The United States and Iran recently finalized a 14-point memorandum of understanding aimed at ending nearly four months of conflict and standoff. This agreement establishes a clear framework for dispute resolution, with both sides agreeing to an immediate, comprehensive ceasefire across multiple fronts, full resumption of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, Iran's responsibility for mine clearance in the waterway, and no tolls charged for passage. The US will lift its blockade of Iranian ports and grant temporary sanctions waivers for Iranian oil exports. Both sides agreed to launch a second phase of technical negotiations within 60 days, focusing on core issues such as nuclear negotiations and sanctions easing.



Iran has reiterated its solemn commitment to permanently abandon the development of nuclear weapons. The agreement also covers the unfreezing of some of Iran's frozen assets, and Iran will receive regional reconstruction funds, primarily provided by Gulf states, without using US taxpayer money. The formal signing ceremony is scheduled for June 19 in Geneva, Switzerland. Both sides are still refining the technical details, and the final text may require minor adjustments. While Iranian semi-official media has questioned the authenticity of some leaked portions of the agreement, the core content of this framework agreement has been confirmed by senior diplomats from several countries.

During the G7 summit in France, Trump expressed strong optimism about the agreement, stating that it was virtually impossible for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons in the future, with a probability of only one in ten thousand. He repeatedly cited the positive market performance, such as the surge in US stocks and the sharp drop in international oil prices, as evidence of the agreement's significant value and emphasized its remarkable effectiveness. At the same time, Trump actively compared the new agreement with the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) reached by the Obama administration in 2015, criticizing the old agreement for its obvious flaws. He pointed out that the US had used approximately $1.7 billion in cash to secure the negotiation results, which he considered a disguised form of bribery, while the new agreement he spearheaded did not employ any similar methods.

Protocol core framework

On the ceasefire and security front, both sides agreed to permanently terminate all hostilities, respect each other's national sovereignty, strictly refrain from interfering in each other's internal affairs, and fundamentally ease the regional military standoff.

Regarding navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway will be fully reopened to traffic in the short term after the agreement is implemented, ensuring the smooth flow of global energy shipping links. This is the most direct and rapid economic benefit of this agreement.

On the sanctions and economic front, the U.S. will gradually ease various restrictions on Iranian oil exports, while providing regional reconstruction support for Iran. The Trump administration has made it clear that the U.S. will not directly invest funds in Iran's reconstruction.

On the nuclear issue, core consultations will be postponed to the second phase of negotiations in sixty days, focusing on discussing a plan to manage Iran's enriched uranium stockpile and reinforcing Iran's core commitment to never develop nuclear weapons. Specific binding details will still be finalized in subsequent negotiations.

Multiple positions and controversies

The Trump administration and mainstream Republican supporters have a positive view of the agreement, defining it as a pragmatic and efficient peace framework. Commentators believe the agreement successfully reopened key international shipping routes, effectively stabilizing global energy prices, while simultaneously laying the foundation for restraining Iran's nuclear expansion ambitions. It allows the US to de-escalate tensions in the Middle East without incurring the high costs of a long-term military presence or regime change. Trump and his allies believe the agreement's advantages far surpass the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal. The new agreement relies on military pressure as a negotiating leverage and has garnered immediate positive market feedback, fully demonstrating its value. Many Republicans see it as a successful implementation of the "America First" foreign policy, helping the US extricate itself from the endless entanglement in Middle Eastern affairs.

Republican hardliners remained highly cautious, revealing internal divisions. The remarks of veteran Iran hawk Senator Lindsey Graham aptly reflected this conflicting sentiment within the party. He publicly stated that while the US interpretation of the memorandum was overwhelmingly positive, Iran's interpretation was drastically different, a significant discrepancy that was deeply concerning. Graham acknowledged the positive outcome of the resumption of navigation across the Strait, but expressed strong skepticism about Iran's ability to completely cease uranium enrichment activities. He explicitly stated that as long as Iran retains its uranium enrichment capabilities, the agreement remains no different from the JCPOA agreement; only a complete elimination of these capabilities would constitute a truly high-quality agreement.

At the same time, Graham demanded that the final nuclear agreement be reviewed and voted on by Congress, and urged Vice President Vance and other key negotiating officials to provide Congress with a full briefing on the details of the negotiations. His position represents the core mentality of traditional Republican hawks: they acknowledge the short-term benefits of a ceasefire and easing economic confrontation, but worry that the agreement will fail to completely dismantle Iran's nuclear capabilities and curb Iran's support for proxy forces in the region, thus sowing the seeds of long-term regional disputes.

Mainstream media outlets, represented by The New York Times, and numerous critics have thoroughly criticized the agreement, viewing it as a major blunder in Trump's foreign military actions. They argue that the final outcome is a stark contrast to the high-profile pronouncements made earlier, revealing a passive stance. Trump had previously publicly promised a complete victory in this standoff, forcing Iran to surrender unconditionally, achieving zero uranium enrichment, removing all nuclear materials, and even regime change. However, the final agreement's framework is remarkably similar to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which he previously withdrew from.

Although Iran suffered heavy losses in this round of conflict, with its navy, air force, defense industry, and top leadership all incurring significant damage, its regime has remained stable. By blocking the Strait of Hormuz, Iran demonstrated its asymmetric economic balancing power and gained valuable space for sanctions buffering and economic reconstruction through this agreement. In contrast, the United States not only depleted a large amount of its missile arsenal and suffered certain economic and diplomatic losses, but its international strategic deterrence has also declined, and the cooperative relationships within its existing alliance system urgently need repair.

Critics further pointed out that Trump's decision-making was clearly reckless. He over-relyed on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's optimistic assessment, ignored the risk warnings from his own staff, failed to prepare a comprehensive contingency plan for a potential Straits blockade, and unilaterally pushed forward negotiations and the implementation of the agreement without seeking congressional authorization. His overall strategic planning had significant shortcomings. This seemingly concluded standoff was essentially a strategic defeat for the United States, not a definitive victory. Currently, there is a clear division within the Republican Party. Fiscal conservatives and those adhering to the "America First" principle support ending the Middle East conflict and reducing foreign investment, while hawkish voices continue to grow, and intra-party debates and differences in stance continue to intensify.

In-depth analysis and subsequent impact

As all the details of the agreement are gradually made public, this new US-Iran agreement is bound to spark widespread discussion both domestically and internationally. Whether the US has conceded or suffered losses in this round of negotiations will become the core focus of public debate. Trump initiated the standoff with strong military action, but ultimately only achieved the basic result of restoring the pre-war shipping pattern. The core issue of nuclear control was postponed to subsequent negotiations, failing to deliver on the previously stated goal of maximizing the bargaining power.

Although Iran suffered heavy losses in the conflict, it fully demonstrated its resilience, firmly grasped the Strait of Hormuz as its core strategic bargaining chip, and relied on the agreement to escape the predicament of high-intensity sanctions, gaining a window of opportunity for economic recovery and reconstruction. The United States paid a real strategic price for this, its image as a major power was damaged, and it fully exposed the strategic limitations of traditional military powers in modern asymmetric conflicts.

The implementation of this agreement will also profoundly impact Trump's midterm election campaign. If the opposition continues to portray Trump as failing to deliver on his promises of a complete victory and getting bogged down in Middle Eastern affairs again, it will significantly weaken the Republican Party's support among fiscally conservative voters who oppose foreign interference and adhere to the "America First" principle. If subsequent issues arise, such as Iran violating the agreement or a rebound in international oil prices, the Republican Party's electoral prospects will face even greater pressure. Conversely, if oil prices remain stable, substantial progress is made in the nuclear negotiations within the next 60 days, and positive economic and social benefits continue to emerge, Trump can successfully cultivate a peaceful and pragmatic governing image. Meanwhile, the skepticism from hawks like Graham will test the Trump team's ability to coordinate within the party; whether they can effectively resolve factional divisions and prevent the internal rifts within the Republican Party from widening will be a crucial test in the future.

Israel's stance is a key variable influencing the Middle East situation. Reports indicate that Israel originally planned a large-scale military strike against Iran on June 8th, but ultimately cancelled the operation due to pressure from Trump. This detail fully illustrates that even with the imminent formal signing of the new agreement, the deep-seated contradictions in the Middle East have not been resolved, and the tensions have not been completely resolved. Israel consistently views Iran as a core threat to its survival and security, and given the right opportunity or security coercion, even if bound by the agreement, it may still unilaterally take military action against Iran. Furthermore, the activities of Iranian proxy forces and minor breakthroughs in Iranian nuclear technology could both become triggers for a resurgence of conflict. Therefore, this agreement can only achieve a temporary de-escalation of the situation, not a long-term solution to completely resolve the disputes.

Overall, this US-Iran agreement is a typical example of a realistic strategic compromise. It effectively avoided a global economic catastrophe that could have been triggered by escalating conflict, while also clearly demonstrating that military means cannot completely resolve the Iranian nuclear issue and Middle Eastern geopolitical conflicts. The ultimate success or failure of the agreement does not depend on initial public relations efforts, but rather on three core elements: the effectiveness of the subsequent 60-day negotiations, Iran's actual compliance, and the dynamic stability of the overall situation in the Middle East.

The Trump team's optimistic propaganda and the opposition's narrative of defeat will likely dominate public opinion for a long time, but time and actual results are the only true tests of the agreement's value. The cautious approach of Republican hawks like Graham also serves as a warning that America's strategic suspicion and security concerns about Iran will not dissipate, and any so-called diplomatic victory must withstand scrutiny and the test of time.