“The memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States was agreed to be signed digitally,” Baghaei said. “No signing ceremony will be held in Switzerland,” Esmaeil Baghaei told the IRIB’s News Network, according to Press TV.

The spokesman explained that the decision to have the agreement signed by the highest-ranking officials of both countries was intentional, given past experiences.

“When the text is signed by the highest authorities of both countries, violating it will naturally carry greater costs. Given our past experiences, we preferred that this happen,” Baghaei said.

He added that the Iranian negotiating team’s presence in Geneva was still under discussion, but the signing itself had been conducted digitally.

“The text of the Iran-US memorandum of understanding is now officially finalized because both parties have signed it,” he said.

The spokesman explained that the delay between finalization of the MoU on Sunday and its publication on Wednesday was due to standard diplomatic procedures and the importance of coordinating with mediators.

“In every diplomatic process, there are procedures that the relevant parties try to adhere to. The mediators’ views are also important so that they can bring this process to the desired conclusion,” Baghaei said.

He noted that the parties had agreed not to publish the text until it was finalized. However, he stressed that Iranian officials had already disclosed the broad outlines of the agreement.

“If we review the text now, we will see that there was nothing left unsaid during this period. We had expressed all the issues more or less. We may not have gone into details on some points, but regarding the overall issues, we had mentioned all of them,” he said.

Deal implementation harder than signing

The spokesman warned that implementing the ceasefire agreement with the United States will be more difficult than signing it, stressing that Tehran has not forgotten the lessons of the war and will carefully monitor US compliance.

Baghaei said that Iran’s diplomatic apparatus, backed by the full support of the people, had secured a text that serves the country’s interests.

“The fact that we have signed an agreement to end the war at this stage does not mean we have forgotten the past or abandoned the costly lessons we have learned,” Baghaei said.

“Our work is now harder than before, because implementing international agreements is always much more difficult than drafting them, especially with parties that are not committed to their obligations.”

He stressed that from now on, Iran must ensure that the other side is compelled to adhere to its commitments.

‘If US falters, we will falter too’

Baghaei made clear that Iran will not hesitate to respond if Washington fails to implement its obligations.

“If the Americans falter in implementing their commitments, we will falter too. It is not the case that we will fulfill our commitments while the other side evades its obligations,” he said.

He added that Iran will monitor US implementation “without any leniency” and will only carry out its own commitments once the other side fulfills its promises.

Missiles for firing, not negotiation

Baghaei explained that Iran’s wise decision was to postpone nuclear negotiations to a later stage, focusing first on ending the war.

“It was decided that we would not negotiate on the nuclear issue at this stage. The focus was on ending the war, and we did that,” he said.

“From the moment the MoU comes into effect, which is now, we will have 60 days to negotiate on the nuclear issue and sanctions. If talks reach a conclusion earlier, that is better. But given the complexity of the issue, the 60-day timeframe is reasonable, and if necessary, it can be extended.”

He added that the MoU specifies that negotiations will only cover the nuclear issue and sanctions removal.

Baghaei stressed that Iran’s missile capabilities are not a subject for discussion.

“Our missiles do not like anyone talking about them. Iran’s missiles are only for firing, not for negotiation. Iran’s defense capabilities will not be discussed in any process with any party,” he said.

Lebanon’s importance to Iran

Baghaei emphasized that Iran has never abandoned its allies, and that a ceasefire in Lebanon was as important to Tehran as the end of the war on Iran.

“The Islamic Republic has shown that it does not abandon its friends under any circumstances. For us, the ceasefire and end of war in Lebanon were as important as in Iran. In the first article of the MoU, Lebanon is mentioned three times. Respect for Lebanon’s territorial integrity and national sovereignty is included,” he said.

He warned that if Israeli attacks on Lebanon continue, this will constitute a violation of US commitments under the MoU.

“We do not separate the US and the Zionist regime, but their differences in methods and approaches are evident. The Zionist regime does not want to give any opportunity to any diplomatic process. But it is the US’s responsibility to compel the Zionist regime to respect US commitments to Iran,” Baghaei said.

US blockade lifted after Beirut strike

Baghaei said the original agreement provided for the blockade to be lifted within 30 days, but this was accelerated after Israel’s Sunday attack on Beirut’s southern suburbs and Iran’s subsequent threats.

“Following developments related to the Zionist regime’s attack on Dahiyeh and the serious threats made by Iran, urgent talks were held and it was agreed that the US would implement its commitments immediately,” he said.

“Our monitoring shows that our ships have entered and exited ports without any problems, and this commitment [to lift the blockade] has begun. Our commitments will begin after the signing of this document.”

Nuclear material will not leave Iran

Baghaei reiterated Iran’s red line on its enriched uranium stockpile.

“We have said from the beginning that enriched nuclear material will not be transferred out of Iran. Dilution of enriched material is not a new option. It has now been introduced as an option to close the door on other possibilities,” he said.

“The unacceptable option for us is the transfer of enriched nuclear material abroad,” Baghaei added.

Nuclear talks after war ends

Baghaei explained that Iran’s wise decision was to postpone nuclear negotiations to a later stage, focusing first on ending the war.

“It was decided that we would not negotiate on the nuclear issue at this stage. The focus was on ending the war, and we did that,” he said.

“From the moment the MoU comes into effect, which is now, we will have 60 days to negotiate on the nuclear issue and sanctions. If talks reach a conclusion earlier, that is better. But given the complexity of the issue, the 60-day timeframe is reasonable, and if necessary, it can be extended.”

He added that the MoU specifies that negotiations will only cover the nuclear issue and sanctions removal.

Oil sanctions lifted starting today

Baghaei confirmed that the lifting of oil sanctions has already begun.

“Iran’s oil sanctions must be lifted, not on paper, but with all its requirements. Iran must be able to sell its oil, with transport and insurance facing no problems, and it must receive the proceeds from oil sales. The lifting of Iran’s oil sanctions starts today and will continue during the negotiations,” he said.

He added that in parallel with the MoU, Tehran also negotiated separately on the release of frozen assets, reconstruction of damages, and the lifting of oil sanctions.

Hormuz management coordinated with Oman

The spokesman confirmed that Iran is finalizing a new management mechanism for the Strait of Hormuz, with coordination with Oman well advanced.

“Iran will charge fees for services in the Strait of Hormuz. This mechanism and arrangements for managing the strait are being drafted. We began consultations with Oman long ago and have spoken with some other countries,” Baghaei said.

“The management mechanisms for the Strait of Hormuz have largely been finalized with Oman. Safe transit will be ensured while preserving the sovereignty and authority of the Islamic Republic of Iran over the strait.”

He added that only Iran and Oman are the two coastal states of the strait.

Pursuing justice for war crimes

Baghaei said Iran would continue to document and pursue the crimes committed against its people during the war.

“We will not miss any opportunity to document, pursue and explain the crimes committed against the Iranian nation. We will use every mechanism, institution and international opportunity to secure our rights. These are outside the MoU,” he said.

‘Iran is a wounded lion, but still a lion’

In a closing statement, Baghaei declared that the war has only strengthened Iran.

“The enemies have hurt us; they took noble lives from us and wounded Iran. But a wounded lion is still a lion,” he said.

“The war they imposed did not bring us to our knees, it made us more powerful, both in the military arena and in diplomacy,” Baghaei said.

The spokesman stressed that Iran’s superpower status is not an illusion.

“We defeated two nuclear powers, along with other countries that supported them. We do not just give slogans, we truly are a superpower.”

The memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States was finalized on Sunday, following months of intensive negotiations mediated by Pakistan, with support from other regional countries.

Under the agreement, the war and all military operations, including in Lebanon, have ended immediately, and the US naval blockade against Iran has been lifted.

The MoU also provides for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping.

A 60‑day verification and negotiation period will follow, during which the parties will address outstanding issues, including the lifting of all sanctions, the nuclear file, reconstruction and economic development, and a monitoring mechanism for implementation.

Iran has emphasized that the agreement was built on “active distrust” of the United States and that Tehran will monitor US compliance closely.

Iranian officials have described the MoU as a product of military achievements and the sacrifices of the Iranian people, rather than diplomacy alone.

MNA

With the signing of a 14-point memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States, a new chapter has opened in the tense relations between the two countries—a chapter described by some analysts as “a shift from confrontation to the controlled management of differences.” This document, which has not yet entered the implementation phase, is considered more a framework for step-by-step regulation of relations in the security, economic, and political domains than a final agreement.

 

A Framework for Halting Tensions, Not Ending Differences

 

Based on the published content, the 14-point memorandum of understanding cannot be regarded as a comprehensive agreement or an official peace accord. The document is, in fact, a “multi-stage roadmap” whose stated aim is to reduce the level of direct tensions and create a foundation for broader negotiations in the future.

 

Within this framework, the two sides have agreed to move away from the path of direct confrontation and to pursue a set of gradual measures to manage the crisis. These measures include halting certain limited clashes, initiating technical and security dialogues, and exploring avenues for reducing economic pressures.

 

However, the main points of disagreement remain unresolved. Iran’s nuclear file, the sanctions structure, regional security disputes, and certain financial and economic files are all still in the negotiation phase, and none have reached a stage of final resolution.

 

Thus, the 14-point MoU should be seen not as the end of a crisis, but as the beginning of a complex, phased process.

 

The Emergence of Two Narratives in the International Arena

 

With the news of agreeing on this MoU, the international political and media landscape witnessed the formation of differing interpretations. In fact, rather than creating consensus, this agreement gave rise to two different, and at times contradictory, interpretations among analysts and media.

 

In some Western analyses, this agreement is assessed as a sign of a shift in the maximum-pressure policy approach—an approach in which the parties, instead of continuing the path of direct confrontation, have moved towards managing tensions. From this perspective, entering a phased framework can be seen as a sign of political realism and an acceptance of the limitations of pressure tools.

 

In contrast, some political currents in the West, especially among conservatives and America’s regional allies, assess this agreement as insufficient in achieving past strategic objectives. In their view, the failure to achieve fundamental changes in Iran’s regional or nuclear behavior has turned this agreement into a limited and ineffective compromise.

 

This divergence in perceptions shows that the current agreement, more than being the product of a full consensus, is the result of adjusting initial expectations against on-the-ground realities.

 

The Background to the Agreement; From Escalating Tensions to a Return to Dialogue

 

To better understand this MoU, one must return to the context of its formation during a period of rising regional and international tensions. During this period, a set of political, security, and economic pressures escalated between Iran and the United States and some of their regional allies.

 

In such an atmosphere, various scenarios were raised in political analyses, from limiting nuclear programs to increasing economic pressures and redefining regional roles. However, the course of developments showed that achieving definitive results through pressure tools faces serious complexities.

 

Within this framework, signs of a shift in approach gradually emerged, and the path of diplomatic dialogue was reactivated. This change of course stemmed, above all, from a combination of security, economic, and geopolitical factors that had increased the cost of continued tension for both sides.

 

The Role of Strategic and Economic Considerations in Changing Calculations

As the tensions continued, several key factors played a role in changing the parties’ calculations. First, concern about the spread of conflicts in sensitive areas and its impact on energy security and international trade routes, including the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world’s most important strategic points—was raised.

 

Second, on-the-ground experience showed that military tools and maximum pressure alone are not capable of achieving ultimate goals and, in many cases, lead to more complex crises.

 

Third, certain economic issues, including frozen assets and the consequences of sanctions, once again entered the diplomatic space as negotiable axes.

 

The sum of these factors caused the path of engagement, albeit limited and phased, to replace the scenarios of direct confrontation.

 

The General Content of the 14-Point MoU

 

The 14-point MoU encompasses several main axes:

First, the gradual reduction of military tensions and preventing the expansion of direct conflicts.

Second, the initiation of phased processes to examine the possibility of reducing economic pressures and sanctions within the framework of future agreements.

Third, the creation of mechanisms to review the status of oil exports and related economic activities.

Fourth, raising the issue of frozen assets and examining the possibility of the gradual release of some financial resources.

Fifth, defining a new negotiation path to reach more detailed agreements within specified timeframes.

 

The key point in all these clauses is that none of the provisions have an immediate or definitive nature; rather, their implementation is contingent upon the progress of negotiations in subsequent stages.

 

Conclusion

 

In light of the overall developments, it can be said that the 14-point Iran–U.S. MoU is neither a final agreement, nor a comprehensive peace accord, nor the end of the longstanding differences between the two countries.

 

This document should be regarded as the beginning of a “phased crisis management process”—a process aimed at reducing the level of tension and creating a framework for limited and controlled engagement.

 

Within this framework, fundamental disagreements still remain, but the manner of confronting them has changed: from direct confrontation towards gradual management and phased negotiation. In such circumstances, what matters is not merely the content of the agreement, but the path of its implementation and the extent of the parties’ commitment to the next stages. It seems that Iran–U.S. relations have entered a phase in which one can speak neither of the end of the crisis nor of the complete continuation of the past situation; rather, one must speak of the beginning of a new and complex process in managing differences.

MNA

The Quds Force Commander Major General Esmaeil Ghaani wrote in a post on Sunday evening that, ” The people in the world know that Lebanese independence are result of Hezbollah sacrifices rather than the dependence of Lebanese authorities.”

“The entire world needs to know that the victory of the Hezbollah worriers over the wicked Zioniist is definiste,” the Quds Force commander further concluded his post.

MNA

“A miscalculation in Beirut ended patience and the order was issued. The zero hour has arrived and the launchers are getting ready,” wrote Velyati in a post on his social networking website account on Sunday evening.

He continued, “Hezbollah is a fragment of the Axis of Resistance. If the fire of mischief in Lebanon is not extinguished, the two powerful arms of geography, Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab, will squeeze your economic arteries to the point of strategic suffocation.”

MNA