The memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran presents an attempt to end a destructive conflict while restoring principles that have long shaped international law. The agreement includes commitments to stop military operations, avoid future uses of force, and seek a final settlement supported by international institutions. However, its existence also raises a deeper question: whether states that recently violated those same principles can genuinely return to respecting them.
A central issue is the legal nature of the memorandum itself. Unlike a formal treaty, the agreement occupies an uncertain space between political commitment and legal obligation. Its language suggests cooperation based on mutual consent and good faith, while postponing more definitive decisions until a future agreement. This ambiguity allows both sides to move forward without making the stronger commitments that a formal treaty would require.
The document represents a significant shift in the positions of both governments. During the conflict, Washington and Tehran pursued opposing objectives through military pressure and economic restrictions. The memorandum now requires both sides to accept limits on their actions, including a commitment to avoid future aggression. Yet important disputes remain unresolved, particularly regarding enforcement mechanisms and whether previous violations of international norms can be overcome through new declarations.
The role of international institutions is another important aspect. The agreement seeks a future resolution from the United Nations Security Council and relies on organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor nuclear commitments. This creates an apparent contradiction: while some governments have questioned the authority of multilateral institutions, the implementation of the agreement depends heavily on them. The return to diplomacy therefore requires cooperation with the very structures that have often been challenged.
Nuclear issues remain one of the most sensitive areas. Iran’s commitment not to develop nuclear weapons represents a continuation of its previous public position rather than an entirely new concession. Meanwhile, several details regarding enrichment, monitoring, and the management of nuclear materials remain open to negotiation. This uncertainty creates doubts about whether the agreement can address the central security concerns that contributed to the conflict.
Economic measures also reveal important tensions. The memorandum includes plans for sanctions relief and the reopening of economic opportunities for Iran. These incentives are intended to encourage compliance, but they also create concerns about whether benefits are being granted before sufficient guarantees are established. The challenge lies in balancing diplomatic engagement with mechanisms that prevent future violations.
The agreement also faces complications beyond the two main parties. Regional actors, particularly those affected by the conflict, are not fully represented in the negotiations. The possibility of continued tensions involving other states shows the limits of agreements that attempt to resolve broader regional conflicts through a bilateral framework. A ceasefire between Washington and Tehran does not automatically eliminate competing interests across the Middle East.
Ultimately, the memorandum illustrates a recurring dilemma in international politics: peace agreements often require cooperation between actors with histories of confrontation and mistrust. Its value will depend less on the principles it recognizes and more on whether those principles can guide future behavior. The agreement reflects a return to diplomacy, but it also exposes the fragility of an international order that depends on states respecting rules they have previously challenged.
Reference: Weller, M. (2026, June 19). The US–Iran memorandum of understanding nods to international law. Can that be taken seriously? Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/06/us-iran-memorandum-understanding-nods-international-law-can-be-taken-seriously