How to read the US-Iran draft agreement: Big commitments from Washington, not from Tehran

How to Read the US-Iran Draft Agreement: Major U.S. Commitments, Fewer Iranian Ones

How to read the US Iran – Brett McGurk, a seasoned CNN global affairs analyst, has held key roles in national security under Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden. With the recent release of the full draft of the U.S.-Iran agreement, McGurk offers a fresh perspective on its terms, highlighting a shift in the balance of concessions between the two nations. While the White House has yet to formally publish the text, CNN’s early access allows for an initial evaluation of its implications. Although the current version may still evolve, its core elements provide a clear framework for understanding the deal’s structure and stakes.

Structure of the Agreement: Two Phases, One Strategic Goal

The draft agreement is organized into two distinct phases, with the first set of obligations taking effect immediately and the second phase deferred to a 60-day negotiation period. This two-part structure is designed to address urgent concerns while laying the groundwork for a more comprehensive deal. The immediate phase focuses on resolving critical issues related to the Strait of Hormuz and financial sanctions, while the second phase aims to tackle broader disputes, including Iran’s nuclear program and regional influence.

McGurk notes that the agreement functions like a complex puzzle, with provisions referencing one another and some clauses tied to future negotiations. To identify the immediate actions, the text directs attention to Article 13, which outlines the starting point of the deal. According to the draft, Articles 4, 5, 10, and 11 are to be implemented right away, setting the stage for the subsequent phase. This immediate execution is crucial, as it ensures that key commitments are fulfilled before the extended talks begin.

Immediate Obligations: Iran’s Reluctance, the U.S.’s Generosity

The first phase of the agreement centers on the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for global oil trade. Under Articles 4 and 5, the U.S. lifts its naval blockade of the region, and Iran removes obstacles such as mines to restore shipping traffic to pre-war levels within 30 days. If the agreement ended here, McGurk argues, it would be a favorable outcome for both the U.S. and the international economy, as it would alleviate one of the most pressing issues affecting the strait.

However, the deal does not stop at the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. continues to commit to further concessions, while Iran’s obligations are more limited. Article 10, in particular, marks a significant shift in U.S. policy. It stipulates that the country will issue immediate waivers for Iranian crude oil, petrochemical products, and related services, including banking and insurance. This provision effectively returns Iran to the economic position it held under the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), allowing unlimited exports at market prices.

McGurk emphasizes that this article alone could provide Iran with a substantial financial boost. Energy experts estimate that it could generate $60 to $70 billion annually for the Islamic Republic, primarily through oil sales. This level of economic support, he suggests, is a major concession from Washington, as it directly addresses Iran’s long-standing demand for market access. The U.S. appears to be prioritizing stability in the region over immediate political leverage, even as it sets the stage for future negotiations.

Financial Commitments: Frozen Funds and Central Bank Control

Article 11 introduces another layer of U.S. commitment, dealing with frozen Iranian assets. The text states that the U.S. will release these funds “in light of the progress of negotiations towards a final agreement.” This phrase, which McGurk highlights, creates a conditional precedent for Iran’s financial recovery. However, the implications of this clause are nuanced, as it ties the release of funds to the success of subsequent talks, potentially pressuring Iran to meet U.S. demands in the future.

“In light of the progress of negotiations towards a final agreement.”

McGurk points out that this condition differs from past deals, such as the 2023 hostage agreement, where funds were allocated specifically for humanitarian purposes. In contrast, the current provision allows Iran’s central bank to determine the beneficiaries of the released money, granting the country more flexibility but also enabling it to allocate resources strategically. This change may have long-term consequences for how Iran uses its financial windfall, potentially affecting its domestic priorities and international obligations.

The frozen funds clause also underscores the strategic advantage Iran holds in this negotiation. By maintaining control over the release of its assets, the country can influence the terms of the broader agreement while securing immediate economic relief. McGurk suggests that this arrangement may allow Iran to secure benefits without fully committing to long-term concessions, a tactic that could be critical in maintaining leverage during the 60-day period.

Strategic Implications: A Win for the U.S., A Test for Iran

McGurk concludes that the agreement reflects a calculated move by the U.S. to secure a deal that addresses the most pressing issues without requiring Iran to make significant sacrifices. By lifting the naval blockade and waiving sanctions, Washington aims to stabilize the region and prevent further disruption to global oil markets. This approach aligns with the White House’s goal of achieving a compromise that avoids the worst outcomes of the current standoff.

For Iran, the deal represents a partial victory. The country has successfully negotiated the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and a financial windfall, demonstrating its ability to hold the U.S. accountable for its commitments. However, the conditional nature of the frozen funds and the deferred obligations in the second phase may limit Iran’s long-term gains. McGurk argues that while the immediate phase is favorable for Tehran, the extended talks could force the country into more binding agreements, potentially reshaping its strategic position in the region.

The agreement’s structure also allows for flexibility, with the 60-day negotiation period open to extension by mutual consent. This provision gives both sides room to adjust terms based on evolving circumstances, ensuring that the deal remains adaptable to future challenges. Nevertheless, McGurk warns that the U.S. has already made substantial commitments, and Iran may exploit this to secure additional benefits in the coming weeks.

As the deal moves forward, its success will depend on how both nations navigate the second phase of negotiations. The immediate actions outlined in the first part of the agreement have already addressed critical issues, but the long-term viability of the deal will hinge on whether Iran can meet its remaining obligations without compromising its interests. For now, the U.S. appears to have struck a deal that prioritizes short-term stability, while Iran has positioned itself to leverage its position in the broader talks. This balance of concessions and demands sets the stage for a complex but potentially transformative agreement.