The US and Iranian versions of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) aimed at ending months of war in the Middle East reveal broad convergence on the deal’s core provisions, despite differences in political emphasis, legal detail, and the way each side frames sensitive issues such as Lebanon, sanctions, the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran’s nuclear program.
The Iranian and US versions of the memorandum drew renewed attention after Tehran said early Thursday that the agreement had become fully official following its signing by the presidents of both countries.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said some provisions had already begun entering implementation, including measures related to easing the US naval blockade, according to remarks carried by Iran’s semi-official Mehr News Agency.
The Iranian version of the 14-point memorandum was published on Wednesday by Iran’s official IRNA news agency, while US officials released their own draft text outlining the proposed agreement’s main provisions on security, maritime navigation, sanctions relief, nuclear issues, and economic cooperation.
Shared framework
Despite differences in wording, the two versions outline a largely similar diplomatic framework.
Clause 1 in both texts calls for an immediate and permanent halt to military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, while committing Iran, the United States, and their allies to refrain from future threats or use of force.
Both versions also include commitments to respect sovereignty and territorial integrity, avoid interference in internal affairs, and negotiate a final agreement within 60 days, with the possibility of extending talks by mutual consent.
The two texts further align on major elements of the proposed agreement, including lifting the US naval blockade, restoring maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, easing sanctions on Iran, releasing frozen Iranian assets, and establishing a mechanism to monitor implementation of the memorandum and any future agreement.
Both versions also state that the final agreement would eventually be endorsed through a binding UN Security Council resolution.
The two texts also mention a $300 billion reconstruction and economic development package for Iran, which will be coordinated with regional partners.
Lebanon given stronger weight in Iranian version
Lebanon appears in both versions, but with noticeably different emphasis.
The US text says military operations would end on all fronts, including Lebanon, and that the parties would refrain from future threats or use of force.
The Iranian version goes further, explicitly stating that the parties would guarantee Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty and that the final agreement would confirm the permanent end of war on all fronts, including Lebanon.
That wording gives Lebanon a more central political role in the Iranian version, rather than presenting it simply as one front covered by the ceasefire.
Sanctions, frozen assets
Clause 7 in both versions states that the US will work to end sanctions against Iran, including primary and secondary sanctions, as well as measures guided by UN Security Council resolutions and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors.
The Iranian version, however, places stronger emphasis on sanctions relief, describing it as a fundamental part of the negotiations and linking it to a mutually agreed timetable in the final agreement.
Both texts also say Washington would issue waivers allowing exports of Iranian crude oil, petrochemical products, and related services, including banking, insurance, and transportation.
On frozen Iranian assets, the US version says procedures would be determined during negotiations, while the Iranian text provides more operational detail, stressing that the funds must remain fully usable and accessible to beneficiaries designated by Iran’s Central Bank.
Hormuz, nuclear file
The two versions also overlap heavily on maritime arrangements.
Both say the US would begin lifting the naval blockade immediately and complete the process within 30 days, while Iran would facilitate commercial passage through the Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
Baghaei said US commitments related to easing the blockade had already begun, adding that Iranian vessels had entered and exited ports “without problems.”
The Iranian version, however, adds that the passage would remain free of charge for 60 days and refers to consultations with Oman and other Gulf states regarding the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz.
On the nuclear issue, addressed under Clause 8, both texts say Iran would reaffirm that it will not produce or acquire nuclear weapons and that negotiations would address enriched uranium stockpiles and enrichment activities.
The Iranian version again contains more technical detail, including references to on-site dilution under IAEA supervision and negotiations within what it describes as a satisfactory framework tied to Iran’s nuclear needs.
Baghaei also stressed that negotiations would remain limited exclusively to nuclear issues and sanctions relief.
Implementation before final negotiations
Another major point of overlap is the sequencing of the agreement.
Both versions say implementation of key provisions, including the ceasefire, maritime arrangements, oil exports, and frozen assets, would begin before negotiations on a final agreement move forward.
The memorandum comes after months of regional escalation following US and Israeli strikes on Iran in late February that killed more than 3,000 people.
The confrontation expanded into Iranian strikes on US military bases in the Gulf and Israel, alongside restrictions on maritime passage through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy shipping routes.
The similarities between the US and Iranian versions suggest both sides are now operating within a broadly similar framework on issues ranging from maritime security and sanctions relief to the nuclear file and regional de-escalation.
