The four-party talks between Iran, the US, Qatar, and Pakistan in Geneva, which emerged after considerable ups and downs and amid Donald Trump’s crude and threatening remarks, represent one of the most significant political developments since the end of the 40-day war. Although the general framework of the discussions and the parties’ roadmap were outlined in the previous memorandum of understanding, the experience of many regional and international agreements shows that an understanding on paper does not necessarily translate into a durable and lasting agreement, especially when one side is the US government under a president such as Trump, who is known above all for frequently shifting positions and disregarding political commitments. Ultimately, the durability of any agreement depends on the extent to which it aligns with realities on the ground.
In the current circumstances, the success or failure of the negotiations depends primarily on how well the US government understands the region’s new realities. These realities are not merely political; they also encompass geopolitical, geostrategic, geoeconomic, cultural, and social dimensions. Any agreement that ignores these factors may be viewed as a political achievement in the short term, but it will face serious challenges over the long term.
From this perspective, Trump’s recent threatening remarks are noteworthy. Regardless of their propaganda value or domestic political purpose, the continued use of threatening rhetoric after the region has paid the heavy costs of a major war, and after the US failed to achieve its political objectives through military means, raises an important question: has Washington truly grasped the implications of recent developments? It appears that parts of the US political establishment still view the region through outdated assumptions, assumptions that held pressure, threats, sanctions, and military power could alter realities on the ground and reshape the region’s security equations.
The 40-day war, however, revealed a different reality. It demonstrated that the Persian Gulf and its surrounding region cannot be analyzed solely through the lens of political competition. Security in this region is deeply interconnected. Energy, trade, maritime routes, economies, and even public opinion across countries are so intertwined that any major crisis can quickly extend beyond national borders. For this reason, under current conditions it may be more accurate to speak of a “regional security complex” than a “new security order.”
The reality is that the region remains in a period of transition. Signs of turbulence, instability, and uncertainty are still evident, making it premature to speak definitively of a new order. At the same time, it is impossible to deny that some foundations of the previous order have eroded. This erosion is visible not only in structures but, more importantly, in the perceptions and calculations of regional and extra-regional actors.
The most important reality highlighted by the 40-day war was Iran’s geopolitical capacity. The conflict once again demonstrated that Iran is not merely a political or military actor in the region but an unavoidable geopolitical reality. Iran’s geographic position at the crossroads of the Persian Gulf, the Sea of Oman, Central Asia, and the Caucasus; its role in regional energy security and trade; and its direct influence on West Asian security dynamics are factors that cannot be eliminated through political pressure, economic sanctions, or even military action.
For years, a prevailing assumption in some US circles was that pressure and threats could push Iran to the margins of regional affairs. Recent developments, however, have shown that geography cannot be sanctioned and geopolitical realities cannot be ignored. More than ever, the 40-day war demonstrated that the central issue is no longer “eliminating Iran” or even “containing Iran,” but rather how to deal with a reality that cannot be removed from the region’s security, economic, and strategic equations.
On the geoeconomic front, the recent war once again underscored the importance of energy security, trade routes, maritime commerce, and regional corridors. Any instability in the region directly affects the interests of all actors. As a result, security is no longer merely a military concept; it has become an economic and strategic issue as well.
Under these circumstances, the key test for the Geneva negotiations is whether the US government intends to base its decisions and policies on these new realities or continue relying on outdated assumptions. A lasting agreement can emerge only when there is consistency between the text of the agreement and the region’s geopolitical realities. The narrower that gap, the greater the chances of the agreement’s success and durability.
Perhaps the most important lesson of the 40-day war for US policymakers is that lasting regional security cannot be achieved by ignoring Iran’s geopolitical realities, but by acknowledging them. The Geneva negotiations can reach a sustainable outcome only if these realities are treated not as political concessions, but as permanent and immutable features of the region.