I understood that Trump was going to make public the “Memorandum of Understanding” (MoU) that laid out the framework for a peace deal between the U.S. and Iran, and was even going to read it aloud on television. That apparently didn’t happen, and if you look for the text of the MoU on the Internet, you see several versions. For example, the one I put below—the most comprehensive one I’ve seen—comes from Bloomberg News, but there are different versions at the NY Post and MEMRI.
Here’s from Bloomberg:
Below is the text of the 14-point draft memorandum, as seen by Bloomberg News.
The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States, together with their allies in the current war, declare upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, and undertake that from now on they will not launch any hostile action against each other, and will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other. The final agreement will confirm the provisions of this Article and the remaining Articles.
The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.
The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States undertake to negotiate and reach a final agreement within a maximum period of 60 days, extendable by mutual consent.
Immediately upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, the United States Lift the naval blockade and prevent any interference or obstruction against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and restore traffic within a maximum of 30 days to its full capacity; the traffic of ships shall be proportional to the pre-war volume of traffic on the part of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States also undertakes to withdraw its forces from the surrounding areas within 30 days after the final agreement.
Upon signing this Memorandum of Understanding, the Islamic Republic of Iran will immediately take steps to ensure that the movement of merchant ships from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa is resumed within 30 days to the pre-war volume, taking into account the need for the removal of technical obstacles and the neutralization of mines by Iran.
The United States undertakes, together with its regional partners, to create a comprehensive plan agreed upon by both parties for the rehabilitation and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran, While ensuring financing of at least $300 billion. The implementation mechanism of this plan, as part of the final agreement, will be formulated within 60 days.
The United States commits to ending, on a schedule to be agreed upon as part of the final agreement, all types of sanctions currently facing the Islamic Republic of Iran, including resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and all unilateral U.S. sanctions, both primary and secondary.
The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States have agreed that the fate of enriched material and the fate of all other mutually agreed nuclear-related issues, including Iran’s nuclear needs, will be adequately addressed in a final agreement; the final agreement will confirm the provisions of this Article.
The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that, pending a final agreement, they will maintain the status quo: Iran will maintain the status quo on its nuclear program, and the United States will not impose new sanctions on Iran or strengthen its forces in the region.
The United States undertakes that immediately after the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, and until the date of the lifting of sanctions, the United States Treasury Department will issue waivers for exports of Iranian crude oil, petrochemical products and their derivatives, and all related services, including banking, insurance, transportation, and the like.
The United States undertakes that, in light of the progress of negotiations towards a final agreement, frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran will be released and made fully available. These funds, whether held in the master account or transferred, will be used for any final beneficiary payment determined by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran and will be fully available for use. The United States undertakes to issue all necessary permits and licenses on this basis.
The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that an implementation mechanism will be established to oversee the successful implementation of and future commitment to the Final Agreement.
Following the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, and upon receipt of assurances regarding the commencement of implementation of Articles 4, 5, 10, and 11 of this Memorandum of Understanding, and the continued implementation of these steps, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States will enter into negotiations for a Final Agreement solely with respect to the remaining Articles.
The final agreement will be approved through a binding resolution of the UN Security Council.
Note several things about this version:
a) It declares a cessation of hostilities in Lebanon (i.e., Israel and Hezbollah will stop fighting), though Israel did not sign on to this agreement.
b) A “final agreement” is to be signed within 60 days, and that doesn’t mean “final agreement about nuclear weapons,” but final about all stipulations
c) The Strait of Hormuz is to be reopened: “the Islamic Republic of Iran will immediately take steps to ensure that the movement of merchant ships from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa is resumed within 30 days to the pre-war volume.” It does not say that the movement will be unimpeded by fines or fees that could be charged by Iran
d) The agreement stipulates that Iran will “never produce nuclear weapons”, and the final agreement will address what will be done with enriched uranium.
e) The U.S. agreed that all “frozen or restricted funds and assets” of Iran will be unfrozen, though “in light of the progress of negotiations towards a final agreement”.
f) The final agreement must be ratified as binding by the UN Security Council.
The MoU as given by the NY Post: note that it differs in some respects from what’s above:
The following 12 points were first revealed by Axios reporter Barak Ravid, who also works for the Israeli channel. The document has previously been described as a 14-point agreement.
- Iran, the US and their allies would stop fighting across the region — including in Lebanon.
- Tehran would reaffirm its pledge never to build a nuclear weapon.
- The US and Iran would work out what happens to Tehran’s enriched uranium stockpile.
- Both sides would open talks on Iran’s future enrichment activities and nuclear needs.
- Iran would maintain the “status quo” of its nuclear program — which has been largely decimated — while negotiations continue.
- The US would lift its naval blockade, hold off on new sanctions and refrain from sending more troops to the region.
- Iran would guarantee safe, toll-free passage for commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days.
- Washington would release an unspecified amount of frozen Iranian assets once the MOU takes effect.
- A final deal reached after the 60 days would see the US withdraw its forces within 30 days and lift all sanctions on Iran.
- It would pave the way for a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran.
- The US would allow Iran to resume oil sales through temporary sanctions waivers.
- Iran, Oman and Gulf states would negotiate new shipping and maritime security arrangements for the Gulf.
The last stipulation, according to the paper, means that Iran and Oman would charge for transit through the Strait of Hormuz—something that did not exist before the war and gives Iran a source of revenue it did not have.
To me, this is a U.S. loss: our efforts gained us nothing: not the cessation of terrorism, not the drive of Iran to produce a nuclear weapon (we all know they’ll continue trying), nt the freedom of the Iranian people or even a weakening of the hard-line Islamist regime, and we may have even lost the right of free (unpaid) passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Plus we’ll release the Iranian funds frozen by the U.S.
I’ve already noted that this is a terrible deal for the U.S., and, in his latest column, “Iran found Trump’s bone spur” (archived here). I quote from Stephens’s piece, and I’ve put a bit in bold, a bit that makes me both sad and angry:
Iran’s military leaders have greeted the cease-fire agreement with President Trump as a triumph, crowing that “through the imposition of their divine and iron will” they had “humiliated American and Zionist enemies.”
Mostly, they’re right.
Mostly, because it’s worth remembering that the current regime in Iran is far less formidable than it was before the Hamas assault on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Back then, Iran had potent allies and proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and Yemen. Its nuclear program was intact and steadily accumulating ever larger quantities of highly enriched uranium. It had a powerful military-industrial base, a weak but functional economy and a government that — for all its repressiveness — was internationally recognized as legitimate.
Today, much of that is either gone or diminished. Iran is no longer within sprinting distance of a bomb. Its ally in Syria was deposed. Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis have lost much of their fighting strength. The Iranian rial is the world’s most worthless currency. The leadership rules an unhappy population that — outside of die-hard loyalists — would almost certainly overthrow it if given the chance. Its latest ballistic missile salvo against Israel failed to land a serious single blow. Its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz strained, but did not strangle, the world’s energy markets.
Those are real achievements against an evil, ambitious regime. Yet the outcome of war rarely rests on a tally of relative strength. War is a contest of wills. And in that contest, the hard men of Tehran appear to have scored a decisive victory over the vain man of Washington.
I write this as someone who supported the war from the outset and hoped to see Trump carry it through to a decisive result: if not regime change, then at least a deal in which Iran would be forced to relinquish all of its enrichment capabilities and access to the Strait was unfettered. Those goals were well within the president’s reach, particularly if he had continued to attack Iran’s military-industrial infrastructure until it agreed to terms, rather than conducting most of the negotiations after the fighting had mostly stopped.
But Trump got spooked after the regime didn’t instantly crumble and energy prices shot up. He then effectively abandoned the war he had started after less than six weeks of sustained combat — combat in which the United States lost fewer service members than in the 1983 invasion of Grenada. He compounded the error with an almost comical succession of military threats and last-minute climb-downs, each of them signaling indecision and weakness to Iranian adversaries practiced in the study of weakness.
Though the details of the deal remain murky — a telling indicator of its likely shoddiness, since the administration would surely trumpet the terms of a strong agreement — it’s already clear that Trump has betrayed his promise to the Iranian people, after they were massacred in January to quell antigovernment protests, that “help is on its way.” As in Venezuela, to say nothing of China and Russia, this administration’s message to oppressed people everywhere is that their rights come last.
Trump is also on his way to betraying Israel, our principal ally in this fight, by pushing Jerusalem to stand down in its effort to stop Hezbollah’s attacks on its north, in that way handing Tehran the victory of creating a diplomatic linkage between Lebanon and Hormuz. If Iran is now allowed to extract some kind of service fee for permitting ships to transit the Strait, Trump will have also betrayed our allies in the Persian Gulf by giving Iran financial and strategic leverage to which it has no right, and which it didn’t previously have.
. . . There’s a word for this: debacle. Not because the war, for all its costs or errors of execution, was a mistake. It’s because this pretense of a peace is an act of geopolitical self-harm that will haunt our standing in the world for years to come.
It’s very sad. Please weigh in below, giving your thoughts and opinion whether this is a good deal for the U.S., a bad deal, or whether you have no opinion about it.
I don’t know how Trump can claim victory when he’s merely restored a somewhat less favorable status quo, but you can be sure he’ll be crowing himself.
A rather ironic (old) tweet by Trump himself: https://x.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1213078681750573056?s=12
Very funny, and kinda true Coel: “Iran never won a war or lost a negotiation” – Trump.
They are worthy adversaries but we must beat them as the Islamic Republic is the most evil regime of our lifetime.
best,
D.A.
NYC 🗽
Yeah, they pretty bad, but at least they don’t have nukes (yet). I’d give “the most evil regime of our lifetime” award to Putin. Though KJU could claim it in a heartbeat.
Serious question: what does eradicating Islamic terrorism look like? I really can’t envision what it would take. Not in this digitized world, anyway.
An utter humiliating defeat of the United States of America.
250 years ago, Jefferson sent ships to stop Muslims from destroying our property, enslaving US citizens and those of many countries. That was a key step in ending slavery in the world, on principle and in fact. I am proud we did that.
250 years later, Muslims have got their revenge, and I am ashamed of the United States. Where the hell are our balls?
NOTE: This is not a Trump thing. Democrats would have let Muslims win. By doing nothing.
One can go back and forth about the shoulda coulda woulda. But I don’t see how we could have won. It isn’t about our military strength, but other factors like our unwillingness to put a LOT of boots on the ground and be willing to absorb a lot of American casualties. The prospect of this was against left and right public opinion, and against a congress with mid-terms looming, ya-da-ya-da-ya-da.
One can try to counter by bringing up the threat to bomb oil fields, but carrying that out was never acceptable, as I understand it.
One thing is clear as well is that the balance of powers are equalizing because of swarms of cheap military drones. Even a weaker power, fighting from home, can sap the resources and will of a greater adversary.
Having a bit of military experience (which dies not guarantee that my opinion is correct), I think that the US could achieve victory without putting boots on the ground. If the issue is the Strait, the US could achieve its objectives by denying Iran’s ability to use the strait as long as there is no freedom of movement for all. While it would raise prices for a while, Iran’s economy is on the verge of collapse, and such a move would be far more devastating to Iran than to the West.
As far as the uranium, the main immediate problem is denying the Iranians access. That can be done from the air.
Same goes for the missiles. A clear demonstration of immediate and savage retaliation (on military and regime targets, not civilians) for any missiles fired, as well as targeting regime figures (military, intelligence, and government leaders) will make Iran realize that the cost function of missile attacks is just too high.
The current war is economic. All that it takes to win is willpower: that of the American people and the American government. And it has to last over time. Sadly, I don’t see an abundance of either.
@Starwolf
USA lost the war. Iranian people still in bondage to theocracy. Regime controls a horde of uranium. Free world is not in control of the Strait, since the regime’s agreement means nothing.
Humiliation.
Come now. This is absolutely a Trump (administration) thing.
@Darrell Ernst
I’ll amend as follows:
NOTE: This is NOT ONLY a Trump thing. Democrats would have let Muslims win. By doing nothing.
It absolutely is a Trmp thing. Obama (Dem) signed an agreement with Iran that was better than this one and Trmp tore it up. Then he started a war and now he’s pleading with and bribing the Iranian government to make things the way they were before he started.
Iran’s actions also have nothing to do with the Barbary slave trade. You should not be connecting them on the grounds that they share a religion.
Overall it is a bad deal. I can’t say it any better than Bret Stephens.
Bret Stephens is, like me, a maximalist.
To quote Mick Jagger “You can’t always get what you want…” but in this case, with the huge achievements he lists, we’ve sorta kinda got what we need, which is attrition of Iran’s power.
I don’t think regime change was ever really likely, but with our Israeli allies we have altered the strength and dynamics of the Islamic Republic. At little cost.
My position, and Mr. Stephens’, is more maximalist than our host here: I’ve never, ever, even for a moment, believed in any “Two State Solution” in Israel. And further, it is bonkers to think that the US can somehow deliver Israel’s “proxy vote” in any peace forum. Israel’s war in Lebanon will, and must, continue – to the detriment of the (mostly) lovely people of Lebanon. It is Israel’s business and it is important to separate the two fights, despite Tehran’s wishes.
D.A.
NYC 🗽
Ah. So reparations are in the MOU. $300 billion. Sweet.
I have to stress, though, that the American people have to wear this. If they wanted to win they would have told their elected President to buckle up and told their Congressmen to ignore the New York Times and get behind him on it. The whole chorus all the way through is that this is (was) an illegal war by an insane evil dictator that we want no part of. Well, you got your wish. What did you want him to do? Defy public opinion until he won or got impeached?
Negotiations don’t really depend on the skill or incompetence of the negotiators. They depend on what each side knows about the strengths of the other side, and what the adversary has not been able to keep secret about its weaknesses including how badly it needs a deal as the alternative to walking away or prevailing with force. Iran knew from the get-go that you had no popular willingness to invade or use nuclear weapons, and not the political staying power for what you were willing to do to become decisively effective. Secular multicultural socialist democracies won’t even tolerate expensive gasoline, much less fight (bloodlessly!) for their own interests because they have none. Handy for theocracies to know. Tours won’t have to be re-fought.
Prime Minister Carney loves the deal. He’s already manoeuvring to have Canada help facilitate the unfreezing of Iran’s foreign assets. Great guy.
I don’t see Carney’s actions as anything other than a low-cost opportunity to flatter and talk-up the Donald given other upcoming potential sources of disagreement (e.g. F35s, etc.). For example, he said the deal is “well-structured” – good that he could say that with a straight face.
So this humiliation isn’t Trump’s fault but the American people’s? If there’s one thing this blog has taught me, it’s that you can be an atheist yet still be in a cult.
Would you like to explain that last statement?
It’s evident to me that some portion of your commentariat is in the MAGA cult.
You have not read the Roolz, have you? Pity. . . .
If this isn’t a deception to make the Islamic Republic of Iran lower its guard while the US and Isreal make preparations for a final assault; then it is an incredibly BAD deal for Israel and the US. The Iranian people deserve the rescue promised by Trump. Nothing less than unconditional surrender should be acceptable.
Assuming that the provisions above are correct, or close, it appears to me that Iran, while set back, will have everything it needs to build back better within a few years. Now on to a couple of the specifics:
Israel’s defense. According to provision 1, Israel’s ability to defend itself has been bargained away without its consent. But no Israeli leader will long tolerate putting its defense on ice. Consequently, Israel and the United States will soon be on a collision course (score one for Iran). An inevitable response by Israel to an attack from the north will draw ire from the U.S., cause Iran to delay or break off negotiations, reignite the current war or even start a new one. Is Israel now entirely on its own?
Pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran has long promised that the country was not pursuing a nuclear weapon, despite all the evidence to the contrary. How can anyone take Iran’s restatement of that lie seriously?
The status of U.S. forces in the region. Will the U.S. be able to use the threat of force to comply with any of its provisions? I don’t see how, since the MOU stipulates that the U.S. “withdraw its forces from the surrounding areas within 30 days after the final agreement.” Once U.S. forces stand down and leave the region, it’s all over. It’s too expensive to go back. This was a one-time opportunity that appears to have been squandered.
Well, at least we mowed the lawn.
What evidence was there that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon between the signing of Obama’s deal and Tr*mp ripping it up?
What do you mean by “we mowed the lawn?”
A disastrous deal if facts are as reported. Agree entirely with Stephens.
For reasons I won’t discuss here, I don’t accept assertions that Trump doesn’t care about the midterms. Moreover, he knows that if he loses both chambers of Congress this fall, then the Hill will shut down anything he is doing in Iran and elsewhere. If war is raging and gas prices soaring come October or November, there is a high likelihood of that happening. Trump must either attain all his core objectives in Iran now or change his fight to retaining control of at least one chamber. But it is implausible that either Trump or any other president could pull off “victory” in Iran over the next few months. Since the job cannot be finished that soon, he has opted for the midterm political fight.
If Trump is set on this—for whatever reason—then Rubio and the other Iran hawks need to adapt. Retaining Republican control of the Senate is key given that the House is more likely to shift. Iran will violate the agreement. Trump has two years left to respond. They need to have a full set of military, economic, and diplomatic plans ready to go for early next year. In the meantime, the intel community has to keep an eagle’s eye on the nuclear program.
I have always said this is a long fight, so lack of immediate progress doesn’t bother me as it does some others. My lens is more of a Cold War 2 that will frequently get hot than it is one of surrender on the Missouri. My chief concern has always been that U.S. politics will fracture any chance of a coherent strategy operating across administrations of different parties. Now it’s not clear whether appropriate resolve can endure a single administration.
It seems like a bad deal to me. I have nothing to add to the criticism of the deal. I do think it isn’t widely appreciated that GCC countries are implementing workarounds to closure of Strait of Hormuz. As i understand it, Saudi Arabia is exporting 7 Mbopd via Red Sea and UAE is exporting 1.8 Mbopd via a pipeline around the Strait and is rushing to build infrastructure to export all their oil via road and pipeline. So by 1 year from now, likely over 9 Mbopd will be exported via those two routes. This compares with total oil production of 106 Mbopd in 2025. I see oft quoted ‘20 percent of oil production goes via Strait of Hormuz’ which would be 21 Mbopd. Iran will be exporting perhaps 3 Mbopd or more once they get production up so the threat of closing Strat of Hormuz is actually nowhere near a threat of shutting off 20 percent of oil production over the medium term. Kuwait and Qatar have geography that makes it almost impossible to solve the strait closing. Bahrain and Iraq are in difficult geographical positions though not quite as bad given Bahrain logistical links to Saudi Arabia and Iraq pipeline to Turkey. Of course Iran can see this and threaten to bomb Saudi and Emirati pipelines but it is called an arms race for a reason – they will develop strategies to counter the drones and missiles. Nome of this is to say it isn’t a bad deal. Just to say that Iran’s Hormuz card is not the ace many of them think it is.
In addition to the points made in the post, there are a few others.
Iran pledges not to interfere with the internal affairs of the US.
Does that include paying for the supposed students (who exist without other means of support) who have been studying for many years at US institutions without even trying to receive a degree—some of whom are in their 30s? their only purpose is to agitate against US policies and Israel. From where else would they get their money?
Does that include sending assassins to kill Iran dissidents living in the US? The best known is Masih, but there are certainly others.
does that include their agitating, by means of social media, against support for Israel and other policies favored by the Iranian government?
One other point I would like to make. Though Iran’s nuclear and missile programs have indeed been set back, they will recover far more quickly than the US estimates. Iran is technologically advanced, and they receive a lot of support form countries like North Korea, China, and Russia, who see weakening US interests as a priority. And freeing up frozen funds will enable faster development of offensive weapons. I do not imagine that there is anyone really naive enough to believe that Iran will abandon their nuclear weapon ambitions—and don’t forget that they have always denied those ambitions. The West conveniently pretended to believe those denials, even though there is no civilian use for uranium enriched to the degree that the Iranians were openly doing.
If the US is serious about this MOU (which remains to be seen) it is no better than the Obama agreement.
Finally, the abandonment of Iranian dissidents is shameful. And I especially point to the American left, who pretend that they stand for women’s rights. They can discuss “me too” till the cows come home, all the while ignoring the real atrocities against women perpetrated by the Iranian regime, which are well documented. For shame!
The American Left only pretends to stand for women’s rights when those rights are violated by white Republican men who identify as such. When women’s rights are violated by Democrats, trans “women”, or Islamofascists, they either go silent or defend the violations.
Much of this sort of thing is summarized by Masih’s posts calling out people like AOC.
But it is not only the Americans. Look at Britain. The (mostly) Pakistani grooming gangs story is as horrible as it gets.
Yeah, you really nailed the “American Left.”
Take the most extreme positions of a loud faction on the left and broadbrush the millions therein. Offensive, especially coming from someone who is not American.
Actually I am American. But OK, I should’ve said “progressive” Left or “woke” Left to distinguish from the Left I was once aligned with (I’ve never voted Republican BTW).
I thought you were Australian, sorry. Why? I have no idea. It was probably your accent. lol. Obviously mixed you up with another reader.
Thanks for the clarification. I get the concern. Though dems are still more pro-woman than the GOP. Government deciding what women can do with their lives outweighs the harm of trans ideology. It’s simply the numbers involved…and the overarching right to privacy.
Mark, to clarify, I am a US citizen living in Australia. So you did not confuse me with another commentator.
I grew up in the western US (not on the coast). I agree with Mike; I should have complained about the progressive left. I suppose that my politics would be classified as Liberal, in the original meaning of the word.
My fear is that the woke, progressive left is taking over the Democratic Party as Trumpism has taken over the Republican Party. As things stand, I do not think that either party represents my views.
Bret Stephens sums it up well.
One thing I’d add: Trump could have continued the naval blockade with resuming the shooting war.
That would have kept oil prices elevated.
But I’m not sure how much that matters for the midterms: I get the impression that there aren’t many swing voters left. Everyone has picked a side.
By effectively surrendering, some of his less strong supporters may stay home.
But it’s also possible he was being pushed by the Gulf Arab states to end the whole thing. So many factors.
One should not be surprised that Trump failed in his multiple stated objectives for attacking Iran. The JCPOA agreement shepherded by the Obama administration involved months of negotiations and multiple nations–while Trump said he was bored with the negotiations and has alienated our allies. As I’ve stated before, this is what you get when you have incompetent people cosplaying as serious people. Elect a clown and you get a circus.
Yes. I continue to be surprised at how many people seemed to believe that this adventure would have a good outcome, given how many examples of incompetence, and worse, this administration has provided.
Inside this thing there’s a bribe to the Trump’s Mafia. I think he, family and friends only think about money. If (very big if) this thing goes ahead wait for Ivanka in love with a little island in Hormuz waters
Sez they REITERATE that they will “never produce nuclear weapons”. Same thing they’ve always said! Nothing new here, nothing to see here, move along, 8647 & Three Hundred Billion Dollars ante to play in the next round.
Greg Z:
Sublime.