A memorandum between the United States and Iran was signed electronically — Trump, Vance, and Iranian Parliament Speaker Galibaf signed the document on Sunday. The document halts hostilities for 60 days and opens the Strait of Hormuz for 30 days. However, the very issue that sparked this war — Iran's nuclear program — remains off the table: all questions regarding enriched uranium, enrichment limits, and verification mechanisms are deferred to separate negotiations, which are to begin within the same 60 days.
Three days before signing, CIA Director John Ratcliffe conducted a series of closed briefings for Trump and senior advisors. The intelligence conclusion, according to three Axios sources: the way Iranian officials discuss the agreement among themselves contradicts what they communicate to mediators and the American side.
"Intelligence reflects that Iran's intentions do not match their commitments"
— Axios source familiar with Ratcliffe's briefings
Skepticism within the administration proved broader than a single CIA director. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Minister Pete Hegseth also expressed doubts about the MOU during internal meetings. Meanwhile, Vance, special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner — the team that led negotiations in Islamabad back in April — insisted on moving the agreement forward.
What Was Signed and What's Missing
Vance publicly stated that Iran agreed to never create or acquire nuclear weapons — without time limits, unlike the JCPOA, which established 10-15 year horizons. This is presented as qualitative progress. However, a commitment without a named inspection mechanism is structurally a different document than one with such a mechanism.
At the time of signing, Iran retains 440.9 kg of uranium enriched to 60% — one technical step away from weapons-grade level. According to IAEA estimates, this is sufficient to produce up to ten nuclear charges. The MOU does not obligate Tehran to move or destroy this stockpile until the completion of 60-day negotiations.
After American strikes on Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan in June, the IAEA confirmed substantial damage — but also noted that it cannot verify whether Iran halted all uranium enrichment. Inspector access to a number of facilities remains limited.
Trump's Logic and Intelligence Logic
Trump is betting that economic pressure and military strikes have broken Iranian resistance and will force Tehran to make real concessions. Ratcliffe and Rubio point to the opposite: according to intercepted communications, each new strike strengthens internal regime consolidation rather than willingness to compromise. Iranian officials in private conversations discussed why American air strikes turned out to be "less destructive than expected" — which itself suggests a different calculation than what is being broadcast externally.
In this disagreement lies the real stakes of the next 60 days: not "whether there will be an agreement," but whether it contains what the CIA considers absent — a verified, enforceable mechanism regarding nuclear material.
If negotiations over two months do not address the fate of 440 kg of enriched uranium — the MOU will become another document that stopped the shooting but resolved nothing substantial. If they do — Tehran's public position and its internal calculations will for the first time align in one protocol.
