Pezeshkian backs Iran’s U.S. memorandum as the 60-day deadline passes without a final nuclear, sanctions or Hormuz agreement.

TEHRAN, IRAN — President Masoud Pezeshkian defended Iran’s memorandum with Washington as a route out of prolonged confrontation as its original 60-day negotiating deadline passed without a final deal.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has mounted a public defense of Tehran’s diplomatic understanding with the United States, arguing that Iran must find a way out of the prolonged condition of conflict and uncertainty that has damaged its economy and discouraged investment.

Speaking at a National Doctors’ Day ceremony in Tehran on Saturday, Pezeshkian said members of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council involved in the issue regarded the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding as the best available arrangement based on what he described as dignity, wisdom and expediency. His remarks were published by state-run IRNA on Sunday.

He rejected suggestions that the memorandum represented surrender and said Iranian policy remained aligned with the direction set by the country’s supreme leadership. The Iranian presidency separately said the agreement had emerged from consultations among military, security, executive, legislative and judicial officials.

The defense comes at a critical point for the agreement. Its original 60-day period for Iran and the United States to negotiate a final settlement expired last week without a comprehensive accord, according to the Associated Press. The published memorandum allows that deadline to be extended by mutual consent, but no such extension has been publicly confirmed.

The memorandum promised far more than a ceasefire

The document signed in June was intended as an interim framework rather than a complete peace agreement.

According to the text published by IRNA, Iran and the United States agreed to seek a permanent end to military operations and to negotiate a final deal within a maximum of 60 days. The memorandum also addressed sanctions, the U.S. naval blockade, shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s nuclear program and the future withdrawal of U.S. forces from positions near Iran.

The document said Washington would begin removing its naval blockade immediately and fully end it within 30 days. Iran, in turn, was to make arrangements for commercial vessels to move through the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman during the interim period.

Another section committed the United States to negotiating the termination of sanctions according to an agreed schedule. On the nuclear question, Iran reaffirmed that it would not develop or procure nuclear weapons, while the two governments were to negotiate the treatment of enriched material and the future of Iran’s enrichment activities.

Those provisions help explain why Pezeshkian is defending the memorandum despite the absence of a final agreement: if implemented, it potentially connects military de-escalation, economic relief and the nuclear dispute within one negotiating structure.

But implementation has fallen well short of that ambition.

AP reported that the parties remain far apart, particularly over reopening the Strait of Hormuz, while Reuters said shipping through the strategic waterway remains at a virtual standstill and Iran continues to face severe sanctions and damage from months of conflict.

Economic pressure strengthens Pezeshkian’s argument for diplomacy

Pezeshkian explicitly linked the diplomatic process to Iran’s ability to attract investment.

He argued that capital would not flow into a country trapped between active conflict and unresolved confrontation. His remarks acknowledged an economic problem that has become increasingly difficult for Tehran to separate from its security policy.

Reuters reported Sunday that Iran is already under heavy international sanctions, while repeated military strikes have damaged infrastructure and the disruption of shipping through Hormuz has contributed to higher global oil prices.

Fresh pressure may arrive almost immediately.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is expected to announce new sanctions on Monday, after President Donald Trump warned of economic consequences for countries providing what he called a lifeline to Iran. Reuters reported that China, which buys the majority of Iran’s shipped oil, is among the countries Washington wants to cooperate with its pressure campaign.

The expected sanctions are especially notable because the June memorandum said the United States would impose no new sanctions while a final agreement remained pending. Whether Washington considers those interim provisions still operative after the original negotiating period expired is therefore an important unresolved issue.

Rezaei delivers a sharply harder message to Iran’s neighbors

Pezeshkian’s emphasis on negotiation has been accompanied by more confrontational language from Mohsen Rezaei, the recently appointed secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.

In a televised interview, Rezaei warned neighboring countries not to participate in Washington’s economic campaign against Iran. He said Tehran would initially seek to persuade them diplomatically but could treat continued participation as hostile action.

Rezaei went further by threatening disruption of oil exports through the Persian Gulf if neighboring states joined the U.S. pressure effort. He also said reopening the Strait of Hormuz was not currently under consideration and argued that Washington must first fulfill its commitments.

The contrast does not necessarily prove a formal split within the Iranian leadership. Both officials present diplomacy and deterrence as compatible tools, and Pezeshkian himself stressed that Iran should negotiate from a position of strength rather than concede to its adversaries.

It does, however, reveal markedly different public messaging: Pezeshkian is emphasizing the costs of an indefinite confrontation, while Rezaei is emphasizing Iran’s capacity to impose costs on neighboring states and U.S. interests if economic pressure intensifies.

Hormuz and the nuclear issue remain central obstacles

The Strait of Hormuz has become one of the clearest tests of whether the June understanding can be converted into a lasting settlement.

The original memorandum called for commercial traffic to resume while Iran entered discussions with Oman and other Gulf states over future arrangements for the waterway. Rezaei said Saturday that Iran and Oman had reached an understanding concerning a middle route for shared trade but that reopening the Strait more broadly would depend on U.S. compliance with its commitments.

The nuclear dispute is similarly unresolved.

The memorandum established principles for negotiations over Iran’s enriched uranium and future enrichment activity, but AP reported that the 60-day process ended without the comprehensive nuclear agreement envisioned in June.

The next diplomatic test could come quickly. Pakistan, which helped mediate the June understanding, says army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir will travel to Tehran on Monday. Iranian and Pakistani sources describe the visit as part of efforts to restore regional peace and revive diplomacy.

For now, Pezeshkian’s defense of the memorandum does not signal that the conflict has been resolved. Instead, it underscores Tehran’s effort to preserve a negotiating framework whose original deadline has passed while military, nuclear, maritime and economic disputes remain unsettled.