Anti-U.S. and Israel murals in downtown Tehran
The United States and Iran have agreed on a framework deal to end the war. But even before the formal signing, both sides are already fighting over its interpretation. While Tehran presents the agreement as a diplomatic victory, Washington emphasizes conditions, controls and further negotiations.
The deal exists – but its meaning does not
After months of war between the United States and Iran, a framework agreement is now on the table. According to Reuters, US President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf have already signed a memorandum of understanding. A formal signing is expected to follow on Friday. After that, shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is also expected to increase significantly again.
But this is exactly where the problem begins. While Washington describes the agreement as a structured framework for further negotiations, Iran’s version sounds far more triumphant. The Iranian National Security Council, led by Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, declared the agreement finalized. According to this version, it includes an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, the full lifting of the US naval blockade and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz under Iranian control.
Tehran lists its gains
What is particularly striking is what does not appear in the Iranian version: Iran’s own concessions. Instead, Iran’s Mehr news agency published details from a 14-point draft. According to this version, sanctions on Iranian oil and petrochemical sales are to be suspended, and frozen Iranian funds worth 24 billion dollars are to be released. Half of that amount is reportedly supposed to flow even before the final negotiations begin.
The remaining points also read, from Iran’s perspective, like a catalogue of American retreat. The final talks are expected to last 60 days and focus on nuclear issues and the full lifting of sanctions. According to the Iranian version, Iran’s missile program and its support for Islamist militias are explicitly not part of the negotiations. In addition, the United States and its allies are expected to present reconstruction plans for Iran worth at least 300 billion dollars.
Washington sees conditions
The US version sounds significantly different. According to Reuters, US officials emphasize that possible benefits for Iran – such as sanctions relief or the release of frozen funds – depend on Tehran’s willingness to address its nuclear program and refrain from destabilizing the region. One US official spoke of possible small gestures at the beginning, provided that Iran also shows a willingness to comply with commitments.
This means the actual conflict has not been resolved, but postponed. The framework agreement is intended to stop the war, reopen the Strait of Hormuz and calm the markets. But the hardest questions remain unanswered: uranium enrichment, inspections, the missile program, militias, sanctions and the regional balance of power.
Europe remains cautious
Europe is therefore reacting with visible caution. Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom have stressed that Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon. At the same time, they are only holding out the prospect of sanctions relief in return for clear and verifiable steps by Iran on its nuclear program.
That is diplomatically polite, but politically clear: Europe does not want to sabotage the deal, but it does not trust it yet. Reuters has also reported that European allies fear a weak agreement could end up locking in Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities rather than limiting them. France, Germany and the United Kingdom therefore want to be involved in the next round of negotiations.
A ceasefire built on mistrust
The deal could be a breakthrough. It could stabilize the Strait of Hormuz, ease energy prices and end a dangerous war. But it is not yet a durable peace. For that, the interpretations are simply too different.
Iran is selling the agreement as a victory without visible concessions. Trump is selling it as a breakthrough and strategic success. Europe is selling its support as cautious backing under strict conditions.
That is exactly what makes this agreement so delicate: it must hold not only militarily, but politically. If both sides need to tell their domestic audiences that they have won, every later concession becomes explosive.
In the end, this is less a finished peace treaty than a risky interim state. The weapons are supposed to fall silent. The ships are supposed to move again. The markets are supposed to breathe. But the real test begins now.
SK
