Unpacking the Fragile MOU Between the US and Iran

On June 17, President Donald Trump electronically signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the US and Iran, ending the US-Iran conflict. It now seems on the verge of collapse, but what it says remains relevant. The text of the 14-point document addresses first and foremost ending Iran’s aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon. However, the agreement also includes ending the hostilities between Israel and Lebanon. It opens the Strait of Hormuz to free transit for 60 days – though Iran now may be backpedaling on that – and the wording allows for the end of the US Naval blockade. The text also addresses lifting economic sanctions. However, there is a “but” at the end of the agreement’s positive terms. The MOU deals effectively with the nuclear issue, but it does not mention Iran ceasing production of long-range ballistic missiles or supporting terrorist proxies in the region. These were crucial concerns before the conflict began on February 28.

In the End It Will Be Iran That Must Give Peace a Chance

Unpacking the MOU – also referred to as the Islamabad Memorandum in deference to Pakistan, a key go-between in achieving the final agreement – reveals real positive breakthroughs and problems. In his insightful assessment of the MOU, “All Trump Is Saying Is Give Peace a Chance,” Liberty Nation News’ Tim Donner makes a fair point that there are MOU detractors on both the political left and among neoconservative hawks. Donner explained: “In the end, it is more often than not true that a deal criticized by both sides – in this case, both hawks and doves – is probably a fair deal, or at least the best available deal.” However, despite the upside, there are incredibly difficult issues to be resolved as well. 

The ink was not dry on the MOU when Iran pulled out of post-MOU technical discussions because of hostilities that continue between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. A US diplomat “familiar with the talks” reportedly told CNN that the talks were called off because Tehran wants a guarantee that Israel won’t attack Hezbollah in Lebanon anymore. So, the 60-day negotiating period is in jeopardy because Hezbollah, which cannot or will not be controlled by Iran, continues to launch rockets and drones into Israel, and Israel responds against Hezbollah in Lebanon with ground and air attacks. Israel is maintaining troops in a buffer zone in southern Lebanon to protect its northern border from Hezbollah air attacks. Iran is demanding that Israel withdraw.

Nonetheless, looking more closely at some of the MOU paragraphs, there are troubling statements. In the first paragraph, the United States and Iran commit not only themselves but “their allies in the current war” to the “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon…” One might assume that by allies the signers meant Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and a host of Iranian proxies. It doesn’t say that, though. It includes Lebanon, but Israel’s conflict on its northern border is not with Lebanon; it’s with the Hezbollah terrorists. The US has significant influence over the actions of Israel; however, when Hezbollah consistently lobs rockets and drones into the country, killing its citizens and soldiers, it may be a big ask to persuade Israel not to retaliate. Put simply, paragraph one may establish a commitment from players over whom neither the US nor Iran has control. Donner makes this point as well.

Paragraph three may seem straightforward and outline a timeline for the US and Iran to iron out the details of the final agreement. Unpacking the sentence, however, raises a serious question. Just how long are the negotiations going to be, really? The sentence describes a commitment “to negotiating and achieving the final deal in a maximum 60 days, extendable with mutual consent.” First, if it’s a deal to be had in a “maximum of 60 days,” why is there the caveat that the time frame is “extendable with mutual consent?” Iran is notorious for using every ploy to protract negotiations toward no discernible end in hopes of wearing down the other side. The final phrase is a wide-open door for the Iranians to do just that. There should have been an additional condition that if no progress in the discussions is deemed forthcoming by the US, the US will be obliged to commence hostilities. 

The Nuclear Issue Is Key

The cause célèbre and defining dispute for decades has been Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It would seem that the first sentence of paragraph eight deals finally with the issue. “The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons.” Though the statement rings as definitive, the term “reaffirms” is curious. The assumption is that the first affirmation was the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). However, the JCPOA did not work out well, and many in the Trump administration believe it was a sure path for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon rather than a prohibition. It’s why President Trump, in his first term, pulled the US out of the JCPOA. Consequently, it’s one of the factors that will have to be nailed down in the 60 days until the final deal is inked.

A particularly troubling element of the MOU is that part of the implementation of the agreement where the US will “make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MOU.” Reports are that the value of the frozen funds is $24 billion. How those funds are to be released and presumably for what will be part of the 60-day negotiations. The concern for those evaluating the MOU is that the released funds and assets will be used to support Iran’s terror organization and not used to benefit the people of Iran with reconstruction.

Assessing the MOU as a whole, a couple of things pop out. The wording in the agreement of understanding depends on Iran’s goodwill. Historically, there is little evidence that Iran has ever negotiated in good faith. There may be an intention to include appropriate wording in the “final deal,” but there is no explanation of what the US will do if Iran strings the US along. Where is the stick? US negotiators may believe that consequences for Iran’s bad faith are implicit in the agreement. That requires a level of understanding of diplomatic subtleties of which Iran seems incapable.

 ~

The views expressed are those of the author and not of any other affiliate.