US-Iran deal hailed as 'deal of the century' by backers, 'curse' by adversaries

An interim agreement between the United States and Iran, the first signed by presidents of both nations since Iran's 1979 revolution, has drawn sharply divided reactions across the Middle East. While proponents celebrate it as the "deal of the century," opponents, particularly Israel and Gulf states, fear it will bolster Iran's security, legitimacy, and regional influence. The accord, formalized at Versailles on the sidelines of the G7 summit, extends a 60-day ceasefire, including in Lebanon, to facilitate negotiations for a permanent settlement and address Iran's nuclear program. Lebanese commentator Sarkis Naoum believes the deal offers a "grand bargain" with no turning back, citing Iran's economic vulnerability and President Trump's lack of incentive for further conflict. However, Israeli analyst Danny Citrinowicz labels the agreement a strategic "catastrophe." He argues that the deal, intended to weaken Iran, has instead resulted in American recognition and strengthening of the Islamic Republic. Citrinowicz points out that the agreement does not curb Iran's missile program or its support for proxies, nor does it provide a clear path to dismantling nuclear facilities. Israel's campaign in Lebanon has also been constrained by the ceasefire. The fallout is significant for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, whose narrative on Iran is undermined, and whose leverage with the US president appears diminished. Citrinowicz bluntly states, "Everything is bad, and it's only going to get worse," predicting that Iran will secure a stronger position with sanctions relief and renewed oil exports if the agreement holds, deepening Israel's isolation.

“

For Washington and Tehran, this is a grand bargain, the deal of the century, with no turning back. 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.