Earlier, on June 17, President Trump formally signed the 14-point MoU, which ends the war as both sides commit to further talks over the next 60 days. It says that the pivotal Strait of Hormuz would reopen, Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, and also commits a $300bn fund for the "reconstruction and economic development" of the country, although the US is not required to contribute. It comes four months after the conflict between the countries - and Israel - broke out. The agreement has been described by the Trump administration as "performance-based", with Iran benefiting only if it complies with its commitments. Initial US-Iran agreement leaves many key issues to be negotiated. The US also agreed to lift a military blockade on ships going to and from Iranian ports.

But the issue of Iran's nuclear program, the main reason stated by the US for the conflict, is still to be negotiated. In Trump's first term, he withdrew the US from an Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran and reimposed economic sanctions. [1]

Point 5 of the MoU deals with the  Strait of Hormuz. Part of the agreement notes that upon the signing of the MoU, Iran will "make arrangements using its best efforts" to allow safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, with no charge. This has been a significant objective of the US since the war began, and the Strait of Hormuz was shut, sending global oil prices spiking. The document notes that traffic will start flowing "immediately", considering the need to remove technical and military "obstacles" and conduct de-mining operations. The officials in a briefing earlier repeatedly sought to make clear that vessels would not be charged for transit through the Strait of Hormuz. In the longer-term, the document notes that Iran will work with Oman and other Gulf states to set up a "broader" agreement on how to manage the Strait of Hormuz. The US believes that Iran will assert its rights "aggressively", but that the Gulf states would "never" accept a future in which there is a tolling system in place, the official said.[2]

There is some progress on this score. On June 21, some vessels appeared to be entering, exiting, and transiting the strait, according to location data on the maritime tracking website MarineTraffic, despite Iran's claim, disputed by the US,  to have closed the strait.

Since the MoU was signed, there has been an upsurge in fighting between Hezbollah and Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, and Israeli air strikes that the health ministry says have killed dozens of Lebanese, including women and children.

That escalation led the US to declare a new ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah earlier. Continued clashes and air strikes prompted Iran on June 20 to announce it had shut the Strait of Hormuz, though tracking data shows vessels have continued to pass through it.

Earlier, as the talks began in Switzerland, Trump posted that Iran "must immediately stop their highly paid PROXIES in Lebanon from causing trouble" and threatened to "hit Iran very hard again" if they did not.

Iran's lead negotiator Ghalibaf responded by saying: "Don't they think that if their threats had any effect, they wouldn't be in this desperate situation today?... No matter how much they talk, it is we who take action."

On June 21, fighting was reported to have diminished, but Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu insisted that the Israeli military would remain in southern Lebanon for as long as is necessary to protect northern Israel.

Hezbollah leader Qassem had rejected any Israeli military presence in southern Lebanon and said Hezbollah would defend itself.[3]

Speaking before the talks in Switzerland, US lead negotiator Vance said Trump had asked negotiators to "turn over a new leaf".

He added that if Iran's leadership was willing to give up being a "driver of regional instability" and its "nuclear weapons ambitions for the longer term", then the US "is willing to fundamentally transform our relationship with that country.” Iran has insisted its nuclear program is peaceful.

The talks began on June 20 in Switzerland, after last week's initial agreement between the US and Iran. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and special envoy Steve Witkoff joined Vance. Ghalibaf was accompanied by Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Also in Switzerland were Pakistan's prime minister and army chief, and the Qatari prime minister. Pakistan has functioned as a mediator throughout the war and hosted a previous round of negotiations between the US and Iran. Qatar has also mediated, and on June 21, Qatari Prime Minister Al Thani said he welcomed the continuation of US-Iran talks.

On June 22, the first round of talks between high-ranking U.S. and Iranian officials in Switzerland ended, after a tense opening marked by ?Tehran's announcement it had again closed the Strait of Hormuz and Trump repeating his threats to resume attacks on Iran. A joint statement from mediating nations Qatar and Pakistan said the ?U.S. and Iran agreed to a roadmap toward a final deal within 60 days. Technical talks will continue for the rest of the week in Switzerland.[4]

The first round of negotiations between the US and Iran ended with "encouraging progress", mediators Qatar and Pakistan said. The mediators' joint statement said that a "communication line" had been formed "to avoid incidents and miscommunication with the aim of safe passage for commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz.” Both sides also agreed to the creation of a "de-confliction cell" between the US, Iran, and Lebanon, facilitated by the mediating countries, to end military operations in Lebanon, their statement said. Foreign Minister Araghchi separately declared “major progress” in ending the war in Lebanon. He also said the US has waived sanctions on Iranian oil exports and released some of Iran’s frozen assets. He added that a major reconstruction and development plan for Iran has been launched.[5]

Iran said on June 22 that “important steps” were agreed during talks in Switzerland to pave the way for negotiations on a final agreement with the US.

Later, Baghaei, speaking for the Iranian delegation holding the talks, said the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, must end, and that all clauses of the MoU had been discussed. According to the mediators, there has been constructive engagement, and the working groups formed by the negotiators are to begin work immediately. A lot of work remains to be done, and it is not yet clear how these groups will be formulated, in which capacity they will work, or what format any future meaning will take. Overall, it appears that there has been movement.[6]

As expected, on June 22, Iranian Foreign Minister Araqchi said ?his country had secured waivers for oil and petrochemical exports, the release of some frozen assets, and the launch of a reconstruction and development plan for Iran. Oil prices had tumbled over the past week to levels unseen since the war started on February 28 with U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran. After the joint statement, Brent crude futures fell further, dropping more than $1 to $79.44 a barrel.[7]

The first paragraph of the MoU agreement notes that the US, Iran, and allies will declare an "immediate and permanent" termination of military operations on "all fronts" - including Lebanon. From the US perspective, Trump has been growing increasingly concerned that Israeli military operations against Hezbollah could upend the agreement with Iran.

Tehran, for its part, has repeatedly said it expected Lebanon to be covered by the truce. Any continuation of Israeli military operations in Lebanon would constitute a "violation of the understanding" and "necessary measures will be taken", a spokesperson for the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said earlier.

The agreement notes that "from now on," neither side will initiate military operations or threaten each other, and ensure "the territorial integrity and sovereignty" of Lebanon. The final agreement will lead to the permanent "termination" of the conflict, the document says. It is unclear how Israel will react to this point.[8]

On June 22, the head of the IRGC’s Quds Force had warned Israel to leave southern Lebanon or face a repeat of its unconditional withdrawal from the country in 2000. Qaani said that if Israel persisted in its “aggression and occupation”, it would be kicked out in “humiliation and defeat”.[9]

Despite ?the announcement of a new ceasefire in Lebanon on June 18, there has been scant sign of an end to fighting there. Iran said on June 20 that as a result, it had again shut the strait, whose closure for nearly four months caused the biggest disruption of global energy supplies in history. More than 1 million people have fled their homes in Lebanon since Israel invaded in March to pursue Hezbollah fighters who fired across the border in support of Tehran. Southern Lebanon on June 20 saw some of ?the heaviest traffic since the MoU was signed, with residents returning to their homes. Some stood beside cars backed up on the highway and waved Hezbollah flags.[10]

Iran's lead negotiator, Ghalibaf, has dismissed Donald Trump's threat to renew strikes. The first round of negotiations between the US and Iran to reach a final deal to end the war had ended with "encouraging progress", mediators Qatar and Pakistan said. In a joint statement early on June 22, Qatar and Pakistan said that the parties had agreed to "a roadmap towards reaching a final deal within 60 days”. Iran’s foreign minister Seyed Araghchi said there had been "major progress" towards ending the conflict in Lebanon. The MoU signed earlier includes a commitment to ending the fighting on "all fronts" - including Lebanon - and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

"Pakistani and Qatari mediation has delivered major progress to end the Lebanon War," Araghchi said.

"Oil and petrochem exports are waived, blockade lifted, some frozen assets released, and a major reconstruction & development plan launched for Iran."

The Iranian lead negotiators left the talks in Switzerland on June 22,  with technical discussions between the parties due to continue.[11]

The mediators' joint statement said that a "communication line" had been formed "to avoid incidents and miscommunication with the aim of safe passage for commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz".

Both sides also agreed to the creation of a "de-confliction cell" between the US, Iran, and Lebanon, facilitated by the mediating countries, to end military operations in Lebanon, their statement said. Araghchi said the first "real test" would be the Lebanon de-confliction cell.

Lebanese President Aoun spoke to senior officials from the US and Qatar on June 22 about the issue, and more broadly about consolidating a ceasefire in Lebanon, his office said.

Vance said Trump had asked negotiators to "turn over a new leaf". He added that if Iran's leadership was willing to give up being a "driver of regional instability" and its "nuclear weapons ambitions for the longer term", then the US "is willing to fundamentally transform our relationship with that country".

Under the initial deal signed on June 17, Iran was to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the key shipping channel through which 20% of the world's oil and natural gas travels. The US also agreed to lift a military blockade on ships going to and from Iranian ports.

The deal also includes a $300bn plan for Iran's "reconstruction", and the US terminating "all types of sanctions" on it. But the issue of Iran's nuclear program is still to be negotiated.

On June 21, some vessels appeared to be entering, exiting, and transiting the strait, according to location data on the maritime tracking website MarineTraffic, despite Iran's claim - disputed by the US - to have closed the strait.[12]

On June 22, Vance said talks with Iranian officials in Switzerland ?had laid a "good foundation" for a final peace deal, despite tensions over the Strait of Hormuz and Lebanon. The two sides, trying to build on an interim deal signed earlier, ?agreed to a roadmap towards a permanent agreement within 60 days at the talks in Switzerland, mediators Pakistan and Qatar said. They also agreed on a mechanism to end fighting in Lebanon between U.S. ally Israel and Iran-aligned Hezbollah, and opened a communications line to help ensure safe passage for commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz. Vance said Tehran had agreed to allow in nuclear inspectors, and to establish mechanisms to handle its ?assets frozen abroad and manage ceasefires.[13]

"We laid a very good foundation for a successful final deal," he told reporters after taking part in the talks.

Since the US bombed Iran's nuclear facilities in ?June last year, Iran has let the International Atomic Energy Agency inspect only facilities that were not attacked in those strikes. The IAEA halted inspections altogether after ?the U.S.-Israeli strikes that began the war with Iran on February 28, and they have not resumed since.

Vance played down tensions over a threat on June 21 by Trump to restart the war after Iran ?again closed the Strait of Hormuz, citing Washington's failure to halt the fighting in Lebanon.

"There was a little bit of threatening, there was a little bit of whining, but at the end of the day, the talks ?continued, and we made great progress," Vance said.

Iranian Foreign Minister Araqchi said that Tehran had secured waivers for oil and petrochemical exports, the release of some of its frozen assets abroad, and the launch of a reconstruction and development plan for Iran.[14]

Vance said Kushner had come up with a process where the US and Qatar would have control over Iranian funds when they are unfrozen, which would allow the money to be spent on ?US corn, soy, and wheat. Following on from the June 18 MoU, the US Treasury Department issued a general license for Iran on June 22,  authorizing the production, delivery, and sale of crude oil, ?petrochemical, and petroleum products of Iranian origin through August 21.

Technical talks were due to continue, and Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif said that the first round of talks had "concluded successfully. “The discussions ?were held in ?a positive and constructive atmosphere and yielded encouraging progress," he said.

Oil prices had risen sharply when Tehran started blockading the Strait of Hormuz, prompting a U.S. blockade of Iranian ports, but fell after the interim deal to their lowest since the war began.

After June 22, a joint statement by Qatar and Pakistan, oil prices dipped further with worries about a supply shortage in global markets easing, and global benchmark Brent crude trading below $80 per barrel.

Before June 21's talks officially began, Trump said he had told Iranian officials, "you won't have a country" if they tried to close the strait again.

After Trump's threats ?became public, the Iranian delegation refused to return to ?the room where talks were held, though messages ?were traded via the mediators.

The MoU calls for reopening the Strait of Hormuz and ending all hostilities, including in Lebanon, where violence continued after a ceasefire was declared on June 19.

Accusing the US of failing to meet its commitment to halt fighting in Lebanon, Iran said earlier that it had again stopped maritime traffic ?through the strait. But ship tracking data showed two crude tankers with just under 2 million barrels of oil had sailed through the strait on June 22, in a ?sign that traffic is picking ?up again, even though the sailings through Hormuz.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog said Israel was not opposed to a diplomatic end to the Iran war, but any agreement must ensure Tehran ?cannot use funds it receives as part of the deal for military purposes or to support regional proxies.[15]

Meanwhile, the price of oil has fallen to levels not seen since before the Iran war as traffic through the key Strait of Hormuz shipping route gradually resumes. Global benchmark Brent crude briefly fell below $72.48 a barrel, the price it was at the day before the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran on February 28, before edging up to $73.23.Energy prices have been on a wild ride since Iran responded to the strikes by effectively closing the strait, a critical waterway for oil and gas shipments. The cost of crude has been moving sharply lower since the US and Iran signed the MoU.[16]

The number of vessels crossing the Strait of Hormuz has risen significantly since the MOU was signed, according to maritime intelligence firm Kpler. Its latest data suggests 284 vessels have made the transit from 18 June, the day after the deal was signed, although that is still well below the pre-conflict average of some 138 crossings each day. The ships passing through the waterway in recent days include those carrying crude oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG), fertilizer, and other goods, Kpler said.

The US Navy has also provided guidance for vessels to travel through a southern route that is safe from mines and other obstacles that have been laid out since the war began. But the number of ships crossing the strait is still below levels seen before the war, when it was used by more than 100 ships a day. Hundreds of ships still appear to be waiting in the Gulf.[17]

Fuel prices at the pump rose sharply when the Iran war began, and now the focus is on how quickly they will fall. The average price of regular gasoline in the US has dropped to around $3.93 a gallon after reaching $4 a gallon in April, its highest since 2022, but is still well above pre-war levels.[18]

The US military said it launched strikes on Iran on June 26 in retaliation for an Iranian attack in the Strait of Hormuz a day earlier, hours after President Trump called the Iranian action a “foolish violation” of the fragile cease-fire between the two countries.

Centcom said it had struck Iranian missile and drone storage locations and coastal radar sites as a “powerful response” to the Iranian attack on June 25. The US described the strikes as a retaliatory measure and not a restart of major combat operations.[19]

Iran’s security forces claimed that in response to the American attacks on June 26, Tehran had struck US Army positions in the region. There was no immediate confirmation from the U.S. military of such strikes.

Iran’s IRGC said it had carried by state media that the U.S. strikes had violated the cease-fire, and warned that if such aggression “is repeated, our response will be more extensive.”

Earlier, Vance said that the US had “honored” the cease-fire agreement, but warned that it would respond to Iranian aggression. “If they have disagreements about how the MoU is being applied, they can pick up the phone,” he said, referring to the MoU the US signed with Iran. “But violence will be met with violence.” Trump said earlier that Iran had launched at least four one-way-attack drones, one of which hit the upper deck of a “large and very expensive Cargo Carrying Ship,” adding that the US had knocked down three other drones. He added that the ship, though damaged, was able to continue on its way.[20]

Iran’s strike on the vessel, the Ever Lovely, a container ship that was passing near the Omani side of the strait, appeared to be the first known Iranian attack on a commercial vessel since the signing of a preliminary peace agreement between Tehran and Washington last week. It laid bare the challenges to restoring prewar levels of traffic through the strait, a crucial conduit for oil and gas shipping.

The attack prompted the International Maritime Organization, a UN agency, to suspend an effort to help hundreds of stranded vessels leave the Persian Gulf. At least two tankers turned around after Iran’s warning earlier that day, according to Lloyd’s List Intelligence, while the number of ships passing through the strait fell to 54 on June 25 from 73 a day earlier, according to Kpler, a maritime data firm.

Although the US and Iran have agreed to restore access to the strait, the preliminary accord does not stipulate exactly how that should happen. Trump declared the waterway open to unrestricted navigation.

Iran reaffirmed its claim to being a central authority in managing marine traffic through the strait. The Iranian Foreign Ministry said that the strait lay within Iranian and Omani waters, and cited a section of the U.S.-Iran deal that Tehran says allows it to manage marine traffic in the strait.

The agreement says that Iran would “make arrangements using its best efforts” for the safe passage of commercial vessels. That wording is vague, leaving room for differing interpretations.

Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Gharibabadi, said  that safe passage through the strait was “not guaranteed under vague arrangements, parallel routing systems or decision-making processes that exclude Iran as a coastal state.”

After the US counterattack on June 26, Azizi, a conservative Iranian lawmaker and the head of Parliament’s national security committee, said that the US attacks had been a “reckless violation of the cease-fire” and warned that the attacks would lead to “retreat and regret” for the Americans. Azizi further said the attacks reflected how Trump “has no commitment to the principles of negotiations”

Meanwhile, Trump had declared that there would be no tolls for passage through the waterway unless imposed by the US.

Iran had discussed with Oman the idea of charging passing ships service fees, a proposal that has drawn the anger of  Trump.

Rubio had met with foreign ministers from the Gulf Cooperation Council as he sought to reassure regional allies about the preliminary deal with Iran. In a joint declaration after the meeting, the US and the Gulf countries in the organization called for “free, unconditional and unrestricted navigation” through the Strait of Hormuz and rejected tolls, fees, or any attempt by any country to assert control over the strait. Iran’s Foreign Ministry denounced that declaration as “interventionist, irresponsible and provocative,” in a statement carried by state media on June 26.[21]

After the war began four months ago, maritime traffic through the strait, which previously carried about a fifth of the global oil trade and liquefied natural gas, came to a virtual standstill.

Iran has since sought to exert control over the strait alongside Oman, which lies across the waterway, saying it plans to charge fees to ships to use it and obstructing vessels that stray outside defined paths.

Earlier, the US had accused Iran of hitting at least two commercial ships with missiles or drones, and bombing ?Iranian military facilities in response. Iran, in turn, launched ?missiles and drones at US military ?sites in Kuwait and Bahrain, with both sides accusing each other of breaking the ceasefire.

The war pushed up global inflation and has put Trump under political pressure domestically before the midterm elections in November that will determine control of the U.S. Congress.

On June 29, the White ?House said Trump had authorized some duties on imports of phosphate fertilizer from Morocco, as US farmers grapple ?with shortages, and shipments of ?fertilizer through the Strait of Hormuz are expected to return to pre-conflict levels only gradually.

"The meeting in Doha is going to be perhaps important, perhaps not," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. "We're going to find out."[22]

On June 30, Iran said it would not meet with top U.S. envoys who flew to the region following ?an outbreak of hostilities, clouding the prospects for a lasting peace between the two countries.

Iranian officials also said the two sides must still ?sort out the terms of a ceasefire they signed on June 17 before they could tackle more difficult topics, such as possible limits to its nuclear program.

The developments indicated the two sides are far apart on key pillars of the initial framework, which calls for Iran to lift its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for financial incentives, and sets up 60 days ?of negotiations to work out a permanent peace deal.[23]

Looking for ways to break the deadlock, Trump, who ?has publicly threatened Iran with more attacks, has decided to give diplomacy more time.

Shipping has partially resumed through the strait, which handled one-fifth of global ?oil and liquefied natural gas before the war broke out on February 28.

Meanwhile, Iranian officials said they had a right to manage traffic along with U.S. ally Oman, which lies on ?the other ?side of the strategic waterway, and would impose tolls in mid-August when the 60-day period expires.

"The sovereignty of the Strait of Hormuz lies with Iran and Oman, and traffic in the Strait is subject to arrangements determined by Iran," Iran's top negotiator, Qalibaf, said.

Vance said Iran would be prevented from charging tolls through the international waterway, telling The Michael Knowles Show, "This is not going to end in a place where the Iranians are collecting tolls on ships ?going through the Strait of Hormuz."

Vance also ?said on ?June 30 that oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz had returned to pre-war levels, even exceeding that on some days, without citing figures.[24]

Despite the uncertainty, oil prices have fallen since the weekend, when the US bombed Iranian military ?facilities in response to drone strikes on commercial ships, and Iran attacked US military sites in Kuwait and Bahrain.

Vulnerable economies, however, ?could remain at risk from ?food and fuel price increases even after energy markets feel relief, the UN trade and development agency said on June 30. The war pushed up global inflation and has put Trump under political pressure before the midterm elections in November, which will determine control of the US Congress. Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent are both urging gasoline retailers to lower prices.[25]

Talks at an indirect level between US and Iranian officials over unfreezing at least $6bn Iranian assets will recommence on July 1,  in Doha, Iran has said. The two sides have yet to have their first face-to-face meeting since signing a deal to extend the ceasefire and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

Witkoff and Kushner were in Qatar on June 30 for talks covering regional issues, including the Iran ceasefire and Lebanon, but Qatar’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Al-Ansari, stressed these were with Qatari mediators. “They are not here for their negotiations with the Iranians,” he said.

The US team is seeking details of a plan for Iran to charge tolls in the Strait of Hormuz, and how the plan relates to proposals for consultation being tabled by Oman that would introduce fees for navigational services.

The lack of renewed direct contact between the US and Iran on how to implement the memorandum of understanding signed on 17 June reflects tensions over Iran’s determination to maintain control over commercial oil tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, as well as Iran’s opposition to the proposed Lebanon ceasefire negotiated by Israel, the US, and the Lebanese government earlier.

Talks between Iran and the US have not even started on Iran’s nuclear program, even though only 60 days from  June 17 had been set aside to complete the complex talks, and further negotiations appeared at risk after both sides traded fire in the Strait of Hormuz earlier.

In theory, those talks can be extended beyond the 60-day deadline, but slow progress is starting to alarm some diplomats.[26]

Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Baghaei, speaking at a press conference in Tehran, warned European powers such as France and the UK not to seek to become involved in de-mining the Strait of Hormuz. “Iran is better aware of its responsibilities than any other party and is capable of fulfilling them, and there is no need for the intervention of others. Interventions that, even if made with good intentions, will in practice only complicate the situation,” he said.

Western powers object to Iran’s plan to impose tolls for commercial shipping passing through the strait, but may be more open to discussing Oman’s plan for voluntary contributions or fees charged for specific services.

Iran’s top negotiator, Ghalibaf, said on June 30: “The sovereignty of the Strait of Hormuz lies with Iran and Oman, and traffic in the strait is ?subject to arrangements determined by Iran”, ?adding that fee-free passage through the strait is only ?for ?60 days, as per the memorandum of understanding.

The UN’s International Maritime Organization was holding informal discussions with Iran about Tehran’s objections to the IMO opening a sea route through the strait close to Oman in conjunction with the US and Oman. At one point last week, the IMO thought it had the agreement of the Iranian foreign ministry on the route, but Iran then attacked two ships, possibly fearing its control of the strait was being eroded.[27]

The IMO Secretary General Dominguez then suspended the route to hold talks with Iran.

According to data from Kpler, a maritime tracking firm, 40 ships transited the waterway on June 29, up from 24 the previous day and 39 earlier. Hundreds of vessels have been stranded since the war between the US and Iran broke out on 28 February, leaving as many as 10,000 seafarers stranded. Not all ships have their transponders on, making an accurate count difficult, but Iran may regard this level of traffic as so far below normal that it keeps the pressure on oil prices.

It is committed to using its best endeavors to lift the blockade in the strait within 30 days.

Giving a relatively optimistic account of the state of relations with the US, only days after the two sides exchanged fire arising from a dispute over the control of the strait, Baghaei said: “From the beginning, when we entered this diplomatic process, no one imagined a smooth and unchallenged process. Keep in mind that this diplomatic process began after two wars in less than a year […] we expected to face challenges in the implementation phase.”[28]

Meanwhile, there is a power struggle going on inside Iran itself. Benoit Faucon  and Summer Said, in their article “Iran’s Diverging Priorities Are Jeopardizing U.S. Peace Talks,” have argued that:[29]

A power struggle inside Tehran is threatening U.S.-Iran peace talks, with civilian leaders seeking billions in frozen assets and hardline military officials pressing for control of the Strait of Hormuz, said officials familiar with the negotiations. Civilian leaders headed by President Masoud Pezeshkian are aiming to free up billions of dollars in frozen funds to bring some relief to the millions of Iranians struggling with the economic aftershocks of the war and the critical damage to its oil industry.

Given Iran’s precarious economic conditions, it will most likely insist on beginning the implementation of Points 6 & 11of the MoU. Point 6  of the MoU, which deals with money for Iran's reconstruction. It says the US and regional partners will develop a "definitive, mutually agreed plan" worth at least $300bn for reconstruction and economic development in Iran. The final mechanism will be agreed upon within 60 days of the final deal, and all licenses, waivers, and permissions will be granted by the US. However, this does not mean the US will be financially involved. The US is not required to pay "a cent of money" to Iran or contribute to the fund. But as a hypothetical example, the US has indicated that if Iran "behaves", the UAE could build a power plant in Iran, with US blessing. Trump and other officials have gone to great lengths to make clear to the US public that it will not be paying Iran directly, which the administration says stands in stark contrast to the 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and the Obama administration.[30]

Point 11 of the MoU deals with frozen funds. This point has been a significant impediment to negotiations.

Iran had long insisted that its frozen assets be released, offering the country another economic lifeline.

The MoU notes that the US "undertakes to make fully available frozen or restricted funds" once the MoU is signed, and that procedures will be agreed upon during negotiations.

Some assets will be released while post-MoU talks continue to reward Iran when it complies with aspects of the agreement, such as beginning to deal with its highly enriched uranium.[31]

Ultimately, Iran looks forward to the implementation of Point 7 of the MoU, which pertains to the end of sanctions. It says that the US will terminate all economic sanctions against Iran, including those included in UN Security Council resolutions and those implemented unilaterally by the US. The timeline, however, is unclear. The document notes that the schedule will be agreed upon as part of the final deal, but that both sides acknowledge their intentions to "immediately" address the issue in subsequent negotiations. Iran has been hard-hit by sanctions, and the US has sought to cut Tehran off from the global financial system.[32]

After Iran and the US exchanged attacks at the end of last week, attention has once again turned to diplomacy, with Trump saying that the two sides would hold talks in Doha on June 30.

But on June 29, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Gharibabadi, rejected the premise that any technical-level negotiations with the US would be held in Qatar, and instead said that consultations would be ongoing with Qatari officials.

Fazaeli, a member of the Iranian supreme leader’s office, earlier said that talks scheduled with the US were cancelled by Iranian negotiators after fundamental disagreements over the Strait of Hormuz and other issues.

The reciprocal US-Iranian strikes, as well as Iran’s signaling that it is in no rush to return to talks, point to the fact that any upcoming discussions between Iran and the US  will focus on implementing what has already been agreed to. Iran is concerned about the Strait of Hormuz, the vital maritime route that Iran seized upon as its major leverage point against the US during the war.[33]

Earlier, both sides accused each other of violating commitments made under the MoU, including Article 5, which says Iran will “make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa”.

The recent strikes have made clear the danger that a lack of coordination over the Strait of Hormuz poses. Iran’s position is that it will not be bypassed, with Foreign Minister  Araghchi saying that other countries should not “interfere in the issue of managing the Strait of Hormuz and the arrangements adopted by the Islamic Republic of Iran for reopening the Strait of Hormuz”.

The foreign minister said that it would take at least a month to return the strait to its capacity before the US-Israeli war on Iran began on February 28.

Iranians also said they plan on entrenching their hold over the Strait of Hormuz by extracting fees for insurance, environmental, and other services, but any sort of tolls has been vehemently rejected by Washington and others. The MoU stipulates there will be no tolls for the 60-day duration.[34]

On July 1, the US and Iran held technical talks in Doha as they seek to ?agree on the flow of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and secure a lasting ceasefire. Kushner and Witkoff met the prime minister of Qatar to lay the groundwork for the ?negotiations, but would not be attending the discussions themselves. Earlier,  the US and Iran ?have sparred publicly over the meaning of the interim pact, leading to tit-for-tat military strikes over the past week. Iran is determined to win international recognition ?of its control over the strait and its ability to levy fees on ships entering or leaving the Gulf, even if it has to do so by force. Traffic has partially resumed through the strait.[35]

The talks in Doha are structured as sessions between chief negotiators and specialists, the source with knowledge of the talks said. They began on ?June 30 and continued on July 1.

Iran has stated publicly that its priorities include agreeing on the management of the strait and the release ?of $6 billion ?in Iranian frozen assets. The current round of discussions will focus on those two issues.

The stated priority of the US is to ensure the free flow of traffic through the strait.

Trump faces political pressure to contain the economic fallout from the war before the midterm elections in November ?that will determine control ?of the US Congress. In Iran, the theocratic leadership survived the war but faces domestic anger over a shattered economy.

Oil prices, which dipped sharply in the second quarter of the year, fell more than 1% on July 1.

The interim deal between the US and Iran also provides for an end to a parallel conflict between ?Israel and ?the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon.[36]

Since the MoU signing on June 17, new tensions have risen between the US and Iran over the passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz, US bombing of Iran, Iranian attacks on US military assets in Kuwait and Bahrain, and continuing Israeli assaults in Lebanon.

On June 30, Vance said that the Trump administration was in a “great position” regardless of how the talks pan out. The US “obviously” wants the talks to succeed, Vance said, but added that his country was “still in a much stronger position” than Iran even if they fail. He insisted that Tehran’s nuclear program and military have been “destroyed” and warned that Trump has made clear that any Iranian attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz would prompt a US military response. Vance again said Iran would be “permanently transformed” if negotiations aimed at securing a lasting settlement are successful.[37]

He also said technical talks with Iran are ongoing on specific points included in the MoU.

Tehran has denied holding direct talks with the US in Doha. Instead, Iran said it will hold indirect talks on the US-Iran deal with mediator Qatar to discuss implementing the MoU with the US and releasing frozen Iranian assets.

“There were scheduled talks, really technical talks, building on the negotiation that we’ve already had. Those are definitely happening tomorrow,” Vance said on June 30. He said he found Tehran’s public statements “fascinating and frustrating”, noting that Iranian officials deny peace talks while acknowledging technical discussions.

“They’ll say, ‘No, no, there aren’t peace talks ongoing, but there are technical talks between the United States and Iran about the peace deal,’” Vance said. “It’s a Persian negotiating tactic and a Persian rhetorical device that I don’t understand.”[38]

Iran is reluctant to return to direct talks with the US because of a growing skepticism inside Iran about the MoU. Therefore, senior officials like Araghchi or Ghalibaf were reluctant to show up in Doha. [39]

Meanwhile, Iran seeks access to frozen funds. A big point of contention for Iran – and something that will also likely be on the agenda during any talks – is gaining access to the country’s own funds that have been frozen abroad for many years, as a result of US sanctions championed by the Trump administration.

Trump and other officials have emphasized that any access to funds will only be made possible later, based on Iran’s performance in enforcing commitments.

Iranian officials are trying to avoid a repeat of earlier arrangements in which funds were released in name only, but remained effectively inaccessible. President Masoud Pezeshkian said Iran expects that at least $6bn held by Qatar will be released.

The MoU stipulates that Iran’s funds will be “fully available for use” once the agreement is implemented, with release procedures to be mutually agreed upon during negotiations.

It also says the funds must be fully usable, whether they stay in the original account or are transferred, and that they must be payable to any ultimate beneficiary designated by Iran’s Central Bank. The US is to undertake the issuance of all necessary licenses and authorizations.

Trump said Iran will use the released money to buy corn and other humanitarian items such as food and medicine. Iran’s central bank chief Hemmati said that while the country may opt to buy agricultural products from the US – as it has done for years – if their quality and price are agreeable, the text of the MoU does not obligate it to do so.

Earlier, Iranian President Pezeshkian said Iran expected $6bn of the frozen Iranian funds to be released by the US as a first step. The matter is currently being discussed in the Doha peace talks. [40]

Iran has a number of other goals for its participation in any upcoming negotiations. They include US recognition of Iranian sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs, US military pullback from Iran’s periphery, halting the imposition of new sanctions or regional force build-up during the MoU period, a reconstruction or economic development package, and the introduction of formal monitoring and dispute resolution mechanisms.

Lebanon is also a major focus for Iran.

The first point of the MoU stipulated the immediate and permanent halt of military operations on “all fronts”, including Lebanon, where Tehran-backed Hezbollah has been fighting an armed resistance against Israel for years.

While Israeli attacks in southern Lebanon and other parts of the country have decreased in intensity recently to prevent another confrontation with Iran, the US has ended up entrenching Israel’s military presence inside Lebanon through a deal brokered with the government of Lebanon.

The agreement does not obligate Israeli soldiers to evacuate southern Lebanon or halt all attacks, effectively undermining the MoU signed with Iran.

Hezbollah has also blasted the deal, but Lebanese government officials have endorsed it, seeing a path to a future where Hezbollah is fully disarmed and replaced in southern Lebanon by the country’s official army.[41]

The interim deal between ?the US and ?Iran also provides for an end to the conflict between Israel and the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah in ?Lebanon.

But Lebanon's powerful parliament speaker Nabih Berri, an ally of Hezbollah, cast doubt on a separate, US-brokered framework deal between Lebanon and Israel to halt that war.

The deal risks entrenching a stalemate by tying ?Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon to Hezbollah's disarmament.[42]

The next phase of the peace deal is going to prove incredibly challenging.

It has already been established that Iran’s missile program will not be subject to negotiations related to the MoU.

But some of the hardest-line voices in Tehran want to go further, and believe that the country’s nuclear program, over which two wars were started by Israel and the US over the past year, must no longer be discussed at all with foreign powers.

More than 60 members of the powerful Assembly of Experts signed a statement that said negotiators must not cross Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei’s perceived red lines. In this vein, they demanded no talks on Iran’s nuclear rights, revenge for assassinated leaders, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, war compensation, and the removal of sanctions.

Iranian authorities have previously expressed willingness to make nuclear concessions, including dilution of highly -enriched uranium now buried under the rubble of bombed facilities. But they have said that this will only be done after a clear step-by-step timetable that will guarantee Iran will enjoy the economic benefits of sanctions being lifted.[43]

The nuclear issue is the most problematic and requires painstaking deliberations, very technical in nature, about tackling the uranium enrichment issue.

Point 8 of the agreed MOU relates to nuclear weapons. Iran has agreed not to procure or develop a nuclear weapon, and both sides have agreed to deal with the enriched uranium Tehran already has.

The method of managing the material is unclear. The document notes that the mechanism "will be mutually agreed upon" in subsequent talks, but that, at a minimum, it will be "downblended" in place under the supervision of the IAEA. The Trump administration described this as a "minimum standard" and a "major win" for the US.

Trump has said that preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon was "99%" of what he wanted by launching Operation Epic Fury earlier this year. The problem is that dealing with the enriched uranium is very problematic.

According to the third point in the MoU document, the US and Iran will commit to negotiating and achieving a final deal in a "maximum" of 60 days, although that timeline could be extended with mutual consent.[44] The Israeli and US bombings of key enrichment facilities have buried the stockpile, and there are no plans to recover the buried material. IAEA has expressed serious concern and lost knowledge over parts of the stockpile. Finally, Iran agreed to allow UN nuclear inspectors from the IAEA.  Diplomatic efforts continue, but trust and access remain serious obstacles. Therefore, there is much uncertainty about the eventual outcome. Obviously, the delicate matter will take time to resolve, and most likely the 60-day deadline will be extended.

Because the US has described the deal as performance-based, the sanctions relief specified in point 7 is tied to Iran complying with point 8.[45]

Points 9 & 10 of the MoU deal with the 'status quo' matter. They specify that the US and Iran agree to a "status quo" of their nuclear program in the meantime, until the enriched uranium can be dealt with. In practice, this means that the US will not impose new sanctions. In the meantime, it will issue waivers for the export of oil, petroleum products, and other associated services, such as banking transactions and transportation.[46]

But other than the various complicated issues of the peace deal, Israel's continuing aggression in Lebanon,  and Trump’s failure to stop them,  is the immediate problem that can lead to the breakdown of Iran-US peace talks. Since the MoU was signed, there has been an upsurge in fighting between Lebanese armed group Hezbollah and Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, and Israeli air strikes that the health ministry says have killed dozens of Lebanese, including women and children.

A new ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah was declared on June 19. Continued clashes and air strikes prompted Iran on Saturday to announce it had shut the Strait of Hormuz, though tracking data shows vessels have continued to pass through it.

Hezbollah said it was committed to the ceasefire but that it would confront any attempt by Israel to "seize territory or expand its occupation”. The Israeli military's chief of staff said that Hezbollah had built an "underground military fortress" and that its destruction was one of the "primary operational focuses" of Israeli forces.

Fighting was reported to have diminished on June 21, but  Netanyahu insisted that the Israeli military would remain in southern Lebanon for as long as was necessary to protect northern Israel.[47]

The MoU had explicitly called for fighting to stop on all fronts, but in Lebanon, Israeli air strikes have since killed at least 67 people, while Hezbollah attacks have killed five Israeli soldiers.

Israel has insisted that its conflict with Hezbollah is separate from the war on Iran, which it mounted alongside the US on  February 28.

Lebanon was drawn into the war shortly afterwards, when Iran-backed Hezbollah launched rockets into Israel in retaliation for a strike that killed Iran's supreme leader.

Israel responded by launching a bombing campaign across Lebanon and occupying around 5% of the country's territory in the south - hoping to drive back Hezbollah fighters from its northern border - and has said it has no intention of withdrawing.

Since  March 2, at least 4,106 people have been killed in Lebanon, and ?a million displaced during Israel’s military campaign against ?Hezbollah. Israel also lost  36 Israeli soldiers and a few civilians.[48]

On June 29, a security deal between Israel and Lebanon risks entrenching a stalemate rather than resolving Israel's underlying conflict with Hezbollah by tying Israel's ?pullout from southern Lebanon to the Iran-aligned group's disarmament, a condition regional analysts and politicians say is unattainable.

At its core is a bargain that isn’t workable, as  Hezbollah ?has flatly rejected disarmament, and no Lebanese government has the power to enforce it.

With Hezbollah unlikely to disarm, Israel has political cover to keep an open-ended military presence in southern Lebanon, which it invaded after Hezbollah fired at Israel on March 2 in solidarity with Tehran over the war in Iran. The deal leaves the Lebanese state trapped between obligations it cannot meet and sovereignty it cannot fully reclaim. The framework deal also collides with Lebanon’s political realities, asking ?a fragile sectarian state to confront the most powerful armed faction in the country despite a post–civil war system built on power-sharing rather than coercion.[49]

The Lebanese army was neither structured nor equipped to disarm Hezbollah, ?and expecting it to do so ignored both the organization’s entrenched military capacity and the fragile sectarian balance on which Lebanon's stability rests. The imbalance is built into the ?agreement’s design, with sweeping obligations placed on Lebanon but no reciprocal guarantee of Israeli withdrawal. The agreement has put all the burden on Lebanon, and it creates a structure that ?allows the Israelis to remain in southern Lebanon indefinitely. In other words, the deal was "born dead" and is structurally flawed, hinging on a condition that is impossible to meet in practice.

Israel had already consolidated a buffer zone in southern Lebanon about five to six miles deep while tying any future withdrawal to Hezbollah’s disarmament. The terms of the deal risk the buffer zone becoming long-term ?and giving it diplomatic legitimacy, which amounts to favoring Israel at the cost of Lebanon’s sovereignty. The conflict in Lebanon has been a central part of diplomacy towards ending the wider US-Iran war.

The framework agreement signed in Washington affirms that Israel has no claim to Lebanese territory and makes the Lebanese army authority in the south contingent on ?the verified disarmament ?of non-state armed groups, including Hezbollah. Netanyahu portrays the deal as a historic achievement that could lead to broader peace, while Israeli troops remain deployed in a so-called security zone, which Israel says is designed to protect its north from potential attack.[50]

"We will continue to hold it (territory in the security zone) until Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations are disarmed, and until no further threat to Israel is posed from Lebanon," Netanyahu said earlier.

Lebanese President Aoun welcomed the agreement as a first step towards restoring Lebanon's sovereignty, saying it should allow Lebanese people to return to a fully liberated land.

Parliament Speaker  Berri said it amounted to an "agreement of dictates, not one that preserves Lebanon's rights" and said it would not be implemented.

Hezbollah chief Qassem ?declared the deal "null and void" and a "surrender" and said his group would keep fighting until Israel is forced to leave. Hezbollah lawmaker Fadlallah ?warned of "internal conflict" in Lebanon.

Any ?attempt to forcibly disarm Hezbollah would risk deepening sectarian tensions. It will lead to civil conflict, and maybe an insurrection by the Shi'ite community.

Hezbollah's dismantlement was something that would never happen, and the deal in effect legitimized an open-ended Israeli military presence. Nothing will happen. Israel won't withdraw, and Hezbollah won't dismantle.

Also,  no ?Israeli prime minister ?has the domestic political space to withdraw while Hezbollah is still armed, and northern Israeli communities remain displaced. A narrower pact ?focused on Hezbollah's pullout from south of the Litani River, an expanded Lebanese army deployment, and an extension of state authority would have stood a better chance of success.[51]

Netanyahu told Israeli troops on June 30 that Hezbollah still had around 12,000 rockets and missiles in its arsenal and that the Israeli military had killed 9,000 militants in ?Lebanon.

Iran has repeatedly demanded a ceasefire in Lebanon as part of its negotiations with the U.S. to end the war ?that began ?on February 28. Israel, which is not directly involved in those talks, opposes linking ?the war in Lebanon to the war with Iran. Under US pressure, Israel agreed to a ceasefire with Hezbollah on June 19, although violence has persisted. Hezbollah has ?repeatedly objected to the negotiations between Israel and Lebanon and is not part of the talks.[52]

Meanwhile, the US- Israel is facing strains that are becoming worrying for Israel. The once-ironclad U.S.-Israeli relationship is deteriorating.

Trump’s pursuit of a peace deal with Iran is seen by many Israelis as a betrayal, and his repeated berating of Netanyahu has raised doubts about whether they can still call Trump the best friend in the White House that Israel has ever had.

In the recent election results in New York City, three pro-Palestinian candidates backed by Mayor Mamdani, a harsh critic of Israel, defeated moderates in hotly contested Democratic congressional primaries.

All three candidates had fiercely criticized Israel, and it may not be able to count on solid support from the US  for much longer. Earlier, the US had provided Israel with concrete assistance like billions of dollars in yearly military aid, in symbolic backing like reliable vetoes of anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations, or even in tax exemptions for U.S. charities benefiting Israeli causes.[53]

Israel was already losing popularity in the US, and in both parties, largely over its prosecution of the two-year war in Gaza after the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, attacks, in which about 1,200 people were killed and some 250 taken hostage. Tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians were killed in the ensuing war, food shortages caused widespread famine, and the enclave has been largely destroyed by Israel’s campaign.

Americans’ sympathy for the Palestinians exceeded their sympathy for Israel for the first time in a New York Times/Siena poll in September. And 60 percent of Americans said that they held unfavorable opinions of Israel in a Pew survey in April, up from 42 percent in 2022.[54]

Those new lawmakers signaled a broader Democratic turn against Israel. Opposition to Israel is now the major foreign policy issue. It could well be front and center again in the 2028 presidential primary. For Democratic critics of Israel, the rift has focused on the perception that the two countries no longer share the same values, chiefly when it comes to human rights and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.

The special US-Israeli relationship had been taken for granted for decades. Israel’s claim to being the “only democracy in the Middle East” has been tarnished in American eyes both by its oppressive treatment of the Palestinians and by its right-wing government’s efforts to overhaul Israeli institutions and consolidate its power.

That claim is less important to the US at a time when the Trump administration is emphasizing the exertion of raw power and geopolitical transactionalism over America’s traditional self-image as the leader of the free world.

For Republican critics, many of whom accuse Israel of dragging the US into fighting the war in Iran, the argument centers on how much American and Israeli national interests really still overlap.[55]

After 40 years of Israel calling itself a strategic asset to the US, there’s a legitimate question whether Israel is an asset anymore. The question is: What does the US  get from this relationship with Israel?

But the US has a long way to go before the support of Israel could fairly be called into question. The Trump administration has accelerated billions in arms sales and emergency military aid to Israel, backed Israel in peace talks with Hamas, eased some pressure on West Bank settlement expansion, and taken a host of actions to curb anti-Israel protests on American college campuses. In the future, the alliance will likely fray further, and  Israel will lose out. Already, because of the talks with Iran, the Trump administration is trying to constrain Israeli actions against its enemies in the region — most noticeably in Lebanon — in ways that Israelis say they never anticipated.

Israelis also can no longer count on receiving billions of dollars a year in US military aid, something that Netanyahu effectively acknowledged this year when he proposed that Israel gradually wean itself from that assistance.

Other measures that an increasingly cold US government could take to express displeasure with Israel include stripping charities supporting West Bank settlements of federal tax-exempt status. Even the Trump administration can publicly lash out at Israel, such as by withholding its veto from UN Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, a step it has taken only rarely over the years.

The strained relationship is starting to enter the Israeli political conversation in the prelude to elections this fall. Bennett, who toppled Netanyahu in 2021 and is trying to repeat that feat, said this week that the US-Israeli alliance was at an all-time low and that repairing it would be a huge undertaking. “For the first time since the establishment of Israel,” he said, “Israel is a net negative in the US. That’s a disaster,” he added. Other candidates have suggested that Israel should crack down on settler violence against Palestinians or give diplomacy a chance rather than trying to solve every problem militarily. For now, Israelis are watching their support in the US continue to bleed.[56]

Meanwhile, the Iranians are calculating that if Trump has not been able to force Israel to abide by the minimal set of agreements of his very own brokered Gaza ceasefire of October 2025, how can he deliver in their own peace talks? Therefore, the apprehension about peace talks.[57]

Given recent developments, the US, on its own, is using indirect technical talks with Iran in Doha to manage tensions over the Strait of Hormuz despite the absence of direct negotiations. For the US, these difficulties spring from Iran’s “diplomatic gambit” to control the Strait of Hormuz. It is trying to clarify what Iran’s actual role is in the strait, according to the MoU, and further details that perhaps would be included in a future agreement.[58]

Undoubtedly, Iran is asserting itself after it has gained strategic control of the Strait of Hormuz and is not likely to give it up that easily. Notwithstanding US opposition, the payment of some transit fees by all commercial shipping as demanded by Iran is most likely now a fait accompli, and the US will accept it eventually. Given the record, the Iranians are convinced that the US isn’t a dependable partner in any peace talks anymore. Given the deep mistrust between the US and Iran, and the stalemate on the Lebanon issue, the peace talks appear to be stalled for now. However, since both Iran and the US want to end the war, there is still a glimmer of hope. Eventually, Israel will lose support for its aggressions in the region, inside the US, as already done elsewhere in the world. Most importantly, sheer political compulsions from all sides will force the US and Iran to reluctantly compromise for the sake of a permanent peace deal ending the four-month devastating war.

Dr. Sohail Mahmood is a political analyst in Chapel Hill, NC.

[1] Bernd Debusmann, “What's in the US-Iran agreement?, BBC, June 18, 2026”, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgmqzr6p9mo

[2] Bernd Debusmann, “What's in the US-Iran agreement?, BBC, June 18, 2026, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgmqzr6p9mo

[3] Bernd Debusmann, “What's in the US-Iran agreement?, BBC, June 18, 2026”, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgmqzr6p9mo

[4] Humeyra Pamuk, Dave Graham and Tala Ramadan “US and Iran conclude high-level talks in Switzerland, mediators say”, Reuters, June 22, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-iran-talks-go-into-day-2-after-trump-threats-hormuz-closure-2026-06-22/

[5] What did the US and Iran agree to on the first day of talks? Al Jazeera, June 22, 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/6/22/iran-war-live-first-day-of-us-talks-covers-lebanon-hormuz-frozen-assets, Here's the latest, CNN, June 22, 2026, https://edition.cnn.com/2026/06/22/world/live-news/iran-war-trump-israel-lebanon-hnk and Humeyra Pamuk, Dave Graham and Tala Ramadan “US and Iran conclude high-level talks in Switzerland, mediators say”, Reuters, June 22, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-iran-talks-go-into-day-2-after-trump-threats-hormuz-closure-2026-06-22/ and “Iran says ‘important steps’ agreed for final-deal negotiations following Switzerland talks”, Reuters/Web DeskJune 22, 2026, https://tribune.com.pk/story/2614513/us-and-iran-conclude-high-level-talks-in-switzerland-mediators-say

[6] Osama Bin Javaid, A lot of work remaining to be done’ in Switzerland, Al Jazeera, June 22, 2026,https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/6/22/iran-war-live-first-day-of-us-talks-covers-lebanon-hormuz-frozen-assets

[7] Humeyra Pamuk, Dave Graham and Tala Ramadan “US and Iran conclude high-level talks in Switzerland, mediators say”, Reuters, June 22, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-iran-talks-go-into-day-2-after-trump-threats-hormuz-closure-2026-06-22/

[8] Bernd Debusmann, “What's in the US-Iran agreement?, BBC, June 18, 2026”, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgmqzr6p9mo

[9] Iran says, ‘important steps’ agreed for final-deal negotiations following Switzerland talks”, Reuters/Web Desk, June 22, 2026, https://tribune.com.pk/story/2614513/us-and-iran-conclude-high-level-talks-in-switzerland-mediators-say

[10] “Iran says ‘important steps’ agreed for final-deal negotiations following Switzerland talks”, Reuters/Web Desk, June 22, 2026, https://tribune.com.pk/story/2614513/us-and-iran-conclude-high-level-talks-in-switzerland-mediators-say

[11] Maia Davies, Mallory Moench, First round of US-Iran talks ends with encouraging progress, mediators say”, BBC, June 22, 2026, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy0q41v1lzo

[12] Maia Davies, Mallory Moench, First round of US-Iran talks ends with encouraging progress, mediators say”, BBC, June 22, 2026, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy0q41v1lzo

[13] Humeyra Pamuk, Dave Graham and Tala Ramadan, “Vance says US-Iran talks lay 'good foundation' for final peace deal”, Reuters, June 22, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-iran-talks-go-into-day-2-after-trump-threats-hormuz-closure-2026-06-22/

[14] Humeyra Pamuk, Dave Graham and Tala Ramadan, “Vance says US-Iran talks lay 'good foundation' for final peace deal”, Reuters, June 22, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-iran-talks-go-into-day-2-after-trump-threats-hormuz-closure-2026-06-22/

[15] Humeyra Pamuk, Dave Graham and Tala Ramadan, “Vance says US-Iran talks lay 'good foundation' for final peace deal”, Reuters, June 22, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-iran-talks-go-into-day-2-after-trump-threats-hormuz-closure-2026-06-22/

[16] Oil price falls back to pre-Iran war levels, BBC, June 25, 2026, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0jy7d7wzv4o

[17] Oil price falls back to pre-Iran war levels, BBC, June 25, 2026, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0jy7d7wzv4o

[18] Oil price falls back to pre-Iran war levels, BBC, June 25, 2026, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0jy7d7wzv4o

[19] Helene CooperEuan WardJenny Gross, and Pranav Baskar, “U.S. Strikes Iran in Retaliation for Attack on Vessel in Strait of Hormuz”, New York Times, June 26, 2026, https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/06/27/world/us-iran-strikes-hormuz and

Alexander Ward, Benoit Faucon, and Rebecca Feng,  “U.S. Launches Fresh Attacks on Iran”, Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2026

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/trump-says-iranian-attack-on-cargo-ship-was-violation-of-ceasefire-deal-884c617c?mod=hp_lead_pos1

[20] Helene Cooper, Euan Ward, Jenny Gross, and Pranav Baskar, “U.S. Strikes Iran in Retaliation for Attack on Vessel in Strait of Hormuz”, New York Times, June 26, 2026, https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/06/27/world/us-iran-strikes-hormuz

[21] Ibid

[22] Ibid

[23] Andrew Mills and Elwelly, “Iran says it won't meet with U.S. envoys, clouding prospects for peace deal”, Reuters, June 30, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/uncertainty-over-qatar-diplomacy-clouds-prospects-us-iran-deal-2026-06-30/

[24] Ibid

[25] Ibid

[26] Patrick Wintour, “US-Iran talks over $6bn Iranian assets to restart”, Guardian, July 1, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/30/us-iran-talks-6bn-iranian-assets-restart

[27] Ibid

[28] Ibid

[29] Iran’s Diverging Priorities Are Jeopardizing U.S. Peace Talks”, WSJ, June 30. 2026, https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/irans-diverging-priorities-are-jeopardizing-u-s-peace-talks-a1aca6ad

[30] Bernd Debusmann, “What's in the US-Iran agreement?, BBC, June 18, 2026, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgmqzr6p9mo

[31] Bernd Debusmann, “What's in the US-Iran agreement?, BBC, June 18, 2026, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgmqzr6p9mo

[32] Bernd Debusmann, “What's in the US-Iran agreement?, BBC, June 18, 2026, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgmqzr6p9mo

[33] Maziar Motamedi,” What is Iran looking for in any upcoming talks with the US?”, , Al Jazeera, June 30, 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/30/what-is-iran-looking-for-in-any-upcoming-talks-with-the-us

[34] Ibid

[35] Andrew Mills and Ahmed Elimam, “US and Iran enter technical talks to secure peace deal, shipping restart”

  Reuters, July 1, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-iran-enter-technical-talks-secure-peace-deal-restart-shipping-2026-07-01/

[36] Ibid

[37] US-Iran negotiations: What’s the latest? Al Jazeera, July 1, 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/7/1/us-iran-negotiations-whats-the-latest

[38] Ibid

[39] Ibid

[40] Ibid

[41] Maziar Motamedi,b “What is Iran looking for in any upcoming talks with the US?”, Al Jazeera, June 30, 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/30/what-is-iran-looking-for-in-any-upcoming-talks-with-the-us

[42] Andrew Mills and Elwelly, “Iran says it won't meet with U.S. envoys, clouding prospects for peace deal”, Reuters, June 30, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/uncertainty-over-qatar-diplomacy-clouds-prospects-us-iran-deal-2026-06-30/

[43] Maziar Motamedi, “What is Iran looking for in any upcoming talks with the US?”, Al Jazeera, June 30, 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/30/what-is-iran-looking-for-in-any-upcoming-talks-with-the-us

[44] Bernd Debusmann, “What's in the US-Iran agreement?, BBC, June 18, 2026, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgmqzr6p9mo

[45] Bernd Debusmann, “What's in the US-Iran agreement?, BBC, June 18, 2026”, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgmqzr6p9mo

[46] Bernd Debusmann, “What's in the US-Iran agreement?, BBC, June 18, 2026, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgmqzr6p9mo

[47] Maia Davies, Mallory Moench, First round of US-Iran talks ends with encouraging progress, mediators say”, BBC, June 22, 2026, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy0q41v1lzo

[48] Maia Davies, Mallory Moench, First round of US-Iran talks ends with encouraging progress, mediators say”, BBC, June 22, 2026, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy0q41v1lzo

[49] Samia Nakhoul, “Israel-Lebanon deal may entrench stalemate rather than end war, analysts say”, Reuters, June 29, 2026

[50] Ibid

[51] Ibid

[52] Ibid

[53] Ibid

[54], David M. Halbfinger, “Israelis See Their Friendship With the U.S. Slipping Away”, New York Times, June 27, 2026, https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/27/world/middleeast/israel-new-york-iran-war-mamdani.html 

[55] Ibid

[56] Ibid

[57] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/06/27/world/us-iran-strikes-hormuz

[58] US-Iran negotiations: What’s the latest? Al Jazeera, July 1, 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/7/1/us-iran-negotiations-whats-the-latest