According to Al Jazeera, the implementation of the memorandum of understanding signed between the US and Iran on June 17 is progressing, but disagreements on critical issues persist between the parties.
Ceasefire and normalization in the Strait of Hormuz
During the initial implementation phase of the memorandum, a ceasefire was achieved and no large-scale military clashes occurred. The Strait of Hormuz was reopened, and the risk premium in oil markets declined. A permanent negotiation mechanism was established between the two sides; technical meetings were held in Doha, and it was agreed to maintain communication channels to prevent military contact.
The Qatari Foreign Ministry confirmed that US and Iranian technical delegations continued their direct and indirect meetings despite the tension in the Strait of Hormuz late last month.
Qatar-Pakistan mediation deepens
The mediation role of Qatar and Pakistan has evolved from contributing to the drafting of the memorandum to directly monitoring its implementation. The mediators coordinate between the parties, monitor compliance with the agreement's provisions, and intervene in disputes that arise during implementation.
As part of these efforts, technical negotiations were conducted in Bürgenstock, Switzerland, and Doha, and a communication mechanism was established to report possible violations. Additionally, separate meetings were held with US and Iranian delegations, and progress reports were prepared.
Divergent interpretations over the Strait of Hormuz
Despite progress, significant differences have emerged in the interpretation of some provisions of the memorandum. Iran argues that the agreement gives it a primary role in regulating maritime traffic in coordination with Oman.
Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf stated that the fifth article of the memorandum envisages an agreement between his country and Muscat on regulating navigation, saying, 'Iran will not allow US interference in the management of the strait.'
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi also reiterated the stance against foreign military presence, stressing that the Strait of Hormuz is 'not a showground for military forces from outside the region.'
The US, for its part, emphasizes that the Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway and rejects any interpretation that would grant Iran the right to impose transit fees or restrictions. Gulf countries also opposed any fee or control attempts in the strait through a joint statement. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) warned that imposing transit fees would set a dangerous precedent for global maritime traffic.
Lebanon and the nuclear file
Disagreements are not limited to Hormuz. Iran believes that the implementation of the memorandum requires Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon, while Washington states that at this stage implementation is limited to halting military escalation, and that Israel's withdrawal is conditional on the dismantling of Hezbollah's capabilities and the Lebanese army assuming full security responsibility in the south.
On the nuclear file, no decision stage has been reached yet. Issues such as nuclear stockpiles or enrichment levels were not substantively addressed in technical meetings; decisions on these topics have been postponed to later stages of the negotiations.
Sanctions and financial disputes
Disagreement also persists over the lifting of US sanctions and frozen Iranian assets. Washington pursues a gradual and conditional sanctions relief policy in return for the fulfillment of certain commitments, while imposing oversight on the use of funds to be released. Tehran, on the other hand, demands full control over its assets after they are released, without any external restrictions.
Although the memorandum has so far succeeded in reducing tensions, contributing to regional stability, and calming energy markets, the low level of trust between the parties, differing interpretations of some provisions, and the linking of certain obligations to other files indicate that the agreement is still at a stage of crisis management and tension control rather than a final resolution.
