The logic of banditry: The US-Iran peace deals

THE United States, US Vice President JD Vance, returned home from Switzerland this Monday, June 22, 2026, announcing that the foundations of peace with Iran have been laid.

But in reality, there are many obstacles to the peace deal. These include President Donald Trump threatening to level Iran if it again shuts the Strait of Hormuz.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham threatened: “If this deal fails, President Trump is going to take the Strait of Hormuz over by force. The United States will control the Strait of Hormuz, we’ll charge a fee for all those who go through to pay for the operation… And if Iran contests control of the Strait of Hormuz by the United States, we will obliterate them.”

There is Israel, which believes the proposed peace deal is a sellout by its American allies and threatens to continue occupying parts of Lebanon even if the peace deal is signed. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu bellowed: “Israel is not opposed to a diplomatic outcome… [but] the conflict in Lebanon should be resolved through direct negotiations between Israel and Lebanon and not by Iranian extortion.”

The peace deal itself shows a tactical concession by the US to Iranian demands; some, like respect for its sovereignty, have been a demand by Iranians for forty-five years.

So, why did the US virtually capitulate? For answers, we first need to analyze the peace pact.

The fourteen-point peace deal provides the immediate and permanent cessation of military operations against each other and in places like Lebanon.

This had been a basic demand of Iran: that the US and Israel stop their periodic attacks. It is also a win for Iran, which has insisted that Israel must stop its military attacks against Lebanon. This will earn Iran more allies in that country. The greatest threat to this is Israel, which assumes proprietary rights over Lebanese territory.

A second agreement is that both countries would respect each other’s sovereignty and integrity, and would cease interfering in each other’s domestic affairs. This has been Iran’s demand since its 1979 Revolution. The US routinely violates Iran’s sovereignty and intervenes in its internal affairs to the point of funding internal dissent.

Also, both countries “commit to negotiating and reaching a final agreement within 60 days, unless the deadline is mutually extended.” The greatest danger to this is those in the US establishment who believe this peace deal concedes too much to Iran, a country they believe should be wiped out. Israel is, of course, the other obstacle, as it insists on occupying countries like Syria and Lebanon and territories like Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.

The provision that the US will lift its unilateral and illegal naval blockade immediately is an unquantifiable victory for Iran. The US embargo against Cuba, which the Trump regime has tightened in the past few weeks, has gone on for sixty-four years now.

The provision that “Iran will use its best efforts to ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days at no charge” is a major win for Iran, as this recognises that it has the power to charge fees on what the US had hitherto claimed is international waters. It is also a recognition that the Strait belongs to Iran.

In a little-veiled concession that Iran has the right to seek compensation for damages caused by the war, the peace proposal states that “The US and its regional partners will develop a mutually agreed plan worth at least $300 billion for Iran’s reconstruction and economic development.” This implies that countries like the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Oman, which were attacked by Iran, would additionally contribute to the rebuilding of post-war Iran.

The imposition of sanctions against Iran has gone on for decades, with Iranian assets seized or frozen in various countries. But this peace deal provides that the US will work for the termination of all forms of sanctions against Iran, including by the United Nations (UN) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

On its part, Iran agreed to neither develop nor acquire nuclear weapons. It also agreed to address its stockpile of enriched material under IAEA supervision.

Another significant win for Iran is the provision that “Until a final agreement is reached, Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, while the US will impose no new sanctions and deploy no additional forces.”

Apparently, to ensure rapid Iranian economic and financial recovery, there is a section that “The US Treasury Department will issue waivers covering Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, derivatives, and related banking, insurance and transportation services.”

It is also agreed that the US will make all frozen or restricted Iranian funds and assets fully available for use. These funds, which are over $100 billion, are held in international banks in countries like Qatar, South Korea, China, and India.

Both countries announced that they would establish an executive mechanism to monitor implementation and compliance with any future final agreement. They also agreed that “Following the signing of the MoU and the implementation of key ceasefire, blockade, shipping, oil-waiver and asset-release provisions, the US and Iran will begin negotiations on a final agreement.”

Equally, they agreed that their proposed final agreement will be negotiated within a sixty-day period. To safeguard the agreement and prevent a return to hostilities, both countries agreed that “The final agreement will be endorsed through a binding UN Security Council resolution.” The virtual US capitulation follows the logic of banditry: if it is confronted by a counterforce which it cannot, at least in the short term, defeat, it seeks concessions or yields. But that is not to say it is committed to such deals. In fact, the US is unlikely to be faithful to the peace deal. So, only the counterforce of the victim can ensure its fidelity.

In Nigeria, we are used to such concessions by bandits and terrorists who, even if they claim to have become repentant, do so just to buy time or acquire weapons and resources.

But the US is unlikely to directly violate the peace deal. Rather, it will use Israel just as it has employed it in wrecking the initial peace deals with Israel’s continued bombing of Lebanon.

The US is the chief guarantor of the Gaza peace deal. It also imposed an international peace body to oversee Gaza, yet Israel continues its genocide without the US raising a voice.

In its new report, the United Nations reported that the Israeli authorities and security forces have “deliberately carried out acts inflicting death and severe bodily and mental harm on hundreds of thousands of Palestinian children,” and that these killings continue even after the US-guaranteed peace pact of October 2025. The Palestinian health authorities, backed by the UN, claim that 1,008 Palestinians have been killed and over 800 injured since the ceasefire. It may yet be a war without end.