A 14-point memorandum released recently has raised significant concerns among critics, particularly because it offers a lot of leeway in terms of negotiation and interpretation.
President Trump signed the agreement, which serves as a foundation for 60 days of discussions aimed at curtailing Iran’s nuclear program and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
U.S. officials characterized the framework as a way to end ongoing hostilities and reinitiate talks.
However, some analysts have pointed to vague language regarding Lebanon, Iranian assets, the Strait of Hormuz, and the future of U.S. policy towards Iran.
Beni Sabti, an Iran expert from Tel Aviv University, noted, “Different interpretations can lead to misunderstandings and potential conflict.” He also commented on how the Iranian regime seeks insights from written agreements.
The most pressing issues seem to be:
“The United States of America, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and their allies in the ongoing conflict, by signing this Memorandum of Understanding, declare an immediate and permanent halt to military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, and vow to refrain from future conflicts against each other. The final agreement will confirm the permanent cessation of the war in Lebanon and other relevant provisions.”
The language related to Lebanon has fueled worries in Israel, as it is not involved in the agreement yet has conducted military operations against Iran-backed Hezbollah there.
Sabti asserted, “If Israel feels the need to defend itself or launch an attack, it will do so.” He added that Israel doesn’t necessarily follow U.S. directions on security matters.
While Israel has stuck to its military presence in Lebanon, some Iranian voices suggest Tehran should demand a troop withdrawal before signing off on the agreement.
It remains uncertain how these commitments will be monitored, who will adjudicate whether violations have occurred, and if Israeli actions against Hezbollah would be seen as undermining the deal.
“The United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to avoid interference in each other’s internal matters.”
The memorandum notably lacks mention of the protests against the Iranian regime, where approximately 30,000 civilians were killed in January during demonstrations over the cost of living. This omission raises concerns that further acts of repression by the Iranian government could limit U.S. responses.
The document does not clarify what actions would be deemed problematic interference, raising doubts about the future U.S. support for Iranian opposition movements and dissenters. Previous administrations have voiced support for protesters and condemned the Iranian government’s actions, with Trump expressing solidarity in a Truth Social post back in January.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran, in consultation with other Persian Gulf regions, will engage in discussions with Oman to establish future management and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz. Gulf states will comply with international law and the sovereign rights of the states in the Strait.”
The mention of “administrative and maritime services” hints that Iran and Oman could potentially impose service fees on vessels using the strait. While the Strait of Hormuz is legally an international waterway, service charges may still apply.
Recent discussions between Iran and Oman indicate they are exploring how to implement such fees.
“The United States commits to collaborating with regional partners to develop a mutually agreed-upon plan for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran, estimated to cost at least $300 billion.”
The memorandum does not clarify where this $300 billion will originate from, leaving open the possibility of it being funded mainly by Gulf states, private investments, or international financial institutions.
Trump has insisted that U.S. taxpayers shouldn’t fund Iran, though the memorandum does not specify this. Additionally, the proposed funding would be among the largest economic initiatives ever considered in the region.
Rebecca Heinrichs, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, commented that whether taxpayer funds are involved is irrelevant, stating, “It reflects the damages inflicted by the U.S. and Israel on Iran, almost akin to reparations.”
She noted, “Iran has caused significant damage to U.S. military assets.”
Heinrichs further stated that unfreezing Iranian assets should serve to address damages inflicted instead of being viewed merely as assistance.
The text acknowledges that many issues remain unresolved, given that the finer details of the initiative are still being worked out.
“The United States commits to granting full access to Iran’s frozen or restricted funds and assets. Upon implementing this memorandum, both nations will mutually agree on procedures related to these funds during negotiations.”
This provision does not specify the total amount to be released or the timeline for this action. Estimates prior to the memorandum suggested amounts ranging from $6 billion to $24 billion, but ambiguities leave room for a much higher figure.
Iran is believed to have over $100 billion in total frozen or restricted funds abroad.
Additionally, there are no limitations placed on how these released funds can be used, leading some to predict that they may be diverted for nefarious purposes. Sabti warned that significant funds could go towards supporting terrorist activities and missile programs.
Regional reports suggest Iran may allocate some of this money to Hezbollah.
Tehran has long sought to access these funds, with the U.S. previously denying any release without clear changes in Iran’s nuclear activities. However, the memorandum leaves open the possibility of immediate, phased, or contingent releases based on compliance with the agreement.
