Trump’s Iran Strategy Leaves Major Questions Unanswered, Chatham House Analyst Warns

A geopolitical analyst has cautioned that the recently signed memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the United States and Iran may offer only temporary relief from tensions, while leaving several critical issues unresolved.

In an article published by Chatham House, Dr. Lindsay Newman, an Associate Fellow in the US and North America Programme, argued that the agreement reflects a fragile understanding between Washington and Tehran following months of conflict and diplomatic strain.

According to Newman, the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump entered the confrontation with Iran believing that overwhelming military pressure would compel Tehran to comply with American demands. However, she contended that while the military campaign may have delivered tactical gains, it failed to achieve broader strategic objectives.

The analyst said Washington had hoped a short military operation would weaken Iran’s missile capabilities, curb its regional influence, and prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. She added that some within the U.S. administration also viewed the campaign as a potential catalyst for political change inside Iran.

Instead, Newman argued, Iran adapted to the pressure by reorganising its leadership structure and expanding the conflict across the region through missile and drone operations, while disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz heightened concerns in global energy markets.

The MoU signed by both countries extends an earlier ceasefire by 60 days and seeks to facilitate the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy shipping routes. It also provides a framework for further negotiations between Washington and Tehran.

However, Newman expressed scepticism about the prospects for a lasting settlement, noting that the two countries continue to differ significantly on fundamental issues.

“The memorandum rests on very little common understanding,” she argued, adding that questions surrounding Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, the future of its nuclear programme, sanctions relief, regional proxy groups, and broader Middle East security arrangements remain unresolved.

The analyst said the coming weeks would be critical in determining whether negotiations can produce meaningful progress or whether disagreements could trigger another breakdown in relations.

She outlined several possible scenarios, including a collapse of talks during the ceasefire period, an extension of negotiations, or a broader agreement that leaves many contentious issues unsettled.

Newman also noted that domestic political considerations may have influenced Washington’s interest in securing a pause in hostilities. She pointed to public concerns about the U.S. economy, inflation, and energy prices, as well as the approaching mid-term elections, as factors likely shaping the administration’s calculations.

The Chatham House fellow said comparisons would inevitably be drawn between any future U.S.-Iran arrangement and the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, which President Trump has repeatedly criticised.

While the memorandum may ease immediate tensions, Newman concluded that its long-term success will depend on whether both sides can bridge deep differences and address the underlying issues that have fuelled decades of mistrust.

The article was first published by Chatham House on June 17, 2026.