Word of the Month: Memorandum of understanding?
By: Majid Siadat
Ambiguity is a purposeful feature of the US/Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Both protagonists had insisted on their maximalist demands. The ambiguity allows both sides to declare victory.
Overall, Lebanon and control over the Strait of Hormuz remain the key outstanding issues.
Lebanon – Israel’s genocidal policies and unbridled operations in Lebanon threaten to derail this fragile agreement. Iran insists that Israel’s aggression in Lebanon is its number one priority in the MOU; the US’ acceptance of this Iranian priority betrays Trump’s sense of desperation. The US has repeatedly declared that the Islamic Republic must abandon its network of regional allies; yet in this MOU, the US agrees to include Iran in discussing Lebanon’s future. This issue has brought US policy onto a collision course with Israel and increases the likelihood of long-term chaos in the Middle East.
Strait of Hormuz –
Before the 12-day war and the subsequent 38-day war, this strait was not even mentioned as an issue of contention. The significance of Hormuz as a chokehold on the world economy became apparent during this period and is likely to persist for a long time. Iran claims significant rights in this regard and – surprisingly, the MOU has implicitly recognised Iran’s claim.
Ramifications
No matter how or when this crisis ends, it has already had far-reaching effects on the Middle East.
The majority of issues covered in the MOU are in Iran’s favour. The colonial designs of Trump and Netanyahu have been dealt a deserved blow. To compare Obama’s JCPOA to the present MOU, this is a weaker deal for the US than the one Obama achieved. For the world as a whole, however, it is a positive outcome.
However, the Iranian scene needs the world’s continued attention and concern. What will happen to human rights and myriad other issues in Iran?
Add new comment