The 2026 US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) highlights key themes in global politics, including economic globalisation, the limits of hard power and the emergence of a more multipolar international system. Although the USA remains the world’s most powerful military state, the agreement suggests that even a superpower cannot always impose its preferred outcome.
The terms of the agreement suggest that Iran secured significant concessions despite US military superiority. The USA agreed to oil-export waivers, a pathway towards sanctions relief, the release of some frozen Iranian assets, the removal of its naval blockade and support for a reconstruction and development framework worth up to $300 billion. Iran, meanwhile, did not agree to dismantle its nuclear programme. Instead, it accepted the “down-blending” of highly enriched uranium under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision while retaining the right to negotiate future enrichment arrangements.
From a realist perspective, the agreement demonstrates the limits of military power. Despite spending tens of billions of dollars and possessing overwhelming conventional superiority, the USA failed to secure regime change, eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities or force unconditional surrender. Iran survived the conflict, maintained regional influence and used its geopolitical position astride the Strait of Hormuz to impose significant economic costs on the global system. Realists would argue that Iran successfully converted strategic leverage over the Strait into diplomatic gains, reinforcing its status as a regional great power. The deal also reflects growing multipolarity. Iran continued exporting oil to China during the conflict, reducing the effectiveness of USA sanctions and demonstrating that Washington can no longer isolate rivals as easily as during the post-Cold War unipolar era. The fact that the USA ultimately accepted negotiations rather than imposing its preferred settlement suggests that power is becoming increasingly dispersed.
Liberals draw a different lesson. They argue that the crisis demonstrates the dangers of abandoning international institutions. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) limited Iran’s uranium stockpile by around 98%, capped enrichment at 3.67% purity and subjected the programme to extensive IAEA inspections in exchange for sanctions relief. After the USA withdrew from the agreement in 2018, tensions gradually escalated. Liberals therefore argue that the 2026 deal supports the view that diplomacy, institutions and negotiated rules are often more effective than military force in resolving international disputes.