Can a one-page US memorandum really stop the Iran war?

The United States and Iran may finally be approaching a possible framework to halt the conflict that began on February 28 in West Asia.

The latest diplomatic push comprises a proposed one-page memorandum of understanding (MoU), which officials and mediators say could formally stop the fighting and create a pathway for serious negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions relief and maritime access through the Strait of Hormuz.

The talks represent
the closest Washington and Tehran have reportedly come to an agreement since the war erupted.

Yet despite the growing momentum, the proposed memorandum has triggered scepticism from experts, many of whom argue that the underlying disputes are too complex to be compressed into a short preliminary framework.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly projected optimism about the talks while also warning that military escalation remains possible if diplomacy collapses.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday, Trump said, “They want to make a deal. We’ve had very good talks over the last 24 hours, and it’s very possible that we’ll make a deal.”

However, his comments came only hours after a sharply different message posted on Truth Social, where Trump warned he could restart the American bombing campaign against Iran if Tehran refused the latest proposal.

In that post, he described assumptions that Iran would agree to the deal as a “big assumption”.

Trump later acknowledged during a brief interview with PBS that previous diplomatic optimism had also failed to produce results. “I felt that way before with them,” he said. “So we’ll see what happens.”

What is the one-page US-Iran memo?

According to reports from _Axios_ and sources briefed on the mediation effort, the White House believes negotiations are moving closer to a preliminary agreement based on a 14-point memorandum of understanding.

The proposed document would not itself resolve all disputes between the two sides. Instead, it would officially end the current phase of the war and begin a 30-day period of intensive negotiations intended to produce a comprehensive settlement.

The memorandum is reportedly being negotiated through direct and indirect channels involving Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner alongside Iranian officials and international mediators.

Officials familiar with the talks said the proposed arrangement would involve multiple interconnected steps.

Iran would commit to certain restrictions connected to its nuclear programme, while the United States would gradually ease sanctions and release billions of dollars in Iranian funds currently frozen abroad.

At the same time, both sides would begin removing restrictions linked to the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s
limits on shipping traffic through the waterway and the US naval blockade in the region would reportedly be eased in phases during the 30-day negotiation period.

The negotiations on a final agreement could reportedly take place either in Islamabad or Geneva.

Sources cited in reports said that if the follow-up negotiations collapse, the United States would retain the option of restoring the blockade or resuming military operations.

Although the White House is said to view the current discussions as the most promising diplomatic opening since the war began, American officials also acknowledged that significant disagreements remain unresolved and that there is no guarantee even an initial agreement will be finalised.

What does this mean for Iran’s nuclear programme?

The most difficult issue in the negotiations
continues to be Iran’s nuclear programme, which has remained at the core of tensions between Washington and Tehran for years.

Sources familiar with the talks said the proposed memorandum includes a temporary moratorium on Iranian uranium enrichment, though the duration of that restriction is still under negotiation.

According to reports, Iran initially proposed a five-year pause on enrichment activities, while the United States demanded a 20-year suspension. Discussions are now reportedly focused on a compromise ranging from 12 to 15 years.

Under the arrangement currently being discussed, Iran would eventually be allowed to enrich uranium again after the moratorium expires, but only up to 3.67 per cent purity.

The proposed agreement would also include Iranian commitments not to pursue nuclear weapons or engage in activities connected to weaponisation. US officials said discussions are taking place over additional provisions that could prevent Iran from operating underground nuclear facilities.

Another major issue concerns inspections. According to a US official cited in reports, Iran could agree to an enhanced monitoring system that would include snap inspections by United Nations inspectors.

One of the most sensitive issues in the negotiations is Iran’s existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium. Reports indicated that Iran currently possesses more than 400 kilogrammes of near-weapons-grade uranium, a matter that has alarmed both Washington and its regional allies.

Two sources familiar with the talks told Reuters that one proposal under discussion would involve transferring the highly enriched material outside Iran. One of the possible destinations reportedly being discussed is the United States itself.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday that he and Trump agreed all enriched uranium should be removed from Iran in order to stop Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb.

Iran, however, has consistently maintained that it is not seeking nuclear weapons.

What about the Strait of Hormuz?

The strait, located between Iran and Oman, serves as one of the world’s most important maritime energy corridors. Before the war disrupted regional shipping, roughly one-fifth of global oil and gas supplies passed through the waterway.

The conflict severely affected maritime movement in the region, contributing to volatility in global energy markets and raising fears of broader economic disruption.

The Trump administration had recently launched “Project Freedom”, a naval initiative intended to escort commercial vessels through the strait and counter restrictions imposed during the conflict.

However, Trump
announced on Tuesday that he was pausing the operation, citing progress in diplomatic discussions.

According to Axios, US officials viewed the decision to suspend the operation as necessary to preserve the fragile ceasefire environment and prevent negotiations from collapsing.

Reports from NBC News later suggested the decision was also shaped by tensions with Saudi Arabia.

According to the report, Saudi officials reacted negatively after Trump announced that the United States would escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz. Saudi Arabia reportedly informed Washington that it would not permit American military aircraft involved in the operation to fly from Saudi bases or pass through Saudi airspace.

The report also stated that a phone conversation between Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman did not resolve the disagreement.

Even as diplomatic discussions continued, military tensions remained visible in the Gulf region. US Central Command announced on Wednesday that American forces fired on an unladen Iranian-flagged tanker after alleging the vessel attempted to travel toward an Iranian port in violation of the blockade.

Former Pentagon officials also warned that the consequences of failed negotiations could be significant.

“If this Mou [memorandum of understanding] does finalise, it should free up these vessels and be a big step in ending this war,” a former top Pentagon official told the BBC. “If it doesn’t, this may further embolden Iran.”

What has Iran said?

Despite the growing optimism expressed by a few American officials, several Iranian political figures publicly dismissed suggestions that a breakthrough is imminent.

Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for the Iranian parliament’s national security and foreign policy commission, criticised reports describing the proposed agreement as close to completion.

He referred to the reported framework as “more of an American wish-list than a reality.”

Responding to reports published by Axios, Rezaei declared that the United States would “not obtain through a failed war what they failed to gain in face-to-face negotiations”.

In a statement published on X in Persian, he also warned that Iran remained prepared for further confrontation. He said Iran “has its finger on the trigger and is ready”.

Rezaei also warned that if the United States does “not surrender and grant the necessary concessions”, Iran will “deliver a harsh and regret-inducing response”.

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf also mocked reports indicating that the two countries were nearing an agreement. Writing in English on social media, Qalibaf stated that “Operation Trust Me Bro failed.”

He suggested that reports about diplomatic progress amounted to American spin following Washington’s inability to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to unrestricted shipping.

Iran’s official position has remained cautious throughout the negotiations. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokespersons indicated that Tehran was reviewing the latest US proposal and would provide a formal response later.

An Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson cited by ISNA news agency said
Tehran would convey its response after examining the proposal.

Is a short one-page memo enough to prevent a war?

Several of Washington’s longstanding demands do not appear to be included in the preliminary memorandum.

Sources discussing the draft agreement made no mention of restrictions on Iran’s missile programme or an end to Tehran’s support for proxy militias across West Asia — issues that the US has previously treated as major concerns.

While diplomatic discussions appear to have accelerated, experts have cautioned that negotiations involving nuclear programmes, sanctions structures and regional security arrangements are extraordinarily technical and difficult to conclude quickly.

Holly Dagres, an Iran expert at the Washington Institute on Near East Policy, told the BBC that the proposed memorandum may not be enough to satisfy the Trump administration unless Tehran directly addresses its nuclear activities.

She said the 30-day negotiating period currently envisioned in the framework may prove unrealistic given the scale of the issues involved.

“It’s worth emphasising that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, from which the first Trump administration withdrew in 2018, was 150 pages long and included technical details,” she said.

The comparison to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has become a recurring theme in discussions surrounding the proposed memorandum.

The original nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers involved years of negotiations and detailed technical arrangements governing enrichment limits, inspections, centrifuge operations and sanctions mechanisms.

Critics of the new framework argue that a short preliminary document cannot realistically resolve the same issues in only a few weeks.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged this while defending the diplomatic effort. “We don’t have to have the actual agreement written in one day,” Rubio said on Tuesday.

“This is highly complex and technical. But we have to have a diplomatic solution that is very clear on the topics they are willing to negotiate on and the extent of the concessions they are willing to make at the front end in order to make it worthwhile,” he added.

Rubio also expressed uncertainty regarding Iran’s leadership and its willingness to finalise an agreement, referring to some Iranian leaders as “insane in the brain”.

According to reports,
some Americans within the Trump administration remain sceptical that Iran’s political establishment can produce a consensus strong enough to approve even a preliminary deal.

The White House reportedly believes the Iranian leadership remains internally divided, with different factions holding competing views about how much compromise Tehran should accept.

It also remains unclear whether both governments can maintain domestic political support for the concessions required to sustain negotiations over an extended period.

The talks also continue under the shadow of possible military escalation.

For now, the one-page memorandum represents the most serious diplomatic effort since the war began in February.

With inputs from agencies