US–Iran Hormuz Ceasefire MoU Nears Deal Amid Last-Minute Disputes
On 24 May, multiple reports indicated that Washington and Tehran have largely negotiated a memorandum of understanding extending a regional ceasefire and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, but disagreements over sanctions relief and payment sequencing persisted into the afternoon. The White House hopes differences can be resolved and a deal announced later on Sunday.
Key Takeaways
- A draft US–Iran memorandum of understanding (MoU) reportedly includes a 60-day ceasefire extension and terms for reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
- Leaked outlines suggest Iran would clear mines and lift its blockade first, with the US lifting its naval blockade afterward and providing limited sanctions waivers.
- Iran is expected to commit not to pursue nuclear weapons and to curb support for regional proxies, while negotiations continue over highly enriched uranium and unfreezing blocked assets.
- Last-minute disputes on 24 May 2026, particularly around upfront sanctions relief, threaten to delay or derail a Sunday announcement.
By early afternoon on 24 May 2026, US and Iranian negotiators appeared close to finalizing a memorandum of understanding aimed at consolidating a fragile regional ceasefire and normalizing traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. Reporting around 11:19–13:42 UTC indicated that the White House hoped to resolve outstanding differences within hours and announce an agreement later the same day, even as Iranian-linked outlets highlighted what they described as last-minute goalpost-shifting by Washington.
According to detailed summaries circulating by 13:29–13:29 UTC, the draft MoU envisions a 60-day extension of the ceasefire that has significantly reduced direct US–Iran and Israel–Iran exchanges in recent weeks. Central to the text is the restoration of freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz: Iran would clear all mines, lift its maritime blockade, and cease imposing or threatening any tolls on transiting vessels. In return, the United States would end its naval blockade once Tehran’s compliance is verified.
On the economic track, Washington is reportedly prepared to issue targeted sanctions waivers related to Iran’s oil sector and unfreeze a portion of Iranian assets. The sequencing is contentious. Semi-official Iranian channels reported around 13:52–13:52 UTC that the US had backed away from earlier indications of upfront asset releases, instead pushing for a phased mechanism tied to Iranian performance. Tehran has signaled that if these "obstructions" persist, it may withdraw from the MoU and maintain its current posture in the Strait.
On the nuclear front, US media accounts and regional commentary suggest that Iran would provide a formal commitment never to pursue nuclear weapons and enter negotiations over surrendering its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. However, by 12:04 UTC, a senior Iranian source indicated Tehran had not agreed to hand over this stockpile outright, underscoring a major gap between US expectations and Iran’s position. CNN-linked reporting added that any surrender of enriched uranium would likely be subject to separate, longer-term talks.
Regionally, the MoU is said to include provisions to "end the regional conflict across all fronts, including Lebanon," as summarized by an Arab journalist around 13:28 UTC. This would involve Iranian commitments to restrain allied armed groups such as Hezbollah and other proxies, while the US and its partners would halt offensive operations tied to the recent Hormuz and Levant crises. Israeli concern is evident: at 13:27 UTC, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office signaled plans for cabinet discussions on the MoU, amid Israeli commentary that the deal risks signaling to Tehran that its use of the Strait as leverage is as potent as nuclear weapons.
Key stakeholders include the Biden administration, Iran’s political and security leadership, Gulf Cooperation Council states whose shipping and energy exports depend on Hormuz, and Israel, which fears constraints on its freedom of action against Iranian nuclear and missile programs. Domestically in the US, the tentative deal faces criticism from Republican circles, as indicated by mid-day reports of GOP pushback, while Iranian hardliners question whether the concessions on maritime and regional issues are commensurate with the tangible relief offered.
Strategically, an MoU would mark a significant de-escalation of a crisis that has disrupted global energy markets, raised insurance costs, and prompted questions about the security of key sea lanes. Iran stated around 13:28 UTC that 33 vessels had safely crossed Hormuz in the past 24 hours in coordination with Tehran, suggesting a partial normalization of traffic even before a formal agreement. However, the political framing is contested: some regional commentators argue that, if the Axios-sourced text is accurate, Iran is "conceding everything," including leverage in Lebanon, in exchange for limited economic gains.
Outlook & Way Forward
In the immediate term, attention should focus on whether US and Iranian negotiators can resolve the dispute over the timing and scale of sanctions relief and asset unfreezing. If a compromise formula—such as a modest upfront release followed by performance-based tranches—emerges, an announcement could still be made before the end of 24 May UTC. Failure to bridge this gap would likely delay the MoU and risk renewed friction in Hormuz, though both sides have strong incentives to avoid an abrupt return to confrontation.
Assuming an agreement is reached, implementation will be crucial. Verification mechanisms for mine clearance, blockade lifting, and the absence of Iranian tolls or harassment will require close coordination, likely involving third-party monitoring and maritime domain awareness assets. Regional actors, particularly GCC states, will push for clear enforcement guarantees and may seek a role in any joint committee overseeing the Strait’s "new management mechanism"—even as senior Iranian commanders insist there is "no place for foreigners" in the revised system. This tension between de facto multilateral oversight and Iranian sovereignty narratives will need careful management.
Over the medium term, the MoU’s durability will hinge on parallel progress in nuclear and regional files. If talks on highly enriched uranium stall or if proxy actors in Lebanon, Iraq, or Yemen test the boundaries of the ceasefire, domestic opponents in Washington, Tehran, and Jerusalem will argue the deal is failing. Observers should monitor Israeli cabinet deliberations, parliamentary debates in the US, and statements from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard for signs of internal resistance. A successful MoU would lower near-term risks of a region-wide escalation and stabilize energy flows, but any perceived violation—especially in Hormuz—could rapidly reverse these gains and reintroduce the specter of direct military confrontation.
Sources
- OSINT