The electronic version of the U.S.-Iran 14-Point Memorandum was finally signed on June 16th, and there are three interesting details I want to share with everyone.
First, the signatories from both sides: Iran only had Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani, while the U.S. side was luxurious, including President Trump and Vice President Pence.
Second, the two sides have different definitions for this electronic signature. Iran consistently used the term “MoU,” a Memorandum of Understanding. The Americans, on the other hand, used “deal” or “agreement,” meaning a formal pact.
How big is the difference in legal effect between a memorandum and an agreement?
It’s like the difference between a letter of intent for buying a house and the actual sales contract. In other words, Iran’s defined “MoU” is actually a non-binding, indicative document—only establishing a willingness to negotiate, with a very low signing threshold and minimal consequences for backing out.
The American agreement is a formal peace transition document, representing a complete end to conflict, with three characteristics: first, long-term validity; second, comprehensive clauses; third, higher cost to back out than a memorandum.
However, during negotiations, there may be back-and-forth, but the general direction is still toward ending the conflict thoroughly. There’s an even higher level—treaties. If Iran and the U.S. reach a point where negotiations are almost done and both want to end the endless tug-of-war, they will sign a treaty, which is like notarizing a house sale at a notary office—officially finalized.
Third, the signing time: Iran’s Tehran time, around 1:10 AM on June 15th, Larijani completed the electronic signature, while the Americans, in Washington Eastern Time, completed their signatures around 10:40 PM on June 14th, with Trump and Pence. This is the funniest part—Iran wanted to make a show, but didn’t quite succeed. Three days earlier, Pakistan had arranged for both sides to sign electronically on the 14th. The 14th is well-known to those following international news—it’s Trump’s 80th birthday. Trump had previously hinted that his birthday wish this year was for world peace, including Middle East peace.
So, various political actors eager for progress started working hard. Even though Iran kept saying they wouldn’t sign on the 14th, Iran’s Foreign Minister Zarif announced that his visit to Pakistan was canceled. Meanwhile, Pakistan, Qatar, and even the Americans insisted publicly that the signing would happen on the 14th.
Everyone thought this would be the end of the story, but unexpectedly, there was a timing glitch. Iran said they wouldn’t sign on the 14th? Fine, then sign on the 15th. Since Eastern Time and Tehran Time differ by 7 hours, there was still a chance to celebrate Pence’s birthday. Iran signed on the 15th, early morning in Tehran, around 1 AM, with intermediaries in Pakistan pushing for it. Note that when Iran signed, it was only 7 or 8 PM Eastern Time, when Trump was attending a welcome dinner for Macron’s G7 summit in France. Although he hadn’t signed yet, the official announcement was that the U.S.-Iran memorandum had been signed.
After a good meal and drinks, Trump finally took time to accept the birthday gift of “world peace” from all the loyal children and grandchildren.
Looking at the whole process, it reveals Iran’s complex feelings toward the U.S.: publicly maintaining a tough stance—“I won’t give him a birthday gift,” “I won’t prepare a gift”—but privately actively sending goodwill, hesitatingly giving Trump a birthday present. It’s not entirely Iran’s fault; the great Ayatollah was killed by the Americans, and publicly compromising with the U.S. would be politically incorrect domestically. Moreover, the 14-point memorandum is very tempting for Iran—despite the U.S.’s lack of credibility, it doesn’t affect their wish. Of course, don’t expect this electronic signature to change the Middle East landscape; as long as Iran survives or Israel doesn’t vanish, the Americans will eventually be pulled in sooner or later.
Stalin once told Chiang Ching-kuo, “Whether an international treaty takes effect depends not on the words written, but on the relative strength and battlefield power. A weaker party’s treaty can be rewritten at any time by force. Only when both sides are balanced can a treaty have meaning.”

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

1 Likes