AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): The Qatari website Al-Arabi Al-Jadeed, in its new analysis of the results of the war between the United States and the Zionist regime against Iran and the agreement recently reached between Tehran and Washington, in an article titled "Iran's Victory in the Memorandum of Understanding," wrote that finally, the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran was signed electronically and came into effect on the morning of Friday (June 19, 2026). Although this is not a legally binding international agreement, but rather a "framework agreement" that outlines the overall framework of the final agreement, it is nevertheless of great importance.
This memorandum of understanding sets limits that must not be exceeded when drafting the binding provisions of the agreement, and therefore its content can be used to prepare a rough assessment of the expected gains and losses and their potential impact on the regional balance of power in the foreseeable future.
What is noteworthy about this 14-article agreement is that it entails broad implications and commitments not only for its two direct parties—Iran and the United States—but also for regional actors who did not participate in the negotiations leading up to it.
The commitment to a ceasefire and the end of the war includes "all fronts" and is therefore not limited to the two parties to the agreement, but simultaneously includes their allies: Israel and the Arab countries allied with the United States on the one hand, and Hezbollah and other parties allied with Iran on the other.
Notably, this agreement does not explicitly mention the name of Israel or Hezbollah, while Lebanon is mentioned three times (Article 1).
On the other hand, the text of the agreement requires Iran to participate in "dialogue" with the Sultanate of Oman and other Gulf countries regarding the "future management and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz" for reasons related to ensuring "compliance with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of the coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz" (Article 5).
The agreement also indicates the United States' commitment, in cooperation with "regional partners" (unspecified), to prepare "a plan of at least $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran" (Article 6).
Iran's Superiority in Drafting the Memorandum of Understanding
If we were to prepare a balance sheet of gains and losses by monitoring and comparing the commitments of the parties involved under the memorandum of understanding, we would encounter a remarkable surprise. Iran has no more than two commitments, while the United States alone has six commitments—three times the number of Iran's commitments. In addition, the number of joint commitments is equal, with each having six commitments.
These statistics indicate that Iran had the upper hand in drafting the memorandum of understanding and therefore was likely able to impose its conditions on the United States, a country that, due to its failure to achieve its objectives through military means, appeared to be in greater need of reaching an agreement.
Iran's commitments under this memorandum of understanding are limited to ensuring the safe passage of commercial ships without cost for a period of 60 days and refraining from acquiring or developing nuclear weapons.
But the United States' commitments include lifting the naval blockade of Iran, developing a plan worth at least $300 billion for investment in Iran's reconstruction (in cooperation with regional partners), ending all types of sanctions imposed on Iran according to an agreed-upon timeline, in addition to the Treasury Department's commitment to issue exemptions that allow the immediate export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all related services, including banking, insurance, and transportation transactions, as well as making all of Iran's frozen funds and assets available for use according to mechanisms to be agreed upon later.
From this general overview of the content of the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran, we can draw several conclusions. The first concerns the obstacles that may hinder the implementation of the framework agreement and perhaps prevent the achievement of the desired final agreement. The most important obstacle in this regard is the Zionist regime, and it was clear from the outset that Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of this regime, was dissatisfied with the course of the negotiations between Iran and the United States, and therefore would use every opportunity to sabotage it.
Netanyahu's audacious decision to attack Dahieh in Beirut after the framework agreement between Iran and the United States had been almost finalized indicated his intention to disrupt any agreement. Therefore, Netanyahu, just as he sought to prevent the conclusion of this framework agreement between Tehran and Washington, will continue to sabotage the process of the final agreement negotiations as well.
The second point concerns contradictions in some aspects of the United States' foreign policy, compared to its commitments under the memorandum of understanding. The United States acknowledged the need for a ceasefire and an end to the war on all fronts, especially the Lebanese front, and not just the Iranian front. This means the acceptance by both parties of the principle of the "unity of arenas."
However, in practice, the United States pursues a foreign policy aimed at completely separating the arenas, as evidenced by its hosting of parallel negotiations between the Lebanese and Israeli governments. In these negotiations, the United States acts as a mediator, and its goal is to address the situation in Lebanon based on a view that considers Hezbollah a "terrorist organization" that must be disarmed.
Iran's Decisive Victory, Without Any Exaggeration
The third point concerns the glaring contradiction between the components of the "war axis" led by the United States, with the participation of Israel and some regional countries, and the "axis of resistance" led by Iran.
While the American axis is characterized by a lack of cohesion in the policies and positions adopted by its various components, the axis of resistance led by Iran is characterized by a high degree of homogeneity, and sometimes even reaching the point of complete alignment, in the policies pursued and the positions adopted by its various components.
If we look for the real cornerstone of the agreement between Iran and the United States, we will see that it is based on a simple equation: Iran's commitment to not having nuclear weapons and ensuring freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, in exchange for the United States' commitment to lift the sanctions and bans imposed on Iran and to help rebuild what the war has destroyed.
Since the crisis between Iran and the United States has never been about the issue of nuclear weapons since about half a century ago, that is, since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and Iran has always refrained from possessing such prohibited weapons based on a religious decree, and since the Strait of Hormuz has always been open and was only closed due to the recent aggression of the United States and Israel against Iran, it can be said without any exaggeration that the current memorandum of understanding represents a decisive victory for Iran.
Of course, we must bear in mind that the Iranians, given their experience with American breaches of trust, remain at the highest level of vigilance and readiness. Since the United States' adherence to the "memorandum of understanding" will inevitably lead to an increase in Iran's regional influence and greater cohesion within the axis of resistance, and consequently to halting the expansion of the Zionist project and the collapse of the dream of "Greater Israel," this is something that neither the current cabinet of the Zionist regime nor its future cabinets will tolerate. Therefore, all Arab and Islamic countries in the region must resolve their differences with Iran and rebuild their relations on a more solid foundation in order to prepare for the next round of confrontation with the Zionist enemy, which is the common enemy of all Arabs and Muslims.
**************
End/ 345E
