Read More
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that the US has reached “The Deal” with Iran. The question, however, is whether this so-called “The Deal” is merely a Memorandum of Understanding with no legally binding effect, or a legally enforceable agreement.
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
In reality, Trump’s persistent use of the term “The Deal” to describe the document signed with Iran appears intended to fuel market optimism and encourage investors to believe that a major diplomatic breakthrough has been achieved. If the document is, in fact, nothing more than a framework-style MoU, then it is fundamentally no different from the temporary ceasefire arrangement signed on April 8. Such a scenario would suggest that there has been little substantive progress in resolving the underlying disputes between the United States and Iran. By contrast, describing the document as “The Deal” creates the impression that the long-standing conflict between the two countries is finally approaching a genuine resolution.
To be fair, since April 8, the United States and Iran have engaged in multiple rounds of both indirect and direct communication, facilitated by intermediaries such as Pakistan. It would therefore be inaccurate to suggest that no progress has been made. In recent weeks, several Middle Eastern countries have also participated in efforts to mediate between Washington and Tehran, and the overall situation has indeed improved compared with that of April 8. The issue, however, is that while Trump has portrayed the document reached with Iran as “The Deal,” Iran has tended to characterize it as an MoU. This discrepancy itself indicates that significant differences between the two sides remain unresolved. Consequently, any attempt to achieve a durable and comprehensive peace agreement between the United States and Iran is likely to require prolonged negotiations.
What, then, are the outstanding issues dividing the two countries? These include whether Iran’s overseas assets frozen by Western countries will be released, and if so, to what extent. Another major question is whether the United States and Europe are prepared to lift some or all of the sanctions imposed on Iran. There is also uncertainty surrounding the timeline for the end of the conflict involving Israel and Lebanon. Furthermore, critical questions remain over whether Iran would be willing to surrender its entire stockpile of enriched uranium, or alternatively, how such stockpiles should be managed and disposed of.
Perhaps the issue of greatest concern to the international community is the future of the Strait of Hormuz. Will the waterway be fully reopened only after the above disputes have been resolved, or will freedom of navigation be restored first while negotiations continue on the remaining issues? In addition, questions persist regarding the naval mines laid by Iran: would Iran itself assist in clearing these mines, or would Western nations undertake the task independently?
These unresolved matters illustrate that substantial obstacles remain, and it may still take several months before a comprehensive settlement can be reached. As such, Trump’s description of the arrangement as “The Deal” appears, in substance, to resemble an MoU more closely than a binding peace agreement. Moreover, if the arrangement is indeed an MoU, sporadic clashes between the United States and Iran are likely to continue, while a full restoration of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz would remain difficult. Under such circumstances, even a recovery to around 30 percent of the strait’s normal shipping capacity could be considered a relatively favorable outcome.
Andrew Wong is a veteran independent commentator
