Developments relating to the US-Israeli war on Iran underscore the truth that it is easy to start a conflict, but difficult to predict its course and termination.Certainly, no one could have predicted that the turning point of the war came with the “discovery” of the importance of the Strait of Hormuz which put the global economy in its cross-hairs. Neither could anyone have forecast that the US bases in the Gulf would be the liability that they turned out to be, especially for their host countries. And certainly no one would have foreseen that Lebanon, which was a secondary front in the war, has now emerged as the principal obstacle to ending it.This became apparent last week when renewed fighting there led to the postponement of the first round of talks between the US and Iran in Geneva. It led, too, to bitter words from US Vice President J.D. Vance, who said that US President Donald Trump was the only supporter Israel had around the world. In an interview with Ross Douthat of The New York Times, Vance strongly defended the deal and said that the Israeli right-wing was attacking the deal, but he would ask of them “What is your exact proposal? You are a country of nine million people. You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have.”Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.Of course, that is exactly the direction in which the Israeli political leadership seems to be headed. Having destroyed Gaza, the next item in the agenda seems to be Lebanon. A June 19 post of Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir declared, “For every tear of a Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep. All of Lebanon must burn!”Not to be outdone, Minister of Defence Israel Katz declared, “We have flattened the entire first line of villages in southern Lebanon, all the houses have been destroyed. The residents will never see them standing ever again. The 200,000 Lebanese residents who were in the ‘security zone’ are never returning again. Not one of them will ever return to southern Lebanon.”What Benjamin Netanyahu wants is not clear. Does he want to disrupt the US-Iran negotiations ? Netanyahu’s calculus is electoral – a war he is ‘winning’ serves him better than a ceasefire he didn’t shape, which explains why disrupting the Geneva talks suits him regardless of the consequences for Israel’s relationship with Washington.But he’s playing a dangerous game. As The Intercept has pointed out, America’s supposed junior partner has ceaselessly worked “to prevent any off ramp from confrontation between the US and Iran.” Trump is not unaware of this and in the past has used strong words to describe Netanyahu. He told Axios he has a good relationship with the Israeli leader “but we have to keep him a little bit sane.”At present, the more likely incentive for Netanyahu is to win the forthcoming elections in Israel by using the war to shore up his political fortunes. The war is popular in Israel and his political survival depends on showing that he is not backing off from his policy of confronting Iran and its proxies.Two elections in the coming months, one in the US and one in Israel are driving Washington and Tel Aviv apart. One is the mid-term elections in the US which could see the Democrats take power in the House of Representatives and the Senate, severely constraining President Trump. The other is a general election in Israel that could lead to the ouster of Prime Minister Netanyahu.Trump is seeking to put the unpopular war behind him, ensure that markets are calm and fuel prices at the pump come down. Netanyahu, on the other hand is leading a popular war and ending it at this stage would undermine his claim that he is relentlessly pursuing Israeli security interests.So there is a sharp clash of US and Israeli interests. For the present, at least, the Iranians are sitting back and watching the fun.The memorandum of understandingThe US and Iran signed a 14-point Memorandum of Understanding to end the recent war and de-escalate regional tensions. The very first paragraph notes that the aim of the MoU is to “declare an immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon….” Israel’s actions in trying to continue the war in Lebanon undermines one of its fundamental points and the burden is on Washington to make its ally fall in line.The deal reopens the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping, effectively ending the maritime blockades. It provides for phased relief of US counter-blockades, allowing Iran to resume oil exports, accompanied by an unfreezing of billions of dollars in foreign assets. It provides for the establishment of a $300 billion fund aimed at the reconstruction and economic development of Iran.As for nuclear constraints, Iran has made a commitment not to develop nuclear weapons. However, the exact mechanisms surrounding Iran’s enriched uranium are deferred to the ongoing 60-day negotiation window.The real dynamicsWhile a lot of comment and criticism is focusing on the US going easy on Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons, the reality is something else. What the war has revealed is that Iran does not really need an atom bomb for deterrence. The US-Israeli war inadvertently revealed a more potent weapon – its ability to establish a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz.The second issue, and this is again something critics say is unaddressed, is that of ballistic missiles. The Israelis and American hawks want constraints, if not an elimination of the Iranian programme. But their problem is that Iran is not a defeated nation that can be disarmed like Germany was after World War I.Also read: How Islamabad Mediated, New Delhi WatchedTrump himself has taken an ambiguous position. When the war began, and when he was speaking of the need for Iran’s “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” he had spoken of the need to destroy its missiles. Now, he has said that its “OK” for Iran to keep some of its missiles On June 17 he said “If other countries have them, it’s a little bit unfair for [Iran] not to have some. A ballistic missile is not the same thing as what we’re talking about, when we talk nuclear. But if Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and they all have some – in relative proportion, I think it’s OK.”There is a certain truth in what Trump is saying. Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction and denying them to Iran has a certain logic. But precision missiles are the only means a country like Iran has for self defence given the fact it virtually has no air force. Along with drones they were the formidable weapon that enabled Iran to give as good as it got to Israel and to the US bases in the Gulf region.Even if the US can get Israel to end its spoiler game in Lebanon, there is a long way to go for the MoU to be implemented. As of now it is a 60-day framework that American and Iranian negotiators must work on across sanctions, and regional security. A major aspect of this is the nuclear file, but this is not as complicated as made out. Even before the war began, the Iranians appeared ready to make a deal with the US on account of their nuclear programme. They have repeatedly denied that they want to make nuclear weapons. The issue is whether they can recognise the fact that they do not actually need nuclear weapons to deter anyone, they have other options, and this had been the major revelation of the war.However, we must be clear that Tehran is unlikely to compromise on its ballistic missile programme, its right to enrich uranium, its position in the Strait of Hormuz, or its support for Houthis and the Hezbollah in exchange for economic incentives. It will compromise on points, just as it was willing to do so on postponing its right of enrichment, but it will not do so on the principle of the issue.So far, the first round of direct talks between the US and Iran seems to have gone well in Geneva. The two sides have set up working groups to deal with individual issues and among these is one on deconfliction in Lebanon, the issue on which the whole MoU implementation is teetering. This is not an impossible problem if the Israelis behave, Hezbollah are checked and the Lebanese Army empowered, perhaps with some help from external peacekeeping forces.Manoj Joshi is a distinguished fellow, Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi.This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click .