“Kar nisi uspel doseči z orožjem, težko dosežeš s pogajanji”

So what is in “The Deal with Islamic Republic of Iran”?

If you’re confused, it’s normal: the US and Iran already publicly disagree on what they agreed to, and it’s not even a “deal”: just a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that sets the terms for negotiating the actual deal within the next 60 days.

We do, however, know a few things:

1) Israel is actively trying to undermine the deal – for instance by striking Beirut yesterday Sunday.

Israeli media say that the deal is causing “profound concern among Israeli officials,” that “Israel, despite having started the war alongside the US, was not involved in the negotiations,” and that “the deal do[es] not achieve the goals of the war that were set out by the US and Israel” (https://timesofisrael.com/us-iran-reach-deal-to-end-war-reportedly-including-lebanon-conflict-trump-hormuz-to-open/).

That last part is clear: the very existence of this MOU proves the objectives of the war were not met, as they certainly didn’t include the US negotiating an exit with an undefeated Iran while Israel is freaking out about it on the sidelines.

2) We know, because both parties and Pakistan (the mediator) confirmed it, that a finalized MOU does exist and that it’s due to be formally signed on Friday in Switzerland by JD Vance and maybe Trump himself (Vance told Fox News: “I certainly plan to be there, but it’s possible the president himself could be there” https://nbcnews.com/news/us-news/deal-reached-united-states-iran-war-rcna350039)

3) We know Trump ordered the US naval blockade to be lifted (supposedly today, Monday)

4) The Strait of Hormuz will reopen on the Iranian side (though both parties publicly spun the terms differently – Trump says “toll-free,” Iran’s FM Araghchi says with “service fees”)

5) The war would end on all fronts including Lebanon – both sides used this exact phrase. Israel, obviously, is trying hard to spoil this.

6) Some form of sanctions relief is included – Iran speaks of “termination of all sanctions” (https://fortune.com/2026/06/14/iran-ceasefire-terms-mou-versions-us-deal-sanctions-hormuz-blockade-nuclear-program-frozen-assets/) and a senior US official confirmed the structure is “Iran would earn economic rewards each time it met a set of US demands”

7) The MOU apparently does not agree on anything wrt nuclear, just that it will be discussed during the 60-day negotiation window, with Iran maintaining its current nuclear status quo in the meantime

8) In fact I suspect the MOU defers most things truly contested – like nuclear – to later negotiations while resolving in the immediate only the problems the war itself created: stop shooting, reopen the strait (under updated Iranian rules), and lift the blockade.

Which means that, most likely, this “deal” is – at this stage – less a deal than an acknowledgement of the new status quo reached in the war. It differs from the April 5 ceasefire in that, this time, the US is lifting all coercion it introduced in the war – including the naval blockade it imposed on April 13.

So in effect the war had two phases of failed coercion (military, then economic with the blockade), and the MOU formalizes the failure of both.

In exchange what the US is getting is a conversation about its initial stated war objectives (like nuclear), which it will now have to pursue after having proven it cannot impose them by force.

Needless to say, you don’t get better terms at the table after showing you couldn’t get them on the battlefield