This article does not have a corresponding language version

14 Talking Points, or 14 Open Wounds?

On June 15, 2026, with Pakistan as mediator, the United States and Iran are set to sign a 14-point peace agreement called the “Islamabad Memorandum.” The Trump administration has hailed it as “one of the greatest peace deals in history,” while Iranian state media describes it as “a victory for resistance.”

But a careful reading of the leaked draft reveals an uncomfortable truth: when both sides claim victory, it usually means no one actually won.

The 14 Core Points

According to drafts disclosed by Iran’s Mehr News Agency and other sources, the memorandum’s key provisions include:

  1. Immediate 60-day ceasefire to implement preliminary terms and continue negotiations
  2. Reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, with Iran承诺 no transit fees and mine clearance
  3. US lifts naval blockade of Iranian ports
  4. Partial release of frozen Iranian assets (first 50%, remainder in subsequent talks)
  5. Suspension of oil, gas, and petrochemical sanctions (during 60-day validity period)
  6. Iran confirms it does not seek nuclear weapons (reiterating existing position)
  7. Nuclear negotiations to begin within 60 days, focusing on highly enriched uranium disposition
  8. Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire, with Israel retaining right to self-defense
  9. US commits not to seek regime change
  10. Iran retains missile program and regional proxy support (explicitly excluded from this agreement)
  11. US and allies to submit $300 billion Iran reconstruction plan
  12. US forces remain in region until full implementation
  13. Pakistan serves as guarantor to oversee implementation
  14. Protocol to be filed with UN Security Council after signing

The Devil in the Details

The most revealing aspect of this agreement is not what it says, but what it doesn’t say.

Nuclear Issues Kicked Down the Road

The most critical nuclear questions—Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium, number of centrifuges, the Fordow underground facility—are all deferred to “subsequent negotiations” 60 days later. Iran merely “confirms it does not seek nuclear weapons,” but this is exactly what Tehran has been saying for the past two decades.

As one European diplomat put it: “It’s like a couple fighting after infidelity signs an agreement where one side says ‘I promise not to cheat again’ but refuses to discuss whether to delete the affair partner’s contact information.”

Missiles and Proxies Off the Table

Point 10 explicitly states that Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support for regional proxies (including Hezbollah, Houthis, and Iraqi militias) are “not within the scope of this agreement.” This means Iran retains its most crucial asymmetric deterrent capabilities.

For Israel and Saudi Arabia, this changes nothing. Iran can still threaten regional rivals with missiles, still wage proxy wars through intermediaries—just no longer under the sanctionable label of “state sponsor of terrorism.”

A $300 Billion Reconstruction Plan?

The “$300 billion reconstruction plan” mentioned in Point 11 sounds like fantasy. For comparison, the US provided about $13 billion through the Marshall Plan to Western Europe after World War II (equivalent to roughly $150 billion today). Iran’s economy is far smaller than postwar Western Europe, yet it’s supposed to receive twice as much?

The more realistic scenario: this number may never exist beyond paper. Whether the US Congress would approve such massive foreign aid, especially right after ending a war with Iran, is an enormous question mark.

Who Won?

Iran: Tactical Victory, Strategic Gamble

Iran did secure some tangible benefits:

  • Confirmation of control over the Strait of Hormuz (opened “under Iranian arrangements”)
  • Partial unfreezing of assets
  • Temporary lifting of oil sanctions
  • Regime security guaranteed

But the costs were equally heavy:

  • Revolutionary Guards severely degraded in the war
  • Supreme Leader Khamenei assassinated by US forces (a humiliation the agreement doesn’t mention)
  • Nuclear program placed under stricter international supervision (albeit “voluntarily”)

United States: Graceful Exit, Substantive Concession

The Trump administration can claim:

  • Reopened the world’s most critical oil chokepoint
  • Iranian commitment not to build nuclear weapons
  • Demonstrated US military deterrence

But the reality is:

  • US withdrew without destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities
  • Recognized Iran’s regional influence
  • Acquiesced to Iran retaining missile capabilities

As Germany’s Die Zeit commented: “America returned to where it was at the beginning of Trump’s first term in 2017, except with several thousand dead in between.”

Israel: The Biggest Loser?

Israel wasn’t at the negotiating table, but the agreement’s outcome directly determines its strategic environment. What the Netanyahu government faces:

  • Iran’s nuclear capability not彻底 destroyed
  • Iran’s missile arsenal intact
  • Hezbollah not disarmed despite ceasefire
  • US sanction regime against Iran significantly loosened

A former intelligence official in Jerusalem privately stated: “We’ve been backed into a corner. Either it’s American betrayal, or American incompetence—take your pick.”

How Will History Judge This?

When diplomatic relations were severed in 1979, no one imagined that 47 years later the two countries would “normalize” in this manner—no embassies, no ambassadors, just an electronic agreement exchanged via encrypted email.

The essence of this 14-point memorandum is using tactical ceasefire to mask strategic failure. The US failed to achieve its stated goal of “completely eliminating Iran’s nuclear threat,” while Iran traded temporary economic relief for time.

Sixty days from now, when the ceasefire expires, the real test begins. Will Iran have to surrender its highly enriched uranium? Will the US actually lift sanctions? Will Israel act unilaterally? These questions remain unanswered.

Epilogue

After the announcement, Trump wrote on Truth Social: “I have brought peace to America!”

Iran’s acting president Jalili stated: “Iran’s resistance forced American imperialism to bow its head.”

Both domestic audiences heard what they wanted to hear. But in Tehran’s bazaars, in Tel Aviv’s cafes, in Washington’s think tank meeting rooms, people know the truth:

This is not the end of one war, but the prelude to the next conflict.

References:

*/}}

Leave a comment

giscus