Historian argues US-Iran memorandum is weak and premature
Heather Cox Richardson contends that the memorandum of understanding being finalized in Geneva is not a final contract but an agreement to pursue one. She warns that the US has ceded leverage to Iran and may secure a worse outcome than the previous nuclear deal.
The United States and Iran are finalizing a memorandum of understanding in Geneva, which the US administration is framing as a deal authorizing the opening of the Strait of Hormuz. Historian Heather Cox Richardson argues that this characterization is disingenuous, noting that a memorandum of understanding is a business term for an agreement to pursue a deal, not a final contract. She stated that celebrating the document is premature and that 39 such understandings have been announced previously, suggesting the current timing may be designed to affect markets.
Richardson contends that the US has ceded leverage to Iran, which is using the Strait of Hormuz as leverage. She argues that the US may end up with a worse deal than the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. National security scholar Tom Nichols wrote that Iran leaves the conflict stronger, with its government intact, controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and missile stocks preserved. Richardson highlighted that US oil reserves are declining, with major oil company leaders publicly warning the White House about low stocks. The conflict began with airstrikes on February 27, 2026, and Richardson believes the US has no clean exit that looks like a win.