‘Lots of things can still go wrong’ with US-Iran deal to end the war
‘Lots of things can still go wrong’ with US-Iran deal to end the war Henry Ensher, a former US ambassador, says the US–Iran agreement is not a final settlement but only the start of a process, with …
Henry Ensher says the US–Iran agreement is not a final settlement but only the start of a process that can go wrong. This report comes from Al Jazeer
Read Full Story at Al Jazeera →Why This Matters
The tentative US-Iran deal to end the war in Yemen represents one of the most fragile diplomatic breakthroughs in the Middle East in years, offering a potential blueprint for de-escalation in a region where every previous ceasefire has collapsed under pressure. Its success could reopen channels for broader regional talks, while its failure risks deeper fragmentation in a conflict that has already reshaped global energy markets and humanitarian crises.
Background Context
Decades of proxy warfare between Saudi Arabia and Iran have turned Yemen into a battleground for their competing spheres of influence, with Iran-backed Houthis clashing against a Saudi-led coalition since 2015. Despite multiple ceasefires, including the 2022 truce that briefly paused airstrikes, none have held due to persistent mistrust and competing territorial demands, leaving Yemen’s civilian population in perpetual limbo.
What Happens Next
The deal’s survival hinges on Washington’s ability to enforce commitments from both sides while mitigating domestic opposition in Iran and Saudi Arabia, where hardliners view concessions as weakness. Even if implemented, the agreement could stall over unresolved issues like prisoner exchanges or the eventual withdrawal of foreign forces, while regional spoilers like the Houthis’ backers in Tehran may exploit loopholes to undermine progress.
Bigger Picture
This tentative deal mirrors a broader pattern of exhausted Middle Eastern conflicts seeking temporary reprieves rather than lasting resolutions, reflecting the shifting priorities of external powers like the US and China away from direct intervention. Yet the fragility of such agreements underscores a stark reality: without sustained economic incentives or enforceable guarantees, even the most promising diplomatic openings risk collapsing under the weight of historical grievances.
