WANA (Jun 13) – Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei stated on Saturday that the ongoing Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) focuses strictly on ending the war, noting that a deliberate decision was made to omit the nuclear issue from the current phase of talks.

 

Speaking at a press conference with media representatives in Hamedan Province, Baghaei addressed inquiries regarding the current status and trajectory of the Islamabad MoU. He noted that approximately two months have passed since the mediation process—brokered by Pakistan—commenced following the April 8 ceasefire announcement.

 

According to Baghaei, the diplomatic process has faced numerous fluctuations, primarily due to the unconventional negotiating patterns of the United States. He stated that contradictory stances by U.S. officials and frequent shifts in their positions conveyed through the media have complicated the work of mediators and prolonged the timeline.

 

Invoking Iran’s past diplomatic engagements with Washington, Baghaei underscored the necessity of approaching the current process with extreme caution and skepticism. He asserted that Iran’s prior experience during a year and a half of negotiations, characterized by U.S. breach of commitments and actions carried out amidst past talks, demands extraordinary foresight and meticulousness at every step.

 

Nuclear Issue Deferred to 60-Day Window

The spokesperson emphasized the immense complexity of the issues between Tehran and Washington. He explained that based on past lessons, the immediate priority in this phase is securing a cessation of hostilities across all fronts, including Lebanon. Consequently, both parties agreed not to address the nuclear issue at this juncture.

 

Baghaei clarified that the document does not constitute a final bilateral treaty between Iran and the United States. Instead, it serves as an understanding that outlines the broad framework of disputed issues and establishes the terms for ending the war.

 

He added that the nuclear issue is scheduled to be negotiated within a subsequent 60-day window, meaning no detailed discussions on the matter are occurring at this stage.

 

Maritime Security and the Strait of Hormuz

Among the primary subjects under negotiation in the current phase are the hostile actions targeting Iranian shipping and matters surrounding the Strait of Hormuz.

 

Addressing the potential timeline for signing the accord, Baghaei remarked that while a definitive date cannot be confirmed and the signing will not occur tomorrow, the possibility of it taking place in the coming days remains open. However, he urged caution due to the volatile nature of the opposing side’s declarations.

 

Regarding the legal status of the Strait of Hormuz, Baghaei maintained that under international law, the strategic waterway falls within the territorial waters of Iran and Oman as the two littoral states. He stated that Iran’s exercise of sovereignty in this zone directly serves its national security and sovereign rights—a principle recognized under international law.

 

The spokesperson noted that although Iran is not a signatory to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the legal regime governing vessel transit through the strait is clearly defined under customary international law.

 

He argued that the events of the past two to three months demonstrated that the United States and Israel have exploited the waterway to threaten Iran’s national security and violate its sovereignty, thereby justifying Iran’s implementation of necessary preventive measures.

 

Baghaei emphasized that Iran’s maritime actions are fully compliant with both international law and domestic legislation, adding that these measures will continue to be pursued in cooperation with Oman and in consultation with regional nations.

 

He reiterated that managing safe transit through the Strait of Hormuz protects Iran’s national interests while simultaneously serving the public good of the international community.

 

Proportional Commitments and Reciprocity

When questioned about the enforcement of potential agreements, Baghaei criticized the opposing side’s historical failure to properly fulfill its obligations, stating that Iran has integrated necessary safeguards to counter this.

 

He explained that the commitments are structured on a strictly reciprocal basis. Should the opposing side refuse to execute its duties at any stage, Iran is legally permitted to take corresponding counteractions. Baghaei asserted that a nation’s intrinsic power remains the ultimate guarantee in international relations, pointing to Iran’s defense over the past 40 days as a clear message to its adversaries.

 

The spokesperson also cautioned domestic media against internalizing Western psychological warfare, dismissing foreign press reports claiming that a final deal is imminent or alleging that an aircraft arrived carrying $3 billion as baseless fabrications.

 

Documentation of War Crimes and Regional Relations

Baghaei detailed ongoing efforts by the Foreign Ministry to document casualties and infrastructure damage resulting from the 40-day conflict, classifying incidents in Minab and a missile test in Lamerd—which reportedly caused 140 casualties—as clear instances of war crimes by the U.S. and Israel.

 

He further cited the recent destruction of drinking water storage tanks in Sirik, Hormozgan Province, as an ecological and humanitarian violation requiring international documentation.

 

On the subject of Lebanon, Baghaei confirmed that the text of the understanding explicitly stipulates that the cessation of hostilities must encompass all fronts, including Lebanon.

 

He noted that despite the high probability of implementation challenges due to the text partners’ history of bad faith, Lebanon’s inclusion in the peace framework remains a non-negotiable principle.

 

Concluding his remarks on regional foreign policy, Baghaei reiterated that Tehran harbors no hostility toward its neighbors. He clarified that the recent friction did not stem from bilateral disputes but was a direct result of military aggression by the U.S. and Israel, combined with the failure of certain regional states to prevent the exploitation of their territory, bases, and airspace for attacks against Iran.

 

While asserting that such allowance constitutes an illegal act invoking international responsibility, Baghaei renewed Iran’s invitation to neighboring countries to establish a collective security mechanism, emphasizing that enduring regional stability requires the complete withdrawal of foreign military forces.