We Have Been There Before: The US-Iran MOU and the Algiers Accords
“The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.”
“Iran and the United States … will immediately select a mutually agreeable central bank … to act … as depositary of the escrow and security funds.”
“Commencing upon completion of the requisite escrow arrangements with the Central Bank, the United States will bring about the transfer to the Central Bank of all gold bullion which is owned by Iran.”
“Commencing with the adherence by Iran and the United States to this declaration… the United States will arrange… for the transfer to Iran of all Iranian properties which are located in the United States and abroad.”
“If any dispute arises between the parties as to whether the United States has fulfilled any obligation … Iran may submit the dispute to binding arbitration by the tribunal established by, and in accordance with the provisions of, the claims settlement agreement.”
If you think the above declarations are related to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between Iran and the US on June 17, 2026, think again. These are some of the provisions of the Algiers Accords, an agreement that the Carter administration signed with Iran on January 19, 1981, promising many things to Iran in exchange for the Islamic Republic releasing American embassy personnel (or “hostages,” as the US government referred to them) held in Iran. As I have explained elsewhere, even though Iran released the detainees, the US never kept its part of the bargain. Just think of the first article above, i.e., that the US will not intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs again. Now, think of thousands of sanctions that the US has levied on Iran or Iranians in the past 45 years, all the assassinations that the US has, directly or indirectly, carried out in Iran, and military interventions in the past year alone.
The Algiers Accords were signed at a time when Iran had the upper hand in dealing with the US. After many attempts at diplomacy failed to release the US personnel, the Carter administration launched “Operation Eagle Claw,” a covert military operation on April 24, 1980, aimed at rescuing its personnel in Tehran. The operation turned into a fiasco when severe weather in the Iranian desert city of Tabas and mechanical failures caused Jimmy Carter to abort the operation. Eight US service representatives died, one transport plane and one helicopter were destroyed in a collision, and five additional helicopters were either abandoned or captured by Iranian forces. Then, after 444 days of Iran not blinking and holding the Americans, a frustrated and desperate US president signed the Algiers Accords, having, of course, no intention of abiding by them.
Similar to the Algiers Accords, the June 17, 2026, MOU came out of the desperation of a US president, albeit a criminally insane president. Following the advice of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli butcher of Gaza, Operation “Epic Fury” was launched on February 28, 2026, to overthrow the Islamic Republic and replace it with a regime friendly to the US and Israel—a regime preferably headed by the son of the former shah of Iran, if the Israelis had their way. According to the madman in the White House, the operation was supposed to last 4–5 weeks, yet it lasted for 110 days; and as this essay is being written, it is back on.
Like “Operation Eagle Claw,” the 2026 campaign ran into difficulties from the start. On the first day, the US blew up an elementary school in Minab, Iran, killing an estimated 168 children (the US is still “investigating” the case!). This was a double-tap strike, meaning survivors, or others, who tried to shelter or help after the first attack were struck by a second missile. The mass killing of children was so horrendous and caused so much consternation around the world that even the most ardent supporters of the US could not defend it. Indeed, the European allies of the US-Israel tried to distance themselves from the dynamic duo.
On the same day as the attack on a school, over 40 Iranian leaders were murdered, including Iran’s supreme leader of the revolution, Ali Khamenei, and many members of his family. Then, for 37 more days, the US and Israel bombarded Iran with everything they had. Air defense systems, naval assets, command and control systems, missile and drone infrastructures, as well as hospitals and healthcare facilities, schools, universities and research centers, museums, historical sites, bridges, and oil and petrochemical facilities, all came under attack. At least 3,200 Iranians were killed and more than 20,000 were wounded in the assault.
Yet, Iran and its Islamic system of government survived. The 56-year-old Mojtaba Khamenei replaced his 86-year-old father, Ali Khamenei, and many murdered leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) were replaced by others, mostly younger and more militant ones. Indeed, while the previous leadership of the Islamic Republic was cautious in reacting to US-Israeli aggressions, the new leadership showed no fear of countering these aggressions. For many years, the IRGC had threatened to turn any military adventure by the US-Israel into a regional battle, and, if necessary, close the Strait of Hormuz. But they had never acted upon these threats.
Now the gloves were off. Not only was Israel attacked with drones and missiles, but US assets in the Persian Gulf were targeted. This included US bases in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. In addition, the IRGC closed the Strait of Hormuz early in March. The combination of relentless attacks on Israel and US assets in the Persian Gulf, as well as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz that allows the passage of nearly 25% of total global maritime oil, made the psychotic leader of the “free world” to fume. In his “Truth Social” posts, which are like the diary of a madman, he threatened Iran with “total destruction” day after day. If Iran failed to meet his deadline to reach a deal and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, he wrote on April 7, 2026, “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” Some interpreted the threat to mean that he was referring to the use of nuclear bombs against Iran.
The threats often alternated with declarations of victory and boasting about how the US had destroyed Iran’s air defenses, navy, and air force. In actuality, of course, Iran never had much of an air defense system, air force, or navy to begin with. But it had plenty of missiles and drones, and these wreaked havoc in Israel and the sheikhdoms in the Persian Gulf. The relentless counterattack by the IRGC against US assets and Israel, as well as the closure of an artery that supplied a substantial amount of the world’s fossil fuel and related products, started to rattle the global capitalist economy. As the worldwide rate of GDP growth slowed down and prices started to rise, the prospect of stagflation scared not only Europeans but also Americans. Even the madman in the White House admitted later that continuing the war on Iran “could have caused an international depression” and that he could have become another President Herbert Hoover.
The fear of stagflation was combined with other fears. The US was rapidly depleting its stockpiles of missiles and anti-missiles. After seven weeks of war, it was estimated by the Center for Strategic and International Studies that the US military had expended at least 45% of its stockpile of precision strike missiles, at least 50% of its inventory of THAAD missiles, and nearly 50% of its stockpile of Patriot air defense interceptor missiles. Another fear was the rising cost of the war. The Pentagon initially estimated that the war in Iran had cost Americans $29 billion. But later, there was a supplemental defense funding request for $80 billion. Other estimates were much higher. Those that included indirect costs, such as increases in food and fuel prices, projected, as of mid-June, that the war had cost US consumers and taxpayers about $132 billion and was rising. In addition, the US’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve was falling to its lowest level since 1983. These fears caused the madman in the White House significant stress, particularly after the downing of a US F-15 by Iranian forces. He lashed out at Iran and, at the same time, declared that a deal with Iran was close or imminent at least 38 times. He could see the writing on the wall, given the unpopularity of his presidency and his war, he could easily lose the midterm election and face another impeachment.
Finally, on June 17, 2026, 109 days after starting the aggression, the madman in the White House signed, virtually and unceremoniously, a Memorandum of Understanding with Iran. Like the Algiers Accords, this was a vague and imprecise two-and-a-half-page document consisting of 14 articles (“paragraphs” in the official MOU). Without going deeply into the analysis of each article, let me just point out a few things about the vague and unworkable nature of this MOU, as well as its implications for the US.
The first article started with ambiguity. It declared “the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.” But how did Lebanon become a “front” in the US and Israeli war against Iran? The article never mentions Israel or Hezbollah and the latter’s struggle against Israel for more than four decades. This omission leaves room for Israel to continue its aggression against Lebanon. And, indeed, Israel has not stopped its occupation of Southern Lebanon and the mass murder of Lebanese people. But the article shows desperation on the part of the US. A demand for a ceasefire in Lebanon had never appeared in any previous agreement between the US and Iran. If the US were negotiating from a position of strength, it would never have accepted the inclusion of such a ceasefire. Instead, it would have argued that Hezbollah is a US-designated terrorist organization and is irrelevant to any ceasefire between the US and Iran.
But it was the second article of the MOU that was highly reminiscent of the Algiers Accords: “The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.” We know how that promise turned out 45 years ago! As this essay is being written, the US continues to bomb Iran daily, mostly coastal areas in the south. Actually, the promise not to interfere in Iran’s “internal affairs” is contradicted by other articles in the MOU, such as the third one that says: “The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal, in a maximum of 60 days, extendable with mutual consent.” If the US were to respect Iran’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity” and not interfere in its internal affairs, why should there be a “deal,” presumably a deal about Iran’s nuclear program, which is an element of Iran’s internal affairs?
The fourth article promised that the US would “undertake to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.” But what does the proximity of Iran mean? Does it mean that the US is going to abandon all its bases in the Persian Gulf in 30 days?
It is actually the fifth article that has so far been a major bone of contention and has led to continued warfare between Iran and the US: “The Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels, with no charge for 60 days only.” This can easily be interpreted to mean that Iran will oversee the traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. This is indeed how the IRGC is interpreting it, and when the US tries to redirect ships away from Iran’s control, the IRGC reacts by shooting at them.
The sixth article was similar to returning Iran’s assets in the Algiers Accords: “The United States of America undertakes, with regional partners, to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion.” This is a pie in the sky! Like the Algiers Accords and also the false promises made in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015, it will not happen.
The seventh article promised the end of “all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral U.S. sanctions, both primary and secondary, according to a mutually agreed schedule as part of the final deal.” However, this is highly unrealistic. Even if the madman of the White House wanted to lift “all sanctions” against Iran, the US Congress would likely prevent it.
The eighth and ninth articles addressed limits to Iran’s nuclear program. These articles contradict the 2nd article, as Iran’s nuclear program—which, according to a US intelligence assessment, is not an active weapons program—is part of Iran’s sovereign right. However, what is interesting about these articles is the concessions made by the US. Contrary to the repeated US demands that all uranium enrichment in Iran must stop and that all highly enriched uranium must be turned over to the US, the 9th article states that “the Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program”! Furthermore, the 8th article states that the two parties “have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon…with the minimum methodology to be down-blending on-site.”
The tenth article says the US “Department of the Treasury will issue waivers for exporting Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, and derivatives.” That idea fell apart on July 7 when the US took back the waiver, blaming Iran for attacking three tankers.
The eleventh article was just another Algiers Accords pie-in-the-sky: “The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MoU.” The twelfth article was also a fantasy: the US and Iran “agree that an executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementation of this MoU and the future compliance of the final deal.”
The last two articles were very short, referring to “negotiations regarding the final Deal” after the signing of the MOU and the endorsement of the “final Deal” by a “binding UNSC resolution.” This was similar to the Algiers Accords’ promise of “binding arbitration” for any dispute.
The 2026 MOU between the US and Iran, like the 1981 Algiers Accords, was doomed to fail. Indeed, the madman in the White House declared on July 8, 2026, that the MOU “is over.” He also said that Iranian negotiators are “scum” and that he does not “want to deal with them anymore.” The bombing resumed, sanctions and blockades were reimposed, and the world watched with indifference.
There is a famous saying that is fitting here: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
