For all the political turmoil around it, the memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the United States and Iran, announced by US President Donald Trump on Sunday, could mark an important turning point in the geopolitics of the Middle East. For India, any movement towards defusing the conflict, that threatens to upend its economic stability, is enormously welcome — from the interest of its diaspora to the imperatives of its energy security. The text of the MoU isn’t public yet but it has already triggered strong opposition in Israel, considerable criticism in Washington, and some dissent in Tehran. The resistance in all three capitals suggests that both the US and Iran have made significant concessions to make the agreement possible.As with any complex negotiation between long-standing adversaries, disputes over interpretation will begin as soon as the text is released. The internal questioning of the agreement will get sharper. The implementation will be even harder and the possibility of breakdown remains real.Yet the significance of the agreement cannot be dismissed. As US Vice President J D Vance, who is expected to sign the MoU in Geneva on Friday, recently argued, it has the “potential to remake the region and lead to lasting peace”. That may be an overstatement. But there is little doubt that the agreement seeks to redefine relations between Washington and Tehran, which have been locked in confrontation since Iran’s Islamic Revolution of 1979.The idea of a “new Middle East” has been an elusive one. The Oslo peace process in the 1990s, the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Arab Spring of 2011, and the Abraham Accords of 2020 were all presented as decisive turning points. Yet each produced outcomes very different from those originally envisaged.Could it be different this time? The rise of new economic power centres in the Gulf, the accumulation of extraordinary wealth, growing indigenous military capabilities, and the exhaustion produced by decades of conflict are reshaping the Middle East landscape.To be sure, this is not the first US-Iran agreement. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) of 2015, negotiated under US President Barack Obama, focused primarily on Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.Story continues below this adThe nuclear issue remains central to the current negotiations. But the new MoU appears to go well beyond the nuclear question. It seeks to establish a broader framework for managing US-Iran tensions, reducing the risk of military confrontation, and creating the basis for a more stable regional order. It would also involve phased sanctions relief and support for Iran’s economic reconstruction after years of sanctions and the destruction caused by the wars of 2025-26.Also in Explained | US-Iran ceasefire: Nuclear question deferred, an expert explains why next 60 days are crucialThe ambition is impressive. The more expansive the agenda, the harder it becomes to negotiate and implement.Sceptics argue that meaningful change in the Middle East is impossible. Others welcome change but doubt that the region’s entrenched rivalries can be overcome. Yet change is the one constant in international politics, and the Middle East is not immune to that fundamental law. The real question is about the nature of change that is now underway.One important factor is the shifting mood in the United States. Across the political spectrum, there is growing fatigue with America’s long military involvement in the Middle East. The demand for ending America’s “forever wars” now comes from both the left and the right. Equally striking is the growing willingness in Washington to question long-standing assumptions about US policy towards Israel. While Trump has had to walk back his rhetorical bombast before and during the war with Iran, he has also reaffirmed the US role as the principal external force shaping the geopolitics of the region. As in Gaza, so in the Gulf. Story continues below this adIran, meanwhile, confronts a different reality. If Iranian expansion and regional influence were among the defining stories of the last two decades, the wars of 2025-26 have exposed the costs of that strategy. The economy remains under severe strain. Several regional partners have been weakened by conflict. The risks of direct confrontation with Israel and the United States have become increasingly evident.Iran has demonstrated significant missile capabilities and shown its ability to threaten critical maritime routes in the Gulf. But you can’t live on deterrence alone. Missile cities that Tehran built under its mountains are not the means for Iran’s national reconstruction. A profound transitionIsrael remains deeply sceptical of any accommodation between Washington and Tehran. For much of the past decade, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promoted his own vision of a “New Middle East”, one built around the containment of Iran and, more recently, the prospect of regime change in Tehran. That project no longer appears to command the same support in Washington. At the same time, growing political divisions within Israel raise questions about the future direction of its own regional strategy.The Gulf states have also moved away from the assumptions that framed their response to the JCPOA as “American appeasement” of Iran. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates now place a premium on stability and economic transformation. The recent conflict demonstrated how vulnerable their wealth is to war and violence. They have as much interest in de-escalation as Iran does.Story continues below this adNewsletterFollow our daily newsletter so you never miss anything important. On Wednesday, we answer readers' questions.SubscribeFor decades, the Middle East has been trapped in recurring cycles of war, proxy conflict, and diplomatic breakdown. The current negotiations suggest that many regional and external powers are searching for a different framework — one based less on permanent confrontation and more on managing rivalries.Whether such a framework can endure is another matter. Deep distrust between Washington and Tehran remains. Israeli concerns will not disappear. Conflicts in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen continue to generate instability.It may therefore be premature to proclaim the arrival of a new Middle East. But it is not premature to recognise that the old order has been badly shaken. Whatever emerges from the current diplomacy, the region is already in the midst of a profound transition. As the region enters a new phase, India needs to shift from a risk-averse policy to an active role in stabilising regional politics in the Middle East, on its own as well as in coalition with partner nations. The writer is a contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express.