A June 17 memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the United States and Iran expired on Monday amid stalled negotiations between the two countries. Although full-scale fighting has been halted for the time being, the war against Iran, which began on February 28, is far from resolved.
The Islamabad-brokered memorandum was set to begin 60 days of peace talks between the two countries and included provisions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a major flashpoint in the war.
However, the ambiguous wording of many of the provisions led to major disagreements, particularly over who had ultimate control over ships passing through the strait, and Iran launched attacks against several ships that did not follow the approved route.
As a result, the United States resumed its attacks on Iran, provoking further attacks by Iran against American military assets and energy and other infrastructure in the Gulf and Jordan.
Additionally, although the memorandum provides for a ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon and Gaza, Israel continues to carry out attacks in both territories and still occupies about a fifth of Lebanon, where it says it is targeting Iranian-backed Hezbollah strongholds.
We take a look at the key moments of the MoU and why it fell apart.
What was the Memorandum of Understanding between Iran and the US?
The 14-point memorandum of understanding was signed on June 17 between Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and US President Donald Trump. The ceasefire was agreed after high-level talks hosted and mediated by Pakistan, and triggered a 60-day negotiation period aimed at reaching a broader peace agreement.
In the memorandum, both sides agreed to “immediate and permanent suspension of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.”
Under the deal, the United States agreed to lift the naval blockade within 30 days, withdraw troops from Iran’s vicinity after a “definitive agreement” is reached, and begin work on at least a $300 billion Iranian reconstruction and development plan.
The US also agreed to lift sanctions on Iran, exempt Iranian oil exports and give Tehran access to frozen funds abroad.
Meanwhile, Iran has promised to clear the Strait of Hormuz of mines and allow ships to sail “free of charge” for 60 days.
Tehran also reaffirmed that it would not pursue the production of nuclear weapons and would negotiate on issues such as uranium enrichment. Further details on how this will work will be set out in a UN-backed ‘final agreement’.
What were the key issues that made the Memorandum dysfunctional from the beginning?
Ultimately, the cause of the memorandum’s failure was its carefully worded wording.
Joey Hood, former deputy director of Iranian affairs at the US State Department, said the memorandum was “doomed to fail” and said it was “very poorly written and gave Iran an opportunity to interpret the memorandum as giving it sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz and the future of Lebanon.”
“If there had been professional diplomats involved from the American side, it would never have been written the way it did. It would never have given Iran that wiggle room,” Hood said.
Three provisions in particular caused disagreement:
Article 5 of the Memorandum promised “safe navigation of commercial ships” through the Strait of Hormuz.
“Upon signing this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial ships from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa free of charge for a period of 60 days. Sailing of commercial ships will begin immediately, taking into account the need to remove technical and military obstacles, demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will begin within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will hold dialogue with Iran,” it said. The Sultan of Oman will define the future administrative and maritime services and the Strait of Hormuz in consultation with other Persian Gulf littoral states, in line with applicable international law and the sovereignty of the Strait of Hormuz littoral states. ”
However, major disagreements soon arose over the route ships should take through the strait. Besides Iran, Oman, whose territorial waters run through the strait, has issued a shipping route allowing ships to pass close to its coast, with support from the United States. However, Iran had previously issued maps that required ships to pass close to its coast and marked the Omani side of the strait as “no-go.”
Disagreement between the two countries over who had the authority to authorize the route resulted in several ships that followed the Oman route being targeted in late June. The US then resumed attacks on Iran, which lasted for almost two weeks.
Article 1 of the Memorandum also had its difficulties.
“The United States of America, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and their allies in the current war, by signing the Memorandum of Understanding, declare an immediate and permanent cessation of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake to refrain from any future war or military operations against each other, to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and to ensure the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final agreement will confirm a permanent cessation of war in Lebanon and in all respects, including the other provisions of this section.” ”
One of the main problems with this text is that it does not mention Israel, which currently occupies Lebanon and has bombed southern Lebanon almost daily since early March, killing at least 3,000 people and forcing more than a million to flee their homes.
Iran insisted that Israel must stop its invasion of Lebanon under the memorandum, but Israel did not agree to this.
Article 6 of the memorandum vaguely referred to the burden of post-war reconstruction costs for Iran, but did not provide critical details.
“The United States is committed to working with regional partners to develop a final, mutually agreed-upon plan for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran at a cost of at least US$300 billion. The implementation mechanisms for this plan will be finalized within 60 days as part of the final agreement. All necessary licenses, exemptions, and permits for related financial transactions will be granted by the United States.”
There was no indication who would pay the $300 billion or whether there would be any limits on how it could be spent.
Separately, the memorandum mentioned the lifting of sanctions against Iran, but it did not specify whether this would include only US sanctions or sanctions ordered by the United Nations.
How did the Memorandum of Understanding fall apart?
The memorandum collapsed within a month of its signing, with the United States and Iran accusing each other of violating the terms and rekindling hostilities.
On June 25, the Singapore-flagged merchant ship Ever Love was hit by a projectile while navigating a shipping lane near the coast of Oman. Iran did not claim the attack, but it also did not deny it.
The US government condemned the Iranian attack, which President Trump deemed a “stupid violation” of the ceasefire agreement.
And on June 27, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) announced that the aircraft had struck missile and drone storage sites and radar sites along Iran’s southern coastline “in strong response to yesterday’s attack on a merchant ship transiting the Strait of Hormuz.”
Iran’s Foreign Ministry condemned the U.S. attack, saying the targeting of coastal observation facilities “violates Article 1 of the Memorandum of Understanding,” and the two countries pledged to cease hostilities on all fronts.
Mohsen Rezaei, an adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, also accused the United States of violating Article 5 of the memorandum, which calls for the restoration of safe shipping lanes for commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran retaliated for the attack on the same day, saying it attacked U.S. military facilities in the region. “In the event of a repeat invasion, our response would be broader than this,” the Revolutionary Guards said in a statement at the time.
So, just 10 days after it was signed, the US and Iran began trading strikes again.
As the United States continued to attack Iran, President Trump declared on July 7 that the deal was “done.”
Days later, the Iranian government claimed that the United States had targeted civilian infrastructure in the country’s south, killing at least 50 people since new attacks began.
Iranian officials said the United States had “violated and suspended” all commitments under the memorandum, and that the Iranian government had “similarly suspended all of our own commitments.”
Iran has said multiple times this month that it does not have direct talks with the United States, citing violations of the memorandum. Instead, it is negotiating with Oman over the future management of the Strait of Hormuz, and Pakistan is seeking to resume direct dialogue between the United States and Iran.
What does the end of the memorandum mean for the war?
In the end, negotiations reached a stalemate.
However, shortly after the memorandum was signed, hostilities resumed and the agreement collapsed. On the other hand, experts say this has become the basis for future negotiations.
Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Esmail Baghai said the 60-day deadline after the memorandum was signed is no longer relevant and that the United States violated the agreement weeks after it was signed.
“Talks never began because the United States seriously and extensively violated the Memorandum of Understanding just weeks after it was signed,” he said.
“As a result, the issue of the 60-day deadline has become completely moot,” Baggaei added.
Hood told Al Jazeera there was “no indication” that the memorandum of understanding would be revived or a new agreement reached because “both sides are silent.”
He cited Iran’s “claimed sovereignty” over the Strait of Hormuz as a major obstacle, predicting that “if Iran again allows free navigation of ships,” Trump would retaliate “by lifting the naval blockade and oil sanctions.”
