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.
