Military and diplomatic analyst Alexandru Hudisteanu said the wording of a U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding (MoU) is too vague to support stable negotiations.
The ambiguity of the document threatens to delay nuclear talks by allowing both nations to interpret the agreement in contradictory ways. This friction could lead to a failure in diplomatic progress if the two sides cannot agree on the implementation of specific terms.
The MoU was signed in Islamabad, Pakistan, in June 2024 [1]. Hudisteanu said the writing of the agreement is a "poison" that haunts negotiators because it remains open to interpretation [1]. He said that the vague language allows each party to test red lines without clear consequences.
A primary point of contention is Article 13 [2]. According to Hudisteanu, this specific provision is designed in a way that favors Iran. He said that the article prevents the discussion of the nuclear file until other specific sections of the agreement are implemented.
"We know that Article 13, broadly speaking, favours Iran, because it states that they will not discuss the nuclear file until articles 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11 … are starting to be implemented," Hudisteanu said [2].
While analysts discuss the impact of the MoU on active diplomatic work, the current state of engagement remains contested. Some reports suggest that diplomatic efforts are ongoing, while other sources indicate that Iran has no plans to meet with the U.S. in the coming days [1].
The analyst said that the structural flaws in the document create a cycle of delay. By tying the nuclear discussion to the implementation of other articles, the agreement may inadvertently protect the status quo rather than facilitate a breakthrough.
“The wording of the US‑Iran memorandum of understanding is vague, open to interpretation and a "poison".”
The dispute over the MoU's language highlights a fundamental lack of trust between Washington and Tehran. By utilizing strategic ambiguity in Article 13, the agreement allows Iran to prioritize other diplomatic concessions before addressing its nuclear program, effectively shifting the leverage in the negotiations and creating a high risk of diplomatic deadlock.
