Iran and US trade rival readings of MoU before 60-day talks mature

Less than a week after the two sides signed the MoU to end more than three months of war, its contradictions are already shaping the next phase of diplomacy: Hormuz is open, but ships may still need Iranian permission; funds are “available,” but Washington says they may be channeled toward wheat, corn and other approved purchases; inspectors are “back,” according to US officials, but Iran says there is no plan for UN inspectors to visit bombed nuclear sites; oil sales have been authorized, but Vice President JD Vance says Tehran will not benefit unless it changes behavior; Lebanon is written into the deal, but Israel is not a party to it.

For Iran, ambiguity has become leverage. Officials in Tehran are insisting that implementation of the MoU’s early provisions is a precondition for talks on more sensitive issues, while rejecting US descriptions of what the next stage should include.

Nuclear sites and missiles

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said on Tuesday that Tehran had not met International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi in Switzerland and had no plan for UN nuclear inspectors to visit facilities damaged in US and Israeli strikes.

“We have not had a meeting with the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, nor do we have any plans for an agency inspection of Iran’s nuclear facilities that were damaged as a result of the military attack by the United States and the Zionist regime,” Baghaei said. “Basically, there is no procedure at all in this regard.”

That directly undercut Vance’s statement that talks on inspectors’ return could begin this week and President Donald Trump’s claim that Iran would agree to “major weapons inspections.”

Baghaei also ruled out talks on Iran’s missile program.

“Iran’s defensive and missile capabilities have never been part of our talks, nor will they ever be subject to negotiation with any party,” he said.

Money, oil and the first rewards

The dispute over money is just as sharp. Baghaei rejected the idea that Iran had agreed to spend released assets on US agricultural goods, after Vance said Washington wanted a mechanism to steer funds toward purchases such as soy, corn and wheat.

Baghaei said Iran would use its assets based on national needs, including price and quality.

“What is important for us is access to assets that have been unjustly blocked,” he said.

At the same time, the US Treasury has issued a 60-day license allowing Iran to produce, sell and deliver crude oil, petroleum products and petrochemicals, with related banking, insurance and transport services.

That gives both sides a political line. Washington says deeper benefits remain conditional. Tehran can point to immediate oil authorization and access to blocked assets as proof that pressure has begun to give way.

The same ambiguity surrounds the proposed $300 billion reconstruction framework. It exists in the text, but US officials have denied direct US or Qatari payments, leaving unclear whether it means grants, investment, credit facilities or future regional funding.

Hormuz is open, but under whose rules?

The Strait of Hormuz is the clearest practical test.

Ali Bahreini, Iran’s ambassador to the UN office in Geneva, said Tuesday that Hormuz was “completely open” to commercial vessels and that no charges would be collected during the 60-day period.

“Yes, the Strait of Hormuz is completely open, of course, for commercial vessels, according to the memorandum of understanding,” Bahreini said. “And it is without receiving any charges. After 60 days, it depends on the negotiations.”

But the Financial Times reported that shipowners are in “deep confusion” over conflicting guidance. Iran has told vessels to seek permission from Tehran and use a route near the Iranian coast, while the US and some Western insurers advise ships to use a route on the Omani side under US air cover.

That leaves shipowners weighing the risk of Iranian interference against possible sanctions, insurance or compliance concerns.

The contradiction captures the MoU’s central problem: the US says Hormuz has reopened; Iran says reopening proves ships must deal with Tehran’s authority.

Lebanon still as the next flashpoint

Lebanon may be the deal’s most dangerous test.

Bahreini said Iran told the Switzerland talks that Lebanon is an “unquestionable part” of the MoU and that ending military operations must include respect for Lebanon’s territorial integrity, a halt to attacks and Israeli withdrawal.

“Iran’s red line is any attack against Lebanon, any more attack against Lebanon,” he said.

He warned that Iran would respond to any violation, including attacks on Lebanon or Hezbollah.

“If they are going to violate the MOU in any format, including by attacking Lebanon and Hezbollah in Lebanon, then Iran will respond,” he said.

Earlier on Tuesday, Reuters reported that Israeli gunfire killed two people in southern Lebanon, the first reported fatalities from Israeli fire there in three days. The Israeli military said it struck armed militants who posed an immediate threat.

A joint statement after US-Iran talks mediated by Pakistan and Qatar said the parties had agreed to create a deconfliction cell to monitor the termination of hostilities in Lebanon. But Israel is not a party to the US-Iran MoU, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this week that Israeli troops retain freedom of action against Hezbollah threats and will remain in Lebanon as long as necessary.

That leaves Washington responsible for restraining an ally outside the deal, while Tehran treats Lebanon as a condition for keeping talks alive.

A deal already under strain

Baghaei said talks on sanctions and nuclear issues depend on implementation of specific MoU provisions.

“The start of negotiations on these two issues is contingent on the implementation of specific provisions of the memorandum of understanding,” he said. “Part of it has been achieved, and part of it is being implemented.”

That is the emerging shape of the deal: each side is implementing the clauses it can sell, disputing the clauses it dislikes, and using unresolved language as leverage before the final agreement.

For now, the MoU has stopped a wider war and reopened commercial movement through Hormuz. But it has also created a new diplomatic battlefield in which every clause is being tested, stretched and weaponized before the 60-day clock has even fully begun.

Nuclear sites and missiles

Iran says no plan for UN nuclear inspections at bombed sites

That directly undercut Vance’s statement that talks on inspectors’ return could begin this week and President Donald Trump’s claim that Iran would agree to “major weapons inspections.”

Baghaei also ruled out talks on Iran’s missile program.

“Iran’s defensive and missile capabilities have never been part of our talks, nor will they ever be subject to negotiation with any party,” he said.

Money, oil and the first rewards

Baghaei said Iran would use its assets based on national needs, including price and quality.

“What is important for us is access to assets that have been unjustly blocked,” he said.

Hormuz is open, but under whose rules?

The Strait of Hormuz is the clearest practical test.

Ali Bahreini, Iran’s ambassador to the UN office in Geneva, said Tuesday that Hormuz was “completely open” to commercial vessels and that no charges would be collected during the 60-day period.

Ships face conflicting Iran, US instructions in Strait of Hormuz - FT

That leaves shipowners weighing the risk of Iranian interference against possible sanctions, insurance or compliance concerns.

The contradiction captures the MoU’s central problem: the US says Hormuz has reopened; Iran says reopening proves ships must deal with Tehran’s authority.

Lebanon still as the next flashpoint

Lebanon may be the deal’s most dangerous test.

“Iran’s red line is any attack against Lebanon, any more attack against Lebanon,” he said.

He warned that Iran would respond to any violation, including attacks on Lebanon or Hezbollah.

“If they are going to violate the MOU in any format, including by attacking Lebanon and Hezbollah in Lebanon, then Iran will respond,” he said.

That leaves Washington responsible for restraining an ally outside the deal, while Tehran treats Lebanon as a condition for keeping talks alive.

A deal already under strain

Baghaei said talks on sanctions and nuclear issues depend on implementation of specific MoU provisions.

That is the emerging shape of the deal: each side is implementing the clauses it can sell, disputing the clauses it dislikes, and using unresolved language as leverage before the final agreement.

Relief or resistance? Tehran dailies offer diverging readings of talks

Jun 23, 2026, 04:08 GMT+1

•

Behrouz Turani

A paddleboarder moves through the waters of the Strait of Hormuz as a tanker sails in the distance, June 21, 2026

While much of Iran's political press focused on the diplomatic drama surrounding the latest round of US-Iran talks in Switzerland, several economic newspapers used Monday's coverage to highlight the country's deeper economic challenges and post-war uncertainties.

The talks ended with a joint statement from mediators Qatar and Pakistan announcing a roadmap toward a final agreement within 60 days, alongside plans for further technical negotiations.

Iranian officials have also highlighted progress on the release of frozen assets and the possibility of expanded trade.

On Monday, Iran's central bank chief Abdolnasser Hemmati said funds released under the emerging agreement would not necessarily be limited to essential goods and could be used to purchase other non-sanctioned products.

Iranian newspapers largely divided along familiar lines, with hardline outlets portraying the talks as a test of national resolve and moderate publications emphasizing the potential economic benefits of diplomacy.

Economic outlets, by contrast, focused on questions of market stability, sanctions relief and the country's long-term structural problems.

The prominent economic daily Donyaye Eghtesad argued that "a 60-day diplomatic stopgap cannot solve deep-seated, post-war structural challenges."

Its editorial noted that "the diplomacy of the mattress in Switzerland cannot mask the reality that a 60-day roadmap is a temporary truce, not a permanent architecture."

It warned that markets had reacted with immediate volatility to the diplomatic developments, underscoring the risks of managing the economy through short-term political decisions.

Oil-export waivers may provide temporary liquidity, the paper argued, but cannot by themselves resolve deeper structural problems or restore long-term confidence.

Resistance versus relief

The dominant hardline narrative remained one of resistance rather than compromise.

Kayhan argued that Iran's temporary reinstatement of restrictions on traffic through the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend had forced the United States "back to reality."

The newspaper wrote that the brief disruption "proved once again that the only language the Western front understands is the language of definitive leverage," adding that Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf's reported walkout from negotiations demonstrated that Iran "does not negotiate under the shadow of social media threats."

Javan urged negotiators to remain cautious, describing the 60-day roadmap as "a tactical pause forced upon the Americans by the operational readiness of our armed forces."

But moderate voices offered a markedly different assessment.

Shargh described the outcome of the talks as "a fragile but essential window of relief," noting that concrete oil and petrochemical waivers had, for the first time, been linked to a diplomatic timetable.

At the same time, it cautioned that "the shadow of Donald Trump's erratic, transactional approach to international relations looms large," urging negotiators to secure technical and economic guarantees before the current opportunity closes.

Etemad focused on the domestic economy, arguing that Iran "desperately requires the structural stability these sanctions waivers promise" and portraying the developments in Switzerland as evidence that a pragmatic diplomatic framework remains viable.

Will the Islamic Republic trade with the 'Great Satan'?

Jun 23, 2026, 01:03 GMT+1

People walk next to an anti-US mural on a street as protests erupt over the collapse of the currency's value in Tehran, Iran, January 2, 2026.

Nearly half a century after Iran's revolutionary government severed ties with Washington, took US diplomats hostage and turned "Death to America" into one of its defining slogans, a new US proposal could see frozen Iranian assets used to purchase American goods.

The proposal points to one of the more striking ironies of the emerging US-Iran agreement: using Iranian assets to buy American products from a country the Islamic Republic has long cast as the "Great Satan" and a threat to the revolution.

Speaking in Switzerland on Monday, US Vice President JD Vance said Washington could agree to unfreeze Iranian assets for purchases of American products such as soybeans, corn and wheat.

"If Iranian assets are ever unfrozen, they're going to go to make American farmers richer and to feed the Iranian people," Vance said, adding that the United States and Qatar would oversee the process.

Read the full article here.

Will the Islamic Republic trade with the 'Great Satan'?

Jun 22, 2026, 21:58 GMT+1

•

Negar Mojtahedi

People walk next to an anti-US mural on a street as protests erupt over the collapse of the currency's value in Tehran, Iran, January 2, 2026.

Speaking in Switzerland on Monday, US Vice President JD Vance said Washington could agree to unfreeze Iranian assets for purchases of American products such as soybeans, corn and wheat.

The proposal marks one of the clearest signs yet that the Trump administration may be shifting from its longstanding "maximum pressure" approach toward a strategy centered on incentives and compliance.

It has also revived questions about whether limited economic engagement could eventually evolve into something that once seemed unimaginable: renewed trade between Iran and the United States.

Vance said the proposal was developed by Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and one of the lead US negotiators, together with Qatari officials.

Close allies turn sworn adversaries

Before the 1979 revolution, Iran was one of Washington's closest allies in the Middle East and an important market for American goods and services.

"There was no embargo, no sanctions and no limitation," said Mohamad Machine-Chian, economist and journalist at Iran International. "Iranian industrial infrastructure is American to begin with," Machine-Chian said.

The revolution transformed that relationship. The hostage crisis, sanctions and decades of political hostility largely froze direct commerce between the two countries.

At the same time, the Islamic Republic built much of its identity around opposition to the United States. Iranian leaders frequently portrayed American economic and cultural influence as a threat to the revolution, while late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei repeatedly warned against what he described as Western "cultural aggression."

A market that never disappeared

Yet American products never entirely disappeared from Iran.

Machine-Chian said some US goods continued reaching the country through intermediaries, often passing through several countries and layers of traders before reaching Iranian consumers.

The arrangement was costly and inefficient, but demand remained. And it led to a contradiction that persists today. While many Iranians continued to seek out American products, the country’s rulers repeatedly warned against them.

The Islamic Republic has long viewed unrestricted American economic and cultural influence with suspicion, arguing that it could undermine the values the revolution sought to promote. Khamenei often described such influence as a form of "cultural aggression."

"There is a great deal of potential between Iran and the US," Machine-Chian said. "Iran remains the last untapped developing market in the world … Iranian people love American products and would love a good deal to be able to buy and sell, trade with America."

Still, he cautioned against assuming the latest proposal signals a broader economic opening.

"The result will be decided by compliance, the negotiations and the political aspect of it all," he said. "I wouldn't hold my breath."

Will American goods reach ordinary Iranians?

Supporters of the proposal argue that using frozen assets to purchase food and agricultural products could help ease economic pressure on ordinary Iranians without handing Tehran unrestricted cash.

Mahdi Ghodsi, Economist and Leader of the International Economics Group at the Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (wiiw) and Senior Fellow at the Centre for Middle East and Global Order (CMEG), said the arrangement could help stabilize prices and reduce pressure on Iran's currency reserves.

"It means there is a lower pressure on currency reserves," Ghodsi said. "There could be some stabilization in the currency market of Iran."

He argued that preventing further economic deterioration is important not only for Iran's economy but for ordinary households already struggling with soaring costs.

But Ghodsi also warned about oversight.

"The regime is corrupt. The regime is a kleptocracy," he said. "We cannot be sure that they don't benefit from such behavior to fill their pockets."

Critics, however, argue that the success of any such arrangement would depend on how strictly it is monitored.

Max Meizlish, a sanctions expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and former US Treasury official, warned that humanitarian trade does not automatically guarantee humanitarian outcomes.

He said Washington would need safeguards to ensure goods purchased with frozen Iranian assets actually reach ordinary people and are not diverted through networks linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

"The question is whether they might be providing an indirect form of support to the IRGC," Meizlish said.

Without a transparent mechanism, he warned, American goods intended for civilians could end up strengthening the very actors Washington says it wants to constrain.

Meizlish also questioned the administration's broader shift in approach.

Just days before the latest proposal, US officials were still describing Iranian oil revenues as a major source of funding for Tehran's armed forces, regional partners and proxies.

"Iran's oil and petroleum exports are a primary source of revenue for its armed forces, terrorist partners and proxies," the State Department wrote in a report sent to Congress on June 16.

For critics, the contrast is striking: a government that only days ago warned that Iranian revenues fund armed groups is now considering a framework that could unlock billions of dollars in Iranian assets under a US-approved arrangement.

Whether the proposal becomes a meaningful opening or remains a narrowly defined humanitarian mechanism remains unclear. Whatever its economic impact, however, the symbolism is difficult to miss.

A state founded on opposition to the United States may soon use billions of dollars in frozen assets to purchase American goods, while a US administration once committed to maximum pressure is increasingly betting on incentives instead.

Lebanon 'deconfliction cell' emerges after intense Switzerland talks

Jun 22, 2026, 04:52 GMT+1

A child stands next to the rubble of a building damaged in an Israeli strike in Qennarit, southern Lebanon, June 20, 2026.

US-Iran talks in Switzerland produced a roadmap toward a final agreement within 60 days, but only after negotiators spent much of the first day grappling with the issue that nearly derailed the process: Lebanon.

A joint statement issued by mediators Qatar and Pakistan after nearly 18 hours of talks said the parties had agreed to establish a High Level Committee to oversee negotiations, launch technical working groups and begin work toward a final deal.

But one of the most notable provisions was the creation of a deconfliction cell involving the United States, Iran and Lebanon, facilitated by the two mediators, to ensure adherence to the cessation of military operations in Lebanon under the memorandum of understanding signed last week.

The prominence of the Lebanon mechanism in both the joint statement and subsequent comments by Iranian officials underscored how central the issue had become to the talks.

Vice President JD Vance met Iranian officials on Sunday at the Swiss resort of Buergenstock in the first round of negotiations aimed at implementing the memorandum between Tehran and Washington.

The talks quickly ran into difficulties.

Iranian media reported that Tehran refused to return to four-way talks after a break, citing public threats from President Donald Trump and arguing that substantive negotiations could not proceed while fighting continued in Lebanon.

US officials disputed that account.

"The Iranians never left and are still here meeting and negotiating deep into the night," a US diplomat involved in the talks said, adding that discussions covered Lebanon, the Strait of Hormuz, nuclear issues and implementation of the memorandum.

Iran argues that Washington has failed to uphold its commitment to help secure a halt to hostilities in Lebanon and has repeatedly linked progress in negotiations to developments on the Lebanese front.

The issue resurfaced throughout the talks and appears to have become one of the central subjects of mediation by Qatar and Pakistan.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi highlighted the new Lebanon mechanism after the talks concluded, calling it the "first real test" of the understandings reached in Switzerland.

According to the joint statement, chief negotiators will report regularly to the High Level Committee and lead working groups focused on nuclear issues, sanctions, and a monitoring and dispute-resolution mechanism designed to ensure implementation of the memorandum.

The committee has also approved a roadmap toward reaching a final agreement within 60 days and authorized the immediate start of further technical negotiations.

In addition, the parties agreed to establish a communication channel aimed at preventing incidents and misunderstandings and ensuring the safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz.

Despite public disagreements and repeated threats from Trump that the United States could resume military action if Iran failed to restrain its regional allies, both sides emerged from the talks with new negotiating structures and a timetable for future discussions.

For now, however, the success of the diplomatic process may depend less on nuclear issues than on whether the newly created Lebanon deconfliction mechanism can prevent another flare-up from derailing negotiations altogether.

Iran's postwar rallies become flashpoint in diplomacy debate

Jun 22, 2026, 04:49 GMT+1

Iranian hardliners have sharply criticized a government-linked report that warned prolonged nightly pro-state gatherings could obstruct diplomacy, exposing a growing dispute over the role of street mobilization in postwar Iran.

The controversy highlights tensions within Iran's political establishment over whether the rallies represent a source of national unity or an increasingly disruptive force in debates over diplomacy and relations with the United States.

The backlash was triggered by a document published by the presidential Strategic Affairs Office (SAO) following a conference titled "The Street Movement for Protecting Iran: Nature, Opportunities and Ways to Enhance It."

The report examined the nightly gatherings that have spread across Iranian cities since the war and argued that their continued presence could complicate decision-making and undermine diplomatic efforts.