A Memorandum Of Understanding Ends The Iran War
There has been a negotiated end to the war in Iran, but the volatile issues that triggered it have yet to be resolved.
After nearly three months of arduous negotiations punctuated by periodic armed clashes, the United States and Iran reached a ceasefire agreement within the parameters of a memorandum of understanding on June 14. It was mediated by Pakistan, Qatar, Turkey and Egypt.
The 60-day truce formally ends the war, which erupted on February 28 after the United States and Israel attacked Iran in a joint military operation spearheaded by air strikes.
The memorandum of understanding was announced by U.S. President Donald Trump on his 80th birthday. Iran, presumably out of spite, refrained from signing it until the early hours of June 15.
Israel was not involved in the talks that led to the agreement, whose text has yet to be released. But in a social media post, Trump said that it would lead to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, an issue created by the war, and the removal of the U.S. naval blockade on Iranian ports.
The agreement, which essentially resurrects the status quo ante, also calls for an immediate ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon, where Israel and Hezbollah have been fighting for the past three months. Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy, struck the first blow by firing a barrage of rockets at Israel on March 2. Since then, Israel has occupied southern Lebanon and established a security zone there.
Iran, regarded as Israel’s deadliest enemy, backs Hezbollah’s maximalist demands for a complete ceasefire and a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.
The chairman of Iran’s Parliamentary National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, Ebrahim Azizi, reportedly told Hezbollah on June 3 that ending the war with the United States and Israel on all fronts, including Lebanon, was at the forefront of Iran’s diplomatic quest.
The agreement appeared imperilled after Israel bombed a Hezbollah stronghold in Beirut in the early hours of June 14 in retaliation for rocket fire from Hezbollah.
As he desperately tried to finalize the deal, Trump lashed out at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “This morning’s attack on Beirut should not have happened, particularly on a special day when we are so close to a peace deal with Iran,” he wrote on his Truth Social site. In a sign of their deteriorating relationship, he accused Netanyahu of having “no fucking judgment” and demanded that all sides “stand down.”
Trump, an an interview published by The New York Times, justified the agreement and claimed that Israel should be grateful to the United States. “He’s a very difficult guy,” he said in a reference to Netanyahu. “And to be honest with you, he should be very thankful to us for doing this. Because if Iran had a nuclear weapon, Israel wouldn’t be around for two hours.”
The deal, which is scheduled to be signed in Geneva on June 19, leaves the thorniest issues unresolved for the moment. They are supposed to be addressed in a far more complex round of negotiations, which could drag on indefinitely.
The outstanding issues at hand are Iran’s nuclear program and its existing stockpile of enriched uranium, its demand for sanctions relief and the release of $25 billion in frozen assets, its ballistic missile program and its network of regional allies in the Axis of Resistance ranging from Hezbollah to Hamas.
Israel is dissatisfied with the agreement because these key issues impinge directly on its security and appear not to have been addressed in the memorandum of understanding.
Nor is Israel satisfied with the clause demanding its withdrawal from southern Lebanon before Hezbollah’s disarmament.
Vice President JD Vance, who will travel to Geneva for the signing ceremony, disagrees with Israel’s glum assessment. He believes the agreement could “fundamentally transform the Middle East for the next 50 years” and ensure that Iran “will never have a nuclear weapon.”
Prior to June 14, the United States and Iran teetered on the precipice between war and peace, with Trump repeatedly claiming that both sides were close to reaching an agreement. By CNN’s count, Trump made this claim no less than 38 times.
In a reflection of his frustration with Iran, Trump constantly threatened to use military force, only to pull back at the last moment. Trump’s gyrations fuelled criticism that he was attempting to calm markets, lower the rising price of gasoline, curb inflation and relieve political pressure in the United States, where the war was unpopular.
At one point, Trump even threatened to wipe out Iran’s “whole civilization, never to be brought back again.”
The Iranian regime, having been emboldened by the war, infuriated Trump with its initial demands. Iran called for U.S. recognition of its sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas exports passes. In addition, Iran demanded the abolition of crippling U.S. sanctions and asked for war reparations.
Iran’s maximalist negotiating position was a reflection of its effort to translate its perceived success in the war into strategic and political gains.
As far back as May 23, Trump stated that a deal had been “largely negotiated” and awaited finalization. He said that an agreement would block Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon.
On May 24, a senior U.S. official said that the Iranian leadership, including supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei, would need several days to approve the deal.
Trump later said that negotiations were proceeding in an “orderly and constructive manner.” On May 26, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that a deal was imminent.
Trump, on June 7, said that he was “very close” to achieving this objective, but was seeking airtight language to ensure that Iran could not acquire a nuclear weapon.
“I’m going to put it out permanently,” he told NBC News, referring to Iran’s nuclear program. “Either I’m going to do it through negotiation, where we’re very close to a deal, or I’m going to blow the hell out of them, to be honest with you.”
Describing Trump’s red lines, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that Iran would have to turn over its highly enriched uranium to an acceptable third party, abandon the pursuit of a nuclear weapon, and open the Strait of Hormuz without charging tolls.
During this period, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi claimed that no tangible progress has been made in the negotiation process. “Returning to the negotiating table is conditional on ensuring the rights of the Iranian people, ending the war in Lebanon, and stopping tensions in the region,” he said.
Despite a ceasefire, the United States and Iran engaged in a series of clashes.
On May 27, American forces shot down four Iranian drones over the Strait of Hormuz. Three days later, the U.S. attacked radar and command posts in southern Iran in retaliation for the Iranian downing of an American drone over international waters.
Iran launched two ballistic missiles targeting American forces based in Kuwait on June 1. American forces on June 5 intercepted several Iranian missiles and drones aimed at Kuwait and Bahrain. Subsequently, Iran shot down a U.S. Apache helicopter over the Strait of Hormuz, resulting in American retaliatory strikes.
According to the Institute for the Study of War, Iran used “calibrated force” to extract concessions from the United States without triggering a full-scale U.S. response. “Recent statements from senior Iranian officials and regime-affiliated media suggest that Iran believes that … military action” is a tactic that can improve its negotiating position and serve its strategic objectives.
A top-level Iranian figure, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, stated on June 8 that Iran’s use of military power and diplomacy could produce favorable results.
As negotiations waxed and waned, the status of the Strait of Hormuz, an international waterway, emerged as a central issue.
Rubio warned that it must be reopened “one way or the other.” Iran’s control of it, he noted, was “unlawful, illegal and unacceptable.”
Senior Iranian officials framed Iran’s management of it as a strategic necessity and a core element of Iranian deterrence against the United States and Israel. Ali Akbar Velayati, the supreme leader’s advisor, described the strait as Iran’s “ultimate leverage.”
The Institute for the Study of War believes that Velayati’s remarks “may reflect the Iranian regime’s belief that Iran’s ability to threaten international shipping and energy markets would make the United States less willing to … conduct further military operations against Iran. Velayati’s comments reflect the degree to which senior Iranian leaders are coalescing around the notion of Iranian control over the strait as a key pillar of leverage.”
The ultimate status of the Strait of Hormuz and Israel’s presence in Lebanon will figure prominently in the impending U.S.-Iran talks. Further down the road, the nuclear issue, Iran’s missile capabilities and the Axis of Resistance will be addressed.
These will be extremely difficult negotiations, as Mohammed Ayatollahi Tabaar noted in a recent Foreign Affairs piece.
“Iran and the United States will remain locked in a broader conflict, trading barbs and perhaps military attacks … because (they) remain far apart on core disputes. Washington is still demanding that Tehran completely dismantle its nuclear enrichment program, surrender all enriched uranium (and) end support for regional allies … Iran, however, has repeatedly refused to give up on enrichment. It says it will probably consider Washington’s other demands only after the United States recognizes Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, compensates Iranians for wartime damages, ends Israel’s war in Lebanon, and unfreezes Iranian assets.
“But there is another reason why the sides won’t make real peace: Iran has concluded that conflict is preferable to diplomacy. The war, after all, seems to be helping Tehran increase its international power. By striking Arab states that host American bases, Iran has succeeded in driving a wedge between U.S. officials and their Persian Gulf partners, who desperately want a lasting settlement. By closing the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has forced a collection of countries around the planet to acknowledge its power …”
Iran aspires to be “a pole in a multipolar order,” and thinks that the war has helped it achieve that goal, Tabaar writes. “The Islamic Republic remains functional, operational, and cohesive. It has demonstrated that it can withstand extreme amounts of pressure. Most of all, it has proved that it can single-handedly weaken the global economy – and that it is thus a force to be reckoned with.”
If Tabaar is correct, the impending negotiations between the United States and Iran may yet flounder, placing the Middle East in the crosshairs of further strife and instability.