How to read the US-Iran draft agreement: Big commitments from Washington, not from Tehran

How to Read the US-Iran Draft Agreement: Washington’s Generous Offers, Tehran’s Strategic Gains

How to read the US Iran – Brett McGurk, a CNN global affairs analyst, has served in high-level national security roles across four U.S. presidential administrations—George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden. With the recent release of a draft agreement between the United States and Iran, McGurk offers a nuanced analysis of the terms, highlighting the imbalance in commitments between the two nations. While the White House has not yet finalized the text, the version obtained by CNN provides enough insight to evaluate its key components. This document, McGurk argues, reflects a significant shift in the dynamics of the negotiations, with Washington making substantial concessions in exchange for Iran’s limited concessions.

The Structure of the Deal

The agreement, referred to as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), is designed as a two-part process. The first phase begins immediately upon signing, with specific measures already in effect, while the second phase focuses on broader, unresolved issues that will be addressed in a subsequent “final agreement” over the next 60 days. This timeframe can be extended if both parties agree. The document’s complexity is evident in its interconnected clauses, where some provisions are forward-looking, while others require immediate implementation. To fully grasp the implications of Phase 1, McGurk points to Article 13, which outlines the actions that must take place right away.

“The essence of this MOU is that Iran gets a lot now, including tens of billions of dollars, in exchange for not shooting at ships in the Strait of Hormuz,” McGurk explains. “This is a strategic victory for Tehran, as it secures economic relief without fully committing to long-term obligations.”

McGurk emphasizes that the deal’s structure reflects a deliberate effort to prioritize short-term gains for Iran over sustained commitments. The U.S. appears to have accepted a temporary arrangement, allowing Iran to secure immediate benefits while deferring more critical negotiations. This approach, he suggests, is a calculated move to stabilize the region and ease tensions, even if it means leaving key issues unresolved for now.

Immediate Benefits for Iran

Under the first phase of the agreement, Iran is granted relief from certain sanctions and economic restrictions, which McGurk describes as a major win. The first two articles, 4 and 5, address the critical issue of the Strait of Hormuz. These clauses outline the U.S. lifting its naval blockade and Iran removing obstacles—such as mines—within 30 days to restore traffic to pre-war levels. This step, McGurk notes, is essential for ensuring the free flow of oil and goods through the vital waterway, which is a lifeline for global trade.

However, the agreement does not stop there. The initial concessions for Iran are paired with commitments from the U.S. that go beyond the immediate restoration of the strait. Article 10, for instance, allows the U.S. to issue waivers for Iranian crude oil and petrochemical exports, effectively returning Iran to the economic status it enjoyed under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This move, according to McGurk, is a significant concession, as it enables Iran to access international markets without restrictions, potentially boosting its economy by $60 to $70 billion annually.

The frozen funds clause in Article 11 further illustrates the U.S.’s willingness to provide economic relief. This section states that the U.S. will release and make available Iranian funds that were previously restricted. Crucially, the release is contingent on progress in the negotiations toward a final agreement. McGurk highlights that this condition ties the immediate economic benefits to future outcomes, creating a framework where Iran’s concessions are tied to U.S. actions.

Key Differences and Implications

One of the most notable aspects of this agreement is its distinction from previous deals with Iran. For example, in a 2023 hostage agreement, frozen funds were made available solely for non-sanctioned purposes, such as humanitarian aid. In contrast, this draft allows Iran’s central bank to determine the recipients of released funds, giving the country greater flexibility. McGurk points out that this change could enable Iran to allocate resources strategically, potentially supporting its military or other domestic priorities.

While the immediate benefits for Iran are clear, the U.S. faces its own challenges. The agreement’s reliance on Iran’s cooperation with the Strait of Hormuz has allowed Washington to avoid more stringent demands, such as limiting Iran’s nuclear program or agreeing to new restrictions. This dynamic, McGurk suggests, is a reflection of Iran’s leverage in the negotiations. By effectively holding the strait hostage, Iran forced the U.S. to make concessions, even as it avoided significant trade-offs.

The agreement’s two-phase structure also raises questions about the long-term viability of the deal. Phase 1’s immediate measures, including the sanctions waivers and frozen fund releases, are intended to provide Iran with relief while keeping the door open for further negotiations. However, the 60-day window for Phase 2 negotiations is short, and the outcomes of this phase will determine whether the deal holds or needs to be renegotiated. McGurk notes that the U.S. may have compromised on key issues to avoid a complete breakdown in talks, a tactic he says was likely aimed at securing a temporary resolution.

Despite these considerations, McGurk acknowledges the agreement’s merits. He argues that the U.S. has achieved a critical goal by ensuring the safe passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz, a move that could prevent further disruptions to global energy markets. The Iranian concessions, while limited, are significant enough to ease immediate tensions and provide a foundation for future discussions. However, the long-term effectiveness of the deal depends on Iran’s ability to fulfill its commitments in Phase 2 and the U.S. willingness to maintain its concessions.

McGurk also highlights the strategic importance of the agreement’s structure. By separating the immediate actions from the broader negotiations, the U.S. has created a framework that allows for flexibility. This approach, he explains, is designed to ensure that Iran does not walk away from the table, even as it secures economic benefits. The result is a deal that appears favorable to Iran, with the U.S. making substantial offers without securing equivalent returns.

Overall, the draft agreement represents a significant shift in the U.S.-Iran relationship, with Washington taking the lead in offering concessions. While the deal addresses immediate concerns, it also raises questions about the future of the negotiations and the long-term implications for both nations. As McGurk notes, the U.S. has chosen a path of compromise, prioritizing stability over stricter demands, even as Iran continues to hold the upper hand in the talks.