The 60-Day Deadline Has Expired

The memorandum of understanding signed between the United States and Iran contained 14 provisions that paved the way for the signing of a final agreement. However, no such agreement has been reached now that the 60-day deadline has expired.

The memorandum covered a number of issues, some of which concerned a halt to the war in Lebanon—which Israel has yet to honor—as well as the opening of the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping and the lifting of the blockade on Iranian ports.

The most important and complex aspect, however, which could be described as the memorandum’s “gray area” or deferred component, was the granting of a 60-day period to resolve the outstanding issues between the two sides. Article 3 of the memorandum stipulated that the United States and Iran would commit to negotiating and reaching a final agreement within a maximum period of 60 days, extendable by mutual consent.

Article 5, which ultimately became the source of the memorandum’s unraveling, stipulated that upon signing the memorandum, Iran would “make arrangements and use its best efforts” to ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, without imposing fees.

This was an important objective for the United States from the outset of the war, as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz had led to a sharp rise in the prices of oil, as well as many food commodities and raw materials.

In reality, Iran did not commit to opening the strait unconditionally. Nor did it declare the strait closed or impose fees on vessels passing through it. Instead, it required ships to comply with the guidelines and routes it specified. This effectively eliminated any prospect of implementing the “vague” provision concerning freedom of passage through the strait.

Iran considered itself to have upheld that freedom, while the United States argued that it had failed to respect the principle of freedom of navigation as stipulated in the memorandum of understanding.

With the expiration of the 60-day deadline, reviving another vague memorandum of understanding is no longer a viable option. Nor can Donald Trump’s shifting moods provide the foundation for a lasting agreement.

What is needed instead is a durable agreement that settles the issue of the Strait of Hormuz—a card Iran played to the very end. The time has come for Tehran to accept relinquishing that leverage in exchange for gains on other issues.

That, however, is unlikely to happen under the current approach of the U.S. president, who appears to be seeking a dramatic moment and a flashy agreement that would allow him to declare victory and claim that he had forced Iran to its knees. What is actually needed is a detailed and comprehensive agreement, not a propaganda message to the world proclaiming a sweeping victory that is unlikely to materialize.

If the two countries are to return to the negotiating table and sign a new agreement, all the ambiguous and deferred issues that were left unresolved throughout the 60-day period must be settled—particularly those concerning the Strait of Hormuz, the gradual lifting of restrictions on frozen Iranian funds, and the framework and mechanism for freezing Iran’s nuclear program.

All of these issues require a final, rather than deferred, agreement—something that remains difficult to achieve under the current leadership of both countries.

Originally published in Al-Masry Al-Youm.