Iran –US MOU: A murky move towards peace?

By Huma Ahmad

Since the signing of MOU between Iran and US on 17th of June, the whole world has been holding its breath, in the hope of averting deadly military confrontation and economic exploitation in near future. Apparently MOU seems promising as it entails every aspect pertaining to the fragile relationship between Iran and US, though bypassing Israel factor.

The MOU starts with the acknowledgment of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon. It calls for the cessation of military operations on all fronts including Lebanon. This underscores the significance of Lebanon for determining the fate of MOU. It is also about following a trajectory to reach on a settlement regarding the stock piled enriched uranium and nuclear capability of Iran.

It commits Iran to open Strait of Harmoz and US to end naval blockade. The process is underway and the sharp decrease in global oil and gas prices are already showing the prospects. But the real task is the implementation of this grand strategy.

Like the other peace treaties and pacts of past, this would also be judged upon its realization into reality. Though its precise text ,compact in nature is referring to some loopholes which can later on become the biggest obstacles in the way towards peace. The first is the exclusion of Israel from the whole process of peace. The US and Israel launched their preemptive strikes on Iran, which resulted in the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatullah Komenaia and other notable civil and military leadership. Through this aerial and military adventure , US and Israel were like one unit. Now its sudden exit or exclusion from peace process is itself alarming for the regional stability and for the world as a whole. For the Iran-US MOU to stay alive in the global diplomacy, the presence of Israel is deniable. There are certain reasons to strengthen this assumption. The first such reason pertains to the question of Lebanon. For the MOU to accomplish its goal of lasting peace and ending hostility, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon needs to be assured not just on piece of paper but in reality. As a matter of the fact, since the signing of MOU and the declaration of ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel ,there have been rounds of Israeli air strokes , strucking Southern Lebanon ,razing villages to ground and resulting civilian causalities. Hezbollah fighters are also in the action of aggression. Though the destruction caused by Israel is surmountable. For Iran, the peace and stability in Lebanon is very important and Israel is using it to derail negotiations.

Except that the MOU claims about the territorial integrity of Lebanon, but there is no mention of the Lebanon’s land which have been under the control of Israel. Related to this confusion the other question mounts over the repatriation of Lebanese, which want to return to home, as ceasefire had been declared. This issue may not reaches to the negotiating table but it is quite too quirky to flare more violence, which would not go in the favor of MOU.

While moving towards the clauses of MOU, the second issue which needs much attention is future of nuclear capability of Iran. The text of MOU leaves this topic to be settled on the negotiating table, rather than on the battle field. The first round of technical talks in Switzerland has been concluded on a positive note but with fragile mood swings. Both sides have agreed to establish four working groups to pursue negotiations on nuclear affairs, reconstruction and release of frozen assets. But in the span of few hours, a topsy-turvy of Trump administration is seen regarding its Iran policy. US President Donald Trump through his social media platform issued warning to Iran ,saying ‘ will hit hard this time’ on 21 June 2026 ,the day of scheduled talks. Amid this public statement, a lot of hustle and confusion could be seen on all the faces which were there to settle for peace.

Then after the conclusion of the talks ,two different statements and narratives regarding the outcomes of the talks appeared, where Trump administration is seen as claiming for an Iranian promise of ending its nuclear program, while the Iran’s foreign office is defying any such commitment. Though later on this confusion was clarified with the declaration of four groups, which will pursue further talks on this issue , but on this scale a minor confusion can erode the chance of peace.

Well moving towards the other major concern not only for US and Iran but for the global economy ,is the closure of Strait of Harmoz. The MOU declares that upon signing the MOU, Iran will open Strait of Harmoz and US will end the naval blockade. This was realized immediately, and the decrease in oil and gas prices is evident of its success. But still a threat of blockage and uncertainty again lurches on the strait. Isreal’s non-alignment and non-agreement with the terms of MOU and the continued air strikes on Bairut ,can any time soon a serious concern. As Iran has already called for the closure of Strait of Harmoz and strong retaliation to Israel’s aggression. Amid all these circumstances, the MOU seems a murky moves towards a lasting peace. The complete exclusion of Israel form the peace process , its non-agreement with MOU, a confusing tone of Trump administration towards Iran and open-ended clauses of MOU itself are the dangers , with which it deal in the near future.

While on the positive note ,the MOU has opened a window for the diplomatic solutions of Iran-US Crisis. The journey from Islamaabad Talks to Islamand MOU , is the evident of a transition in the behavior of two varying actors of global politics who had set on a negotiating table in 47 years. Now they a committing ,through their own ways for the peaceful settlement of issues.