US-Iran battle over MoU clause: Delaying conflict or seeking more concessions?

Since the US-Iran negotiations in the Lake Lucerne summit over the order in which Washington and Tehran will fulfil their commitments under the recently signed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), there has been a persistent battle of narratives. This battle stems from the details of the discussion and which country must act first under the 14-point Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). While the US and Iran were both touting progress at first, subsequently disagreement followed, with both sides pushing different versions of what was negotiated.

Iranian Frozen Assets

The claim was first pushed by US Vice President JD Vance just after the summit concluded. In a press conference, he said that Washington is exploring a proposal to unfreeze certain Iranian assets under a strictly managed framework, where the Iranian funds will be moved to a US-controlled escrow account and used to purchase US agri products, such as corn, soy, and wheat. US President Donald Trump also repeated those claims. In a post on Truth Social, Donald Trump claimed that those frozen funds will be used “solely for the purchase of food and medical equipment from the United States.”

Iran denied those claims. Iran's speaker of the parliament Mohamed Ghalibaf, said, "The only crop we're harvesting is what you planted: decades of mistrust. It's organic, abundant, and homegrown. But apparently the US only exports GMO soybeans, broken promises and trash talks." Iran's central bank governor Abdolnaser Hemmati said that Iran maintains "absolute liberty" to use its released assets for any humanitarian commodities it chooses. He asserted that Iran could purchase US agricultural products if those were competitively priced.

Also Read: 'Spirit of cooperation' :Venezuela thanks PM Modi for offering assistance after deadly Caracas earthquakes

IAEA inspection of enriched Uranium

In the same press conference following the Lucerne Summit, US Vice President JD Vance claimed that Iran has agreed to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors into the country to visit Iranian enrichment sites. Vance went as far as to claim that they were about to call the IAEA at midnight. He called it a major milestone and “the first step in permanently denuclearising- permanently ending a nuclear weapons program in Iran”. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Baghaei denied those claims, saying that Iran has not met IAEA inspectors and no schedule is yet fixed. He further asserted that Iran's nuclear inspection will be decided later within the course of 60-days. However, US President Donald Trump also repeated doubling down on Vance's claims, suggesting that Iran had "100%" agreed to inspections, accused “Tehran” of making false statements and threatened to cancel talks if that were not the case. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi confirmed that the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed with the US had stated “explicitly” that “nuclear activities that are going to be carried out with regard to nuclear material facilities will be supervised by the IAEA," but did not mention any timeline.

Strait of Hormuz

Washington and Tehran gave conflicting statements on the Strait of Hormuz opening and the charging of fees on the vital waterway. US Secreatry of State Marco Rubio US would not accept any tolls or fees in the Strait of Hormuz, reitarting that reiterating that any final deal with Tehran would forbid Iran from charging for passage. In a joint statement on Tuesday, Iran and Oman emphasised their “sovereign rights over their territorial waters”. The MOU states that Iran and Oman, which border the strait, will discuss their "future administration and maritime services" alongside other Gulf. countries. US President Donald Trump on Wednesday said in a Truth Social Post, “Iran has informed the U.S. that, despite troublemaking Fake News reporting ​to the ​contrary”, he then went all caps,"there ⁠are NO TOLLS, NO INSURANCE COSTS, & NO OTHER CHARGES OF ANY ​KIND BEING SOUGHT OR RECEIVED ​BY ⁠IRAN ON SHIPS TRAVELING THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ”. He again threatened to pull out of the deal if there was misinformation. On Thursday, Oman’s top diplomat said no transit fees would be imposed in the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday.

Iran's ballistic missile capability

Pakistan's Prime Minister on Tuesday defended Iran's right to have ballistic missiles, saying that it was not part of any discussion in the recent MoU. This came after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday told the media in Washington trying to ease concerns about Iran's ballistic missile program and proxies, saying that these are likely to be discussed at a “later stage of the discussion.” Iran denied those claims, saying that its missiles are not for discussion, and they do not like being talked about by anyone. Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian said, “If the missiles we have for our defence did not exist, Israel and the United States would have ploughed Iran just like Gaza.”

Also Read: Jaishankar outlines five-point plan for cooperation in a fragmented world

US and Iran battle of narrative

The two nations are trying to push their narrative to squeeze more concessions from the other, or waiting to replenish their arsenal before they engage in further hostilities. The structure of the talks and repeated misinformation around the details show that either both countries lack seriousness in finding a diplomatic solution or suffer from deep mistrust. Neither side has made public the complete scope of the discussion or the method of reaching an agreement. There are subtle hints, like US President Donald Trump's warning to bomb Iran while the US and Iran are discussing, prompting Iran to walk away from the discussion briefly. Similarly, Israel maintains its military presence in Lebanon, despite it being a red line for Iran. Iranian negotiators did not shake hands or pose for photographs with the US leaders, and formally rejected joint media appearances. The anatomy of the phased discussions naturally creates a scenario where both sides can argue over details to stretch out the timeline. However, if this battle of narrative continues, then this whole facade is likely to collapse back to open conflict.