EDITORIAL: The Iran-USA Deal — 14 Points That Change the World Order, or Disguise It

EDITORIAL: The Iran-USA Deal — 14 Points That Change the World Order, or Disguise It

Introduction: The Text That Unsettles

A memorandum wrested from anonymity

The text is there. NPR obtained it from an anonymous source who had no right to disclose it. A memorandum of understanding signed by Donald Trump, Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian, and the Prime Minister of Pakistan in the role of mediator. Fourteen points. An immediate ceasefire. The lifting of the American naval blockade. The abolition of all sanctions against Iran. A reconstruction fund of at least $300 billion. A UN Security Council resolution to ratify it.

This document is either the greatest diplomatic breakthrough since the Oslo Accords, or the roadmap for a capitulation dressed as a triumph. Perhaps both. I do not claim to have the definitive answer. What I can do is read the text honestly and point to what troubles me.

The Fourteen Points: What the Text Actually Says

A two-phase agreement structure

The memorandum is structured in two phases. The immediate phase triggers a ceasefire on all fronts — including Lebanon, which is geopolitically significant — initiates the dismantling of the American naval blockade (full lifting within 30 days), and commits Iran to guaranteeing the free passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran must also begin demining to make the passage fully operational within 30 days. Simultaneously, frozen Iranian funds are immediately released and the U.S. Treasury authorizes trade in Iranian oil as of the signing.

The final phase — to be concluded within an extendable 60-day window — provides for the abolition of all sanctions (UN Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all American primary and secondary unilateral sanctions), a reconstruction and economic development plan of at least $300 billion, and an agreement on the Iranian nuclear program including Tehran's commitment not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, with on-site IAEA supervision over stored enriched materials.

What Troubles Me in Point 6: $300 Billion

A figure without precedent in the history of diplomacy

Point 6 provides that the United States, in collaboration with regional partners, will formulate a reconstruction and economic development plan of at least $300 billion for Iran. This amount exceeds the Marshall Plan in real terms. It exceeds the reconstruction funds granted to Iraq, Afghanistan, and all post-Cold War conflict zones combined. Who pays? In what proportions? On what timeline?

The memorandum does not answer these questions. It says the implementation mechanism will be finalized within 60 days of signing. That is a promise of a plan for a plan. The regional partners are not named. The financial licenses and authorizations required will be provided by the United States — which implies a banking and insurance ecosystem of extraordinary complexity to rebuild after decades of sanctions.

The Nuclear Question: The Blur That Remains

The non-proliferation commitment and its grey zones

Point 8 is the heart of the security issue. Iran reaffirms its commitment not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons. Both parties agree to resolve the management of stored enriched materials through a mutually established mechanism, the minimum method being on-site dilution under IAEA supervision. Discussions on enrichment and other materials associated with Iran's nuclear needs will continue within the framework of the future final agreement.

This point raises a fundamental question: the status of Iran's enrichment program is not frozen. Iran can continue enriching during the memorandum period — the nuclear status quo is maintained per point 9. This means concretely that Tehran retains its centrifuges, its stocks of uranium enriched to advanced levels, and its entire nuclear infrastructure during the 60-day negotiation. The final agreement must resolve this. If the final agreement is not reached within the deadlines, or if negotiations collapse, the result is an Iran with sanctions lifted and its nuclear program intact.

Ukraine in All of This: The Deafening Silence

When the Iran-USA deal shifts priorities

The memorandum is centered on Iran and the United States. Ukraine does not appear in it. But the geopolitical implications for Kyiv are real. Since the United States entered the war against Iran, the Ukrainian file has "slid down Trump's priority list" — his own formulation at the G7 in Évian. The resolution of the Iranian conflict frees up American diplomatic bandwidth, which can be good or bad for Ukraine depending on the mood and interests of the moment.

There is also a direct economic dimension. The Strait of Hormuz open again means more Iranian oil on world markets. More oil equals downward pressure on prices. And lower oil prices — that is exactly what Trump says he wants, notably to be able to "increase pressure on Russia." That is the logic he himself laid out at the G7. In this perspective, the Iranian deal is not separate from the Ukrainian file — it is an indirect instrument of it.

Pakistan: Mediator or Arbiter?

Islamabad's presence as a geopolitical signal

The Prime Minister of Pakistan is a signatory to this memorandum. That is not trivial. Pakistan is a nuclear state, an informal member of China's sphere of influence, sharing borders with Iran, Afghanistan, and India. Its presence as the official mediator in an agreement between the United States and Iran says something about the networked diplomacy the Trump administration deployed outside traditional structures — the UN, the EU, NATO.

This choice also raises questions about the counterparts. No country plays a mediating role in a conflict of this scale without expectations of reciprocity. What did Pakistan obtain in return? Reduced tensions on its Iranian border? Debt guarantees? Access to American technologies? The text is silent on this. But foreign policy does not occur in a vacuum, and multilateral agreements always contain unwritten dimensions.

Point 14 and the UN Resolution: Solidify or Lock?

An agreement guaranteed by the Security Council

Beijing and Moscow as guarantors: the structural paradox

Point 14 provides that the final agreement will be ratified by a binding resolution of the UN Security Council. This is a major structural guarantee — it commits not only the United States and Iran, but potentially all permanent members of the Council. China and Russia would therefore need to validate the agreement to give it binding force.

This means that Beijing and Moscow have oversight — and veto power — over the final architecture of this agreement. Russia, in the middle of its war against Ukraine, and China, in the midst of a trade conflict with the United States, have direct interests in the stabilization or destabilization of the Middle East. Their hypothetical signature on this resolution would commit them to respecting a regional order built outside their direct influence. That is a bet on their short-term rational calculus. I am not convinced this bet is safe.

What This Agreement Does Not Resolve

The unanswered questions the memorandum avoids

A memorandum of understanding is not a final agreement. The text itself reminds us of this repeatedly: the details will be negotiated within 60 days. But certain fundamental questions are completely absent from the document. What happens to Iran's ballistic missile program — potential nuclear delivery vehicles? The text does not mention it. What happens to Iranian support for Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas? The text merely says both countries commit not to "interfere in each other's internal affairs" — a formulation that does not cover proxies.

What happens to American and Iranian hostages and prisoners? The text is silent. What happens to human rights in Iran — the protesters imprisoned since 2022 and 2023? Not a word. This memorandum is an agreement between states, not between peoples. The Iranian population that risked its life for Woman, Life, Freedom does not appear anywhere in it.

Conclusion: History Will Judge — But When?

Today's agreement, tomorrow's reality

It is too early to know whether this agreement holds. The 60-day negotiation toward a final agreement represents an extraordinarily tight timeline for resolving decades of mutual distrust. The history of American-Iranian diplomacy is a graveyard of partial agreements, unilateral breakdowns, and restarted crises. The JCPOA of 2015 was supposed to be a turning point — Trump himself abandoned it in 2018. Nothing in the American institutional structure prevents a future president from doing the same with this memorandum.

What I know is that the agreement was signed. That the Strait of Hormuz reopened. That frozen Iranian funds are being released. That oil trade is resuming. These facts have real and immediate consequences on global markets, on the finances of American-allied regimes in the Gulf, and on the strategy of economic pressure against Russia. Real-time diplomacy is rarely clean. This agreement is not. But its existence is a new fact that the world will have to reckon with.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Sources and method

This editorial is based on the full text of the memorandum of understanding as published by NPR on June 18, 2026, obtained from an anonymous source. The analysis focuses on the text itself. Observations about grey zones and unanswered questions are journalistic inferences based on the explicit terms of the document — not on additional sources for elements not covered by NPR.

Acknowledged limits

This editorial does not have access to unpublished parallel negotiations, any confidential annexes, or the undeclared official positions of the signatory governments. The analysis of point 6 on the $300 billion is a literal reading of the available text; the financial details will be determined in upcoming negotiations. The absence of detailed context on Pakistan reflects the limitations of available sources at the time of writing.

Sources

Primary sources

NPR — Full text of the US-Iran memorandum of understanding — June 18, 2026

New York Times — Trump at the G7: Ukraine slid down the priority list — June 16, 2026

S&P Global — Iran deal frees pressure on Russian sanctions — June 17, 2026

Secondary sources

Foreign Policy — Analysis of the Iran-USA memorandum: what the text reveals and conceals — June 19, 2026

The Guardian — Iran-USA: the preliminary agreement text analyzed — June 18, 2026

Al Jazeera — The Iran-USA deal in 14 points: what it changes in the Middle East — June 18, 2026