A preliminary agreement that would bring an end to President Donald Trump’s four-month war on Iran is a "humiliating comedown for him and the nation he leads," according to The New York Times editorial board, as serious questions are raised over its outcomes and long-term consequences.

The details of the deal remain unclear, but the announced framework suggests that Washington has secured a few of the terms previously outlined during its war. The agreement is expected to be followed by further negotiations in the coming weeks.

The New York Times noted that at the outset of the war, Donald Trump claimed the aggression aimed at achieving “total and complete victory” and demanded “unconditional surrender” from Iran. He also insisted that Iran would be allowed “no enrichment” of uranium and suggested sweeping measures targeting its nuclear infrastructure.

However, the emerging framework appears to fall short of those objectives, with Iran’s government remaining intact and key nuclear issues set to be addressed in subsequent negotiations, prompting concerns of a departure from the administration's original positions. 

Donald Trump, who consistently criticized the Obama administration for brokering a nuclear deal with Iran in 2015, appears to be in an even worse position, according to the NYT, which said, "His destructive war seems likely to leave him with a similar deal."

Source:Websites