Strait of Hormuz fees, nuclear inspections... How Trump and Iran keep disagreeing on peace deal

The June 17 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed by United States President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, was welcomed as a breakthrough after months of escalating military confrontation.

The framework halted active hostilities, restored shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, provided temporary sanctions relief, and created a 60-day diplomatic window to negotiate a comprehensive peace settlement.

However, as negotiators continue discussions in Geneva, Switzerland, competing interpretations of several key provisions have exposed the fragile nature of the arrangement.

Officials from both countries have publicly contradicted one another on issues ranging from nuclear inspections and frozen assets to maritime rights, sanctions relief and the future of regional security arrangements.

More from Explainers

Vance’s ‘joke’ comparing wife Usha to Asim Munir reveals a profound moral failure

Punjab’s moment of truth: Time to confront the Khalistani challenge head-on

Formal discussions are being led by US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

Nuclear inspections become the central dispute

Although the framework created a process for addressing nuclear issues during the 60-day negotiating period, Washington and Tehran now disagree about what commitments were already made.

Trump has repeatedly argued that Iran accepted extensive inspection requirements as part of the broader understanding between the two countries.

On social media, the US president wrote, "Iran has fully and completely agreed to highest level Nuclear inspections long into the future (Infinity!!!)"

The statement immediately generated pushback from Iranian officials. Tehran insisted that no such commitment had been offered and rejected suggestions that it had agreed to permanent or open-ended monitoring arrangements.

The dispute escalated after Trump defended his position. "They're wrong... We have it down 100%, inspections. If they were right, I cancel the meetings right now."

Iranian officials have continued to deny that any new inspection agreement exists. According to Tehran, discussions in Geneva have not produced commitments regarding the return of inspectors to specific facilities that were damaged during military operations.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei stated that United Nations inspectors were not scheduled to visit nuclear sites that had previously been targeted by American attacks.

The disagreement is particularly important because international monitoring is viewed as a central element of any long-term arrangement.

That reality was highlighted by Rafael Mariano Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who offered perhaps the strongest indication yet that inspections will ultimately take place.

Speaking to journalists at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan on Wednesday, Grossi pointed to the text of the memorandum itself.

"I can understand political statements, they are part of the reality, but the fundamental thing I would like to remind you and draw your attention to is that there has been a Memorandum of Understanding, signed by both presidents," Grossi said.

He argued that the document contains explicit language assigning the IAEA a supervisory role regarding nuclear materials and facilities. "The accord 'says explicitly that the nuclear activities that are going to be carried out with the regards to the nuclear material facilities will be supervised by the IAEA — in all letters,'"

Grossi also indicated that access by inspectors was inevitable. "Obviously, to do that, we will have to inspect. Whether this happens the day after tomorrow or in one week or in 10 days, it’s important, but not essential. This is going to happen."

Since the 12-day Israel-Iran conflict in 2025, Tehran has prevented IAEA inspectors from accessing several enrichment facilities believed to contain highly enriched uranium reserves. According to assessments cited by the agency, Iran possesses enough highly enriched material that, if further processed, could potentially be used in multiple nuclear weapons.

Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear activities are intended solely for peaceful purposes.

Nevertheless, the inability of inspectors to access key facilities has complicated efforts to verify the status of uranium stockpiles and enrichment infrastructure.

The issue is directly linked to the peace framework because the agreement envisions reducing the enrichment level of existing uranium reserves. Without inspections, independent verification would be difficult.

Billions of dollars at the centre of another disagreement

A second major source of friction concerns access to Iranian assets frozen overseas.

As part of the agreement, Washington temporarily suspended sanctions affecting Iranian oil and petrochemical exports for a 60-day period. The move allowed Tehran to resume selling crude and related products internationally.

Iran reportedly exported roughly 36 million barrels during the first week following the agreement, providing an immediate boost to economic activity.

The larger issue, however, involves between $80 billion and $100 billion in Iranian funds held abroad.

The Trump administration has advanced a proposal under which released assets would be managed through a controlled financial mechanism supported by mediators involved in the negotiations.

Trump has publicly argued that the money should be used to purchase American goods. According to the US president, released funds would be spent "exclusively from the United States, including Corn, Wheat, and Soybeans from our great American Farmers".

The proposal has been presented by Washington as a way of ensuring that released money is used for economic recovery while simultaneously benefiting American agricultural producers.

Iranian officials have rejected that interpretation. The country's central bank leadership and diplomatic representatives have argued that Iranian assets remain sovereign property and that Tehran alone should determine how they are spent.

Iran's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Ali Bahreini, stated that the country would not be bound by any requirement to purchase agricultural products from the United States.

For Tehran, access to frozen assets represents an immediate economic necessity after months of war and economic disruption.

For Washington, financial benefits are being treated as leverage that should remain linked to future Iranian compliance with negotiated commitments.

Reconstruction funding and sanctions relief remain unresolved

The framework references a proposed international fund valued at approximately $300 billion that would support post-war recovery and economic development in Iran.

Iranian negotiators arrived in Geneva seeking immediate access to capital, arguing that substantial financial support is necessary to stabilise economic conditions after the conflict.

The United States has taken a different approach. Officials involved in the negotiations have indicated that large-scale sanctions relief and financial access should occur in stages rather than all at once.

The American position is that future benefits should be tied to measurable actions undertaken by Iran during the negotiating period. Vance's team has also pointed out that the reconstruction proposal does not automatically translate into direct spending by American taxpayers.

As a result, the two sides remain divided not only on how much money should become available, but also on the conditions under which that money should be released.

Strait of Hormuz back in focus

The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz represented one of the most consequential outcomes of the ceasefire. For months, the closure disrupted shipping and heightened fears of a broader energy crisis.

The agreement restored access to the waterway and allowed commercial traffic to resume.

The United Nations' maritime agency has since begun efforts to assist approximately 11,000 seafarers who became stranded when the route was closed.

The reopening also contributed to lower oil prices. With crude markets responding to the easing of tensions, Trump publicly urged fuel companies to pass savings on to consumers.

"Gasoline prices better start going down a lot faster than what I'm seeing!" Oil prices subsequently continued moving lower, reaching levels not seen since before the outbreak of hostilities in February.

Yet despite the reopening, disagreements have already surfaced regarding the future administration of the waterway. Iran has indicated that tolls or other charges could be considered after the initial 60-day period ends.

In a joint statement, Iran and Oman highlighted their "sovereign rights" in the strait and said they would cooperate in managing vessel movements and related expenses.

Oman, which shares responsibility for the waterway, also announced coordination with the International Maritime Organization to establish a temporary corridor for maritime traffic.

Washington has objected to the possibility of future tolls. During visits to regional allies concerned about the agreement, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that Iran would not be permitted to impose shipping charges under any final settlement.

Lebanon and Israel remain major complications

The agreement seeks to reduce regional tensions, including violence involving Hezbollah and Israel. However, both sides disagree about what obligations the framework creates regarding Lebanon.

Iranian officials argue that the arrangement requires Israeli forces to withdraw from Lebanese territory. Israel has rejected that interpretation.

Israeli authorities have stated that they intend to maintain a security zone in southern Lebanon and reserve the right to respond to threats posed by Hezbollah or other Iran-aligned groups.

Even as separate discussions involving Israel and Lebanon resumed in Washington, violence continued on the ground. Israeli gunfire reportedly killed two people in southern Lebanon on Tuesday.

The incident prompted accusations from Hezbollah that Israel had violated a ceasefire arrangement that had largely held since the previous weekend.

Iran also briefly tested the ceasefire framework by indicating that the Strait of Hormuz had been closed again following clashes between Hezbollah and Israel.

How the IRGC may be behind the confusion

The institutional friction between Iran’s elected executive branch and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) may be the primary driver behind Tehran’s wildly contradictory stances on the peace deal.

While Pezeshkian, Ghalibaf, and Araghchi have championed the Geneva talks out of absolute economic necessity, they do not command the country's military or nuclear apparatus.

This civil-military fault line blew wide open following reports that Pezeshkian recently went so far as to submit a conditional resignation letter to the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei.

In the communication, Pezeshkian bitterly complained that his administration was being systematically excluded from apex security decisions, warning that hardline IRGC factions had hijacked state policy and were actively sabotaging the diplomatic framework to protect their own institutional autonomy.

This shadow intervention explains why US negotiators receive clear assurances from Iranian diplomats, only to face immediate, aggressive retractions from Tehran hours later.

The internal war within the Iranian regime became public in dramatic fashion when a highly sensitive document detailing these bitter rifts was read aloud on live state television, causing engineers to abruptly cut the broadcast and forcing the network's general manager to resign.

Political pressure grows in Washington

While negotiators work in Geneva, Trump is also facing political challenges at home. Public opinion surveys suggest that Americans remain divided over the outcome of the conflict.

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, 35 per cent of respondents believe the United States emerged from the war in a weaker position than before hostilities began. By contrast, 23 per cent said Washington's standing had improved.

The issue has also exposed divisions within the president's own political coalition. In a massive development, the Republican-controlled Senate voted 50-48 in favour of a resolution calling for an end to US military involvement under the War Powers Act.

The measure mirrored a similar resolution previously passed by the House of Representatives.

Although the votes were largely symbolic and their practical effect remains unclear, the outcome represented the first time both chambers of Congress approved a War Powers resolution directing a president to withdraw US forces from hostilities.

The votes highlighted growing concern among lawmakers about a conflict that had become increasingly unpopular. At the same time, the administration has attempted to showcase signs of normalisation in relations.

Among the confidence-building measures announced this week was a relaxation of travel restrictions affecting Iran's national football team. The decision allows the squad to travel from Tijuana, Mexico, to Seattle two days before its next World Cup match instead of arriving only one day in advance.

Also Watch:

With inputs from agencies