A simple one-page memorandum of understanding. It is around this succinct document, transmitted by Washington to Tehran, that a possible de-escalation between Iran and the United States is now being played out, after weeks of military tensions around the Strait of Hormuz and the Iranian nuclear issue.
Following the postponement of the “Operation Liberty Project” launched on May 4 by President Donald Trump, the American administration was still awaiting an Iranian response to the memorandum of understanding (MoU) transmitted to Tehran. Presented as a general framework intended to pave the way for more detailed negotiations, this text was originally expected to receive an Iranian response within 48 hours.
What the memorandum of understanding entails
The document transmitted by Washington to Tehran does not, at this stage, constitute a formal agreement, but rather a basis for discussion aimed at testing the possibility of a broader compromise. “The Americans submitted what is called an MoU (memorandum of understanding) or a ‘memorandum of agreement’ in the business world,” explains David Rigoulet-Roze, editor-in-chief of the magazine “Orients stratégiques” and a specialist in the Middle East. “The text is very succinct, it fits on one page and only recalls the essential parameters.”
At the heart of the discussions lies the Iranian nuclear issue, to which the strategic question of the Strait of Hormuz has been added, becoming crucial in light of the recent maritime tensions. According to David Rigoulet-Roze, the document deliberately remains vague on several sensitive aspects. “There is obviously no precision regarding the limitation of the Iranian ballistic program. The idea is mainly to validate a general framework before defining a real agreement.”
However, the positions of the two sides are currently very far apart. Washington is demanding the surrender of the approximately 440 kilograms of enriched uranium to 60% held by Iran, as well as a long-term moratorium on Iranian nuclear enrichment. “The Americans, who were initially on a 20-year basis for this moratorium on enrichment, are now talking about a minimum of between 12 and 15 years. The Iranians, on the other hand, had proposed a maximum of five years,” points out David Rigoulet-Roze.
In return, the memorandum would gradually ease American sanctions, block some frozen Iranian assets abroad, and relax restrictions imposed around the Strait of Hormuz. However, at this stage, the text remains primarily an attempt to define minimal common principles, without delving into the most explosive technical details of the negotiations. The current question is whether Tehran would be willing to partially approve this framework proposed by Washington? And above all, what room for maneuver does the Iranian government actually have in a context of strong internal divisions and increasing military pressure?
The various scenarios
Anticipating the Iranian response remains difficult. Firstly, because the Tehran government operates within a complex architecture where decision-making centers overlap.
“Decisions are not made by a single person,” emphasizes David Rigoulet-Roze. “The Supreme Leader appears largely absent today, even seriously weakened. In reality, the real decision-making center appears to be a group dominated by the Revolutionary Guards, which imposes its line, including on President Massoud Pezeshkian,” he adds.
This fragmentation of power helps explain Iranian hesitations, despite increasing economic and strategic pressure.
Another element also nuances a systematic impasse. In fact, the interests of both parties now paradoxically converge towards a form of de-escalation. For Washington, the crisis around the Strait of Hormuz represents a direct threat to the global economy, as well as the stability of the American energy market. “In the United States, the price of a gallon of gasoline has exceeded $4, which, in American consumer culture, is a politically sensitive threshold,” notes the expert.
From the Iranian side, the pressure is also considerable. The American counter-blockade seriously disrupts Iranian oil exports. “The White House has mentioned that the losses in terms of liquidity for the Revolutionary Guards are several billion dollars since the implementation of the American counter-blockade,” he notes.
In this context, Iran may be forced to gradually reduce its oil production due to insufficient export capacity. “The wells are overflowing. When the extraction of a well is stopped, even temporarily, it can become extremely difficult to reactivate due to water infiltrations in the geological structures,” points out Mr. Rigoulet-Roze.
However, this economic weakening does not mean an immediate collapse. According to a confidential CIA analysis revealed by the Washington Post, Tehran reportedly still has several months of resistance despite sanctions and the American naval blockade, thus extending a situation of controlled but unstable tension.
The Strait of Hormuz at the center of the standoff
Another major point of the negotiations concerns the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic passage through which a significant portion of global oil transits.
After launching the “Operation Liberty Project” to escort commercial ships in the Gulf, the operation was quickly suspended following diplomatic tensions with Gulf monarchies and indirect discussions with Tehran.
According to David Rigoulet-Roze, Riyadh and Kuwait reacted poorly to some American decisions made without prior consultation. “The pro-monarchies felt they were faced with a fait accompli regarding the need to use their bases by the United States for implementing the surveillance device of the announced operation. They temporarily restricted the use of certain American bases, essential for the aerial surveillance of the entire Gulf,” he asserts.
Restrictions have since been eased, leaving open the possibility of a resumption of American operations in case of diplomatic failure.
Nevertheless, disagreements remain deep. Tehran is calling for a pre-removal of the American counter-blockade and an immediate reopening of Hormuz once negotiations begin. A demand rejected by Washington.
<p"For the Americans, the counter-blockade is precisely the main pressure tool in the negotiation," points out the expert. He adds that the United States "considers that it can only be lifted in exchange for concrete advances."
The risk of a new escalation
In case of unsuccessful talks, the scenario of a resumption of military operations remains very credible.
“Escalation is already latent,” says David Rigoulet-Roze. He notably mentions the recent clashes in the Gulf after attacks on several American destroyers, followed by retaliatory strikes around Bandar Abbas and the island of Qeshm.
Donald Trump has warned that a lack of agreement could lead to a massive resumption of military operations.
“The problem is that the agreement demanded by Washington appears, from the Iranian point of view, as a form of capitulation,” summarizes David Rigoulet-Roze. “And that is the crux of the matter: Iran needs an easing of sanctions but refuses to give up what it considers its strategic right to nuclear power,” he argues.
For now, the ongoing protocol remains limited to the main areas: nuclear, sanctions, and the Strait of Hormuz, and in Tehran, the mechanics of power make any decision particularly subject to multiple arbitrations.
