JUST IN: The United States and Iran assure that the agreement is “closer than ever” but disagree on its content | International
International Report:
The following report highlights an important international development currently attracting worldwide attention.
Announcing that there is an agreement is the easy part. Agreeing on what exactly the terms are and what they mean seems not so much. A day after the president of the United States, Donald Trump, announced that the memorandum of understanding between his country and Iran is practically ready for signing, the two parties have released very different versions about the content of that document that should end the three and a half month war between the two. But they do seem to be in agreement on one thing: “The agreement is closer than ever,” according to what the Iranian Foreign Minister, Abás Araghchi, stated in Trump has retweeted him. “We hope to sign this agreement in the next few days, perhaps this weekend. At the beginning of the day we had a confidence of, perhaps, 75% in achieving it, now we are at 85%. But it is not 100%,” said a senior Trump Administration official, who spoke with journalists in a telephone conversation under the condition of anonymity. “We are not at the finish line yet, but we are already close to it.” One of the mediators in the talks, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif, has assured that there is a peace agreement. “The Iranian system is complicated and right now they are working on a way of presenting things that makes the leadership say yes,” he noted, to explain what is still missing. He has also pointed out that the Iranian supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, “is comfortable, they say,” with the terms of the agreement. On social media, the Vice President of the United States, JD Vance, has written: “This agreement has the potential to remake the region and lead to lasting peace,” without offering further details. Trump has pointed out that the agreement – which he announced after two days of the most intense exchange of fire between the two adversaries since the current truce came into force on April 8 – could be signed this weekend, probably in Europe, and his number two would be the one representing Washington. Israel, which jointly launched the war that began on February 28 against Iran with the United States and which has clashed with Washington over its offensive in Lebanon, will not be part of the memorandum of understanding, as confirmed by the Prime Minister of that country, Benjamin Netanyahu. The versions of the two parties agree on what was already known about the memorandum: that it extends sine die the already existing ceasefire and both enemies are given 60 days to negotiate what they were unable to resolve, due to the thorniness and enormous mistrust between them – and the impatience of the US president – neither in the conversations prior to the conflict nor during this war: the future of the Iranian nuclear program. They disagree on almost everything else. The senior US official has downplayed the difference in the public versions, which he has attributed to the fact that the regime in Iran “wants to promote the agreement to its domestic public and describes it in a way that exaggerates what is favorable to them and minimizes what is not convenient for them.” Trump during an appearance on June 4 in Washington. Julia Demaree Nikhinson (AP/LaPresse)According to this source, in a telephone conversation with journalists, the agreement provides for the terms to be applied gradually. Iran would receive funds currently frozen abroad but only in tranches, as it fulfilled its part of the pact, especially regarding its nuclear program. The Islamic Republic, meanwhile, points out much more favorable terms for its positions. A draft distributed by the semi-state agency Mehr ensures that Iran will receive an immediate transfer of 24 billion dollars (about 20.7 billion euros) and 300 billion in funds for reconstruction. The United States denies that this is the case: “They will be financially rewarded for fulfilling their obligations included in the agreement. If they deliver their nuclear material, as they have promised, they will receive something. If they dismantle their nuclear facilities, they will receive something else. If they do not comply, they will not have economic benefits,” the same source has insisted. The Iranian version has unleashed the ire of Trump, who has accused Tehran of disclosing false terms of the agreement. It does not specify what is inaccurate about them, but it does denounce that “they have NOTHING to do with the terms agreed upon in writing.” And he describes the adversary regime as “very dishonest people to deal with. You cannot negotiate with them in good faith.” The Trump Administration describes the incipient agreement as a document that achieves all its objectives in the conflict. Most notably, he maintains, it prevents Iran from having a nuclear weapon in the future, but also, he assures, it launches a broader peace in the Middle East. Destruction of uraniumThe aforementioned senior US official assures that the pact provides for the destruction and departure from Iran of the highly enriched uranium that the regime has, and which is currently buried many meters underground and under the rubble of the Iranian nuclear facilities destroyed in the US-Israeli attack a year ago. “We want the highly enriched material to be destroyed and leave the country. The agreement achieves that,” he noted. It also gets “a long-term commitment from Iran that they will not pursue or build a nuclear weapon,” something the Iranian version also includes. “The third thing is that we want an inspection regime that guarantees that Iran does not rebuild its nuclear capacity at some point in the future. And that agreement does that,” the senior official stated. “We also want broader peace (in the Middle East), both for this conflict in particular, but also achieving guarantees that Iran will not sponsor terrorist networks, and this agreement also achieves that,” he stressed. The Iranian version explicitly stipulates that Tehran’s support for groups in the region and the Iranian missile program have been definitively left out of the negotiations. Other differences concern the Strait of Hormuz. The strategic maritime passage that Iran has kept closed since the beginning of the war and through which before the conflict 20% of the world’s oil and liquefied gas crossed, and a third of fertilizers and other key products, had become one of the central issues of the negotiation. The United States maintains that the bottleneck—on which its forces maintain its own blockade—is left open unconditionally and that the agreement is very specific about it. Iran points out that there is a period of 30 days to open it and that it will be done under its conditions. Ships anchored in the Strait of Hormuz, this Thursday.)Associated Press/LaPresse (APN)14 pointsAccording to the terms of the agreement distributed by Mehr, the 14-point memorandum provides for a series of terms of immediate application and a period of 60 days of negotiation to discuss a definitive agreement that would include the issues that, due to too thorny and too much difference between the two parties, have not yet been able to be closed: that is, Iran’s nuclear program, which Trump — who when announcing the start of the war noted that the objective of the offensive was regime change — has made it his priority to demand that Tehran take steps to prevent it from ever having access to a nuclear weapon. The memo stipulates, according to the news agency, Iran’s commitment “under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty not to produce nuclear weapons.” The final agreement that emerges from those 60 days would have to be approved by a United Nations resolution and should also include the “complete elimination” of US sanctions against Iran and the abolition of the UN and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolutions that impose international sanctions on the Islamic Republic. During the negotiation period, the United States would commit to not deploying more forces in the region and not imposing new sanctions. Always according to Mehr, the agreement requires a permanent ceasefire in Lebanon. The Strait of Hormuz would be opened to maritime traffic within 30 days, “according to terms determined by Iran,” and would be under the control of Tehran. Part of the sanctions that weigh against the Islamic Republic and that have burdened its economy for decades would also be withdrawn. In turn, the United States would also lift the blockade it maintains against Iranian ports within 30 days and would withdraw its forces from the areas around Iran. Washington commits “not to interfere in Iranian internal affairs and to respect the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic.” The pact, according to this version, also includes the suspension of sanctions “related to the sale of oil, petrochemical products and related derivatives” and grants Iran “full access to the resulting financial revenues.” The United States and its allies will have to present Iran with reconstruction plans worth at least $300 billion to repair damage caused by the war. The delivery of the other $24 billion in Iranian assets frozen abroad would take place during the 60 days of negotiations. Half of these funds should reach Iranian hands before opening negotiations. The last point of the Iranian version stipulates: “Definitive negotiations will not begin before half of the frozen Iranian funds are handed over, sanctions on Iranian oil are suspended and the (US) naval blockade is lifted. The final agreement will only include the fate of the enriched materials (the highly enriched uranium that Iran already has, buried many meters underground after the attack by the United States). “United States and Israel against Iranian nuclear facilities a year ago) and the enrichment processes; the lifting of sanctions, and the Iranian economic reconstruction program.” Other American demands—the end of the Iranian missile program and Tehran’s support for radical Islamist groups in the Middle East—“have been definitively removed from the agenda,” he says.
Why This Matters:
Analysts believe this development may influence future diplomatic, political, or economic discussions internationally.
Observers believe further developments could significantly shape the direction of this story in the near future.
More details may emerge as official sources continue releasing new information.
Source: This article was originally published by Internacional en EL PAÍS and adapted for our international English-speaking audience.
Read the original article here.