The contours of a dramatic diplomatic gambit between Washington and Tehran spilled into public view on Wednesday, as senior American officials anonymously dictated the full text of a draft memorandum of understanding to reporters. The 14-point document, titled the Islamabad Memorandum in recognition of Pakistan’s mediation role, is expected to be signed on Friday in Switzerland, possibly by Presidents Donald Trump and Masoud Pezeshkian themselves. Its emergence, via leaks to multiple news organisations, ends days of official secrecy and immediately ignited debate over the balance of concessions.

At its core, the agreement declares an “immediate and permanent” cessation of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, and commits both sides to refrain from the threat or use of force. Iran pledges never to produce a nuclear weapon, echoing language from the abandoned 2015 JCPOA, while agreeing to a new minimum standard for downblending its highly enriched uranium. In return, the United States will waive sanctions on Iranian oil, petrochemicals and banking during a 60-day negotiation period, work to lift all American and UN sanctions in a final accord, and facilitate the release of frozen Iranian assets. A reconstruction fund worth at least $300 billion, drawn from private equity across multiple nations, is to be established for Iran’s economic development.

Viewed from Washington, the deal is being cast as a major victory that secures the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz—where Iran will guarantee toll-free passage for commercial vessels for an initial 60 days—and locks in a path toward a permanent nuclear settlement. Yet the draft’s language has been criticised as vague, deferring the hardest questions, such as the precise dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, to future technical talks. In Tehran, state media swiftly contested the leaked text, claiming it contained “numerous inaccuracies,” while the government has yet to release its own version. European capitals, watching from the sidelines of the G7 summit in France where the deal was discussed, note that the memorandum’s provisions on Lebanon’s territorial integrity offer only fragile reassurance, with no explicit mechanism for an Israeli withdrawal from the south.

Israeli reaction has been particularly fraught. Even before the full text was public, the draft ignited a fierce political battle over whether the ceasefire terms would constrain Israel’s freedom to act against Hezbollah. Analysts in Jerusalem point to the MOU’s blanket cessation of hostilities on the Lebanese front as a potential straitjacket, while supporters argue it buys time to stabilise the northern border. The ambiguity is compounded by reports that neither Congress nor the Israeli government was given the text ahead of the planned signing.

With the ink not yet dry, attention is already shifting to the 60-day clock that the memorandum triggers. The real test will be whether the goodwill codified in this interim framework can survive the detailed negotiations on sanctions architecture, nuclear verification and regional security arrangements. For now, the draft represents the most ambitious attempt in a generation to reorder the antagonism between the Islamic Republic and the United States—but its success hinges on translating broad pledges into enforceable commitments that satisfy sceptics in the Gulf, the Levant and beyond.