Analysis: How to interpret the draft US-Iran agreement

Now that CNN has received the full text of the draft agreement between the US and Iran, we can begin to evaluate its merits more fairly.

Of course, before the White House officially releases the text, what CNN received may not be the final version or may undergo changes. But now we know enough to evaluate the terms, and I will do my best to do so.

From the text we have seen so far, it is remarkable how much the United States is offering in exchange for so little. I have negotiated difficult deals with Iran and this document stands out for providing Iran with much of what it has demanded in the past - and rarely achieved.

09/07/2026

One year after Trump's letter to Lula and announcement of tariffs: remember the main chapters of the trade dispute between the USA and Brazil

09/07/2026

IBGE competition: after extension, registrations for more than 8 thousand places end this Thursday

09/07/2026

Why do most Brazilians work today, but São Paulo has time off? Understand reason and rules

---

CANAL NO WHATSAPP

Trump appears to have determined that a deal - any deal - was a better alternative to the status quo. In turn, Iran effectively held the Strait of Hormuz hostage and demanded that the US comply with its demands. The tactic appears to have worked.

In practice, the essence of this memorandum of understanding (MOU) is that Iran now receives a lot, including tens of billions of dollars, in exchange for not shooting at ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

Understanding the text
To understand how it works, we need to analyze what happens immediately after signing and what is expected for the future. Think of the agreement as two phases. Phase 1 begins now and Phase 2 defers everything else to be resolved in a "final agreement" to be negotiated over the next 60 days. This 60-day period may be extended by mutual agreement.

Top Cifras

Toque agora.

1 Un Trocito De Cielo Jaci Velasquez

2 Yesterday Petula Clark

3 Pelo Teu Nome Leonardo Campos

4 Rock And Roll In The Hay Brad Cotter

Now: Early US Concessions
Like many agreements with Iran, this text is something of a puzzle, with some articles referencing others - and some provisions focused on the future, while others apply immediately.

CNN has access to the text of the agreement between the US and Iran; see the 14 points | CNN NEW DAY

To understand what needs to be done now, see Article 13. It states that immediately after signing, "Articles 4, 5, 10 and 11" of the Memorandum of Understanding must be in force. Therefore, these are the articles that apply now and must be in force even before Phase 2 of negotiations begins.

Let's analyze them:

Articles 4 and 5 (Strait of Hormuz): Under these two articles, the United States lifts the naval blockade and Iran removes obstacles (such as mines) to ensure that traffic through the Strait of Hormuz returns to pre-war levels within the next 30 days.

If the deal stops there, it will be positive for the US and the global economy, as it resolves the core problem of the strait, with both countries agreeing to allow ships to cross at pre-war levels.

But the agreement doesn't end there. In fact, this is where Iranian obligations end and American obligations begin.

Article 10 (sanctions exemption): According to this article, the United States "immediately upon signature... shall grant exemptions for exports of Iranian crude oil, petrochemical products and their derivatives, and all related services, including banking, insurance, transportation, and similar services."

This is a significant concession. At first glance, it returns Iran to the status it enjoyed under the Obama-era nuclear deal (the JCPOA), with unlimited sales of oil and petrochemicals at market prices. Some energy experts have already estimated that this article alone would yield between US$60 and US$70 billion a year directly to Iran.

This represents an expenditure of 60 to 70 billion dollars to do nothing but reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which was already open before the war.

Article 11 (frozen funds): This article is complex, a piece within another puzzle. It says: "The United States undertakes that...

the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran be released and made available in full." Within this reticence, the text says "in light of the progress of negotiations towards a final agreement".

This could be interpreted as a caveat to the release of funds in exchange for Iran's performance in the 60-day negotiations for a more permanent agreement.

But let's remember Article 13: these 60-day negotiations do not begin without the "implementation" of this article on frozen funds. Therefore, the frozen funds must be dealt with in some way now and perhaps even before Iran is forced to comply with its cross-strait demands.

Another important point is that this article states that Iran's central bank can determine the beneficiary of the funds once they are released. This is completely different from other agreements with Iran - such as the 2023 hostage rescue agreement - which have made these funds available exclusively to unsanctioned beneficiaries (such as humanitarian goods).

While the wording could certainly change, I don't recall any agreement, other than the JCPOA, that simply released Iran's frozen assets to any designated beneficiary of the country.

Long-term provisions
Has Iran made any new long-term commitments to the United States in exchange for these concessions? From the text we have, this does not appear to be the case.

Article 8 (nuclear weapons): According to the text received by CNN, Iran "reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons".

Trump is spreading this article as if he would stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. But the text of the Obama-era JCPOA was more incisive: "Iran reaffirms that it will under no circumstances seek, develop or acquire nuclear weapons." This is not a political issue. It's a fact. The language on nuclear weapons is not new and is actually milder than what the United States had in the deal that Trump abandoned during his first term.

To be fair, the Trump administration destroyed much of Iran's nuclear program, and the memorandum of understanding guarantees that the status quo will be maintained throughout the 60 days of negotiations. Iran is not in a position to develop an atomic bomb, and its initial situation is much worse than under the Obama administration.

But the memorandum of understanding, in its current form, does not chart the path to a broader, more permanent agreement. On the contrary, it makes this path more difficult, given the relief granted to Iran initially.

As for nuclear material and the nuclear program itself, these matters "will be appropriately addressed in a final agreement." In other words, Iran has made no commitments on these issues.

Article 9 (reconstruction fund): This is the much-discussed $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran. The Memorandum of Understanding does not establish such a fund immediately, but requires the United States, "together with its regional partners, to create a comprehensive plan, agreed to by both parties, for the rehabilitation and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while ensuring financing of at least $300 billion."

USA and Iran: Agreement between countries includes US$ 300 billion fund | CNN 360º

This plan is expected to be "formulated within 60 days" and will be part of a final agreement with Iran.

To be clear what this means: there will be no "final deal" without a $300 billion reconstruction fund. Iran will not agree to nuclear commitments or anything else unless this fund is a reality. That's certainly how they interpret Article 8, and that's exactly what Article 8 says. Without the fund, there will be no agreement.

Article 7 (all sanctions): This is perhaps the most important article and will make negotiating a long-term agreement quite difficult. It states: "The United States commits to ending, on a schedule to be agreed as part of the final agreement, all types of sanctions currently imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran."

It then lists UN Security Council sanctions, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolutions, and "all U.S. unilateral sanctions, both primary and secondary."

Tehran will take this for what it says: the United States has committed to lifting all (emphasis on "all") sanctions against Iran - for terrorism, missiles, human rights, drones, weapons proliferation, etc. - as part of a "final agreement" on the nuclear program. This goes beyond anything the US has ever done or offered in the past.

To justify such a move by the United States, Iran would presumably need to renounce its support for terrorism and completely change the essence of the Islamic Republic. It is difficult to imagine the United States lifting all sanctions just in exchange for nuclear measures. But the memorandum of understanding, in its current form, provides only for a final nuclear agreement.

There is absolutely nothing in this text about Iran's support for terrorist groups, human rights violations against its own people, plans to assassinate Americans, its missile and drone program or its allies throughout the Middle East region.

As for the IAEA, Iran claims to have received a clean bill of health despite its well-known weapons development program. This shouldn't be up for discussion. Iran had a weapons program. Everyone knows that. Iran did not admit it. Until you do this, there is no certificate of health.

End of war
Ultimately, the memorandum of understanding seeks to establish "an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon" and commits the United States and Iran not to use force - or threaten to use it - against each other.

Trump may have already violated this provision when, at the G7 summit in France, he said today about Iran and its future behavior: "If I don't like it, we will shoot them again, dropping bombs right in their heads."

In any case, stating on paper that a war in the Middle East ends without any commitment from Iran to cease support for terrorist groups that foment war in the region (including Hezbollah in Lebanon) does little good in practice. As long as Hezbollah is concentrated in Lebanon and firing at Israel, Israel will fight back to defend itself. The path to ending the war in Lebanon passes through Israel and Lebanon, not Tehran.

As for the Iranian people, the United States has now committed to non-interference in Iran's internal affairs, which Iran will interpret as an end to sanctions against human rights violators or those responsible for the murder of innocent Iranians in the streets. Iran will approve this provision. It is provided for in Article 2, with nothing in return from Iran.

It is unlikely to last very long
Based on this text and what we know about Iran's negotiating strategy as well as its behavior in the Middle East and globally over 47 years, it is unlikely that the United States will be able to move from this unilateral memorandum of understanding to a comprehensive agreement on the nuclear program or any other issue.

The United States appears to have ceded much of its influence in exchange for opening the Strait of Hormuz. And as these negotiations drag on or reach an impasse, the peace the memorandum of understanding seeks to establish may not last.

Source: CNN