What Iran and US Get from Deal and Why Both Could Struggle to Keep It

What Iran and US get – Over 100 days of intense military activity between the United States and Iran have concluded with a truce, yet neither side is entirely satisfied. The agreement, officially termed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), has been presented as a strategic victory by both parties, highlighting their mutual need for a resolution. However, the real challenge lies not in the ceasefire itself, but in the subsequent negotiations that will determine the long-term viability of this deal. While the public is being told this is a win, internal dissent on both sides suggests the terms may not fully satisfy all stakeholders. Analysts point out that the agreement’s success hinges on balancing immediate relief with future commitments, a task that remains uncertain.

The Immediate Ceasefire and Its Implications

The MOU marks a temporary halt to hostilities, but its terms are complex. It establishes a 60-day framework for talks on Iran’s nuclear program while confirming an immediate pause in military operations across all fronts, including Lebanon. This includes the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway for global oil trade, and the lifting of the U.S. naval blockade on Iranian shipping. These concessions signal a shift in the conflict’s dynamics, as Iran secures its territorial integrity and the U.S. begins to ease economic pressure. However, the agreement’s brevity leaves room for interpretation, raising questions about its sustainability.

For Iran, the truce offers more than just a pause in fighting. It provides a platform to assert that the country has not only endured the conflict but has emerged stronger. Tehran’s primary aim has never been to achieve a military triumph, but to preserve its leadership and institutional stability. The MOU allows the regime to claim that it has successfully navigated the crisis without compromising its core principles. This narrative is crucial for domestic audiences, where the government has long framed itself as the guardian of Iran’s sovereignty and interests.

Iran’s Strategic Gains and Domestic Reactions

Although the deal includes Iran’s agreement to ensure safe passage for commercial vessels through Hormuz and reaffirm its commitment to not developing nuclear weapons, critics argue these concessions are insufficient. The immediate obligations, while significant, are framed as temporary steps rather than permanent solutions. For instance, Iran has agreed to support the restoration of its nuclear facilities, a task that will require further negotiations. Domestic hardliners, including state media and the Revolutionary Guards, have already begun celebrating the agreement as a symbolic triumph, despite its practical limitations.

Yet, the initial public enthusiasm may wane as the realities of the deal become clearer. Iranian critics are skeptical of the terms, particularly the speed with which the U.S. is pledging sanctions relief and reconstruction funding. While the MOU outlines a $300bn plan for Iran’s economic revival, it remains to be seen whether this financial commitment will materialize. The document also allows the U.S. to issue waivers for Iranian oil exports, a move that could ease tensions but may not fully address Iran’s economic needs. These factors create a precarious balance, with the regime’s leaders walking a fine line between pragmatism and ideology.

The US’s Broader Commitments and Uncertain Outcomes

From the U.S. perspective, the deal represents a broader vision for stabilizing Iran’s regional influence. The MOU includes commitments to remove the naval blockade, release frozen assets, and ease sanctions, all of which are designed to foster economic cooperation. However, these promises come with conditions. The U.S. emphasizes its role in shaping Iran’s nuclear program, particularly the future of its highly enriched uranium and enrichment capabilities. This focus on control over Iran’s nuclear infrastructure could lead to future disputes, as the agreement defers key decisions to later negotiations.

Washington’s approach is also shaped by its desire to maintain leverage over Iran. The MOU allows the U.S. to retain the authority to impose restrictions on Iranian military activities, even as it lifts some economic sanctions. This dual strategy aims to secure Iran’s compliance without appearing overly punitive. However, the deal’s success depends on Iran’s willingness to accept these conditions. If the country perceives the U.S. as prioritizing its own interests over mutual benefit, the agreement could face resistance. The truce, while a tactical win, may not resolve the deeper ideological tensions between the two nations.

The Looming Challenges and Political Dilemmas

As the immediate ceasefire takes hold, the most contentious issues remain unresolved. The future of Iran’s nuclear program, including the extent of its uranium enrichment and the rebuilding of damaged facilities, will be the focus of intense negotiations. These topics are politically charged, with both sides needing to justify their positions to domestic constituencies. For Iran, any compromise on its nuclear capabilities could be framed as a defeat, undermining the narrative of victory that has been carefully constructed. Conversely, the U.S. may view reluctance to agree on these terms as a sign of Iran’s continued defiance.

One of the most striking aspects of the MOU is the balance of responsibility it assigns to each side. While the U.S. commits to easing sanctions and supporting economic development, Iran is expected to uphold its nuclear commitments and help secure Hormuz. This division of labor creates a dynamic tension, as both nations juggle their immediate needs with long-term goals. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has been careful in his public statements, acknowledging the agreement’s value while reserving the right to criticize its terms if necessary. His nuanced stance allows the deal to proceed without fully endorsing all its provisions, leaving room for future maneuvering.

Meanwhile, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran’s parliament and head of its negotiating team, has framed the discussions in defiant terms. On state television, he declared,

“I am not a diplomat, but I know well how to make America understand.”

This rhetoric underscores the political pressure on Iran’s representatives to negotiate without appearing too accommodating. The challenge lies in convincing the U.S. that Iran’s concessions are reasonable while maintaining the illusion of strength among domestic supporters. Any perceived weakness could trigger backlash, as hardline factions within Iran demand more from the agreement.

Domestic critics on both sides are already questioning the deal’s fairness. In Iran, some argue that the U.S. has secured too much by deferring critical decisions to future talks. The regime’s leadership, however, has managed to present the agreement as a necessary step toward stability, emphasizing the recognition of Iran’s sovereignty and the lifting of the naval blockade. For the U.S., the deal’s success depends on its ability to meet its own domestic expectations, particularly among lawmakers who were skeptical of Trump’s decision to engage with Iran. The MOU’s provisions, including the $300bn reconstruction plan, are designed to counter these criticisms and provide a foundation for continued cooperation.

Despite these efforts, the path forward is fraught with uncertainty. The deal’s temporary nature means that both sides must continuously justify their actions. If Iran’s leadership fails to meet its commitments on nuclear enrichment, the U.S. could pressure it to reconsider the ceasefire. Similarly, if the U.S. does not deliver on its economic promises, Iran may withdraw support for the agreement. The MOU, therefore, is more than a ceasefire—it is a delicate compromise that requires sustained political will from both nations. As the negotiations continue, the true test of this deal will be whether it can transform a temporary truce into a lasting peace or merely delay the inevitable return to conflict.