U.S.-Iran 60-Day Memorandum of Understanding Expires Without Final Agreement
The 60-day memorandum of understanding signed by the United States and Iran in June has expired, and both sides failed to reach a final agreement to permanently end the conflict and address nuclear issues.
The memorandum was signed by U.S. President Trump and Iranian President Rouhani, aiming to immediately halt military actions, open the Strait of Hormuz, and negotiate a final agreement within 60 days, which could be extended by mutual consent.
During this period, both sides accused each other of violating the terms; the U.S. restored maritime blockades and revoked some Iranian oil sales licenses, while Iran proposed multiple conditions for reopening the strait.
The Iranian Foreign Minister stated that there has been no decision to resume negotiations with the U.S., while countries like Pakistan continue to mediate but have not facilitated an extension.
Core issues such as the nuclear program, sanctions relief, and reconstruction funding remain deadlocked.
In market mechanisms, the event-driven oil prices and shipping risks are being repriced: uncertainties in the Strait of Hormuz support energy premiums, Iranian oil exports are under pressure, and global supply chains and insurance costs are rising.
Additionally, the memorandum originally planned for at least $300 billion for Iran's reconstruction and development plan, which is now shelved due to its expiration.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Previously, the U.S. and Iran reached a temporary framework through mediation by Pakistan after the conflict, attempting to exchange a short-term ceasefire for a window for nuclear and sanctions negotiations, but mutual accusations of breach quickly emerged, exposing a trust deficit.
In terms of capital pathways, the U.S. had promised to lift blockades and provide reconstruction funding in exchange for Iranian concessions, directing resources to temporarily alleviate shipping pressures, motivated by a desire to reduce oil price shocks and secure nuclear restrictions, but ultimately reverted to a confrontational logic due to execution failures.
Similar cases can be seen in the multiple temporary arrangements and breakdowns surrounding the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, as well as the rapid collapse of other short-term ceasefire agreements in the Middle East; the current situation is returning from a temporary framework to a long-term stalemate.
Structural judgments belong to regulatory changes: temporary diplomatic tools cannot replace substantive nuclear and security compromises, as the mechanism is weakened by ongoing domestic political conflicts and regional proxy conflicts on both sides.
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
Temporary agreements cannot withstand deep-seated opposition
Control of the strait determines negotiation leverage
Trust deficits accelerate framework failures