A simple one-page memorandum of understanding. It is around this concise document, transmitted by Washington to Tehran, that a possible de-escalation between Iran and the United States is now playing out, after weeks of military tensions around the Strait of Hormuz and the Iranian nuclear file.
The day after the postponement of the “Freedom Project” operation, launched on May 4 by U.S. President Donald Trump, the U.S. administration was still awaiting an Iranian response to the memorandum of understanding (MOU) transmitted to Tehran. Presented as a general framework intended to pave the way for more detailed negotiations, this text was initially expected to receive an Iranian response within 48 hours.
What the memorandum of understanding focuses on
The document transmitted by Washington to Tehran does not, at this stage, constitute a formal agreement, but rather a basis for discussion intended to test the possibility of a broader compromise. “The Americans have submitted what is called an MoU (memorandum of understanding), which is a ‘protocol of understanding’ in the business world,” explains David Rigoulet-Roze, editor-in-chief of the magazine Orients strategiques and a specialist in the Middle East. “The text is very succinct, it fits on one page and only recalls the essential parameters.”
At the center of the discussions is primarily the Iranian nuclear file, along with the strategic question of the Strait of Hormuz, which has become crucial due to recent maritime tensions. According to David Rigoulet-Roze, the document remains intentionally vague on several sensitive aspects. “There is obviously no precision regarding the limitation of the Iranian ballistic program. The idea is mainly to validate a general framework before defining a real agreement.”
However, the positions of the two camps are currently very far apart. Washington would demand, in particular, the surrender of some 440 kilos of enriched uranium to 60% held by Iran, as well as a long-term moratorium on Iranian nuclear enrichment. “The Americans, who were initially on a basis of 20 years for this moratorium on enrichment, would now reportedly mention at least between 12 and 15 years. The Iranians, on the other hand, had proposed a maximum deadline of five years,” notes David Rigoulet-Roze.
In return, the memorandum would gradually provide for an easing of U.S. sanctions, the unblocking of some frozen Iranian assets abroad, and a loosening of the restrictions imposed around the Strait of Hormuz. However, at this stage, the text remains primarily an attempt to define minimal common principles without delving into the most explosive technical details of the negotiations. Currently, the question is whether Tehran would be willing to partially endorse this framework proposed by Washington? And more importantly, what room for maneuver does the Iranian government really have in a context of strong internal divisions and growing military pressure?
The different scenarios
The Iranian response remains difficult to anticipate. Primarily because the Tehran government operates according to a complex architecture where decision-making centers overlap.
“Decisions are not made by a single person,” emphasizes David Rigoulet-Roze. “The supreme leader appears largely absent today, even severely weakened. In reality, the real decision-making center seems to be a group dominated by the Revolutionary Guards, which imposes its line, including on President Massoud Pezeshkian,” he adds.
This fragmentation of power contributes, in fact, to explaining Iranian hesitations despite a growing economic and strategic pressure.
Another element also nuances the reading of a systematic deadlock. Indeed, the interests of both parties now paradoxically converge towards a form of de-escalation. For Washington, the crisis around the Strait of Hormuz represents a direct threat to the global economy, but also to the stability of the U.S. energy market. “In the United States, the price of a gallon of gas has exceeded 4 dollars, which, in American consumer culture, is a politically sensitive threshold,” notes the expert.
From the Iranian side, the pressure also becomes considerable. The American counter-blockade seriously disrupts Iranian oil exports. “The White House has mentioned that the losses in terms of liquidity for the Revolutionary Guards amount to several billion dollars since the implementation of the American counter-blockade,” he notes.
In this context, Iran would even be forced to gradually reduce its oil production due to insufficient export capacity. “The wells are overflowing. However, when the extraction of a well is stopped, even temporarily, it can become extremely difficult to reactivate due to water infiltrations in geological structures,” points out Mr. Rigoulet-Roze.
However, this economic weakening does not mean immediate collapse. According to a confidential CIA analysis revealed by the Washington Post, Tehran would still have several months of resistance despite the sanctions and the American naval blockade, thus prolonging a situation of controlled but unstable tension.
The Strait of Hormuz at the center of the standoff
Another major point of the negotiations concerns the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic passage through which a crucial part of global oil transits.
It is worth recalling that after launching the “Freedom Project,” aimed at escorting commercial ships in the Gulf, the operation was quickly suspended due to diplomatic tensions with the Gulf monarchies and indirect discussions with Tehran.
According to David Rigoulet-Roze, Riyadh and Kuwait reacted poorly to some American decisions made without prior consultation. “The pro-monarchies felt they were faced with a fait accompli regarding the need to use their bases by the United States to implement the surveillance system of the announced operation. They temporarily restricted the use of certain American bases essential for the aerial surveillance of the entire Gulf,” he asserts.
The restrictions have since been relaxed, leaving open the possibility of a resumption of the American operation in case of diplomatic failure.
Despite this, disagreements remain deep. Tehran demands a prior lifting of the American counter-blockade and an immediate reopening of Ormuz as soon as negotiations begin. A request rejected by Washington.
For the Americans, the counter-blockade is precisely the main pressure tool in the negotiations,” notes the expert. And he adds that the United States “considers that it can only be lifted in exchange for concrete progress.”
The risk of a new escalation
In the event of failed discussions, the scenario of a resumption of military operations remains highly credible.
“Escalation is already latent,” estimates David Rigoulet-Roze. He mentions in particular the recent clashes in the Gulf after attacks on several American destroyers, followed by American retaliatory strikes around Bandar Abbas and the Qeshm island.
Donald Trump himself has warned that a lack of agreement could lead to a massive resurgence of military operations.
“The problem is that the agreement requested by Washington appears, from the Iranian perspective, as a form of capitulation,” summarizes David Rigoulet-Roze. “And that’s the whole dilemma: Iran needs a relaxation of sanctions but refuses to give up what it considers its strategic right to nuclear weapons,” he concludes.
For now, the protocol under discussion remains limited to the broad outlines: nuclear, sanctions, and the Strait of Hormuz, and in Tehran, the mechanics of power make any decision particularly subject to multiple arbitrations.
