After more than three months of conflict, a newly established agreement between the United States and Iran has reshaped the political landscape in the Middle East, prompting regional powers to reassess their positions and strategies. The memorandum of understanding, which effectively halted hostilities, has elicited mixed reactions across the Gulf, Israel, and Lebanon, underscoring the complexities of the evolving regional dynamic.
Gulf states, which endured Iranian retaliatory strikes during the recent US-Israel offensive, are now confronting the challenge of restoring relations with Tehran. Officials have indicated that Saudi Arabia is preparing to host regional talks aimed at reconciliation, though no specific dates have been disclosed. According to analysts, these discussions reflect a pragmatic recalibration toward the United States rather than a fundamental shift in policy toward Iran. H A Hellyer of the Royal United Services Institute remarked that Gulf governments are attempting to navigate a volatile US foreign policy that can abruptly oscillate between military engagement and ceasefire, often without fully considering Gulf interests. The Gulf Arab states recognize the high cost of this unpredictability and seek a manageable modus vivendi with Iran, though the current understanding provides only temporary relief rather than a long-term guarantee, noted researcher Nasser Al-Tamimi.
Israel, which was excluded from the US-Iran agreement despite being a primary belligerent, has expressed strong opposition to the terms. The deal is widely perceived in Israel as a strategic setback, weakening Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's position. Israeli officials have voiced particular concern over the pact’s provisions for a ceasefire in Lebanon, where Israel remains engaged in conflict with Hezbollah. A senior figure quoted by Israeli media described the development as "a very grave story," emphasizing the severity of turning Iran into a negotiating partner in Lebanon. Netanyahu maintained that Israeli forces would stay in southern Lebanon "for as long as it is necessary," yet experts such as Michael Milshtein from Tel Aviv University suggest that Israel’s operational freedom in Lebanon will be significantly curtailed. Milshtein further speculated that the US might pressure Israel toward a separate agreement involving Gaza, a prospect Israeli analysts view unfavorably. Former military officer Or Horvitz also assessed Israel’s strategic position in Lebanon as considerably diminished compared to the pre-war environment.
In Lebanon, the government is apprehensive about Iran’s apparent enhanced influence through the agreement, fearing it may embolden Hezbollah and complicate efforts to disarm the group, as demanded by Beirut. Hezbollah expert Nicholas Blanford of the Atlantic Council observed that Tehran is now better positioned to assert its interests regarding Hezbollah’s status. Blanford warned that if Israel violates the ceasefire by continuing to occupy parts of southern Lebanon, Iran might abandon the agreement altogether. Hezbollah has gained temporary momentum from the ceasefire, reinvigorating its narrative of resistance against Israel. Visible symbols of Iranian influence, such as large billboards featuring Iran’s supreme leaders, have recently emerged near Beirut’s airport. Despite the temporary calm, Lebanon’s political leadership reportedly prefers to guide the nation’s future independently rather than rely on Iranian intervention to resolve the conflict.
As the Middle East adjusts to this new reality, the memorandum of understanding marks a fragile pause rather than a comprehensive solution, with deep-seated tensions and rivalries still shaping the region’s volatile landscape.