WASHINGTON -- The United States and Iran have agreed to halt hostilities and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, while several key issues, including Iran’s nuclear program, remain under discussion. Officials say the two sides have already signed a framework deal digitally, with a formal signing ceremony expected on June 19.
RFE/RL spoke with Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, a former US diplomat and current distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council focusing on Middle East security and strategy, to unpack what has been achieved, what remains unsettled, and what the world should watch for next.
A former ambassador and senior official across the State Department, Defense Department, and National Security Council, Abercrombie-Winstanley served in Baghdad, Jakarta, and Cairo, and was the first woman to lead a US diplomatic mission in Saudi Arabia.
RFE/RL: Let’s start with the basics. Some officials are calling what has been agreed a memorandum of understanding, while others are already referring to it as a peace deal. From a diplomatic standpoint, what should we call it? And what has actually been achieved today?
Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley: I would say, from a diplomatic perspective,“deal” is exactly the wrong word. We do not do deals in diplomacy -- we do agreements, understandings. And, of course, an understanding, I believe, is the right term.
A memorandum of understanding is appropriate because everything is not yet agreed. When you have outstanding issues that need further examination and negotiation, but you have a general understanding of where you want to go, what you want to achieve, then you have an understanding. So I believe memorandum of understanding is the right term. These are really first steps -- hopefully toward a peace agreement -- but still only first steps.
RFE/RL: The obvious question, then: How durable is this understanding? What are the minimum conditions Washington and Tehran must meet to stop it from collapsing before a final accord is reached?
Abercrombie-Winstanley: You’ve asked the most pertinent question, because there are many things working against this understanding holding [true]. First of all, words matter. We’ve heard the Iranians say that the strait will remain under their control and that they might assess fees. We’ve heard the president and vice-president of the United States say it will be toll-free.
But “toll” is a very specific word. Both things could be true, depending on interpretation. There may well be different interpretations, and we won’t know until we see the exact written text whether there is any bracketed language -- meaning more than one interpretation remains unresolved. In agreements, and certainly in understandings, you do sometimes get bracketed language.
Nuclear Question Deferred
RFE/RL: Senior US officials say the document deliberately postpones the most difficult issues, particularly Iran’s nuclear program. How should this approach be understood in diplomatic terms, and what implications could it have for the next phase of negotiations?
Abercrombie-Winstanley: From the Iranian perspective, I’m sure it’s a great thing to do. From the US perspective, it was probably necessary.
It was clear, from various leaks, that there was no overlap in agreement about how best to move forward on the nuclear file. Giving it more time is what we call a confidence-building measure: settle the things you can agree on, implement them, and see whether trust can be built so you can address the harder issues later. So kicking it down the road was probably required from the American side, and highly desirable, because the Iranians were not giving up what the Americans wanted at this stage.
Now, as money flows to the Iranians -- whether through unfrozen assets or sanctions relief -- they can rebuild their economy and repair damage. If commercial agreements are put in place, that may allow for greater understanding and trust, so tougher issues can be addressed later.
RFE/RL: One of the headline provisions is reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Beyond the obvious economic implications, what diplomatic signal does that send
Abercrombie-Winstanley: The economic implications are the most important. They are critical not only for Iran, which needs to sell oil, but for the global economy. That was the main difference between the United States and Israel.
The United States felt the weight of the global economic consequences far more than Israel did. That divergence in priorities led Washington to pursue this understanding. It was imperative to get the strait open.
From the US perspective, freedom of navigation is one of our foundational principles. We send ships around the world to help guarantee it. Yet here we were in a position where both the Iranians, through closure, and the United States, through blockade, were contributing to restricting navigation.
What Happens Next?
RFE/RL: You’ve often argued that sustainable security requires more than military deterrence. Looking at this framework, do you see the foundations of a genuine diplomatic opening?
Abercrombie-Winstanley: Yes. There is always a possibility of a diplomatic opening as long as diplomacy remains in place. Diplomacy is not something this administration has done very well with Iran. Otherwise, we would not have had two wars involving Iran in the last year.
Giving diplomacy a chance -- along with very intrusive inspections -- matters, because this is an agreement that requires verification on both sides. Again: verify, verify, verify. Not only to make sure Iran abides by it, but also to make sure the United States does.
The Iranians remember painfully the hostage-swap agreement where the United States was supposed to release $6 billion and reneged. Friends and allies on both sides will have to help verify, guarantee, and shepherd this process forward.
RFE/RL: What specific benchmarks will you be watching between now and [June 19] -- and beyond -- to judge whether this is moving toward peace or simply managing the next phase of conflict?
Abercrombie-Winstanley: Most immediately, I’ll be watching Hezbollah and Israel to see if they stand down from attacking each other.
Second, whether this actually gets signed on [June 19]. That may depend greatly on what Israel does and what Hezbollah does. If the Iranians make it clear to Hezbollah that there should be no new attacks on Israel, I believe there won’t be. I’m less confident from the Israeli perspective.
Then there’s the signing ceremony itself -- how it unfolds. Is there any personal interaction between the Iranians and Americans? Does either side make a gesture to turn the page?
We’ve seen painful negotiations, with mediators passing messages because of the killing of senior leadership. There hasn’t been direct interaction. That will matter.
After [June 19], the world will watch the sequencing: Do ships withdraw from agreed positions? How quickly do mine-clearing operations begin? Are both sides following the road map laid out?
And beyond that: Are negotiations functioning? Are they meeting regularly? Does the temperature come down? Do the hyperbolic statements stop -- “we will wipe out an entire civilization” or “we will send them to their deaths”? Those kinds of statements from both sides have poisoned diplomacy. Whether they stop will be critical.
RFE/RL: And if this framework eventually becomes a permanent treaty, does it fundamentally rewrite Middle Eastern security or simply restore the volatile pre-war status quo?
Abercrombie-Winstanley: If we get a peace treaty out of this, it would be a huge step in changing the nature of the US relationship with the Middle East. That should not be underestimated.
Because one thing it would require is that the United States changes the nature of its relationship with Israel -- putting it on a more balanced footing. That relationship has been corrupted over time.
And if this gets signed despite opposition from the Israeli government, there could well be hope for an improved and changed relationship -- both among Middle Eastern countries themselves and between the United States and the region.
