On June 13, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Ismail Baghai, stated that the memorandum on resolving the conflict with the United States would not be signed on June 14, but could potentially be signed in the coming days.

Previously, Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif said that a U.S.-Iran peace agreement was likely to be finalized within the next 24 hours.

The statements from Pakistan and Iran are not contradictory—they more accurately reflect two distinct roles: Pakistan as the "optimistic mediator" and Iran as the "cautious party involved." Iran’s official confirmation on the 14th that no signing would occur is essentially a way to temper overly high expectations from the outside world, but this does not mean the deal has failed.

As a mediator, Prime Minister Sharif’s bold announcement that “the text has been agreed upon” serves to showcase the progress of his diplomatic efforts, aiming to capitalize on momentum and apply public pressure to push both sides toward finalizing the signature.

Iran’s cautious response is a common tactic during the final stages of negotiations. By acknowledging that signing may happen “in the coming days” while specifically denying it would occur on the 14th, Iran signals that technical details or domestic approval processes may still require time—thus avoiding being rushed by a deadline. At the same time, this helps reassure domestic hardliners, emphasizing that “no hasty concessions have been made.”

Although the agreement has not yet been signed, the information disclosed by both sides indicates that this is likely a phased, conditional “technical agreement,” rather than a permanent peace treaty:

Iran emphasizes “ending hostilities,” clearly stating that nuclear issues will not be discussed at this stage, focusing instead on ending warfare and ensuring maritime security.

The U.S. insists on “first compliance,” stressing that assets will not be unfrozen or sanctions lifted immediately; only after Iran dismantles its nuclear facilities will any rewards follow.

The U.S. claims this reflects Iran’s capitulation under pressure, while Iran highlights that the U.S. has committed to “not launching war.”

The biggest uncertainty currently lies with Israel. The Israeli defense minister has already signaled that he reserves the right to take unilateral military action in the future to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—a potential “time bomb.” Around Iran’s nuclear disarmament, the U.S. and Israel are also locked in intense rivalry.

Multiple sources confirm that this agreement is indeed “within reach,” but the final steps are often the most difficult. What appears to be a “delay” is likely just both sides double-checking their positions and negotiating final terms before formal signing.

Earlier, Trump repeatedly claimed in various forums that a U.S.-Iran agreement would be signed this week. If memory serves, this may be his 39th repetition of this topic. Previously, each announcement was promptly denied by Iran—but this time, Iran only said it wouldn’t sign on the 14th, without saying it wouldn’t sign at all, nor did it issue another denial. This suggests that both sides agree on the overarching goal, but have yet to reach consensus on specific clauses and details.

Though the agreement seems within arm’s reach, it could still fall apart at the last moment. With no foundation of mutual trust and Israel actively undermining the process, talks could be suspended at any time—even if a deal is signed, it might be torn up later.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1867926055393280/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.