Islamabad Memorandum

On June 17–18, 2026, the United States and Iran signed a landmark 14-point Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) known as the “Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding” —a framework agreement brokered by Pakistan to end more than three months of hostilities and after the 3 official and tiresome rounds of peace conditions negotiations. The agreement was signed electronically by U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, with Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif signing as guarantor.

The MoU serves as an interim peace framework, triggering an immediate ceasefire and a 60-day negotiation window to reach a comprehensive final deal on outstanding issues—chiefly Iran’s nuclear program. The agreement is “performance-based” , meaning Iran benefits only if it complies with its commitments.

Complete Terms and Conditions (14-Point MoU)

1. Immediate and Permanent Cessation of Hostilities

The U.S., Iran, and their allies declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon. Both sides undertake not to initiate war or military operations against each other, refrain from the threat or use of force, and ensure the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.

2. Mutual Respect for Sovereignty

Both countries commit to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.

3. 60-Day Negotiation Window

The U.S. and Iran commit to negotiating and achieving a final deal within a maximum of 60 days, extendable only with mutual consent. The countdown began immediately upon signing.

4. U.S. Naval Blockade Removal

Immediately upon signing, the U.S. will begin removing its naval blockade and any impediments against Iran, fully ending the blockade within 30 days. Vessel traffic will be restored proportionally to pre-war levels. The U.S. also commits to removing its forces from Iran’s proximity within 30 days after the final deal is signed.

5. Reopening of the Strait of Hormuz

Iran will use its best efforts for safe, toll-free passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days. Commercial traffic will start immediately, with full restoration (including demining and removal of obstacles) within 30 days. Iran will also hold dialogue with Oman and other Gulf states to define the strait’s future administration.

6. $300 Billion Reconstruction Fund

The U.S., with regional partners, will develop a mutually agreed plan of at least $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of Iran. The implementation mechanism will be finalized within 60 days, and the U.S. will grant all necessary licenses, waivers, and permissions for relevant financial transactions. Note: The U.S. is not required to contribute to this fund.

7. Termination of All Sanctions

The U.S. undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against Iran, including UN Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral U.S. sanctions (primary and secondary), according to an agreed-upon schedule as part of the final deal.

8. Nuclear Program Commitments

Iran affirms it will never have a nuclear weapon. During the 60-day negotiation period, Iran’s nuclear program will be frozen at its current level, and the U.S. will not impose new sanctions or increase its military presence in the region. Iran has also agreed to dilute its enriched uranium stockpile under IAEA supervision. The final agreement will address uranium enrichment and other nuclear issues based on a mutually satisfactory framework.

9–14. Additional Provisions

The remaining points cover mechanisms for monitoring implementation, technical discussions on unresolved nuclear issues, and final treaty ratification through a mandatory UN Security Council resolution. The final deal will permanently confirm the termination of the war on all fronts.

Pakistan As Guarantor

For decades, few countries have maintained working relationships with both the United States and Iran. Pakistan is one of them. This unique position allowed Pakistan to act as a bridge when direct communication between Washington and Tehran became difficult.

• Geographic and Cultural Ties: Pakistan shares a nearly 900-kilometer (560-mile) border with Iran and has deep cultural links, with the world’s second-largest Shia population residing within its Sunni-majority borders.

• Relations with the West: Simultaneously, Islamabad maintains a significant, albeit complex, relationship with Washington, having provided NATO supply routes and received billions in U.S. aid.

• Regional Connections: Pakistan also has strong ties with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, as well as an “ironclad” relationship with China, Iran’s top trading partner. This web of connections made Pakistan an indispensable intermediary.

2. Trust and Credibility from Both Sides

The most critical factor was that Pakistan enjoyed the trust of both the U.S. and Iran.

• A Trusted Intermediary: Islamabad’s former ambassador to Tehran, Asif Durrani, stated, “The main thing was the mediator’s credibility. Pakistan fitted the bill, as it enjoyed the trust of Iran and the US”.

• Earned Respect: This trust was earned over months of intensive diplomacy. Pakistan successfully relayed messages between the warring sides and hosted the first round of formal talks in its capital in April.

• Public Praise: This credibility was validated by top leaders. U.S. President Donald Trump publicly credited Pakistan’s “kind and very competent leadership”, while Iran also viewed Pakistan as a reliable and neutral facilitator.

3. Proven Mediation and Shuttle Diplomacy

Pakistan didn’t just offer its services; it demonstrated a proven ability to mediate.

• Evolving Role: Islamabad transformed itself from a peripheral player into the principal mediator between Washington and Tehran.

• High-Level Engagement: Pakistan’s Chief of Defence Forces, Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, emerged as a crucial backchannel mediator. His intensive shuttle diplomacy, including high-stakes visits to Tehran and direct communication with Washington, was widely credited for the progress.

• Drafting Peace: Pakistan’s civil and military leadership not only facilitated communication but also helped draft peace frameworks.

4. High-Level Personal Relationships

Beyond institutional ties, personal relationships at the highest levels played a significant role.

• Military-to-Military Links: Army Chief Asim Munir had a personal rapport with U.S. President Trump, who referred to him as his “favorite field marshal”. He was also familiar with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards commanders.

• Political Leadership: Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif became the face of the peace process, publicly announcing the agreement and signing the MoU as the guarantor. This high-level political ownership signaled deep commitment.

5. Strategic Self-Interest and Motivation

Pakistan had powerful incentives to secure a deal, motivating its relentless push for peace.

• Proximity to Conflict: The war was happening on its border, threatening to destabilize its own restive Balochistan province.

• Economic Stakes: The crisis brought spiking inflation and the risk of a spiraling conflict close to home. Securing peace was also key to advancing its own economic interests, such as a major gas pipeline from Iran that was stalled by U.S. sanctions.

• Geopolitical Leverage: Successfully mediating this deal dramatically enhanced Pakistan’s international standing, shifting its global image from a country associated with problems to a partner solving one of the most dangerous international crises.

6. International Recognition and Endorsement

The international community’s validation of Pakistan’s role further solidified its position as the guarantor.

• Global Acclaim: Officials from various countries lauded Islamabad’s “courageous” and “tireless” diplomacy.

• Media and Expert Praise: Major Russian news channels and journals described Pakistan as a “guarantor of peace”. Global experts believe this agreement has strengthened Pakistan’s reputation, with some even suggesting it has “emerged as a new power”.

In essence, Pakistan was chosen as the guarantor because it was the only country with the necessary trust, relationships, and strategic motivation to bridge the deep divide between the U.S. and Iran. Its success has cemented its role as a key architect of regional peace.

The Future of the Peace Deal: A Fragile Framework

The Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is not a final peace treaty but an interim framework that establishes a 60-day negotiation window. During this period, U.S. and Iranian officials are expected to negotiate a comprehensive final agreement covering Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions relief, maritime security, and other unresolved regional issues.

The agreement’s future hinges on several critical factors:

• Nuclear negotiations: The core challenge remains resolving Iran’s uranium enrichment program and its nuclear future

• Sanctions relief: The U.S. must implement a schedule for terminating all sanctions against Iran

• Implementation fidelity: As an Iranian official noted, “Signing is not the end. Commitment on the ground is the measure of success for any agreement”

The MoU’s success depends on both sides delivering on their commitments within the 60-day window, with Pakistan serving as the guarantor.

Why the MoU Neglected Gaza and Lebanon

The Islamabad MoU did address Lebanon explicitly—but it did not address Gaza, and its Lebanon provisions have been openly defied by Israel.

What the MoU Actually Says

The very first point of the MoU declares an “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon” and commits to “ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon” . The agreement also calls for parties to guarantee Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Why Gaza Was Excluded

An Iranian official close to the negotiations acknowledged that while Gaza is not explicitly mentioned in the text, “Gaza is present in the spirit of the understandings” . The official further warned that “continued escalation in Gaza or Lebanon could undermine the foundations of any political agreement. The arenas are interconnected”.

The exclusion of Gaza from the formal text reflects the MoU’s primary purpose: ending the direct U.S.-Israeli war with Iran. Gaza, while part of the broader regional conflict, was not the central focus of the U.S.-Iran negotiations.

Israel’s Open Defiance: The Real Reason These Issues Remain Unresolved

The MoU’s Lebanon provisions have been effectively nullified by Israel’s outright rejection.

Israel’s Position on Lebanon

Israeli leaders have uniformly rejected the Lebanon-related provisions:

• Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared the army will not withdraw from occupied territory in southern Lebanon, insisting Israel needs to “maintain the security strip” as long as its security requires it

• Defense Minister Israel Katz said Israel plans to stay “indefinitely” in lands it holds in Lebanon, as well as Syria and Gaza

• National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir dismissed the agreement as “not binding on Israel” and stated, “Israel is not subordinate to the United States”

Expanding Withdrawing

On June 18, 2026—just hours after the MoU was signed—the Israeli military published a new map showing an expanded control zone in southern Lebanon, pushing several kilometers deeper than a previous buffer map released in April. The new zone encroaches on the Hezbollah stronghold of Nabatieh, north of the Litani River. Israeli officials stated they “will not rule out carrying out attacks beyond” the expanded zone.

Israel’s Position on Gaza

On Gaza, Israel has pursued a similar policy of expansion. In late May 2026, Netanyahu directed the Israeli military to take over 70 percent of Gaza’s territory, up from roughly 53 percent under a previous ceasefire agreement. Palestinian authorities have warned this represents a policy of “gradual annexation” aimed at forcing displacement.

The U.S.-Israel Tension

The MoU has exposed significant rifts between Washington and Tel Aviv:

• Trump has described Netanyahu as “a very difficult guy” and said the Israeli leader should be grateful for U.S. efforts

• According to reports, Trump told Netanyahu, “Why are you blowing up buildings? Stop it,” and told advisers that no one can deal with Netanyahu, “who wants to bomb everyone” 

• Israeli officials have described the agreement as “catastrophic for Israel” 

• Israel is reportedly engaged in “stubborn negotiations” with the Trump administration to maintain a military presence 10 kilometers inside southern Lebanon

What This Means for the Future

The Islamabad MoU represents a significant diplomatic achievement between the U.S. and Iran, but it has failed to constrain Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon. The agreement’s Lebanon provisions exist on paper but are not being implemented on the ground. Gaza was never formally addressed.

The 60-day negotiation window will determine whether the U.S. can leverage its relationship with Israel to align with the MoU’s framework—or whether Israel’s defiance will undermine the entire peace process. As Hezbollah’s leader stated, “No yellow zones, no red zones, and no green zones. Israel must leave, and it will leave“. Whether that happens remains the central unresolved question.