In old Middle Eastern tales, a carpet merchant could sell the same\nitem to two different buyers with two different stories, and of course,\nat different prices. To the first buyer, he explained the intricacy of\nthe thread weaving. To the second, he recounted the long journey of the\ncamel that carried the carpet from the desert. The carpet was the same;\nonly the accompanying story changed.<\/p>\n
I recalled that tale when reading two versions of the Memorandum of\nUnderstanding between the United States and Iran. The first version\ncirculated from Tehran via Iranian state media and was published by ABC.\nThe second version was released by Washington and published by CNN as\nthe official text. Interestingly, both parties spoke about the same\ndocument, yet each produced a different impression.<\/p>\n
Iran seemed to want to show that America, the world\u2019s greatest\nsuperpower, had finally come bearing concessions. Meanwhile, America\nappeared to want to demonstrate that all those concessions remained\nunder the control of procedures they held. The difference was not\nglaring at first glance. The fourteen points of the MoU presented to the\nmedia were nearly identical. The ceasefire remained. The Strait of\nHormuz remained open. Sanctions were still discussed. The nuclear\nprogramme remained the main agenda.<\/p>\n
However, like a house sale contract, the fate of a building is often\ndetermined not by the title of the agreement, but by the small sentences\nwritten in smaller print at the bottom of the page. Therefore, the\ninteresting question is no longer who won the war\u2014The New York Times\nconvicted the US of losing. The more interesting question is: who\nsucceeded in embedding their interests into the sentence structure of\nthe MoU?<\/p>\n
The point regarding respect for each country\u2019s sovereignty is the\nfirst example. Before the war began, Trump spoke as if regime change in\nTehran was a reasonable objective. His rhetoric was harsh, his language\nfull of optimism. Yet in the document now circulating, both countries\nactually pledge to respect each other\u2019s sovereignty and not interfere in\neach other\u2019s domestic affairs. In political language, that is not merely\na change of sentence; it is a change of objective.<\/p>\n
The section on the Strait of Hormuz reveals an even more subtle play\nof language. Iran\u2019s version highlights that the reopening of the\nshipping lane is carried out through arrangements involving Iran.\nWashington\u2019s version adds that commercial vessels will transit without\nlevies for sixty days. The two sentences may appear complementary, but\nthe emphasis differs. Iran wants the public to see it as the manager of\nthe world\u2019s energy gateway. America wants the public to see that freedom\nof navigation has been successfully restored.<\/p>\n
A more significant difference emerges on the nuclear issue. In the\nversion previously circulated by the Iranian side, public attention was\ndrawn to the statement that Iran would not build nuclear weapons. That\nsentence sounded familiar because for years it had been Tehran\u2019s\nofficial position. However, the text released by Washington included a\nfar more specific element: the mechanism for handling enriched uranium\nand oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA. The\nsentence about uranium dilution may sound technical and boring to the\nlay reader, and it has been discussed by both countries for years. Yet\nit is precisely there that the political heart of this document\nbeats.<\/p>\n
Wars in the 20th century were often understood as struggles for\nterritory, ports, or oil fields. But 21st-century wars seem more often\nto display a struggle over procedures. What is contested is no longer\nhills and valleys, but the right to conduct inspections, the authority\nto carry out verification, the ability to regulate oversight mechanisms,\nand control over the implementation schedule of agreements. In the world\nof modern diplomacy, these seemingly administrative matters are often\nfar more decisive than thunderous victory speeches on television.<\/p>\n
From this angle, it is understandable why Washington appears to be\ntrying to shift the battlefield from the war zone to a procedural space\nfull of conditions, deadlines, and verification mechanisms. The same\npattern is visible in almost all articles concerning sanctions and\nIranian assets. At a glance, Iran gained many things: access to\nfinancial channels, easing of oil exports, release of frozen assets, and\na reconstruction plan worth hundreds of billions of dollars. However,\nalmost every promise is coupled with the same phrase: based on the final\nagreement, through a mutually agreed mechanism, or according to a\nschedule to be negotiated. In other words, Iran obtained the prospect of\nprofit, while America sought to retain the levers of control.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/autopsy-of-the-us-iran-mou-1781837663", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }