The memorandum itself contains no such commitment.
In the aftermath of a brief but devastating war, President Trump signed a fourteen-point memorandum with Iran in June 2026, offering a framework for future negotiations rather than a finished peace. Measured against the 2015 nuclear accord and the conditions that existed when fighting began, the agreement reveals a pattern: where the earlier deal imposed precise technical limits, this one offers vague commitments; where maximum-pressure sanctions once strangled Iran's economy, immediate oil export waivers and a $300 billion reconstruction pledge now restore and exceed pre-war conditions. The Strait of Hormuz, untouched by the 2015 agreement, now sits under a nascent Iranian regulatory authority — a shift in regional leverage that sixty days of future talks may not easily undo.
- Iran entered these negotiations holding 440 kilograms of 60%-enriched uranium — material weeks away from weapons grade — yet the memorandum addresses this stockpile only with a promise to 'discuss' it later.
- The ballistic missile programme, which Trump once declared he was actively destroying, goes entirely unmentioned in the signed document, a silence that contradicts years of stated American red lines.
- Sanctions that had collapsed Iran's economy and fueled violent domestic suppression as recently as January are now being lifted immediately, with oil export waivers issued on the day of signing and no conditions attached.
- Daily shipping transits through the Strait of Hormuz fell from ninety-four vessels to just six during the conflict; the memorandum lifts the American blockade but leaves Iran's newly created Persian Gulf Strait Authority — and its 'fees' — legally unchallenged.
- The deal is explicitly a framework, not a treaty, with sixty days of negotiations still ahead — meaning its most consequential gaps may be features, not oversights, designed to be filled under pressure.
When President Trump signed a fourteen-point memorandum with Iran in June 2026, the document arrived not as a finished peace but as a framework — sixty days of talks still ahead, and much of its most consequential language deliberately left open. To understand what it actually means, analysts at BBC Verify measured it against two fixed points: the 2015 nuclear accord that Trump abandoned in his first term, and the state of affairs on February 28th, the day the war began.
The nuclear comparison is the sharpest. The 2015 deal, negotiated over two years with six world powers, capped Iran's uranium stockpile at 300 kilograms and restricted enrichment to 3.67 percent, with full international inspection rights. After Trump withdrew in 2018, Iran accelerated its programme. By the time fighting erupted this year, it held roughly 440 kilograms enriched to 60 percent — material that could reach weapons grade in weeks. The new memorandum responds to this accumulation with a reaffirmation that Iran won't build a bomb and a commitment to 'discuss' enrichment and 'resolve' the stockpile through mechanisms yet to be determined. Trump has said publicly that the material will be removed from the country, but no such language appears in the signed document. Ballistic missiles, which Trump had once declared he was actively destroying, receive no mention at all.
On economics, the reversal is more dramatic. The 2015 accord restored access to frozen assets but offered no new American funds. Trump's subsequent maximum-pressure campaign tightened sanctions progressively, strangling Iran's economy and fueling domestic unrest that the government suppressed violently as recently as January. The new memorandum commits the US to terminate all sanctions on a negotiated schedule and immediately issues waivers for Iranian oil exports — crude, petroleum products, and all associated banking and shipping services — with no conditions attached. A $300 billion reconstruction programme, funded by the US and regional partners, is also pledged, leaving Iran economically far better positioned than when the war began.
The Strait of Hormuz presents perhaps the starkest shift. Before the conflict, roughly ninety-four merchant vessels transited the narrow waterway daily. Iranian attacks on shipping and an American naval blockade collapsed that number to just six. The memorandum lifts the American blockade within thirty days and asks Iran to allow free passage for sixty days — after which Iran will 'conduct dialogue' with Oman about future administration. But Iran has already moved: it unilaterally established a Persian Gulf Strait Authority in May, and its foreign ministry this week announced not 'transit tolls' but 'fees for services' — a distinction that the memorandum contains no language to prevent or limit. Where the 2015 deal left the strait untouched, this agreement appears to have handed Tehran lasting regulatory leverage over one of the world's most critical shipping lanes.
On a June afternoon, President Trump signed a fourteen-point memorandum with Iran meant to end a conflict that had erupted four months earlier, when American and Israeli forces struck Tehran and targets across the country. The document, formally a framework for future negotiations rather than a final agreement, immediately drew scrutiny over what it promised and what it left deliberately vague. To understand what had actually changed, it helps to measure this deal against two fixed points: the nuclear accord of 2015 that Trump had abandoned in his first term, and the state of affairs on February 28th, the day the war began.
The nuclear question sits at the heart of the comparison. The 2015 agreement, negotiated over two years and signed by the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the European Union, imposed exacting technical limits on Iran's atomic programme. It capped Iran's uranium stockpile at 300 kilograms and restricted enrichment to 3.67 percent—a level suitable for civilian power generation but far below the 90 percent threshold needed for weapons. International inspectors had full access to verify compliance, and Iran held to those terms until Trump withdrew in 2018, calling the accord "decaying and rotten." After that withdrawal, Iran accelerated its programme. By the time fighting began this year, American officials assessed that Iran possessed roughly 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent—material that could reach weapons grade in a matter of weeks.
The new memorandum addresses this accumulation only in the vaguest terms. It contains a reaffirmation that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons, language nearly identical to what appeared in the 2015 deal. Beyond that, it commits both sides to "discuss the issue of enrichment" and to "resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material" through some mechanism to be worked out later. Trump has publicly stated that Iran's remaining nuclear material will be removed from the country, and his officials have briefed that the deal sets a minimum standard for destruction of the enriched stockpile. Yet the memorandum itself contains no such commitment. It is a framework, not a finished treaty—sixty days of talks lie ahead—but the absence of concrete nuclear limits marks a sharp departure from the specificity of 2015.
Ballistic missiles, which Trump had complained the earlier deal ignored, receive no mention in the new memorandum at all. In March, shortly after the conflict began, Trump declared that the US was "destroying Iran's missile capabilities." By mid-June, he had shifted position, saying it would be "unfair" for Iran not to possess these weapons given that other regional powers held them. The missiles remain unaddressed in the agreement.
On the question of money, the shift is more dramatic. The 2015 accord provided no new American payments to Iran but did lift sanctions and restore access to frozen assets—roughly $50 billion in usable funds, by Treasury estimates at the time. Trump reimposed those sanctions after withdrawing from the deal, and they tightened progressively over the following years, strangling Iran's economy and fueling domestic unrest that the government suppressed violently in January. The new memorandum commits the US to "terminate all types of sanctions" on a negotiated schedule. More significantly, it immediately issues waivers allowing Iran to export crude oil, petroleum products, and all associated services—banking, insurance, transportation—with no conditions attached. This positioning leaves Iran far better off economically than it stood when the war began. The memorandum also pledges that the US and "regional partners" will fund a $300 billion reconstruction and development programme for Iran, a commitment that would have been unthinkable under Trump's earlier maximum-pressure campaign.
The Strait of Hormuz presents perhaps the starkest reversal. Before the conflict, roughly ninety-four merchant vessels transited the narrow waterway daily, carrying oil, gas, and fertilizer in an uninterrupted flow that had persisted for years. The 2015 nuclear accord made no mention of the strait. When fighting erupted in February, Iranian attacks on commercial shipping combined with an American naval blockade of Iranian ports collapsed daily transits to just six vessels—a ninety-four percent drop. The new memorandum commits the US to lift its blockade within thirty days. It obligates Iran to "make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge" for sixty days. After that window closes, Iran will "conduct dialogue" with Oman about future administration of the waterway.
But Iran has already moved. In May, it unilaterally established a Persian Gulf Strait Authority to regulate shipping. This week, Iran's foreign ministry indicated that while there would be no "transit tolls," there would be "fees" for services provided—a distinction without much difference. The memorandum contains no language to prevent Iran from charging these fees in perpetuity, effectively cementing Tehran's economic leverage over one of the world's most critical shipping lanes. Where the 2015 deal had left the strait untouched, this new agreement appears to have handed Iran control of it, at least for now.
Notable Quotes
Trump declared in March that the US was destroying Iran's missile capabilities, but by June said it would be unfair for Iran not to possess these weapons given other regional powers held them.— President Trump
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
What's the practical difference between a memorandum of understanding and an actual treaty?
A memorandum is a framework—a set of commitments to negotiate. A treaty is the finished product. This one gives them sixty days to hammer out details on nuclear issues. The 2015 deal took two years to negotiate and ran to hundreds of pages of technical specifications.
So when Trump says Iran's nuclear material will be removed, but the memorandum doesn't say that, which one is true?
The memorandum is the binding document. What Trump says publicly and what's actually written are two different things. The memo commits them to "discuss" and "resolve" the uranium question later. That's not the same as a commitment to remove it.
Why would Iran agree to lift sanctions if they're getting sanctions relief anyway?
Because the relief is immediate and unconditional. They can sell oil right now. The nuclear negotiations might drag on or fall apart, but they've already won access to their markets and their money.
The Strait of Hormuz seems like the real prize here.
It does. Before the war, it was just a shipping lane. Now Iran has announced it will charge fees to use it. The memorandum doesn't prevent that. So Iran goes from being blockaded to controlling a chokepoint that handles a huge portion of global oil trade.
Is this deal better or worse than 2015?
Depends on your perspective. For Iran, it's dramatically better—more money, fewer restrictions, control of the strait. For those who wanted to constrain Iran's nuclear programme, it's worse. The 2015 deal had teeth. This one has promises to negotiate later.
What happens in sixty days?
They're supposed to have a final nuclear agreement. But there's no guarantee they'll reach one. If they don't, the memorandum expires and you're back to square one.