US-Iran deal: The most unpopular peace

The United States and Iran have reached a preliminary agreement aimed at ending their ongoing conflict, marking a significant shift in regional dynamics after years of tension. The deal, signed on June 17, 2026, by U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Massud Peseschkian, has sparked mixed reactions both within and outside the countries involved. While some see this as a step toward peace, others view it as a capitulation by the U.S., particularly among hardline factions in Iran who had long opposed any form of negotiation with American authorities.

The agreement outlines several key points, including the lifting of all sanctions against Iran, a financial aid package worth $300 billion, and a commitment by the U.S. to refrain from interfering in internal matters of Iran, even in cases where the government might commit human rights violations. These terms suggest that Iran would emerge from the conflict significantly strengthened, though the deal does not explicitly address the concerns of ordinary citizens, whose voices remain absent from the official text.

In the weeks leading up to the signing of the agreement, tensions had been high in Iran. Supporters of the Islamic Republic, armed with Kalashnikovs, had taken to the streets almost every evening for over three months, showing solidarity with the government during the ongoing air strikes initiated by the U.S. and Israel on February 28. However, just before the agreement was finalized, hardliners began protesting against the deal, chanting slogans such as “Death to the supporters of compromise” and “What have you done with the blood of our leader?” This backlash prompted the security forces of the Islamic Republic to disperse these protesters using batons and riot gear, an act seen by many as deeply ironic given the nature of the agreement itself.

Among the Iranian public, opinions about the deal vary widely. Some individuals, like Ahmad, a biology student from southern Iran, expressed frustration over the situation. Initially hopeful for U.S. intervention, he now feels disillusioned. In a private chat, he lamented that Trump had misled everyone, but also hinted that there might be hidden factors behind the agreement that have yet to be revealed. Others, however, such as Mahsa, a 28-year-old auditor from Tehran, view the deal positively despite having participated in protests earlier in the year and sustaining injuries from regime forces. She believes the agreement could bring benefits to her country, even if she remains in the minority with this perspective.

The political implications of the agreement extend beyond the borders of Iran and the U.S. As the Iranian national football team arrived in Los Angeles for its World Cup match, the atmosphere was charged with political tension. Demonstrators in Los Angeles displayed the pre-revolutionary flag of Iran, which symbolizes resistance against the current regime. The Iranian Football Association criticized the FIFA for allowing the display of such symbols, arguing that the organization should distance itself from political issues. Meanwhile, the Iranian delegation made clear that they would consider halting the game if the banned flag were shown, emphasizing their stance that football should remain apolitical.

The arrival of the Iranian team coincided with the announcement of the peace agreement between the two nations, adding another layer of complexity to an already politically sensitive event. The Iranian government had previously threatened to boycott the World Cup due to the ongoing conflict, although they ultimately decided to participate. However, logistical challenges arose, including the relocation of training camps from Arizona to Tijuana in Mexico due to visa restrictions and the withdrawal of entry tickets for fans. These developments underscored the broader geopolitical tensions surrounding the agreement and its impact on international sports events.

As the world watches the unfolding of this new chapter in U.S.-Iran relations, the focus will likely shift to how the agreement is implemented and whether it can truly lead to lasting peace. With the absence of the voices of ordinary Iranians in the formal documents, the true success of this deal will depend on how it affects the daily lives of the people in both countries. The coming months will reveal whether this agreement marks a genuine turning point or merely a temporary ceasefire in a long-standing conflict.