The United States and Iran are close to finalizing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) aimed at ending hostilities. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated, "We have never been this close to an agreement," while Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif confirmed that a draft of the final agreement has been completed. Araghchi also announced that the MOU has received approval from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the National Security Council.
After 47 years of adversarial relations, the U.S. and Iran are set to formally recognize each other's sovereignty and agree to cease hostilities. The significance of this agreement is substantial. However, it is crucial to recognize that this agreement is not a declaration of peace but rather the starting point for negotiations.
The MOU serves as a provisional framework that includes a 60-day nuclear negotiation period, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and the lifting of U.S. maritime blockades. Issues such as Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, the dismantling of nuclear facilities, its ballistic missile program, and support for regional proxy groups like Hezbollah have all been deferred to subsequent discussions. The most challenging issues remain unresolved.
The negotiation landscape remains precarious. Reports indicate that hardline security factions within Iran, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), have yet to sign the provisional agreement. These groups have delayed progress in negotiations, arguing against conceding any perceived victories to the U.S. and Israel. Iran's dual structure, where diplomatic and IRGC channels operate separately, could pose serious disruptions during the implementation phase, even after the agreement is signed.
On the U.S. side, uncertainty persists. President Donald Trump recently threatened military action against Iran before abruptly announcing a potential agreement, followed by a post criticizing Iran's lack of sincerity. Had leaders from various Middle Eastern countries not intervened to request a halt to hostilities, the negotiations could have collapsed. This volatility, driven by personal impulses and declarations, poses a risk throughout the 60-day negotiation period.
The situation in the Strait of Hormuz is particularly critical. Approximately 20% of the world's oil supply passes through this waterway, and its blockade has severely impacted international energy markets and logistics over the past four months. The draft MOU specifies the reopening of the strait within 30 days; however, Araghchi emphasized that management of the strait will not revert to pre-war conditions. Iran and Oman have announced plans to impose 'service fees,' a move strongly opposed by the U.S. If the principle of free navigation is compromised, global energy security may remain in a chronic state of instability even after negotiations conclude.
The Israeli factor complicates the equation further. Israel has expressed concerns that the agreement does not effectively curb Iran's nuclear ambitions and has hinted at the possibility of unilateral action if necessary. Additionally, there is a clash between Iran's demands for Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and the U.S. stance of reserving the right to respond to any attacks. Even if the MOU includes provisions to end conflicts across all fronts, it may ultimately result in mere paper peace if Israel does not accept it.
Despite these challenges, the signing of the MOU should be supported. The costs of war have already inflicted unbearable tolls on civilians, the economy, and regional security. Ceasing hostilities and initiating negotiations is a preferable choice. However, for this provisional agreement to lead to sustainable peace, three essential steps must follow.
First, Iran's obligations under nuclear non-proliferation must be addressed as a core issue during the 60-day negotiations, resulting in a verifiable and binding agreement on the handling of enriched uranium. Mere declarations will not suffice.
Second, the Strait of Hormuz must restore the principle of free navigation in accordance with international law. The imposition of fees or restrictions on passage would undermine the interests of all trading nations and must be resolved during the 60-day negotiations.
Third, a multilateral monitoring system is necessary to ensure compliance with the agreement. Verbal commitments between the U.S. and Iran alone cannot guarantee implementation. A multilateral mechanism, including the United Nations Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), should guide the post-agreement process.
The MOU marks the beginning. True peace will emerge from the more challenging negotiations that commence the day after the signing. The international community must not waste this 60-day window.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.