Signing a piece of paper is the easy part. Enforcing it is where things usually fall apart, especially when dealing with Tehran.
The June 17 Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran has been framed by some as a diplomatic breakthrough to end months of bitter military clashes. But if you look closely at the details, Washington is taking an massive gamble. The terms are heavily front-loaded with major economic rewards for Iran, while the actual security commitments from the Islamic Republic remain dangerously vague and kicked down the road. If you enjoyed this piece, you should read: this related article.
Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed this 14-point framework remotely, setting up a 60-day window to negotiate a permanent peace treaty. On paper, it ends a brutal conflict that erupted earlier this year, halts naval blockades, and reopens the strategic Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping. Look beneath the surface, though, and you will see that the US has given up major leverage before securing any verifiable, permanent changes from the Iranian regime.
What Washington Gave Up on Day One
The biggest issue with this interim agreement is how fast the economic relief flows to Tehran. Under the terms of the memorandum, the US agreed to lift its naval blockade of Iranian ports almost immediately, allowing commercial traffic to return to full capacity within 30 days. For another perspective on this story, refer to the recent update from TIME.
Worse, the US Treasury is already issuing waivers to allow Iran to export its crude oil, petrochemical products, and related services to global markets. This completely punctures the "maximum pressure" strategy. After months of economic strangulation, the regime is suddenly getting its primary revenue stream handed right back.
Then there is the cash. The text binds the US to unfreezing and making "fully available" restricted Iranian funds abroad, a haul that experts estimate could be worth up to $100 billion. The language here is surprisingly loose. It notes that the funds will be paid to any beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of Iran. Anyone who tracks the region knows what that means. The Central Bank answers directly to the leadership, meaning those billions can easily flow into the pockets of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or fund advanced ballistic missile development.
To top it off, Article 6 commits the US and its regional partners to draft a massive reconstruction and economic development package for Iran worth at least $300 billion. It is a stunning amount of economic incentive for a state that was on its ropes just weeks ago.
The Nuclear Loopholes Left Wide Open
In exchange for all this cash and sanctions relief, what did the US actually get on the nuclear front? Not nearly enough.
The agreement states that during the 60-day negotiation period, Iran will maintain the "status quo" on its nuclear program. That sounds fine until you remember that Iran's status quo in 2026 is that of a virtual nuclear weapon state, possessing highly enriched uranium stockpiles dangerously close to weapons-grade levels.
The memorandum claims that any final deal will resolve the disposition of this enriched material, noting that the "minimum methodology" will be down-blending the uranium on-site under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision. But this leaves massive, glaring holes:
- No Enrichment Ban: It doesn't force Iran to dismantle its vast centrifuge cascades or stop enrichment entirely.
- No Export Requirement: Unlike previous frameworks where Iran had to ship its enriched stockpiles out of the country to places like Russia or Oman, this text allows them to keep it on-site.
- Vague Inspections: The document says nothing about "anytime, anywhere" snap inspections at undeclared or military sites, which have historically been where Iran hides its clandestine work.
By letting Iran keep its core nuclear infrastructure intact while down-blending only portions of its material, the regime retains the technical know-how and hardware to ramp enrichment right back up the moment a future dispute arises.
Undermining Regional Allies and Ignoring Terrorism
The document doesn't just fall short on the nuclear issue; it completely sidelines the security concerns of America's closest allies in the region, most notably Israel.
The text mandates an immediate and permanent termination of military operations "on all fronts, including in Lebanon." While stopping a wider war sounds noble, this provision effectively ties Israel's hands. It forces a halt to operations meant to permanently disarm Hezbollah, even though Israel wasn't a direct party to these bilateral talks. This directly undercuts separate, US-backed ceasefire talks from earlier this month which stated that any Israel-Lebanon border security agreements must be handled directly between those two nations, not through a side track.
Furthermore, the memorandum requires the US to completely eliminate all primary and secondary sanctions on Iran under a final agreement, including UN Security Council resolutions. Many of those primary US sanctions were originally put in place not because of nuclear enrichment, but because of state-sponsored terrorism and human rights abuses. By agreeing to wipe them out, Washington is trading away its terrorism leverage without demanding a single written promise from Tehran to stop arming regional proxy networks or plotting external attacks.
How the US Can Pivot Before the 60-Day Clock Runs Out
The clock is ticking. The 60-day window to turn this memorandum into a legally binding treaty means American negotiators have very little time to fix these structural flaws. If Washington wants to prevent this from becoming a repeat of past failed diplomatic experiments, the negotiating team must immediately pivot and draw hard lines during the ongoing technical talks.
First, the US must halt further asset releases and oil waivers until Iran demonstrates concrete, irreversible steps. Economic relief shouldn't be granted based on promises; it must be tied to verified actions. The US needs to demand that all enriched uranium stockpiles above 3.67% purity be physically removed from Iranian soil before a single dollar of the $100 billion frozen assets is fully cleared for use.
Second, negotiators must insert an airtight, automatic "snapback" mechanism into the final treaty text. If Iran blocks an IAEA inspector, spins up advanced centrifuges, or restarts hostile maritime actions in the Strait of Hormuz, all US and UN sanctions must instantly automatically reimpose without requiring a vote from the UN Security Council, where Russia or China would surely use their veto power.
Finally, the administration cannot bypass the legislature. Article 14 of the memorandum implies the final deal will be cemented through a binding UN Security Council resolution, completely ignoring the constitutional role of the US Congress. To make any peace agreement durable beyond the current administration, it must be submitted to the US Senate for review. A deal built entirely on executive actions can be torn up by the next president, creating a loop of instability that helps no one. Washington needs to stop chasing the illusion of a quick diplomatic win and start demanding verifiable behavior change.
