The United States and Iran Sign a Provisional Agreement Ending the War

On June 17, 2026, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed that brings an indefinite end to the war in the Middle East between the United States of America and its allies and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The document had initially been signed on June 14 by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf. Subsequently, on Wednesday (June 17), the heads of state of both countries signed the memorandum, formally consolidating the agreement.

Titled the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran, the document addresses not only issues directly related to the conflict between the parties but also matters pertaining to regional stability and security in the Middle East. The first clause calls for the “immediate and permanent cessation of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon.” The inclusion of Lebanon among the fronts covered by the ceasefire reflects the conflict’s regional impact, since the country did not directly participate in the hostilities between the United States and Iran but was affected by the escalation of tensions in the Middle East and by military operations between Israel and Hezbollah throughout the crisis.

The memorandum also reaffirms the parties’ commitment to the principles of state sovereignty and territorial integrity. Nevertheless, the text makes it clear that several points still require negotiation, setting a maximum deadline of 60 days for the conclusion of a final agreement that reflects the consensus of both parties. Among the elements envisaged for the final treaty is the creation of a regional partnership focused on Iran’s reconstruction and economic development, with estimated investments of $3 trillion.

In the economic and logistical sphere, the document calls for the immediate lifting of the naval blockade imposed by the United States, setting a deadline of up to 30 days for its complete demobilization. During this period, the parties shall work to restore trade and maritime flows to the levels observed before the war began. In return, Iran commits to ensuring, at no additional cost, the safe passage of commercial vessels through the maritime corridors affected by the conflict, as well as to removing obstacles to navigation, including naval mines and other military equipment installed during hostilities.

The provisions related to Iran’s nuclear program are among the central points of the memorandum. The text stipulates that the United States will work toward the suspension and subsequent removal of sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran, particularly those linked to its nuclear program and approved by the United Nations Security Council. In return, Iran reaffirms its commitment not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons. The document further establishes that the two countries will jointly negotiate a solution regarding the stockpiles of enriched nuclear material currently held by the Iranian government. As a minimum measure, the material must undergo a process to reduce its enrichment level on Iranian territory, under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The memorandum also provides for the opening of specific negotiations on future uranium enrichment activities and other aspects related to the needs of Iran’s civilian nuclear program. According to the text, these issues should be incorporated into a broader framework of understanding to be consolidated in the final agreement. The parties recognize the strategic importance of the nuclear issue for regional stability and express their intention to treat it as one of the immediate priorities of the negotiation process, seeking to reach a lasting consensus in the coming months.

Thus, the memorandum has different effects for each of the parties involved. For the United States, the agreement marks the end of a conflict that has entailed high financial, military, and political costs, allowing for the gradual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and easing pressure on the international energy market. In this regard, the normalization of maritime traffic is likely to benefit the U.S. economy and those of its European and Asian allies, which are highly dependent on oil exports from the Persian Gulf. Nevertheless, the document defers more sensitive issues related to the bilateral dispute—such as permanent limits on Iran’s nuclear program, the scope of the suspension of economic sanctions, and the future of the U.S. military presence in the region—to future negotiations, creating uncertainty regarding the stability of the established arrangement.

For Iran, in turn, the memorandum opens up prospects for significant economic recovery and international reintegration after months of isolation and strain caused by the war. The expectation of sanctions relief, coupled with the prospect of billions in investments earmarked for the country’s reconstruction, strengthens the Iranian government’s position both domestically and vis-à-vis its regional partners. At the same time, the lack of immediate decisions on key aspects of the nuclear program allows the country to retain some room for maneuver regarding one of the main instruments of its deterrence policy. Thus, analysts assess that the structure of the memorandum meets, at least in its initial phase, several of Iran’s strategic priorities, deferring to subsequent rounds of negotiations decisions that previously constituted immediate demands from Washington.

The implications of the memorandum also extend to the respective allies. Among the United States’ partners in the Middle East—particularly Israel and some of the Gulf monarchies—doubts persist regarding the memorandum’s ability to permanently curb Iran’s regional influence and to establish sufficiently robust mechanisms for verifying Tehran’s nuclear activities. At the same time, these countries tend to benefit from the immediate reduction in hostilities and the diminished risks to commercial shipping and global energy supply chains. On the Iranian side, the cessation of the conflict reduces military pressure on Tehran’s allies, such as Hezbollah, while raising expectations for the resumption of the economic and financial flows that underpin part of the Islamic Republic’s regional influence. However, the persistence of flashpoints, especially in Lebanon, makes it clear that regional peace remains contingent on the effective implementation of the provisions set forth in the final agreement.

From a diplomatic perspective, part of the international community interprets the memorandum as a significant political victory for Iran. This perception stems, above all, from the fact that Washington agreed to gradually lift economic pressure measures and begin negotiations on issues that, until then, had been among its key strategic demands—without securing immediate equivalent concessions on matters considered priorities, such as the final disposition of Iran’s enriched uranium. Analysts also point out that factors related to U.S. domestic politics may have influenced the Trump administration’s willingness to expedite the conclusion of the agreement. The prolonged conflict had been causing significant economic impacts, particularly on energy prices and public perception, in a context marked by the approaching November congressional elections and growing pressure from Congress for a negotiated solution.

However, the provisional nature of several provisions in the memorandum calls for caution regarding the long-term outlook. A considerable portion of the planned measures are initially set to remain in effect for only sixty days, a timeframe significantly shorter than the U.S. political calendar, given that elections will not take place until November. Thus, the continuity of the process will depend on the progress of technical negotiations between Washington and Tehran, as well as on developments in the U.S. domestic political landscape. If the Republican Party retains its majority in Congress and the Trump administration maintains sufficient support to steer foreign policy, it is possible that the negotiations will progress toward a final treaty. On the other hand, the highly sensitive nature of the issues still pending suggests that the consolidation of a permanent agreement will remain subject to diplomatic deadlocks and potential changes in the political context of both countries.