The newly announced memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran has officially taken effect, marking a significant diplomatic step after months of conflict. However, while the agreement restores shipping access through the Strait of Hormuz, many of the most difficult issues remain unresolved and will be the focus of intensive negotiations over the next 60 days.
Speaking at the G7 summit in France, US President Donald Trump described the deal as a major achievement and presented it as a breakthrough that could pave the way for a broader peace agreement between Washington and Tehran.
Both governments later confirmed that the memorandum had been signed electronically and was now active. Despite the optimism surrounding the announcement, details released by US officials suggest that substantial differences remain between the two sides.
One of the central goals of the Trump administration has been preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Although Trump has repeatedly stated that the agreement guarantees Iran will never obtain such weapons, the memorandum itself does not provide a final resolution to the issue.
Instead, the deal establishes a framework for negotiations aimed at reaching a comprehensive nuclear agreement. Under the current terms, Iran has agreed to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
US officials described the move as a significant concession from Tehran. However, many technical and legal questions surrounding the process still need to be negotiated during the upcoming talks.
The timeline set by the agreement is ambitious. Both countries have been given 60 days to work toward a permanent settlement, although the deadline can be extended by mutual agreement. The challenge is considerable, especially given that previous negotiations that produced the 2015 nuclear accord took nearly two years to complete.
Financial issues are also emerging as a source of controversy. While Trump has insisted that the United States will not provide direct financial assistance to Iran, the memorandum outlines plans to work with regional partners on a reconstruction programme valued at at least $300 billion.
Administration officials maintain that the agreement does not require any direct US payments. Nevertheless, critics argue that the wording leaves room for future financial commitments as part of a broader settlement.
The reconstruction proposal has already sparked political debate in Washington, particularly among conservatives who oppose further involvement in foreign conflicts and large-scale international spending commitments.
Several lawmakers have called for detailed briefings on the agreement, arguing that important questions remain unanswered.
Among the critics is Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, who argued that the agreement does not sufficiently limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions and may encourage Tehran to use strategic pressure on the Strait of Hormuz in future negotiations.
The agreement has also raised concerns about other regional security issues. During the conflict, the United States and Israel emphasized the need to counter Iranian support for allied armed groups across the Middle East, including Hezbollah.
Although the ceasefire provisions apply to Hezbollah-related hostilities, the memorandum offers little detail on how Iran’s support for regional proxy groups will be addressed in future talks.
Similarly, Iran’s ballistic missile programme receives only limited attention in the initial agreement despite being a major concern for both Washington and Israel throughout the conflict.
Analysts say these unresolved issues could prove among the most difficult topics during the next phase of negotiations.
Whether the current memorandum ultimately leads to a lasting peace agreement remains uncertain. The document establishes a path toward further dialogue but leaves many of the most contentious issues open for discussion.
Trump himself acknowledged the uncertainty surrounding the process. While expressing hope that negotiators would reach a final settlement, he made clear that military options remain on the table if diplomacy fails.
For now, the agreement has reduced immediate tensions and reopened one of the world’s most important shipping routes. However, the coming weeks will determine whether the breakthrough can evolve into a durable and comprehensive peace accord.
Be the first to leave a comment