’s principal military actor in confronting Israel.
This disconnect continues to complicate efforts to reach a durable settlement and raises questions about the viability of any agreement that lacks the support of both actors.
Viewed against the current US/Iran MOU, unless the Lebanese government desists from accepting Israel’s one-sided demands and insists on tying its fortune to that of Hizbullah’s, it will continue to be bullied by Netanyahu and his criminal gang of warlords.
As for Iran’s supremacy, an article in Israel Hayom headlined “Complete Failure: Netanyahu’s strategy toward Iran has collapsed,” highlights that “Israel’s strategic position” in its war on Iran has deteriorated dramatically.
The article emphasizes that the new strategic reality will make it “far more difficult for Israel” to confront the “Iranian threat” in the years ahead, explaining that the root of this “failure” lies in the “arrogance and miscalculations” that prevailed within “Israel’s” security establishment.
Israel Hayom said that Iran has demonstrated a willingness to take significant risks to impose new rules of engagement, including preventing “Israel” from carrying out aggression on Beirut.
It described the emerging strategic landscape as “increasingly complex,” adding that it presents “Israel” with greater “challenges”, especially given its dependence on the United States.
The Israeli outlet said that a return to a US agreement with Iran, even if it addresses the nuclear issue, would underscore “Israel’s strategic limitations.”
Israel Hayom said that the recent military campaigns have been an “outright failure,” adding that they neither succeeded in “deterring” Iran nor shifted the “balance of power,” and instead left “Israel” in a weaker strategic position.
Iqbal Jassat, Executive Member, Media Review Network, Johannesburg, South Africa
