Discrepancies Before Signing: How Iran and the U.S. Are Negotiating the End of the War

Iran and the U.S. edge toward a Geneva memorandum that could freeze the conflict, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and set the stage for a longer settlement.

Originally published on Forbes.ru by Leonid Tsukanov
Republished with permission.

The draft of the new peace plan, which sources close to the negotiating group shared with the media, first and foremost the Iranian agency Mehr, summed up the results of three months of talks in the “Islamabad format” and in many ways repeated the spirit of its predecessor — the “historical one-page memorandum,” which Washington and Tehran discussed in early May 2026, but never managed to agree on because of a new escalation of the conflict.

As in the previous version, questions of regional security are placed at the center. In particular, the U.S. and Iran are supposed to lift restrictions on vessel movement through the Strait of Hormuz within a short time frame, as well as halt fighting on all fronts, including Lebanon, which is specifically included in the memorandum. In addition, Washington is said to agree to withdraw its units from areas surrounding Iran — both on land and at sea.

Quite a lot of attention in the leaked version of the draft is also given to the economy. In particular, it envisaged the unfreezing of Iran’s foreign assets totaling at least $24 billion and the removal of sanctions from its oil and gas sector, including by lifting restrictions on top officials and businesspeople. Washington was also supposed to pay Iran $300 billion in compensation for rebuilding infrastructure destroyed during the fighting.

In exchange, Tehran would agree to continue peace talks — including working on increasing transparency in the national nuclear program — and to abandon the development of nuclear weapons. At the same time, the issue of the status of Iran’s enriched uranium is left out of the published version of the memorandum.

Conflict of versions

It is important to note one key caveat here: it still is not known for certain how close this leak is to the final version of the agreement. Officially, neither Washington nor Tehran is disclosing the document’s contents. Both sides justify this by citing national security concerns and promise to share the details only after signing. They also appear to be suggesting that the document has already been signed electronically and only needs to be formally put on paper.

At the same time, the most controversial provisions are being denied. In particular, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance did not confirm U.S. agreement to the imminent unfreezing of frozen Iranian assets. “The truth is that Iran will have a much more prosperous future if it fulfills the obligations it is taking on under this agreement,” he said in an interview with CBS. Given these statements, the supposedly promised Iranian “compensation payments” of $300 billion and the hypothetical lifting of restrictions on the national oil sector are also automatically called into question.

It is possible that the Mehr-published “draft memorandum” is aimed at a domestic audience — in order to further legitimize the diplomatic settlement. Especially since shortly before the announcement that the deal had been finalized, Iran, as a gesture of trust, canceled its “operation of revenge” against Israel for the latest strike on the Dahieh Shiite district in the Lebanese capital, which sparked an outburst of anger among Iranian conservatives. The numerous symbolic concessions mentioned in the draft document help offset the reputational damage.

At the same time, Iranian officials, including Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei, continue to insist that the memorandum still contains an economic component. “The unfreezing of Iran’s frozen assets, along with the issue of post-damage reconstruction, are two important issues. The American side is determined to take measures in both cases,” Baghaei noted.

Moreover, the Iranian side is cautiously hinting that if the memorandum’s terms are violated — including on sanctions relief — Tehran is ready to return to its previous model of confrontation, in particular by restricting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

The Israel factor

Another “zone of vulnerability” in the future peace agreement is the position of Israel, which does not accept the concessions laid out in the memorandum, seeing them as contrary to national interests. In particular, it does not intend to observe the “quiet regime” in Lebanon announced by Donald Trump or leave previously occupied territories, since Hezbollah strikes on Israeli border towns continue even during the ceasefire.

Interestingly, a few days before the information about the upcoming deal was made public, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outlined four key conflict-resolution goals to the American side, compliance with which would make the Israeli side consider the deal satisfactory. Among them are the removal of stocks of highly enriched uranium from the Islamic Republic, dismantling of enrichment infrastructure, the establishment of strict “ceilings” for the missile program, and the complete dissolution of the proxy-group system (the so-called axis of resistance) in the Middle East. However, these points apparently were not included in the final text of the memorandum. Moreover, discussion of the missile program and the future of the proxy system was deliberately pushed to later stages. On some individual points — for example, preserving Iran’s right to low-level enrichment under IAEA supervision — Washington made significant concessions.

At the moment, Israel has not officially announced plans to intensify strikes on Lebanon in response to the upcoming agreement — although the country’s defense minister, Israel Katz, had earlier warned that the fighting would continue. Nevertheless, given pressure from the White House, the Israelis will most likely refrain from strikes at least until Friday — to give the U.S. the opportunity to complete the memorandum signing ceremony.

Waiting for Peace

The international community greeted the news of a possible reconciliation between Iran and the U.S. with cautious optimism — something visible, among other things, in the dynamics of global energy prices. One of the first to respond was U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, who welcomed the achievement of a difficult compromise. Guterres also confirmed that the U.N. is ready to support the sides in achieving a sustainable and comprehensive peace.

Representatives of the so-called E3 (Britain, Germany, France) stated their readiness to lift sanctions — but only if Iran adheres to a policy of “verifiable actions” regarding the development of its national nuclear program and returns cooperation with the IAEA to prewar levels. In addition, Paris and London promised to help restore shipping through the Strait of Hormuz — including by taking part in its demining.

The Russian side also welcomed the results of months of work by Iranian and American diplomats. As Russian President Vladimir Putin noted during a phone call with Trump, it was extremely important to settle the conflict, which “threatened to set the whole region on fire.” In addition, Moscow expressed its readiness to take an active role in further settlement efforts, including in the role of guarantor of a long-term agreement.

Interestingly, even before the memorandum is officially signed in Geneva, representatives of the U.S. and Iran are planning to meet in Doha to discuss technical issues and settle “specific disagreements.” At the same time, they will also underscore their commitment to talks.

However, even if the settlement process ultimately fails, Trump has a fallback plan. As the Republican previously noted, if diplomacy fails, the U.S. will either resume a military operation against Iran or take on the role of “guardian of the Middle East” — in exchange for 20% of the region’s revenues.

And although the last initiative is unlikely to help establish long-term peace, it will definitely make it possible to preserve Washington’s influence over the regional security system, including by helping to balance Iran’s new position.

---

📌 Subscribe to Think BRICS for weekly geopolitical video analysis beyond Western narratives. Follow also our new channels BRICS Business and Think BRICS Chronicles.