The U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding: support or oppose? [ONLINE]

On June 17, 2026, the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran was signed by Presidents Trump and Pezeshkian. Wikipedia's summary of it is: "The memorandum is a 14-point 'framework agreement' and provides for an end to military strikes, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping toll-free for 60 days, an end to the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports, and a 60-day extension of the ceasefire. Iran indicated that it intended to charge fees for unspecified services to ships transiting through the Strait of Hormuz, though analysts questioned whether this would be legal. Subject to a final deal, the Islamabad Memorandum would also include an at least $300 billion private fund designed to trigger investment in Iran in addition to the release of frozen Iranian assets."

The full Memorandum is only 2 pages long. Read it here:
https://www.npr.org/2026/06/18/nx-s1-5863027/us-iran-trump-memorandum-of-understanding-full-text

The question we'll be addressing is: Should the U.S. government move ahead with this Memorandum of Understanding with Iran, or abandon it?

READINGS SUPPORTING THE MEMORANDUM:
Supporters of the memorandum argue that, for all its faults, it reflects current realities and offers a path to peace between the U.S. and Iran, and it's better to make efforts to follow this path than to continue a costly "forever war."

• The White House, "President Trump’s Iran Agreement Is America First in Action"
• Ali Vaez, International Crisis Group, "America and Iran Have an Agreement. And 60 Days to Prevent the Next War"
• Trita Parsi, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, "Trump ended his idiotic Iran war. Good."
• Daniel Shapiro, Atlantic Council, "Trump’s Iran Deal Looks Worse Than Obama’s—And I’m Glad He Made It"

READINGS OPPOSING THE MEMORANDUM:
Opponents of the memorandum argue that it concedes too much to Iran, it has little chance of being followed through, and that having no deal with Iran would be better than having a bad deal like this one.

• Karim Sadjadpour, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "Trump’s Second Gamble on Iran"
• Douglas Feith, Hudson Institute, "The Iran Deal Comes with a Familiar False Promise"
• Eric Mandel, Middle East Policy Information Network and Jerusalem Report, "MoU's forgotten casualty is the Iranian people"
• Burcu Ozcelik, Royal United Services Institute, "The Peace That Was Not One; The US-Iran Memorandum Risks Permanent Crisis"

AGENDA FOR THIS MEETUP:

• Initial vote: We go around the room asking everyone for their initial position -- Yes, No, or Abstain. You may also say very briefly why you are voting this way, or what you hope to hear more about at the debate.
• Opening statements for and against (6 minutes each) by volunteer speakers.
• Moderated floor debate: Here's where you get to make your voice heard, as well as listen to everyone else's voices in the room. Everyone gets a chance to speak, and is encouraged to do so, but no one is required to speak if they don't want to. A moderator will make sure that only one person is speaking at a time, and that nobody speaks for more than 2 minutes at a time.
• Closing statements for and against (3 minutes each) by volunteer speakers.
• Final vote: We go around the room asking everyone for their final vote on the motion -- Yes, No, or Abstain. You may say briefly why you are voting this way, what arguments you heard that you found compelling, or what you changed your mind about (if anything).
• 9:00 p.m. is the debate's hard end time. People are welcome to stick around to continue discussing the issue, or ideas for future debates, or anything else.

Our meeting will be conducted on Zoom. The Zoom link will be visible here on the event page when you RSVP. It's your choice if you want to turn on your camera or not, but people who can be seen are often more persuasive.