Following the ceasefire in April, the United States has allowed Iran to sell oil from its ports for 60 days. This ease of pressure follows the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding on June 17th reflecting the held ceasefire. This is the first sign of both sides negotiating after forty days of conflict. This windfall will give Iran the opportunity to rebuild infrastructure destroyed during the war. The United States and Israel had targeted energy infrastructure, nuclear sites and Iranian leadership in late February, with one of the strikes killing Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. While there continues to be a power struggle over the Strait of Hormuz, these preliminary steps toward peace and stability can be seen as positive for now. 

Reactions have been split, largely along predictable lines. US Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, characterized the move as tied to real Iranian concessions, noting Iran had committed to open transit through Hormuz and permitting nuclear inspections back into the country. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote the blockade had been lifted, and a number of frozen Iranian assets had been released and a major reconstruction and development plan for Iran had been launched, noting that key Iranian conditions had been met. Bob McNally, the president of Rapidan Energy Group, gave a stark perspective, “This is a ransom payment for oil,” describing the arrangement as extraction rather than diplomatic breakthrough. Congress has responded with rare bipartisan unease, with many lawmakers warning the waiver could enrich the very government the US had just been embattled with months earlier. 

This deal is a good first step, but it is still transactional, not holistic. The trade of sanctions relief for inspection access and strait security is a good first step, however these exchanges must be followed up with intentional and verifiable exchanges that can build trust that truly ends conflicts. The 60 day waiver can be renewed at executive discretion, and disputes remain over what was actually agreed upon, creating a shaky foundation. A durable peace requires more than a revenue mechanism for one side and a talking point for the other; it requires binding mutual commitments which the MoU, as currently structured, does not yet provide. 

Whether this waiver is the first genuine stepping stone towards peace or a jury-rigged agreement, that expires on August 21st, without a durable follow up agreement will depend on what happens between the two nations before the expiration date. If both governments continue to publicly dispute what they’ve already agreed to, that instability is a warning sign. Sustainable peace in this region will require Washington and Tehran to move past transactional gestures to verifiable, binding structures.