Avtalen mellom USA og Iran: – En politisk fiasko

The U.S. and Iran have entered a 60-day ceasefire following military strikes on February 28, according to official reports. While U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance describes the agreement as a commitment to regional stability and a halt to terror funding, Iran expert Eirik Kvindesland calls it a “political failure” that fails to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program or weaken the Islamic Republic.

Why is the U.S.-Iran ceasefire considered fragile?

The agreement is a short-term extension of a previous truce rather than a permanent peace treaty. Eirik Kvindesland, a post-doctoral fellow at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, states the deal simply postpones the most decisive questions. The current truce lasts 60 days and focuses on immediate cessation of hostilities.

Confusion over the deal’s status adds to the instability. Donald Trump claimed the agreement was already signed, but Pakistan—acting as a mediator—and Swiss officials indicate the formal signing is scheduled for Friday in Geneva. Kvindesland describes this discrepancy as a “chaotic” process that damages U.S. negotiating credibility.

What happens to Iran’s nuclear program under this deal?

The nuclear issue remains unsolved. Andreas Motzfeldt Kravik, a State Secretary for Norway, told VG that critical questions regarding the right to enrich uranium and the disposal of highly enriched uranium are still pending.

Reuters sources report that the nuclear program will be discussed over the next 60 days. A significant gap persists: Iran believes the deal allows enriched uranium to remain in the country, a condition the U.S. has previously rejected. Sanctions relief is also tied to these unresolved conditions; while Iran’s deputy foreign minister expects sanctions to be lifted, the U.S. maintains this will only happen after specific conditions are met.

How does Israel view the agreement between the U.S. and Iran?

Israel does not recognize the deal as binding. National Security Minister Ben-Gvir wrote on social media that the agreement does not provide Israel with necessary security. Defense Minister Israel Katz explicitly rejected the plan to withdraw military forces from Lebanon, stating that Israel will attack Iran if it triggers conflict in Lebanon.

This creates a fundamental rift between the U.S. and Israel. Kvindesland notes that Israel’s ability to provoke conflict in Lebanon could effectively dismantle the entire ceasefire. This tension was highlighted by a recent Israeli drone attack in South Lebanon, occurring despite the ceasefire’s intent.

Is the deal a victory or a failure for the U.S. and Israel?

Experts argue the military campaign failed to meet its primary objectives. Kvindesland asserts that the goals of weakening the Islamic Republic, dismantling the nuclear program, and reducing Iran’s long-term military capability were not achieved.

Dag Tuastad, an associate professor at the University of Oslo, describes the outcome as a “nightmare scenario” for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Tuastad argues that Iran is now stronger than it was before the war because some sanctions are being lifted, providing the regime with revenue to finance allies like Hezbollah.

Tuastad further notes a regression in diplomatic leverage. He points out that prior negotiations in Oman—before the war started—appeared to offer better terms regarding uranium enrichment than what the U.S. has secured now.

Comparison of Strategic Goals vs. Outcomes

Frequently Asked Questions