By signing a memorandum of understanding with Tehran, Washington has ended a four-month war. On paper, the text can be read as an American victory: a ceasefire, the gradual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, an Iranian commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons, and a 60-day negotiation window. So the White House can tell a simple story: America struck, Iran gave in, diplomacy followed force.

But this is precisely where the problem starts.

For a war is not just judged by the number of targets destroyed. It is judged by its ability to transform military superiority into a lasting political outcome. On this point, the agreement is much more ambiguous. The US has won the military sequence; Iran, for its part, has won something more discreet but perhaps more important: political survival.

The distinction of Thomas Schelling sheds light on this whole affair. Brute force destroys; coercion compels the adversary to adopt your will. Washington and Jerusalem have demonstrated their brute strength: infrastructure hit, Iranian military capabilities degraded, Iran’s economy under extreme pressure. But did they force Tehran to change its strategic nature? It is much less obvious.

Iran does not emerge “strengthened” in the classical sense; it emerges weakened,  militarily damaged, and economically dependent on an external force. Its........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)