A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) from June 17 between the United States and Iran expired on Monday amid stalled negotiations. Although large‑scale hostilities have been temporarily suspended, the conflict that began on February 28 remains far from resolved.
The MoU, brokered by Pakistan, was intended to launch a 60‑day period of peace talks and called for the resumption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a key flashpoint in the conflict. Vague wording in several clauses, however, sparked serious disputes, especially over who holds ultimate authority over navigation in the strait.
Consequently, Iran struck several vessels that ignored its approved route, and the United States responded with renewed strikes on Iran. This prompted further Iranian attacks on U.S. military facilities in the Persian Gulf countries and Jordan, as well as on energy and other infrastructure. Moreover, although the MoU called for a cease‑fire on all fronts, including Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, Israel kept striking both territories and still controls roughly one‑fifth of Lebanon’s territory, saying it is targeting strongholds of the Iran‑backed group Hezbollah.
Key provisions and reasons for the MoU’s failure
The 14‑point MoU was signed on June 17 by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and U.S. President Donald Trump. The cease‑fire agreement emerged after high‑level talks organized and mediated by Pakistan. It set a 60‑day window for negotiations aimed at a broader peace settlement.
According to the MoU, both parties agreed to “an immediate and permanent cessation of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon.” The United States pledged to lift the naval blockade within 30 days, withdraw its troops from the area near Iran after a “final agreement,” and begin work on a reconstruction and development package for Iran worth at least $300 billion. It also agreed to lift sanctions on Iran, issue permits for Iranian oil exports, and give Tehran access to frozen overseas funds.
For its part, Iran committed to de‑mining the Strait of Hormuz and allowing vessels to pass “freely” for 60 days. Tehran reaffirmed that it would not pursue nuclear weapons and would negotiate on issues such as uranium enrichment. Further details were to be worked out in a “final agreement,” with support from the United Nations.
Joey Hood, former acting director of the Office of Iranian Affairs at the U.S. State Department, said the MoU “was doomed to fail” because “it was very poorly written and gave Iran the opportunity to interpret it as recognition of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz and future Lebanon.” Hood added, “if professional diplomats had been involved on the U.S. side, it would never have been written the way it was. This would not have allowed Iran to get such a loophole.”
Sharp disagreements centered on three provisions. Article 5 guaranteed the “safe passage of commercial vessels” through the Strait of Hormuz. It required Iran to ensure safe passage “freely for 60 days” and to negotiate with Oman on the strait’s future management. A dispute quickly arose over routing: Oman, whose territorial waters the strait also traverses, proposed a route backed by the United States near its coast, while Iran had earlier demanded vessels stay closer to its own coast, labeling the Omani segment as “restricted.” In late June, several ships following the Omani route were attacked, prompting the United States to resume strikes on Iran for nearly two weeks.
Article 1 also created problems. It stipulated an “immediate and permanent cessation of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon,” yet it omitted any reference to Israel. A source noted that Israel controls part of Lebanon’s territory and has carried out near‑daily strikes in the south since early March, killing at least 3,000 people and displacing over one million. Iran argued that Israeli actions should cease under the MoU, but Israel did not concur.
Article 6 contained a vague clause on financing Iran’s post‑war reconstruction, committing the United States and regional partners to develop a plan worth at least $300 billion. The text did not specify who would provide the funds or any conditions on their use. It also mentioned lifting sanctions on Iran without clarifying whether this applied solely to U.S. sanctions or also to United Nations restrictions.
Source: Al Jazeera
