{"id":59741,"date":"2026-06-15T11:01:41","date_gmt":"2026-06-15T19:01:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=59741"},"modified":"2026-06-15T11:11:00","modified_gmt":"2026-06-15T19:11:00","slug":"the-mou-is-not-the-final-deal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2026\/06\/15\/the-mou-is-not-the-final-deal\/","title":{"rendered":"The MoU Is Not the Final ‘Deal’"},"content":{"rendered":"

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced<\/a> on Sunday that the U.S. and Iran had reached a \u201cPeace Deal.\u201d Immediately following Sharif\u2019s post on X, President Donald Trump seconded<\/a> this news:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all! I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade. Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow! President DONALD J. TRUMP\u201d<\/p>\n

As the media is reacting to the flurry of updates, there is an air of optimism that I fear is blinding many in the public, and the financial markets, to the truth about this deal. There is a crucial detail that the commentator class seems to be largely missing, outside of a few reliable voices:<\/p>\n

This \u201cdeal\u201d is a Memorandum of Understanding, not a comprehensive \u201cIran deal\u201d as Trump keeps claiming.<\/p>\n

Based on the details being reported,<\/a> it essentially saves the most complicated issues for later and would establish a 60-day ceasefire period to discuss these points in greater depth. The main issue, Iran\u2019s nuclear enrichment, has not been discussed in any technical way up to this point.<\/p>\n

Despite Trump\u2019s claims<\/a> that \u201cWe will go in and get the Nuclear Dust, buried deep under the powerful sunken granite mountains, thanks to our beautiful B-2 Bombers and their brilliant pilots, and downblend and destroy it, whether in Iran, or the United States,\u201d no such agreement has been reached regarding the details of Iran\u2019s enriched uranium stockpile.<\/p>\n

Even as this deal was announced, we still have no clarity on the status of the nuclear file in these discussions. Trump told the Wall Street Journal<\/a> on Sunday:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2018We\u2019ll get the nuclear dust later on when we\u2019re ready to go in and do it. I\u2019d say over the next month or two, there\u2019s no rush,\u2019 he said. He called it \u2018harmless.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Besides the fact that this statement contradicts months of propaganda on the \u201cimminent threat\u201d posed by Iran, this signals that details on Iran\u2019s enriched uranium stockpile have not been worked out, despite Trump\u2019s claims to the contrary.<\/p>\n

This agreement also doesn\u2019t set terms on Iran\u2019s missile or drone programs, nor does it discuss Iran\u2019s support for their regional proxies. This has led many prominent neoconservative media voices to criticize the deal, saying that it won\u2019t ensure that Iran is sufficiently weakened in the region.<\/p>\n

Israel\u2019s operation in Lebanon continues<\/strong><\/p>\n

What we seem to be discussing is a ceasefire extension, one which will once again require Donald Trump to reign in the Israelis in order to allow serious negotiations to commence.<\/p>\n

I say this because Iran has made it clear<\/a> in recent days that, as they have maintained throughout the war, any peace deal must include a halting of the Israeli operation in Lebanon. Israel, however, is seeking to maintain their military occupation in southern Lebanon. Last Friday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said:<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cIsrael will not withdraw from the security zones in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza. The IDF will continue to defend our borders and our citizens from the peak of Mount Hermon, the mountains of Lebanon, the areas of our land in the Samaria region, and most of the territory of Gaza\u2014against the threats posed by jihadist forces and organizations, as a central lesson from the events of October 7.\u201d<\/p>\n

The radical elements within Prime Minister Netanyahu\u2019s political coalition, such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, have repeatedly<\/a> called for the total annexation of all Lebanese territory south of the Litani River. Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel\u2019s National Security Minister, has also called for escalation, even suggesting<\/a> that the IDF kidnap women and children in Lebanon to increase pressure on Hezbollah to disarm:<\/p>\n

“Also, conquering territory and killing many terrorists, but also arresting their women and youth and taking them to terrorist prisons. That’s what hurts them the most.”<\/p>\n

Israel endangered the peace talks again this past weekend when they attacked<\/a> the Dahieh suburb of Beirut. Iran threatened to respond with strikes against Israel, and it seemed as if they were preparing to do so in short order. Just hours later, however, all sides announced the MoU was finalized.<\/p>\n

It seems that Trump, through the Qatari delegation that was in Tehran, may have made some key concessions to prevent an Iranian attack on Israel. This is not confirmed, to be clear, but the timing seems to suggest that the U.S. was willing to agree to several Iranian positions. Among those is rumored to have been the immediate removal of the U.S. naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, as well as the clause which demands a total Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon.<\/p>\n

Jeremy Scahill, a reporter from Drop Site News, was on Breaking Points<\/a> this morning and had this to say about these rumors:<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat I’m told happened, and again this is Iran’s narrative, we’re going to see what happens when we see the formal text, but what they’re claiming is that there was a flurry of activity. The mediators on behalf of Trump were begging the Iranians not to actually bomb Israel. And the Iranians claimed that they were able to win some last-minute concessions in some of the language. One of them involved a more swift reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the pull back of some American military assets from the region. But the other is that they say that mediators told them that the United States was going to compel the Israelis to pull their troops out of southern Lebanon.\u201d<\/p>\n

Drop Site News reported<\/a> on Monday:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe spokesperson for Iran\u2019s Foreign Ministry, Esmaeil Baghaei, reiterated on Monday that Lebanon is a critical part of the MoU with the U.S. \u2018Respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon is part of the interim agreement with the US,\u2019 Baghaei told reporters, according to Al Jazeera.\u201d<\/p>\n

Based on the tone from the United States, it seems as if there is an expectation that Israel will need to comply with this clause. Vice President JD Vance was asked about Israel\u2019s defiance on CBS Mornings<\/a> on Monday, and he said:<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat the President has said is that we expect everybody to honor this agreement.\u201d<\/p>\n

On Monday, Israel\u2019s Defense Minister again reiterated<\/a> that they have no intention of withdrawing from Lebanon. Simultaneously, Israel has continued their attacks, killing one person<\/a> in a drone strike just hours after the U.S.-Iran MoU was announced.<\/p>\n

With this being the state of mind of Israel\u2019s most influential cabinet officials, it is hard to imagine that they will quietly roll over and halt their plans for Lebanon. When we also consider Trump\u2019s unwillingness to assert any real leverage over the Israelis to force them to comply, the likelihood of peace reduces even more.<\/p>\n

Economic strain<\/strong><\/p>\n

Trump seems to be facing serious pressure to make a deal. According to reporting<\/a> from Drop Site News, the U.S. originally sought to add more favorable terms to an older draft of this MoU a few weeks back. The New York Times reported<\/a> a similar story, saying that the U.S. negotiators sought to push Iran into make large concessions on the nuclear issue, only to back down under economic pressure:<\/p>\n

\u201cUntil a few days ago, the Trump administration was insisting it would not enter into any accord that did not deal with the hardest issue upfront: the nuclear program. But administration officials relented \u2014 in part because they needed to get the strait open and in part because they have come to recognize the complexity of negotiating on Iran\u2019s vast nuclear complex, a task that took the Obama administration nearly two years and resulted in a 160-page agreement.\u201d<\/p>\n

Given this information, we can assume that at least someone in the administration has read Trump\u2019s latest inflation report,<\/a> and understands the danger that the U.S. economy is in. With the closure of the Strait, the global fuel supply has been depleting. This is a massive piece of leverage for Iran and seems to be why Trump chose to negotiate instead of escalating last week.<\/p>\n

Prior drafts of this MoU seem to show that it will give Iran a 30-day timeframe<\/a> to open the Strait. There also seems to be a push by Tehran to include stricter language<\/a> limiting the use of force during the ceasefire, likely to prevent the U.S. from engaging in more of what they claim are \u201cself-defense\u201d strikes against Iran. With all of this being considered, Iran\u2019s economic leverage remains high.<\/p>\n

If the language establishing the ceasefire is stricter and would prevent the U.S. from continuing their limited strikes on Iran, then Iran has no reason not to take their time opening the Strait over the 30-day timeframe. They would be able to use all the economic leverage possible to get favorable terms from a potential final deal, especially with the American midterm elections quickly approaching.<\/p>\n

Time is not on our side<\/strong><\/p>\n

This MoU does not change the fact that all of the main points of contention haven\u2019t been dealt with. As of now there is no reporting to suggest that a comprehensive nuclear deal is imminent or even being negotiated in detail yet. Similarly, Tehran doesn\u2019t seem to be planning to slow the production of missiles or drones, and they are still collaborating with Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.<\/p>\n

As usual, Trump is drastically overselling the supposed \u201cwins\u201d from this war and is totally ignoring the major strategic losses. Iran controls the Strait, and with it 20% of the world\u2019s energy supply.<\/a> The leverage that comes with that poses a serious issue to Trump\u2019s ability to get favorable terms on a final deal, barring an escalation that would be unacceptable to the vast majority of the American population.<\/p>\n

With the Israelis determined to continue their occupation of southern Lebanon, and with the economic realities being as favorable to Iran as they are, it is becoming incredibly hard to see how Trump plans to negotiate a final deal which can be easily marketed as a victory. This, in the end, may be the biggest problem of all.<\/p>\n

Nolan Denaro is a paleolibertarian political commentator and host of \u201cThe Quest For Clarity\u201d podcast, which can be found on YouTube and Spotify. He writes on Substack, and his work can be found at nolandenaro.substack.com. He<\/span><\/span>\u00a0can be reached for correspondence by email at<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span>nolansdenaro@icloud.com<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced on Sunday that the U.S. and Iran had reached a \u201cPeace Deal.\u201d Immediately following Sharif\u2019s post on X, President Donald Trump seconded this news: \u201cThe Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all! I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":707,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","_seopress_news_disabled":"","_seopress_video_disabled":"","_seopress_video":[],"_seopress_pro_schemas_manual":[],"_seopress_pro_rich_snippets_disable_all":"","_seopress_pro_rich_snippets_disable":[],"_seopress_pro_schemas":[],"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_social_image_id":59746,"_social_image_url":"","_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[1398],"class_list":["post-59741","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"0","custom_donate_message":"","_social_image_id":"59746","subtitle":"This crucial fact is being overlooked by the corporate media."},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59741","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/707"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=59741"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59741\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":59745,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59741\/revisions\/59745"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59741"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59741"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59741"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=59741"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}