Despite Washington and Tehran having nearly completed work on a memorandum of understanding, which is intended to open a new phase of negotiations, an official announcement is being postponed. The United States considers the agreement practically ready, but Iran is conducting the necessary internal and political consultations before making a final decision. This delay does not necessarily mean rejection of the document; rather, it is linked to complex procedural and security mechanisms within Iran’s decision-making system. The agreement is seen as a first stage, intended to last sixty days, to discuss key disputed issues, including the nuclear program and sanctions.
According to regional sources and statements from officials, the final text has already been agreed, and the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirms that most points of the memorandum have been settled. The provisional agreement includes a sixty-day ceasefire, the resumption of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and the gradual restoration of transport links. In return, Washington pledged to ease restrictions on Iranian oil exports and to provide financial relief depending on the progress of subsequent talks.
Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Tehran, Nuredin al-Dagher, notes that the delay is related to the need to run the document through the highest decision-making bodies, primarily the Supreme National Security Council, which includes representatives of the military, the government, and the office of the Supreme Leader. Security and logistical considerations related to the transmission and verification of confidential documents have lengthened the timeline, making the delay more procedural than political. These steps are necessary to obtain final approval that corresponds to the internal balance of power.
An important domestic aspect is preparing Iranian public opinion to accept the agreement, reached after weeks of military tension and regional clashes. The appearance of Deputy Foreign Minister Araghchi in the media was part of efforts to present the deal as protecting national interests and preserving internal unity, rather than disclosing details of the memorandum. However, the agreement faces opposition from conservative and hardline factions that categorically reject any deals with the United States and insist on preserving the gains they claim were achieved during the recent confrontation.
On the American side, sources in Washington say the administration considers the agreement practically ready but is waiting for Tehran’s final decision before an official announcement. U.S. officials mention the possibility of signing at the end of the week or the beginning of the next, with the vice president’s office preparing to participate in a ceremony after all arrangements are completed. The president’s administration has stepped up efforts to shield the deal from criticism by Republican hawks who prefer continued military pressure. Based on leaked provisions and U.S. reports, the parties are seeking a temporary political and security truce that would lay the groundwork for a broader negotiating process on uranium enrichment, sanctions, and frozen Iranian assets on a “step-by-step” basis. The main obstacle has been the approval mechanisms for the memorandum inside Iran, not the wording of the provisions themselves, so all eyes are on Tehran to see whether it will give the green light to an agreement that could open a new chapter in managing the conflict with the United States.
Comments on the news
How is the decision-making system in Iran structured and why does the Supreme National Security Council play a key role in ratifying such agreements? — Iran has a hybrid system in which the Supreme Leader (rahbar) has the final say on matters of state importance, including foreign policy and security. The Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) is a constitutional body composed of the heads of key branches of power (the president, the head of the judiciary, the speaker of parliament), ministers of defense, foreign affairs, intelligence, as well as representatives of the armed forces and the Supreme Leader. The SNSC coordinates security policy and presents proposals for the Supreme Leader’s approval. For international agreements such as a nuclear deal, the SNSC is necessary to reconcile the views of security and diplomatic structures, ensuring that the agreement does not contradict Iran’s strategic interests, especially given distrust of the United States.
Who is Araghchi and why is his media appearance seen as an important signal for preparing public opinion in Iran? — Abbas Araghchi is a senior Iranian diplomat, former Deputy Foreign Minister and chief nuclear negotiator (2013–2021). He is considered the architect of a “Plan B” (asymmetric responses to sanctions). His media appearances are seen as a signal that Tehran is preparing an information campaign—either to justify a new diplomatic initiative or to explain the inevitability of negotiations. In Iranian politics such media outings often precede official announcements, shaping public opinion and reducing the likelihood of criticism from conservative circles.
What historical reasons underlie the principled rejection of agreements with the United States by conservative and hardline circles in Iran? — Main reasons include: (1) the 1953 coup (Operation Ajax), when the US and UK overthrew Prime Minister Mossadegh, cementing distrust as a “national trauma”; (2) US support for the Shah’s regime (1953–1979), which repressed opposition; (3) the Iran hostage crisis (1979–1981) and ensuing hostility after the revolution; (4) the inclusion of Iran in the “axis of evil” (2002) by the Bush administration; (5) the unilateral US withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 and the reinstatement of harsh sanctions, which conservatives view as proof of American unreliability. Hardline circles (for example, the Principlists and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) view any deals with the US as a threat to the ideology of “resisting arrogance” (istiskbar) and to sovereignty.
Full version: ما وراء الصمت الإيراني.. لماذا يتأخر حسم "مذكرة التفاهم" مع واشنطن؟