Trump Signs Iran War MoU as Tehran Says Missiles, Uranium Will Not Be Surrendered

by Emmitt Barry, Worthy News Washington D.C. Bureau Chief

(Worthy News) – President Donald Trump has signed a memorandum of understanding aimed at ending the war with Iran, U.S. officials said, launching a 60-day diplomatic test that could determine whether the Middle East moves toward a fragile ceasefire or back toward confrontation.

According to Reuters, Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian formally signed the agreement after Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf digitally signed the document earlier, with Trump witnessing the signing. The White House later published footage of the signing on X.

The agreement, described by Iranian officials as “commitment in exchange for commitment,” is now in effect, according to both U.S. and Iranian accounts. Yet even as the signing was confirmed, Tehran made clear that several of the most dangerous issues at the heart of the conflict remain unresolved.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Iran’s nuclear materials would not be removed from the country, insisting the agreement allows Tehran the option of diluting uranium rather than transferring it abroad. He also declared that Iran’s ballistic missile program is not subject to negotiation.

“Iran’s defensive capabilities will not be discussed in any process or with any party,” Baghaei said. “Our missiles don’t like it at all when anyone talks about them.”

The statement immediately underscored the deep uncertainty surrounding the MoU. While Trump has presented the agreement as a breakthrough that can end hostilities and move both sides toward a broader settlement, Iran is already framing the document as a limited arrangement that preserves its core military capabilities.

Trump, speaking to reporters in France after the G7 summit, appeared to soften Washington’s posture on Iran’s missile program, saying Tehran should be allowed to maintain some ballistic missiles if other regional powers have them.

“If other countries have them, it’s a little bit unfair for them not to have some,” Trump said. “A ballistic missile is not the same thing as what we’re talking about when we talk nuclear.”

He added that if Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others possess missiles, then Iran having them “in relative proportion” could be acceptable. The remark marked a significant shift from Israel’s stated wartime objective of degrading Iran’s missile program alongside its nuclear infrastructure.

For Israel, Iran’s missile arsenal has never been a secondary matter. Jerusalem has long viewed the missile program as a direct threat to Israeli cities and as a shield behind which Tehran could advance its nuclear ambitions while deterring military action.

The MoU also does not require Iran to immediately hand over its highly enriched uranium. According to administration briefings described in reports, the agreement instead defers the uranium question to follow-on talks, with down-blending under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision presented as a minimum method of addressing the stockpile.

Trump downplayed the immediate significance of obtaining the uranium, arguing that much of Iran’s nuclear material is buried beneath the rubble of previously bombed nuclear sites and cannot easily be accessed.

“It’s actually not valuable, but we’d like to get it psychologically,” Trump said, while adding that the issue would remain part of the next round of talks.

That claim is likely to draw scrutiny. It has not been publicly confirmed that all of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles are located at the sites Trump referenced, and analysts have warned that lower-enriched material stored elsewhere could still be further enriched if Tehran chose to race toward a weapon.

The sanctions issue is also proving controversial. Senior U.S. officials reportedly acknowledged that the MoU includes immediate relief tied to Iranian oil exports. Trump also suggested that frozen Iranian funds abroad may be released, saying the money belonged to Iran and warning that refusing to return it could damage confidence in the dollar.

“We have taken a lot of their money — it’s their own money, and we froze it at a certain point in time,” Trump said. “I guess we’re going to have to give it back.”

Iran, for its part, is demanding rapid economic relief. Baghaei said the United States must remove obstacles to Iran’s frozen funds, refrain from new sanctions, avoid increasing its military presence in the region, and allow Iranian oil sales to resume during the 60-day period.

He also claimed responsibility for security in the Strait of Hormuz rests with Iran and Oman, and said Tehran would collect fees for “services given to ships” passing through the strategic waterway.

Another flashpoint is Lebanon. Baghaei warned that continued Israeli attacks in Lebanon would be considered a breach of the commitment, effectively attempting to tie Israel’s ongoing military actions against Hezbollah to the U.S.-Iran understanding.

That provision is likely to alarm Israeli officials. Hezbollah, Iran’s most powerful regional proxy, has repeatedly used Lebanon as a launchpad against Israel. Any arrangement that constrains Israel’s ability to strike Hezbollah while leaving Iran’s missile and nuclear questions unresolved would be viewed in Jerusalem as a dangerous strategic imbalance.

The Trump administration has defended the agreement as a first step rather than a final deal. U.S. officials said the next phase will test whether Iran is willing to make verifiable concessions on its nuclear program, missile capabilities, and regional conduct.

But the administration has also faced criticism for not releasing the full text of the MoU immediately. One senior U.S. official said Washington delayed publication at Iran’s request in order to accommodate Tehran’s domestic politics and build trust.

“The motto that we want to have with this deal is no side-deals and full transparency,” the official said, while acknowledging the delay was “unfortunate.”

Trump said the United States sent a copy of the agreement to Israel. U.S. officials denied reports that Jerusalem had requested and been refused the text, insisting Israeli officials had been consulted on the concepts throughout the process.

According to one senior U.S. official, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Washington that if the United States could secure the concessions it is seeking from Iran, the outcome could be historic — though Netanyahu remains skeptical.

That skepticism is widely shared in Israel and among Iran hawks in Washington. For critics, the central concern is not merely whether Tehran signs a document, but whether the Islamic Republic can be trusted to honor one.

Iran has spent decades building a regional axis of militias and proxy forces, arming Hezbollah, backing Hamas, supporting the Houthis, and threatening Israel with destruction. Its revolutionary ideology has treated hostility toward the Jewish state not as a bargaining chip, but as a pillar of regime identity.

That is why the MoU’s unresolved issues matter so deeply. A temporary pause in hostilities may bring relief to global markets and war-weary populations, but if it leaves Iran’s nuclear material in place, its missile program largely intact, and its proxies politically protected, the agreement may become less a peace settlement than a dangerous intermission.

The next 60 days will reveal whether the memorandum is the beginning of a durable diplomatic breakthrough — or whether it simply delays the next crisis.

Israel’s Deeper Concern: Can Tehran Be Trusted?

Still, for Israel and many of its allies, the deepest concern is not merely what Iran signs, but what Iran believes, builds, and funds after the ink dries.

Many remain deeply skeptical that any memorandum of understanding can restrain a regime whose hostility toward the Jewish state is not only strategic, but ideological and religious. Iran’s ruling system is shaped by Twelver Shiite doctrine, which anticipates the return of the Mahdi, often called the “Hidden Imam,” an end-times figure believed by adherents to restore justice and establish divine rule. Analysts and regional observers have long warned that this worldview can influence how Tehran’s leaders frame conflict, sacrifice, martyrdom, and confrontation with Israel and the West.

That concern is sharpened by decades of revolutionary rhetoric from Tehran, where chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” have not been fringe slogans, but recurring features of the Islamic Republic’s political culture. For Israeli officials and many across the region, those words are not dismissed as empty propaganda. They are viewed as a window into a regime that has built much of its legitimacy around resistance to the United States, the destruction of Israel, and the export of revolutionary Islamist power through proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis.

This is why skepticism extends far beyond centrifuges, uranium stockpiles, inspection timetables, or sanctions waivers. For many in Israel, the central question is whether a regime shaped by messianic expectation, revolutionary ideology, and decades of hostility toward the Jewish state can ever be trusted to permanently abandon the nuclear threshold.

From Jerusalem’s perspective, Iran’s nuclear program has never been merely a civilian energy project. It is seen as one piece of a broader campaign to alter the balance of power in the Middle East, surround Israel with heavily armed proxies, and keep the Jewish state under an existential shadow.

For that reason, any agreement will be judged not by diplomatic language, signing ceremonies, or carefully worded assurances, but by enforceable results. If Iran verifiably dismantles its nuclear infrastructure, surrenders or neutralizes enriched material, stops funding terror proxies, curbs its missile threat, and ends its calls for Israel’s destruction, the region may see a historic opening.

But if Tehran uses diplomacy to buy time, preserve hidden capabilities, access frozen funds, and continue arming its proxies, Israeli leaders are likely to conclude that the agreement has not ended the threat. It has merely postponed the next confrontation.

Latest Worthy News