The announcement of a preliminary peace agreement between the United States and Iran has done little to clarify the path forward. Instead, it has sharpened the contradictions between Washington and Tehran while triggering a furious political backlash in Israel. The deal, which is expected to be signed in Switzerland on Friday, marks the first concrete step toward ending a conflict that has raged since February 28.
However, the full text of the memorandum of understanding remains unpublished, and the two sides are already presenting sharply different versions of what they have actually agreed to.
The most fundamental divergence concerns the very nature of the document. President Donald Trump has repeatedly declared that the deal is "now complete" and that the Strait of Hormuz would reopen immediately. In a series of social media posts, Trump wrote that he had "fully authorize[d] the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith, authorize[d] the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade". He also instructed world shipping to "start your engines" as oil flows would resume.
Iran, by contrast, has insisted that nothing takes effect until the memorandum is formally signed in Switzerland on June 19. Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi has emphasised that the 60 day negotiation period on nuclear and other issues will begin only after the United States has verified its commitments, including the lifting of the naval blockade and the release of frozen Iranian assets. The sequencing could hardly be more different: Washington speaks of immediate implementation; Tehran speaks of a phased process conditioned on verification.
The most concrete contradiction concerns the fate of billions of dollars in Iranian assets frozen abroad. A senior Iranian official told Reuters that the draft memorandum includes the release of $25 billion of these funds, with the money to be made available through direct cash transfers, regional cooperation, and financial credit lines. The same official said the United States had agreed not to impose any new sanctions until a final deal is reached, and that oil sanctions would be waived for a specified period, with all UN and US sanctions ultimately lifted according to an agreed timetable.
Washington has flatly rejected this version. A US official told CNN that the report is "completely not true" and that the agreement is a "pay for performance deal" under which no frozen funds will be released unless Iran first implements its own commitments. Vice President JD Vance, appearing on Fox News, insisted that "Iran doesn’t get a dime of money unless they perform their obligations". President Trump himself has said Iran would not be provided with cash, though he has acknowledged that sanctions could potentially be lifted. Senator Lindsey Graham, a hawkish Republican, has expressed concern that "Iran’s view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming".
The most consequential gap concerns Iran’s nuclear programme. A US administration official told Reuters that the agreement would eventually lead to the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear programme, with its stockpile of highly enriched uranium destroyed and removed from the country. Vance has spoken of preventing Iran from "pursuing, procuring or trying to buy" a nuclear weapon, and Trump has said Iran will never be allowed to obtain one.
Iran’s official statements tell a different story. According to Iran’s IRNA news agency, Tehran has not accepted any new nuclear obligations in the memorandum. Instead, nuclear issues will be discussed during the 60 day period that follows the signing. A senior Iranian official told Reuters that under the draft, Iran would agree to freeze its nuclear activity, refraining from further uranium enrichment or the expansion of nuclear facilities but that the stockpile would be diluted inside Iran, not destroyed and removed.
The hardest line of all has come from Israel, which was not a party to the negotiations. Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir delivered the first official reaction on Monday, declaring in an X post that "Trump’s agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subject to the United States, and we are an independent and sovereign nation". Ben Gvir insisted that Israel must not compromise "on anything less than the dismantling of Hezbollah" and must not withdraw "from any territory that our fighters have captured". His comments came as details of the memorandum remained limited, but they made clear that Israel would not be bound by any arrangement that restricts its military freedom.
Defence Minister Israel Katz was even more explicit. In a formal statement, Katz said the Israeli military would remain in security zones it has captured in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza, and that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had made this clear to Trump. "We will not withdraw from the security zones," Katz said, characterising the seizure of territory in southern Lebanon as "among the IDF’s greatest achievements in the war".
The Israeli political class has reacted with unusual ferocity, with opposition figures and even some coalition members directing their anger at Netanyahu. Benny Gantz, head of the Blue and White party, called the emerging agreement a "strategic failure that will require Israel to engage in diplomatic, military, and legal struggles in the coming years". Yair Golan, leader of the Democrats party, went further, accusing Netanyahu of having "stood on the sidelines" while "military achievements secured with the courage of our pilots and the blood of our fighters have been erased". Golan argued that Netanyahu is "good for Hamas, good for Iran, good for Hezbollah, and not good for Israel", and that "replacing him is not just a political necessity, it is an existential security imperative". Even within the coalition, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich denounced the memorandum as "bad for Israel", warning that "we will have to continue the campaign to topple the [Iranian] regime ourselves".
Netanyahu himself has struck a more cautious note. On Friday, he and Trump discussed the memorandum by phone, and Netanyahu’s office later thanked the president for his commitment that a final agreement would include removing Iran’s enriched material and dismantling its enrichment facilities. However, Netanyahu also told reporters that "whether there is a deal or not, Iran will never obtain a nuclear weapon". His balancing act, publicly thanking Trump while privately signalling Israeli reservations, reflects the awkward position of a leader who was instrumental in pressing the United States to confront Iran but is now watching Washington negotiate directly with Tehran.
Iran has made clear that a complete halt to military operations in Lebanon is an inseparable part of the agreement. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said there must be a complete halt to Israeli attacks against Lebanon and that the United States bears responsibility for ensuring Israeli compliance. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who has served as a mediator, announced that the pact calls for the "immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon". Iran’s Supreme National Security Council also confirmed that military operations, including those in Lebanon, would stop permanently.
Yet Israeli officials have rejected that interpretation outright. Ben Gvir argued that Israel must retain complete freedom of action in dealing with Hezbollah, and Katz insisted that Israeli forces would remain in southern Lebanon regardless of any US Iranian arrangement. A senior US official has attempted to bridge the gap, telling reporters that "the deal is a ceasefire, and it will not be a one‑way ceasefire. If Iran is not able to control Hezbollah and if they attack Israeli positions or Israeli towns, Israel will have the right to defend itself and respond". That formulation, however, falls far short of the comprehensive halt that Tehran has demanded.
The agreement has drawn a cautious welcome from other regional actors. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have not publicly condemned the deal, though they are watching closely to see whether it genuinely reduces the threat to Gulf shipping. The UAE earlier denied reports that it had agreed to release up to $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds, but the very existence of such speculation goes to show the financial stakes involved.
In Washington, the agreement faces an uncertain path through Congress. Senator Lindsey Graham has said any final nuclear deal with Iran would have to be reviewed and approved by Congress, a warning that the White House cannot simply implement the arrangement without legislative oversight. Democrats have also voiced concerns, with some arguing that the administration is sidestepping congressional authority by presenting a memorandum rather than a formal treaty. The White House has insisted that the agreement is legally sound, but the political battle in Congress has only just begun.
As the scheduled signing ceremony in Switzerland approaches, several fundamental questions remain unanswered. The most urgent is whether the maritime blockade will be lifted immediately, as Trump has said, or only after Friday’s signing, as a US official subsequently told CNN. The sequencing of financial relief, whether billions in frozen assets will be released before or after Iran complies remains fiercely contested. The fate of Iran’s nuclear stockpile whether it will be destroyed and removed, or diluted inside Iran is unresolved. And the status of Lebanon, whether Israel will be required to withdraw completely, or merely to refrain from new attacks is actively disputed.
The memorandum is not a final treaty. It is a preliminary understanding, intended to open a 60 day window during which the most difficult issues will be negotiated. But the contradictions that have already emerged suggest that the path ahead will be anything but smooth. If the memorandum is signed, the world will have avoided an immediate resumption of war. But the underlying disputes, over Iran’s nuclear programme, the fate of frozen assets, the control of the Strait of Hormuz, and the future of Lebanon have not been resolved. They have merely been postponed.