Published On 5/6/2026
|
Last update: 22:03 (Mecca time)
New data sheds light on an unprecedented American-Iranian rapprochement over a one-page memorandum of understanding that includes 14 items to end the war, after months of indirect negotiations hosted by Pakistan, amid clear discrepancies between the American vision revealed by Axios and the Iranian proposal that Al Jazeera obtained earlier.
The two documents reveal that the first phase of any potential agreement will not discuss the nuclear file at all, but will focus exclusively on the Strait of Hormuz, lifting the American blockade on Iranian ports, and stopping the war, provided that negotiations on the nuclear program and sanctions will be postponed to a second phase extending for thirty days after the official announcement of the end of the war.
Journalist specializing in Iranian affairs, Abdul Qadir Fayez, said in an intervention on Al Jazeera, that the Iranian card and the American card intersect greatly in their essence, specifically in shifting the discussion about nuclear weapons to the second stage, and in moving towards gradually opening the Strait of Hormuz and ending the war, but the differences emerge in the details of the fate of highly enriched uranium, and the mechanisms for lifting sanctions and regional guarantees that Tehran insists on.
The sharpest contrast appears in uranium. The Iranian paper talks about “deporting” the highly enriched stock to a third country (Russia or China) without specifying the recipient, while the American paper uses the word “delivery,” which was understood as direct delivery to the United States, a point that has sparked heated internal Iranian debate over the past twenty weeks without a categorical rejection of it, according to Abdul Qader Fayez.
Freeze enrichment
In the same direction, the two papers agree on freezing uranium enrichment for a period of time, but the American vision adds a penal clause that says that any Iranian violation of the freeze will lead to an automatic extension of the time period, a condition that is completely absent from the Iranian proposal, which is content with setting 15 years as a time limit without penalties for potential violations.
On the other hand, Fayez reveals a major gap in the issue of guarantees. The Iranian paper requires the presence of regional and international guarantees, including Gulf states, Turkey, Pakistan, China, and Russia, to guarantee America’s commitment to lifting sanctions and releasing frozen funds through a clear banking mechanism, while the American paper omits any mention of these guarantees and only talks about gradually lifting sanctions without specifying the guarantor.
In contrast, the two papers agree on Iranian acceptance of highly enriched uranium leaving Iranian territory, which would constitute a “major breakthrough” if agreed upon.
But the danger, according to Fayez, lies in the fact that the current negotiating framework begins with the Strait of Hormuz and ends with guarantees, bypassing the historical essence of the negotiations, which is the nuclear dimension.
In confirmation of this meaning, the two papers differ radically in the item related to the regional strategic dialogue. The Iranian proposal includes a complete third phase of a dialogue that brings together Iran, its regional allies, America, and Israel to discuss non-aggression treaties, while the paper published by the Axios website does not mention this clause at all, which indicates a gap that may hinder reaching a final agreement despite all the points of convergence.
