The unexpected signing of the "Memorandum of Understanding in Islamabad" between Washington and Tehran took place two days earlier than planned in Geneva. The ceremony had two completely different faces: at the Palace of Versailles in Paris, President Donald Trump publicly signed the document during a dinner hosted by Emmanuel Macron — a clip posted by Dan Scavino was captioned, "A fairly important moment in history that we share together…". On the other hand, in Tehran the Iranian president showed a sheet of the agreement signed by the Iranian side alone, without any formal ceremony.
The haste in signing was not merely a formality: both sides sought to immediately stop the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz without waiting the extra two days. Diplomatic sources said the negotiations were aimed at practically opening the strait by Friday, but political pressure on the White House to make the text of the memorandum public ran up against Iran’s strict condition not to publish any clause before the official signing. Investigations by the Washington Post and Axios revealed a hidden struggle that led to the rapid signing, dispelled informational uncertainty, and raised the question: had the agreement been signed twice — secretly and publicly — to send different signals domestically and abroad?
Logistical factors also affected the mechanism of the virtual signing: Vice President J. D. Vance could not return to the US before Trump’s departure to France, so the American side resorted to electronic facilitation to bypass timing constraints. That arrangement raised questions about transparency, the authenticity of published texts, and the need for a single official version that technical teams could trust. Politically, the electronic signing by the leaders temporarily suspended the immediacy of the upcoming Geneva meeting, adding fog around the further negotiation path.
The announcement was not without escalatory notes from Trump, who threatened "hard bombings," repeated bombings, and the liquidation of Iranian officials in the event of Tehran violating the agreements. At the same time, Trump softened his earlier promises to completely eliminate Iran’s missile capability, saying that "it would be unfair if Iran had no missiles while other countries do." Iranian leadership avoided responding in kind to the language of threats, focusing instead on praising the diplomatic achievements secured by the memorandum.
Iran’s chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said his country achieved by negotiations what it had repeatedly sought by military means: major economic gains, including lifting the blockade on ports, freezing sanctions, and unblocking assets worth billions of dollars. The text of the agreement revealed a gap between Trump’s hard rhetoric and the actual outcomes: the Iranian government remained in power, missile capability and stocks of highly enriched uranium were not destroyed, and Tehran obtained economic concessions and an investment fund for reconstruction worth about $300 billion. That gap raised questions about the limits of concessions and the parties’ ability to adhere to a roadmap for implementation.
Despite the announcement of a suspension of military operations and preparations for subsequent talks, details of the upcoming meeting in Geneva remain murky: some sources still expect delegations to meet to discuss the nuclear program, while Switzerland confirmed that the original plan included a broader session involving Pakistan, Qatar and other interested countries. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baghai denied the existence of a signing ceremony in Geneva, saying that "the presidents have already signed electronically," and that the Friday meeting may be postponed. He firmly set the ceiling of negotiations: "Iranian missiles are made to be launched, not negotiated," stressing that defensive capabilities will not be a subject for discussion.
Comments on the news
Why is the Strait of Hormuz so important for Iran and the global economy, and how could its closure affect global oil markets? — The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow passage between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman through which about 20–25% of the world’s oil passes. For Iran it is a key lever of influence: control of the strait allows Tehran to threaten to cut off shipments in the event of conflict, which would immediately trigger a sharp spike in oil prices, shortages for importing countries (especially in Asia), and global economic instability.
Who is Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, and why is he a key figure in the negotiations despite not being president or foreign minister? — Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf is the speaker of the Iranian Parliament (Majlis), an influential conservative, former mayor of Tehran and former commander of the IRGC air force. He plays a key role in negotiations because the parliament approves any international agreements (for example, the nuclear deal), and Ghalibaf represents the position of conservative circles and security forces, without whose approval agreements would be impossible. In effect he is the "gatekeeper" for any concessions, the link between the executive branch and the supreme leadership.
Why does Iran insist that its missile program cannot be a subject of negotiations, and how is this related to its regional policy and security? — Iran’s missile program is the foundation of deterrence and protection against external threats (especially the US, Israel and regional rivals). It is not negotiated because it is considered an integral right of self-defense and an instrument to project influence in the region (support for allies in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon). Any limitation of missile capability, from Tehran’s perspective, would leave the country vulnerable and undermine its ability to respond to attacks, so Iranians categorically refuse to include this topic in negotiations, insisting it is a "red line".
Full version: الخميس بدل الجمعة.. لماذا سارعت واشنطن وطهران لتوقيع الاتفاق قبل الموعد؟