learning · Russian — bilingual opening

What Donald Trump Started the Attacks on Iran For, and What They Ultimately Led To

The memorandum with Iran lets Donald Trump proclaim victory, but it mainly freezes a fragile truce while leaving the nuclear question, sanctions, Hormuz, Iran’s regime, and its proxy forces unresolved.

«Пусть течет нефть». Ради чего затевалась и к чему привела война США и Израиля с Ираном?

Novaya Gazeta Europe · By Николай Першин · 16 June 2026 · read the original in Russian →

Президент США Дональд Трамп на этой неделе наверняка найдет еще немало хвалебных слов в свой адрес. 19 июня в Швейцарии должен быть подписан меморандум об условиях завершения продолжавшейся с 28 февраля войны с Ираном. Это именно меморандум, то есть предварительное соглашение. Все наиболее спорные вопросы — от судьбы урана, обогащенного почти до оружейного уровня, до перспектив разморозки иранских активов — отложены на потом. Едва ли не единственным реальным последствием меморандума может стать полное разблокирование Ормузского пролива, через который проходит около пятой части мировых поставок нефти. Но это сложно назвать прорывным достижением, ведь до начала американо-израильской операции пролив никто и не блокировал.

U.S. President Donald Trump will surely find no shortage of praise for himself this week. On June 19, a memorandum is to be signed in Switzerland on the terms for ending the war with Iran that had continued since February 28. It is precisely a memorandum, that is, a preliminary agreement. All the most contentious questions, from the fate of uranium enriched almost to weapons grade to the prospects for unfreezing Iranian assets, have been put off until later. Almost the only real consequence of the memorandum may be the full unblocking of the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one fifth of the world’s oil supplies pass. But it is hard to call that a breakthrough achievement, since before the American-Israeli operation began, no one had been blocking the strait in the first place.

О том, для чего Дональд Трамп начинал атаки на Иран и к чему в итоге они привели, — в материале «Новой газеты Европа».

On why Donald Trump began the attacks on Iran, and what they ultimately led to, in this Novaya Gazeta Europe report.

Signed, and to Be Signed AgainПодписали и еще раз подпишут

In the coming days, the Trump administration will publish the full text of the agreement with Iran. U.S. Vice President J. D. Vance promised as much during an appearance on ABC News on June 15. At the same time, he made a somewhat paradoxical statement. On the one hand, Vance noted, discussion of some “technical issues” under the agreement is still continuing. On the other, the document, as it turns out, has already been signed. That happened electronically on June 14.

According to Axios journalist Barak Ravid, the signatures on the American side were put down by J. D. Vance and Donald Trump; on the Iranian side by the speaker of parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who acted as Tehran’s chief negotiator.

Still ahead, however, is a formal ceremonial signing. It will take place in Geneva on Friday, June 19.

The text of the memorandum has not yet been officially published, so for now one can rely only on various statements by the parties involved and on the version of the document circulated on the night of June 15 by Iran’s Mehr agency. According to information from Iran, the memorandum entails:

- the immediate and permanent cessation of the war on all fronts, including Lebanon;

- a U.S. commitment not to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs and to respect its sovereignty;

- the complete lifting of the maritime blockade within 30 days;

- the withdrawal of U.S. troops from regions close to Iran; - the opening of the Strait of Hormuz;

- the suspension of sanctions on the sale of Iranian oil;

- the provision by the United States and its allies of plans for the reconstruction of Iranian facilities worth $300 billion;

- 60 days of negotiations to reach a final agreement;

- Iran’s commitment not to produce nuclear weapons;

- the U.S. commitment not to impose new sanctions or increase its military presence in the region during the negotiations;

- the unfreezing of $24 billion in frozen Iranian funds;

- the creation of a monitoring mechanism for implementing the agreement;

- approval of the final agreement by a UN Security Council resolution;

- the unfreezing of half of Iran’s frozen funds, the suspension of oil sanctions, and the lifting of the maritime blockade as preconditions for starting final negotiations.

This list makes clear that the main negotiating process still lies ahead. As Nate Swanson of the Atlantic Council, who served as a senior Iran adviser in several U.S. presidential administrations, notes, the document that has been prepared merely “fixes fragile ceasefires in Iran and Lebanon and outlines the subjects of future negotiations”: the memorandum clarifies neither the mechanics of vessels’ passage through the Strait of Hormuz, nor the prospects for the nuclear issue, nor the fate of sanctions against Tehran. All of this has been relegated to a 60-day “second phase.”

For now, however, one can state this much: the situation is far from what Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wanted to see when they began their military operations against Iran at the end of February 2026. The American operation was named “Epic Fury,” the Israeli one “Roaring Lion.”

Iran’s Military CapabilitiesВоенные возможности Ирана

Announcing the attacks on Iran on February 28, Donald Trump promised to “destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground.” For the most part, that promise was fulfilled, albeit with qualifications.

According to Israel Defense Forces estimates, before the war Iran had about 2,500 missiles capable of reaching Israeli territory. By April 5, the IDF claims, that number had fallen to just over 1,000. The trend is telling: from 480 missile launches from Iran per day on February 28 to 40 by March 9.

There are, meanwhile, other estimates. The New York Times, for instance, reported on May 12, citing a classified U.S. intelligence assessment, that Iran had allegedly “retained roughly 70% of its prewar missile arsenal.”

In any case, the most significant damage was inflicted not on warehouses holding completed missiles, but on the infrastructure needed to build them. In mid-May, the Pentagon claimed that “more than 85% of Iran’s defense industry related to missiles, drones, and the navy” had been damaged or destroyed.

Before the war, Israel assessed that Iran was moving toward increasing its arsenal to roughly 8,000-10,000 ballistic missiles within two to three years. That would have allowed Tehran, if necessary, to overwhelm Israel’s missile defense systems through mass salvo attacks. Now that is no longer something one can speak of.

“Iran’s remaining missile forces can increasingly be used not as an instrument of warfare, but as a means of terror and of ensuring the regime’s survival.

If the Islamic Republic decides to use them in a new round of hostilities or launches a preemptive strike, it will in effect be going all in and creating a strategic dilemma on its own initiative,”

experts at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies noted.

In addition, at the start of the war Trump promised to destroy the Iranian navy. This, too, was achieved to a considerable degree. As early as March 1, the head of the White House said that U.S. armed forces had destroyed nine ships, “some of them relatively large and important,” as well as the headquarters of the Iranian Navy. The most notable episode was the March 4 attack off the coast of Sri Lanka, when an American submarine fired torpedoes at the Iranian destroyer IRIS Dena and sank it. In late April, the Pentagon reported the destruction of roughly 92% of the navy’s largest vessels.

U.S. intelligence, however, acknowledged that most of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fleet, including small fast boats, remains combat-capable. And that is exactly what is needed, for example, to close the Strait of Hormuz.

The Nuclear ProgramЯдерная программа

In that same February 28 speech, Donald Trump promised to “make sure Iran does not get a nuclear weapon.” Now, as J. D. Vance said the other day, it can be asserted with confidence that Iran will not get one. Whether that is truly so, however, is a matter for debate.

Before the war began, U.S. intelligence agencies had not concluded that Iran had made a decision to build nuclear weapons. The Trump administration, however, interpreted the very fact that Tehran possessed stocks of highly enriched uranium as evidence of Iran’s dangerous desire to preserve the option of creating such arms.

According to the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, the previous military conflict, the U.S. strikes on Iranian territory in June 2025, led to the destruction or disabling of all, around 22,000, gas centrifuges at the Fordow and Natanz facilities.

“As a result, for the first time in 20 years Iran has no traceable path to producing weapons-grade uranium in its enrichment installations. In addition, the strikes inflicted enormous damage on Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon itself,” ISIS experts noted.

But in any event there is another problem: the uranium that remains in the hands of the Iranian regime. The 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, “99% of the way to weapons-grade uranium” and enough material for about ten charges, physically survived and are presumably “walled up” in the tunnels of facilities attacked by the Americans.

Under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran had the right to enrich uranium to no more than 3.67% and to keep a stockpile of no more than 300 kilograms. But in 2018 Trump withdrew from that deal, calling it too soft, and Iran then stopped restraining itself. Initially, during the Republican’s second term, the United States sought Iranian consent to “zero enrichment.” But on June 15 Trump told The New York Times that Iran would be allowed to enrich at low levels, far from weapons grade. In other words, the U.S. president has already retreated from his earlier maximalist positions. Yet even that option may not suit Tehran.

“Iran knows how to drag out negotiations like these and try to extract concessions along the way,” former U.S. ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, who also worked on Iran in the Joe Biden administration, wrote on X. “It is entirely possible that no deal at all will be reached. And it is very likely that if one does emerge, it will be worse than what we could have achieved before the war by diplomatic means.”

According to Shapiro, Iran is unlikely to take the threat of new U.S. military strikes seriously, at least until the November midterm elections to Congress. That is, as the expert notes, the United States will not have the tool of a credible threat of force, and this will plainly work to Iran’s advantage. It will resist serious concessions, and in the end resolving the issue may take months or even years.

At the same time, experts agree that the United States and Israel have destroyed Iranian infrastructure, but only strengthened Tehran’s desire to possess nuclear weapons. As Victoria Taylor of the Atlantic Council, formerly deputy assistant U.S. secretary of state for Iraq and Iran, sees it, the war may have further convinced the Iranian regime that “nuclear deterrence is the best way to secure its future.”

The Strait of Hormuz and OilОрмузский пролив и нефть

In addition, thanks to Trump and Netanyahu’s military campaign, Iran realized what a powerful lever of pressure it possesses. The point is the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one fifth of the world’s oil supplies pass.

Soon after the war began, Tehran de facto closed the strait, through which under normal conditions up to 60 tankers a day had been passing. Then came the American blockade: the United States began intercepting vessels of all countries entering and leaving Iranian ports and coastal areas. In early June, for example, the strait was completely blocked, with more than 340 vessels waiting to pass through.

“The story of the Strait of Hormuz, as with the nuclear issue, still has a great many holes in it, because accounts of what will happen next differ,” the orientalist Marianna Belenkaya, author of the Telegram channel Falafelnaya, tells Novaya-Europe, pointing especially to the question of payment for vessels’ passage through the strait.

Trump insists that shipping will remain “free on a permanent basis.” He told The New York Times as much. At the same time, the head of the White House confirmed that the U.S. maritime blockade of Iranian ports will be lifted. Meanwhile, Iran’s Fars agency, citing a source, reported that the final version of the memorandum says “the future management of services for shipping in the Strait of Hormuz will be determined by Iran and Oman.” In the source’s view, this wording means that “the United States recognizes Iran’s right to collect fees.” According to the agency’s interlocutor, Iran will allow vessels to pass free of charge only for 60 days, after which the Iranian side will “derive financial benefit for the country’s economic development.”

Moreover, as Marianna Belenkaya recalls, “the strait will not open in a single day; it has to be demined, and the infrastructure has to be put in order.” Finding and neutralizing the Iranian mines laid at the height of the conflict is a difficult task. The Pentagon had previously warned that the full process could take up to six months.

President Trump, however, already assured the public on June 15 that the Strait of Hormuz is partially open, and that on Friday it “will be fully open.” “And very importantly: oil prices are falling rapidly, and the stock market today is taking off like a rocket, to record levels. Oil has had its biggest drop; we are getting down to low numbers,” the American president added.

How events develop will inevitably affect further price fluctuations. Recall that the war provoked a sharp rise in the price of oil. Brent rose at its peak to almost $120 a barrel. On June 15, Brent traded on the London exchange below $84 a barrel for the first time since the start of the war.

One of the main beneficiaries of the hostilities was Russia: the unexpected additional revenues slowed the growth of the budget deficit. At the same time, according to Swedish military intelligence chief Thomas Nilsson, the Russian Federation would have been able to close its budget deficit if the price of Urals oil had stayed above $100 a barrel for a year. Urals trades at loading ports at a discount to Brent, roughly $15 lower. Meanwhile, energy policy specialist Kirill Rodionov predicts that

Urals prices in the second half of 2026 will be below $60 a barrel. That means Moscow will have to forget about windfall revenues.

Money and SanctionsДеньги и санкции

In Dan Shapiro’s view, the unblocking of the Strait of Hormuz is the most important result of the prepared memorandum. At the same time, the expert notes: “Of course, the strait was open before the war anyway. Now its ‘opening’ is effectively being paid for through an easing of sanctions [against Iran. - Ed.].” And this is yet another difficult subject for further discussion.

Iran itself had already estimated in April that the damage from the American-Israeli bombing amounted to $270 billion and demanded reparations. The version of the memorandum circulated by Iran’s Mehr agency referred to the unfreezing of $24 billion, Iranian funds frozen in banks in various countries because of sanctions, and also, if a final deal is reached, to a reconstruction program worth “no less than $300 billion.” In addition, Mehr claims, final negotiations will not begin until half of Iran’s frozen funds are unfrozen, oil sanctions are suspended, and the maritime blockade is lifted. Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, confirmed this as well: according to him, the next stage of negotiations will depend on whether Washington fulfills a number of preliminary conditions, including the unfreezing of Iranian funds abroad.

The American side, however, categorically rejects that interpretation. “This is completely untrue. No frozen funds will be unlocked until the Iranians fulfill their obligations,” an unnamed senior official in Washington assured CNN. And J. D. Vance noted on CBS that the figure of $24 billion “is not mentioned in any of the texts” of the agreement. According to him, the question of assets will be considered later, after the memorandum of understanding is signed. In an interview with Fox News, he explained: “The agreement says they [the Iranians - Ed.] will not receive a single penny of American money. The agreement also says that if the Iranians [comply with the terms of the deal - Ed.], if sanctions are eased, if the Iranians integrate into the world economy, we will propose that other countries, not the United States, invest in their country. But that is possible only on condition that the agreement is observed.”

“The story that the United States is paying Iran 300 million dollars is fake news being spread by the Democrats!!!”

Donald Trump confirmed as well.

“It is unclear how the United States will ease sanctions, who is supposed to take the first step,” Marianna Belenkaya describes the situation at the moment. “Iran does something, and then the United States lifts sanctions, or the other way around... For now, everything is suspended in midair.”

The Fate of the RegimeСудьба режима

“To the great and proud people of Iran, I say today: the hour of your freedom is near... When we are finished, take power into your own hands. It will belong to you,” Donald Trump declared on February 28, calling the U.S. and Israeli war against Iran “the only chance [for Iranians - Ed.] for many generations to come.” Trump later said more than once that “freedom for the Iranian people is the main goal” of the American-Israeli attacks.

Later the U.S. president claimed that he had achieved nothing less than “regime change” in Iran. That was how the head of the White House assessed the consequences of the airstrikes that killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who had ruled since 1989, and other members of the leadership. As early as late March, the Israeli military noted that Iran had lost more than 250 senior military officers and officials during the war.

It is obvious, however, that the system survived. In March, Iran’s Assembly of Experts chose a new supreme leader: the late leader’s son, the 56-year-old Mojtaba Khamenei, who has close ties to the all-powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Experts consider him even harder and more radical than his father was. One should hardly expect a sharp softening of Mojtaba Khamenei’s position toward Washington, if only because the United States and Israel killed his father, mother, wife, and son.

“The Iranian regime is more alive than ever. It has transformed, and perhaps not in the way we would have liked. The role of the IRGC has grown stronger; the regime has become more radical,”

Marianna Belenkaya says. The Iranian authorities are now heartened by the fact that they survived, which in their version means they won.

Meanwhile, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on June 14, Donald Trump demonstrated his favorite maneuver: he declared that, in truth, he had “never been interested in regime change” in Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu then also assured everyone that Israel had never intended to change the regime in Iran.

Iran’s Proxy ForcesПрокси-силы Ирана

“We will ensure that terrorist proxy forces in the region can no longer destabilize either the region or the world, or attack our forces,” Donald Trump declared on February 28.

He was referring to the Palestinian Hamas, Yemen’s Houthis, and, above all, Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, which began actively attacking Israel in solidarity with Iran. The IDF opened a new front in response, and did not limit itself to shelling: Israeli troops entered southern Lebanon. They are creating a buffer zone on the Lebanese side of the border and, as Marianna Belenkaya notes, “for now have no intention of leaving the occupied territory.”

As a senior U.S. official told Reuters, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon is not a condition under the agreement, and Israel will have the right to defend itself against further Hezbollah attacks. Benjamin Netanyahu also noted that the Israeli military will continue destroying the group’s infrastructure and responding to any strikes on Israel.

Meanwhile, Trump has repeatedly made it clear that Israel’s actions on the Lebanese front are interfering with his agreements with Tehran. The Republican president was especially angered by the fact that, several hours before Sunday’s electronic signing of the American-Iranian memorandum, Israel struck Beirut. “Why the hell did Bibi [Netanyahu’s nickname - Ed.] have to carry out that damn strike [on Lebanon - Ed.]? I was so furious. I let him know it,” Trump told Axios.

As European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on June 15, the agreement between the United States and Iran opens the door to broader negotiations on peace and security throughout the region. “Of course, there can be no peace in the Middle East while Lebanon is engulfed in flames,” she added. In practice, however, one should hardly expect the American-Iranian memorandum to help solve the Hezbollah problem.

It is telling that on the evening of June 15, against the backdrop of all the discussions about the prospects for reconciliation in the region, Hezbollah announced an attack on Israeli forces as they attempted to advance in southern Lebanon.

“Fighters of the Islamic Resistance confronted enemy forces with guided missiles and Ababil attack drones as they attempted to advance, forcing them to retreat,” the statement said.

The Result: DisappointmentИтог: разочарование

Despite all this, since Sunday the authorities of the United States, Israel, and Iran have spoken only about how advantageous the coming agreement is. “Ships of peace, start your engines! Let the oil flow!” Donald Trump proclaimed as he announced the deal and, accordingly, the unblocking of the Strait of Hormuz. He then returned more than once to the subject of how productively he had worked “for the good of the region and the whole world.”

“We caused enormous damage to Iran’s economy; some estimate it at one trillion dollars,” Benjamin Netanyahu boasted in turn. “We achieved victory over America,” Iran’s deputy foreign minister Kazem Gharibabadi did not restrain himself from saying.

Alternative views, meanwhile, were absent only from Iran; in the United States and Israel, heated debates unfolded in these days.

Thus, in the United States even many Trump supporters, if they did not criticize the agreement, voiced cautious skepticism about it. Senator Lindsey Graham, for example, expressed doubts about the terms of the memorandum, saying that he was “somewhat concerned” that the Iranian version of the understandings differs from the American one.

…the essay continues at the source.