I left Iran many years before the 1979 revolution and have spent nearly half a century building my professional life in the United States. Over those decades, I have maintained professional and academic connections throughout the Gulf region while observing relations between Washington and Tehran deteriorate from tension to hostility and often to crisis. Whatever one’s views of either government, few observers can deny that the last 47 years have produced a recurring cycle of sanctions, confrontation, mistrust, and missed opportunities.
For that reason, the recently proposed memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran deserves serious consideration. Whatever one’s political views, President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance deserve credit for advancing a proposition that many previous administrations were unwilling even to test: that engagement may achieve what decades of pressure could not.
BEHIND ISRAEL’S FURIOUS REACTION TO TRUMP IRAN DEAL
The memorandum’s critics focus largely on the next 60 days. They ask what Iran may receive, what sanctions may be eased, or what assets may be released. Those questions are understandable, but they may also be the wrong questions. The more important question is what the U.S., Iran, and the broader Middle East might gain over the next 60 years.
For nearly half a century, American policy toward Iran has focused primarily on containment and isolation. The memorandum suggests a different possibility: gradual integration into regional and global commerce. The question is no longer simply how to pressure Iran, but whether a stable framework can encourage economic engagement, create mutual interests, and reduce the likelihood of future confrontation.
What makes this initiative particularly noteworthy is that it appears to envision something beyond a traditional security arrangement. Previous negotiations between Washington and Tehran focused largely on sanctions, nuclear activities, and regional tensions. Important as those issues are, they address symptoms rather than underlying opportunities. The larger vision suggested by the memorandum is the possibility of replacing a framework centered on confrontation with one centered on economic development, investment, commerce, and regional integration.
If that vision ultimately becomes reality, its significance could extend well beyond that of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The JCPOA was principally a nuclear agreement. The broader framework now being discussed has the potential to encompass economic development, regional integration, investment, transportation, trade, and long-term stability. If realized, it would operate on a fundamentally different scale.
One need not admire the Iranian government or agree with its policies to recognize a simple reality: Nations engaged in commerce generally create more prosperity than nations engaged in confrontation.
Iran is not a marginal economy. It is a nation of approximately 90 million people situated at one of the world’s most strategically significant crossroads, linking the Middle East, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and major global transportation routes. It possesses extensive natural resources, significant industrial capacity, and a large pool of educated professionals.
Iran is unquestionably among the most educated societies in the Middle East. It produces substantial numbers of engineers, physicians, scientists, and university graduates. The success of the Iranian diaspora throughout the U.S. is evidence of the country’s human capital and entrepreneurial capacity. After 47 years of estrangement, many Americans understandably know little about contemporary Iranian society beyond political headlines and geopolitical disputes. Yet beneath those headlines exists a sophisticated and highly educated population capable of contributing significantly to regional economic development.
Too often, discussions about Iran focus solely on what concessions might be made or what restrictions might be lifted. Far less attention is given to what economic opportunities could emerge if relations gradually normalize. Iran’s civilian aviation fleet, transportation networks, energy infrastructure, industrial facilities, and technological systems have endured decades of limited access to international markets and investment.
Commercial aviation provides one useful example. Many aircraft currently operating in Iran are decades old and require replacement. Future purchases of modern passenger aircraft, together with maintenance services, pilot training, airport modernization, software systems, and logistical support, would create opportunities for American manufacturers and suppliers. Similar opportunities exist in energy, engineering, agriculture, healthcare, telecommunications, and advanced technologies.
The question, therefore, is not simply what Iran may receive. The question is what American workers, American exporters, American manufacturers, and American investors stand to gain from access to one of the largest untapped markets in the world.
Many critics focus on the release of Iranian assets. Even if every dollar of frozen assets were released, that is not the real economic story. The real story is what follows normalization.
Suppose sanctions are eased, and relations stabilize. Iran would become one of the world’s largest untapped markets. Decades of deferred modernization would generate demand across virtually every sector of the economy. American exporters, manufacturers, engineering firms, technology companies, airlines, infrastructure providers, agricultural producers, and investors would all gain access to opportunities that have remained largely inaccessible for nearly half a century.
Critics often frame the discussion as though economic benefits would flow in only one direction. Yet successful agreements endure precisely because they create mutual interests. A durable arrangement must be a win for both sides. If Iran gains access to markets, technology, and investment, American firms gain access to customers, contracts, partnerships, and export opportunities. That is not a concession; it is the essence of commerce.
The most successful international agreements are rarely those in which one side wins and the other loses. They are the agreements in which both sides find compelling reasons to preserve the relationship. The larger question is not the release of assets, but the scale of economic activity that normalization could generate over the coming decades.
Indeed, if one projects the scale of future trade, investment, infrastructure development, transportation expansion, technology transfer, tourism, and consumer demand over several decades, the resulting economic activity could far exceed many of the investment figures currently associated with other regional economic partnerships.
There is also an important strategic dimension that has received insufficient attention.
For nearly half a century, American disengagement has created a vacuum that other powers have increasingly filled. China and Russia have expanded their political, economic, and strategic influence in Iran precisely because the U.S. has remained largely absent. A successful agreement would not simply reduce tensions. It could gradually broaden Iran’s international economic relationships and reduce exclusive dependence on Moscow and Beijing.
From Washington’s perspective, that represents a significant strategic gain regardless of one’s views of the Iranian government.
There is another aspect that deserves attention. One of the stated objectives repeatedly articulated by Trump and Vance has been to improve the lives of ordinary Iranians rather than focusing solely on governments and geopolitical disputes. For decades, economic isolation and recurring crises have imposed significant burdens on millions of Iranian families. Greater economic opportunity, expanded commerce, and increased engagement with the outside world would not simply benefit institutions or investors. They could improve the daily lives of ordinary people seeking the same things people everywhere seek: economic security, professional opportunity, and a better future for their children.
Equally important is the human dimension.
The most valuable dividend of peace is not measured in dollars. It is measured in lives not lost, conflicts avoided, and generations allowed to pursue education, commerce, travel, and opportunity rather than war. The Middle East has endured decades of instability, military confrontation, proxy conflicts, and human suffering. Any initiative that meaningfully reduces the likelihood of future conflict deserves careful consideration.
The political implications are equally significant. After decades of conflict, many Americans are less interested in another Middle Eastern confrontation than in economic stability, lower energy costs, and domestic prosperity. This presents an opportunity for Trump and Vance to explain the initiative not merely as a diplomatic achievement but as an economic one as well. If the administration can demonstrate that peace creates jobs, investment, trade, and long-term stability, the public conversation may shift from what America is giving up to what America stands to gain.
Critics of the memorandum focus on what Iran may receive during the next 60 days. They are asking the wrong question.
The real question is what the U.S., Iran, and the broader Middle East stand to gain over the next 60 years.
If the memorandum evolves into a durable agreement, it could unlock one of the largest untapped economic opportunities in the world: a nation of ninety million people, rich in human capital, natural resources, industrial capacity, and strategic geography.
The beneficiary would not be Iran alone. The beneficiaries would include American workers, American companies, American exporters, America’s regional partners, and millions of people throughout the Middle East who would gain a greater stake in prosperity than in conflict.
The success of the memorandum is far from guaranteed. The next 60 days may reveal obstacles that neither Washington nor Tehran can overcome. Yet history occasionally advances because leaders choose to test possibilities that others dismiss as impossible.
If this initiative succeeds, its greatest achievement will not be the release of assets, the reduction of sanctions, or even the resolution of a nuclear dispute.
Whether one agrees with every aspect of the memorandum or not, Trump and Vance deserve credit for pursuing an approach that differs from the patterns that have dominated the past four decades. Their central proposition appears straightforward: Economic integration may accomplish what isolation could not. That proposition may ultimately prove right or wrong, but it is a proposition worthy of serious consideration.
Its greatest achievement will be demonstrating that prosperity can sometimes accomplish what confrontation cannot. After nearly half a century of mistrust, that possibility alone is worth serious consideration.
Dr. Hamid Shirvani served as Chancellor of the North Dakota University System and President of California State University, Stanislaus. He is currently a Managing Partner of the Higher Education Innovation Group, LLC, an international higher education consulting firm.