Ironically, details of the interim-deal reached between United States and Iran are still not totally explicit. It is not clear as to what have they agreed to through third party mediation and what remains pending. Details will become more specific if and when the first phase of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), that is the deal, is signed this Friday in Geneva (Switzerland). Prospects of President Donald Trump releasing the draft earlier than Friday prevail. An agreement has been reached for six months. The pending issues are expected to be negotiated during this six-month period, following which a final agreement is likely to be reached. The pending issues reportedly include Iran’s possession of enriched uranium, lifting of sanctions and release of its frozen assets. Clearly, whatever agreement has been reached cannot as yet be viewed as complete and/or final. In this context, two-phased agreement has perhaps been deliberately reached to prevent differences on serious issues acting as an obstacle and preventing them from reaching any agreement at all.
President Trump is probably against continuity of war despite there being certain major points of differences between US and Iran. Negotiations on these is not being ignored or refused but has been planned for the phase following the deal. At present, Trump has thus focused on putting an end to war, to “make peace with Iran,” secure “free opening of the Strait of Hormuz” and “let the oil flow,” as his posts on Truth Social state. His stand also suggests that if stress was laid on reaching final agreement, which also demanded reaching agreement on pending issues, deal reached at present would not have been possible. In other words, this deal has been made possible primarily because of the attention paid to putting off the more controversial issues to a later date. At present, stress is being laid to these being addressed after signing the deal. What bears greater significance now is the so-called signing of the deal, the “agreement” between US and Iran which appears to have been given top priority at present. However, till it is actually inked, it remains unclear as to what maybe basic issues of agreement and disagreement between them. Diplomatically, what has been given greater importance is signing of the deal, even if it is virtually and as suggested it does not include certain key issues US and Iran retain differences on. 
The priority given to “inking” of the deal and that the process has been scheduled to take place in Geneva also bears significance. Timing clearly indicates that Trump doesn’t seem inclined to delay the inking further. Diplomatic significance of Geneva probably bears its importance regarding its selection as the venue for signing. Trump apparently is eager to let the world at large know of his diplomatic “success” against Iran.
It is possible, Trump is giving greater importance to signatures on the dotted line being reached. And he wants to view the same as his diplomatic gain. The signatures, that is electoral inking of MoU bear little relevance to what led US and Israel start the war against Iran on February 28. But certainly, a lot of importance is being given now to the war being called to a halt. Yes, the deal, though a preparatory draft of their final agreement, at least suggests their decision to halt the war, resume traffic through Strait of Hormuz, following which negotiations on pending issues are expected to begin. 
This deal, which Israel is not all keen for, is seen as a mark of its defeat. Israel favors continuity of the crisis. It does not want to abandon occupied territories in Lebanon. Iran has reportedly laid out that Israel must abandon these. Trump’s repeated confirmation about the deal through his posts and while answering questions suggests that he is giving a lot of importance to it having reached this stage, even though this is viewed as preliminary/interim stage. Iran has specified that the war will not be considered as having ended till Israel abandons occupation of Lebanon. Israel’s continued occupation of Lebanon, according to Iran, will violate the interim US-Iran deal to end the war. 
On his part, Trump has been critical of Israel’s policy towards Lebanon. Benjamin Netanyahu “must be more responsible” towards Lebanon, Trump expressed recently in France. It is possible, Iran’s stand on this issue has prompted Trump to voice this quite assertively. This has raised questions about “friendly” ties between Trump and Netanyahu. It would be going overboard to assume that these have been adversely affected. However, Trump’s manner of asserting his stand on Israel’s Lebanon policy has its purpose. He apparently doesn’t want inking of the deal to be delayed because of any reason, including Israel’s Lebanon-policy. It may be possible, he adopted critical approach of Netanyahu specifically for this diplomatic purpose. The issue is not whether he genuinely means it or not but Trump certainly wants others to take note of his criticism of Netanyahu. Certainly, this diplomatic card of his has received the coverage desired by him. However, it is not yet clear as to whether Netanyahu is likely to actually cease occupation of Lebanon. He certainly doesn’t want to. 
Trump’s display of his diplomatic card regarding Israel-Lebanon deal perhaps doesn’t bear greater importance than rhetoric. But at times even rhetoric bears some importance particularly because of the message it conveys. Simply speaking, Trump has chosen not to ignore and/or favor Israel’s Lebanon approach. His remaining silent would have been equivalent to silently supporting it. Clearly, at present, he is not in favor of this view being held about him, specifically regarding Israel’s Lebanon-occupation. He has thus criticized it fairly loudly. This signals he wants others to take note of this. More specifically, he probably doesn’t want Israel’s Lebanon policy to disturb the deal with Iran. The message is simple. His criticism of Netanyahu clearly signals his being keen to push forward deal, as it has been agreed upon, without further delay. 
The deal will mark reopening of Strait of Hormuz though it is not yet clear as to what system is likely to be followed for permitting traffic through it. Who shall indulge in this has yet to be apparently planned and/or revealed. Even after the interim-deal is inked, it will perhaps take days, even months/years before normalcy returns to the area and via the Strait of Hormuz. 
Trump has not refrained from claiming his having emerged as the winner in the war against Iran. On its part, Iran has claimed victory. The war has certainly not led to defeat of Iran and/or collapse of its regime as desired by US and Israel when they initiated the strikes against it. That the war lasting more than three months has compelled US to choose a way out of it bears its own significance. If nothing else, the interim-deal is at least suggestive of this phase, that is end of war, having finally been agreed to between US and Iran. Neither party can be viewed as a winner. US and Israel are being viewed as losers. Iran is not a winner but cannot be projected as a loser also. The war has not led to Iran’s collapse and defeat. Rather, it has had its way with a two-phased agreement worked upon. Negotiations of the second phase are expected to begin after inking the interim-deal!