Israel in Lebanon is a perfect test case for the deal. If the deal represents Iranian surrender and maybe even a trigger for regime change, not only will there be no interest in protecting Iran's assets but weakening those assets will limit Iran's options.
If, however, Israel is restrained and Hezbollah protected, the purpose of the deal is to rescue the regime and incorporate it into whatever broader Middle East configuration Trump has in mind.
From what I'm seeing this morning, this question has already been answered.
I suppose the US can pivot away from the ME regardless of whether it's governed through a firm alliance system or through everyone adjusting to Iranian intimidation and blackmail, and the players in the region can revert to dealing with a re-empowered Iran. And reorganizing
the region around Iran-Turkey-Qatar allows Russia and China back in, so presumably some deal was made there as well. The real questions are domestic--what this means for the rest of Trump's term, the succession, the GOP, etc. I think if he tries to push a realignment with the
Iran and Qatar lobbies, that will fragment the GOP, if not during his term then immediately after. No point to predicting beyond that. But the logic that governed Obama's deal domestically--targeting and spying on pro-Israel politicians and journalists--would apply here as well.
It's obvious that I, like anyone else, could be wrong, and if so I'll re-examine--but that Lebanon test seems pretty solid to me.