Trump, the President of the United States, announced on Saturday in a post on his social media platform that a preliminary agreement had been reached with the Iranian government. According to reports from sources close to the diplomatic negotiations, Iran’s ruling regime has agreed to hand over its stockpile of enriched uranium in exchange for the release of frozen Iranian assets, something the Revolutionary Guard, speaking on behalf of the regime’s new Supreme Leader, had previously rejected outright. In the past, Washington had conditioned the release of those assets on the final signing of a peace agreement, but a news agency affiliated with the Revolutionary Guard reported that Tehran is now demanding the funds be released at the very start of the negotiations.

Reports also suggest that reopening the Strait of Hormuz, in exchange for lifting the U.S. naval blockade and withdrawing American forces from the region during an extendable 60-day ceasefire, is another part of the agreement. Iranian officials say discussions over the future of uranium enrichment have been postponed to the next round of talks, while Trump and U.S. officials continue to focus solely on guarantees that Tehran will never obtain nuclear weapons capability. According to Axios on Sunday, the two sides still have not finalized the wording of the agreement.

The reaction from some advocates of continuing the war makes one thing clear: the White House’s retreat from its previously stated demands has angered a faction of Trump supporters in the United States who still favor severely weakening the Iranian regime. Republican senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), pro-Israel lobbying circles in Washington, and several other hardliners close to Trump openly criticized him on social media for what they described as capitulation in the face of Tehran.

At the same time, parts of the Israeli press have reported Netanyahu’s dissatisfaction with the prospect of finalizing what is still being described as only a preliminary agreement. Despite the right-wing Netanyahu government’s public desire to continue the conflict, Israel has already achieved some of its objectives from a war that would not have been possible without drawing Trump and the United States into it. The damage inflicted on the Iranian regime has reportedly set back the Revolutionary Guard’s ability to rebuild its military and nuclear infrastructure by several years. In addition, Israel’s growing alignment with the United Arab Emirates and the expansion of open regional cooperation are being viewed as among the political gains of the 40-day conflict for Israelis.

On the other side, figures associated with the Obama administration’s supporters of the JCPOA, such as Robert Malley, Ben Rhodes, and Trita Parsi, praised Trump’s decision. Their approval appears driven largely by a desire to demonstrate that, despite all of Trump’s rhetoric, he will ultimately gain no more from “Khamenei the son” than Obama gained from “Khamenei the father” through the original nuclear deal, even after imposing the immense military, domestic, and international costs of war. Democrats will almost certainly use this argument against Republicans in future elections.

Although it is still too early to predict the final outcome of the negotiations, and Israel has repeatedly shown that it possesses many ways to derail agreements it opposes, most analysts believe Trump has few viable exits from a war he entered without a clear strategy. As the New York Times has argued, unlike domestic controversies, where Trump has often escaped political pressure through spectacle, media manipulation, and attacks on the press, the Iran war is not an issue that can be managed through theatrics alone. Eventually, he may be forced to accept retreat.

The U.S. midterm elections in November now hang over Trump like the Sword of Damocles. Republicans cannot afford to enter the elections amid rising inflation and growing economic threats at home and abroad caused by disruptions to Middle Eastern oil exports. Trump has also come to realize that he must win back a significant portion of the MAGA base that distanced itself from him because of the war.

Meanwhile, the Gulf states, now confronted with the reality that the United States cannot fully shield them from Iranian missiles and drones, have little appetite for prolonged instability that could threaten trade, tourism, oil exports, and the regional security that has underpinned their economic growth for decades.

As for the Iranian regime itself, despite all its boasts and threats, the damage it has suffered is substantial. Yet from the perspective of the Revolutionary Guard, simply remaining in power after 40 days of full-scale war against two major military powers counts as a victory. For the postwar government, however, confronting mounting public demands without relief from U.S. sanctions, which would require congressional approval, without foreign investment, and without restored access to international finance and banking, may prove even more terrifying than foreign military attack.

It is no coincidence that even before any final agreement with Washington has been reached, the regime has escalated executions and intensified attacks on Iraqi Kurdistan, where Iranian Kurdish opposition groups are based. By projecting an iron-fisted image, the government appears intent on preventing an uprising by a population whose living conditions have deteriorated dramatically in nearly every respect since before the war.

Undoubtedly, a finalized agreement would, at least in the short term, boost the morale of the regime’s loyalists and operatives, while deepening public despair among many ordinary Iranians. Yet this is a reality the Iranian freedom movement may have to pass through in its struggle to free itself from the current regime. That goal can only be achieved through the efforts and sacrifices of the Iranian people themselves, not through promises that foreign powers are coming to save them.

There is no shortcut to overthrowing the rulers of Iran without learning from recent events, absorbing the lessons of war, applying the experience gained, and building a new, revitalized movement forged in the fires of the current era.