SEOUL, June 18 (AJP) - President Donald Trump hailed the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding as a diplomatic victory that would prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons and restore stability to global energy markets.
Many international relations scholars and security analysts see it differently.
Several experts interviewed by AJP said the 109-day conflict ultimately strengthened Iran's strategic leverage, exposed limits to American military power and accelerated shifts already underway in the global order.
"The U.S. lost the war," said Jim Piazza, a political scientist at Pennsylvania State University.
"It was unable to achieve its stated goals. Iran likely emerges from the war in a stronger strategic position."
For many analysts, the war's most important lesson was not military but economic.
Iran demonstrated its ability to weaponize the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of global oil shipments pass.
Paul Hare, a former British ambassador and veteran British diplomat, said Tehran had acquired a durable source of leverage.
"The Iranians now have a permanent optional lever — pressure on the Strait of Hormuz," Hare said.
William Reno, a political scientist at Northwestern University, agreed.
"Iran learned how to use its proximity to the Strait of Hormuz as a geopolitical weapon," he said.
The memorandum has added to those concerns because it guarantees toll-free passage for only 60 days.
"The days of free passage may be over," Hare warned.
Supporters of the agreement argue Washington secured its principal objective by obtaining Iran's renewed commitment not to develop nuclear weapons.
Critics, however, say the memorandum merely postpones difficult decisions.
Under the agreement, both sides have 60 days to negotiate sanctions relief, nuclear restrictions, verification mechanisms and broader security arrangements.
Several analysts suggested Tehran may now see its leverage over global shipping routes as a more effective deterrent than a nuclear arsenal.
"Iran might even give up the nuclear program, slowly, since having the Strait weapon is much more useful to them," said Daniel Green of the University of Delaware.
Tom Vaughan, a lecturer in international security at the University of Leeds, expressed a similar view.
"I would not be surprised if Iran now agreed to give up its nuclear program," Vaughan said.
"It now has a much better deterrent in its back pocket — the threat to close the Strait again."
China and Russia emerge as indirect beneficiaries
Neither intervened militarily, yet both watched closely as the United States became increasingly entangled in a costly regional conflict that exposed limits to American military power.
"China and Russia have gained enormously," said Hare.
William Reno, a political scientist at Northwestern University, went further.
"China is the ultimate strategic winner in this war, less for anything China has done and more for the improvement of its position in relative terms," he said.
Thomas Berger of Boston University said rising energy prices and weakening confidence in American influence could benefit both countries.
"Russia is clearly a beneficiary of this development," Berger said.
Several analysts also noted that China continued purchasing Iranian oil throughout the conflict, helping sustain Tehran economically despite sanctions and blockades.
Another blow to the postwar order
Many experts said the war accelerated the erosion of the international order built after 1945 around American leadership, alliance networks and rules governing the use of force.
Douglas Becker, a professor of international relations at the University of Southern California, said the conflict weakened efforts to strengthen international legal constraints on military action.
"The real loser in the war is a global order that sought to restrict the use of force without proper authorization," Becker said.
Karoline Postel-Vinay of Sciences Po reached a similar conclusion.
"That war is yet another sign that the post-1945 international order, and the idea of a post-1989 liberal order, are gone," she said.
Jim Piazza of Pennsylvania State University warned that the conflict could also weaken long-standing principles such as freedom of navigation.
If countries eventually negotiate separate arrangements with Iran for access through the Strait of Hormuz, he said, Tehran's strategic importance could rise substantially.
Lessons for East Asia
For South Korea and other East Asian economies, the war underscored how quickly a Middle East conflict can become an economic shock thousands of kilometers away.
William Grimes of Boston University said disruptions to fuel, fertilizer and industrial supply chains would likely accelerate efforts to strengthen economic security.
"This is likely to accelerate existing moves to improve economic security through stockpiling, restoring, friend-shoring and related measures," Grimes said.
Several experts said governments across the region would increasingly prioritize supply-chain resilience, strategic reserves and alternative energy sources.
Tom Vaughan of the University of Leeds said the crisis could even speed up the global transition toward renewable energy.
"This war has reminded us of the extreme vulnerability of fossil fuel supply chains," he said.
Fragile peace
Despite optimism surrounding the memorandum, few experts believe peace is guaranteed.
The agreement remains a framework rather than a final settlement, leaving disputes over sanctions, nuclear verification, regional security arrangements and the future status of the Strait of Hormuz unresolved.
Daniel Green of the University of Delaware offered one of the starkest warnings.
"I would be really surprised if the war does not return in the next six months, or even six days," he said.
For many analysts, that may be the clearest takeaway.
The memorandum may have stopped the shooting, but it has not ended the conflict.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.