OPINION:
Before we write the obituary for the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding, it is worth remembering a simple rule about the Middle East: Headlines change more quickly than strategy.
The memorandum of understanding signed in June was supposed to restore freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Instead, Iran continued targeting commercial shipping, prompting U.S. strikes on Iranian military targets.
Tehran has responded by targeting U.S. military assets in Bahrain and Kuwait.
Speaking to reporters last week, President Trump declared the agreement effectively over. He called the regime “scum” and “sick people” before adding that negotiators could keep talking if they wished and warning that he was prepared to “hit them hard again tonight.”
The headlines are dramatic. Beneath them, however, the same actors are pursuing the same objectives with the same playbooks.
Start with Iran. For nearly half a century, Tehran has pursued the same goals: to preserve the regime, expand its influence and outlast its adversaries. It has advanced its nuclear program while negotiating. It has armed terrorist proxies while negotiating. It has expanded its regional reach while negotiating.
Diplomacy was always a means of managing pressure while preserving leverage.
The memorandum of understanding did not change that.
One of the agreement’s central understandings was that commercial shipping would again move freely through the Strait of Hormuz. Within days, commercial vessels were once again under attack.
This was the predictable behavior of a regime that has long viewed agreements as instruments of strategy rather than constraints on its conduct. After sustaining severe military setbacks over the past year, Iran pivoted to the leverage it still possessed.
It folded Hezbollah into the broader diplomatic process, making Israeli action in Lebanon part of the negotiation rather than a separate security challenge. It continued using the Strait of Hormuz as a reminder that global energy markets remain vulnerable to Iranian disruption. In so doing, it shifted attention away from the question that had originally united the United States and Israel: Iran’s nuclear program.
This has long been the regime’s chief skill: winning not wars, but time.
When it comes to Iran, diplomacy should be judged less by whether agreements are signed than by whether they change the conditions that produced the conflict in the first place.
The same analytical mistake is now being made with Mr. Trump. Commentators treat each presidential statement as if it represents a new doctrine. It does not.
Mr. Trump has approached foreign policy the same way for nearly a decade: pressure first, negotiate second and always maintain ambiguity. One day, Iranian leaders are “rational” and “nice to deal with.” The next day, they are “scum.”
Whether one approves of the approach is beside the point. This has become Mr. Trump’s characteristic negotiating style, and it has occasionally delivered significant results, including the Abraham Accords and securing the release of all the Israeli hostages.
Nor have the incentives changed. Mr. Trump has little interest in another prolonged war in the Middle East. The global economy remains exposed to disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz. Americans have no appetite for another open-ended military campaign.
The costs of regime change remain staggering.
So, just as a signed memorandum should not be mistaken for a transformed Iran, heated rhetoric should not be mistaken for an imminent invasion.
Mr. Trump wants leverage without occupation. Iran wants relief without surrender. That leaves the region where it has so often been before: suspended somewhere between diplomacy and confrontation, deterrence and escalation.
There are no surprises here.
• Aviva Klompas is CEO and co-founder of Boundless, a nonprofit dedicated to fighting antisemitism. She is also the host of the “Boundless Insights” podcast.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.