US-Iran MoU a pause, not peace settlement

The digital signing of a memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran is being celebrated across much of the world as a breakthrough. Yet the Middle East has a long record of pauses being mistaken for the resolution of conflicts.

The memorandum's significance lies less in what it achieves today rather than in what it prevents tomorrow. By committing Washington and Tehran to negotiate a final agreement within 60 days, the document creates a political framework for de-escalation. Iran reiterates that it will not pursue nuclear weapons and accepts international supervision over its enriched material stockpile. The United States, in turn, promises sanctions relief, economic engagement and a gradual rollback of military pressure.

The White House is presenting the memorandum as a triumph of pressure. Yet, as Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian observed, the conflict itself has shown that force is no solution and negotiations conducted on an equal footing remain the correct way to resolve differences.

Lin urged all parties to uphold the spirit of the agreement and implement it in good faith. He also emphasized that both sides should approach the next stage of negotiations with rationality and pragmatism.

China has put forward four propositions for safeguarding peace and stability in the Middle East that can provide a meaningful reference framework for the two sides negotiations: adherence to the principle of peaceful coexistence, the principle of national sovereignty, the principle of international rule of law and a coordinated approach to development and security.

Yet the largest obstacle to a deal being reached may not be Tehran or Washington but in Tel Aviv's ongoing military operations.

Even before the memorandum was released, Israeli forces launched fresh strikes in southern Lebanon, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly signaled that Israel intends to maintain military positions in areas his government regards as strategic security zones. For Iran and its regional allies, continued Israeli military operations risk undermining the foundations of the agreement before substantive negotiations even begin.

This dilemma exposes the central contradiction of current US Middle East policy. Washington seeks stability with Iran while continually supporting Israel whose security calculations often point in the opposite direction. The result is a diplomatic balancing act that may prove difficult to sustain.

There is another reason for caution. The memorandum appears to be a product of domestic pressures in the US rather than strategic vision.

The US administration faces growing fatigue among voters regarding costly foreign military commitments. Business groups have also warned about the economic consequences of instability in the Gulf and disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz. Prolonging the conflict will only drive energy prices higher, intensify inflationary pressures and complicate domestic economic management. In this sense, the memorandum is a political compromise shaped by realities at home.

That helps explain why many analysts view the deal as a means for the US to buy time. The difficult questions — the regional security architecture, sanctions sequencing, verification mechanisms and the future balance of power in the Gulf — remain unresolved.

Still, buying time is not necessarily without worth. Diplomacy often succeeds by creating political space before creating political solutions. The challenge now is transforming the memorandum into a durable settlement.

Beijing supports peace and stability in the Gulf — Foreign Minister Wang Yi has engaged in intensive diplomatic outreach involving more than 30 calls and meetings with regional counterparts — it will also continue to advance its comprehensive strategic partnership with Iran.

Whether the memorandum becomes a foundation for a regional order based on dialogue, development, security and cooperation as Beijing advocates remains to be seen.

The coming sixty days will determine whether the agreement becomes history — or merely another intermission in the Middle East's long cycle of conflict.