By Joe Fernandez
Israel, stays out of ‘peace’ deal MoU, continues war in Lebanon!
Commentary And Analysis . . . The Iran-US Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on “Ceasefire”, set for signing in Switzerland on Friday 19 June 2026, was mere words on paper and meaningless. Again, the “Ceasefire” remains “verba volant, scripta manent”, viz. spoken words fly away, the written words were hollow.
(https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/777456)
(https://www.timesofisrael.com/vance-confident-israel-will-join-deal-as-us-and-iran-prepare-for-talks-on-friday/)
On Monday 15 June 2026, there was dramatic spectacle: a surprise US‑Iran framework for ending a devastating war, lifting sanctions, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
Oil prices fell, stock markets soared, and US President Donald Trump proclaimed on Truth Social, “The deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran was now done.”
The media notes that precise terms were unknown. The Iranian deputy foreign minister speaks of broader negotiations over 60 days.
The market’s treatment of the announcement as fait accompli was mere speculation.
Israel, the state most directly threatened by Iran’s nuclear programme and its proxy Hezbollah, was not a party. Its military operations in Lebanon continue. Israel’s right of self‑defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter was unaffected.
Israel’s non‑participation renders the MoU caduc (null) ab initio (void from the beginning) on regional peace.
Pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) cannot arise from pacta nuda (naked agreements).
The international community should not mistake political communiqué as based on law. The binding treaty that would end the conflict, dismantle the Iranian nuclear programme, and bind all parties was nowhere in sight.
The Iran-US ‘Ceasefire’, in the form of MoU, lacks forma (form), consensus, and objectum (object) under the VCLT (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969).
The words create no enforceable rights or obligations.
The ceasefire remains illusory.
The deferral of the nuclear issue leaves the core conflict unresolved. The casus belli (cause for war) persists.
The President’s domestic authority as per the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), on lifting sanctions, was under Congressional review in compliance with INARA (Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act 2015) and faces legal challenges.
INARA requires that any nuclear agreement be submitted before Congress for 30‑60 day review.
Senator Lindsey Graham’s statement that “under our law, any nuclear deal with Iran will be placed before Congress” confirms the domestic legal framework.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer declared that the President’s power was at its lowest ebb when it conflicts with the expressed will of Congress. An executive waiver of sanctions without Congressional approval was ultra vires domi (domestically beyond powers) and a violation of Gewaltenteilung (separation of powers).
The MOU defers the nuclear issue for later talks. Iran, based on media reports, retains approximately 400 kg of highly enriched uranium, albeit buried under rubble in mountain storage after US strikes. Still, Trump wants the nuclear material stored in the US.
The sanctions, if lifted on Friday, would be ultra vires (beyond powers) domi (domestically).
Jus strictum (written law) demands text, signatories, ratification, Security Council endorsement, and verification mechanism.
MoU in Law
The MoU, briefly, was generally non‑binding unless the parties manifest animus contrahendi (intent on contract).
The ICJ (International Court of Justice) held in Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey) that joint communiqués and press releases do not create binding obligations.
Conflict and Ceasefire
Article 3 of the Geneva Convention 1949 requires that any ceasefire agreement be implemented by the parties. It must bind all belligerents.
Under the UN Charter, the termination of hostilities engages the Security Council’s authority under Articles 39‑42.
Strait of Hormuz
Under UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) Articles 37‑44, the Strait of Hormuz was for international navigation. There’s right of transit passage.
Caveat
Let the reader beware (caveat lector).
The total absence of Israel and Lebanon from the process was procedural failure that undermines the MoU’s legitimacy.
Hear the other side (audi alteram partem).
The pursuit of market stability cannot override legality. Let justice be done though the heavens fall (fiat justitia ruat caelum).
The analysis remains obiter dicta (remarks in passing), confined on public international law, the law of treaties, US constitutional law, the law of armed conflict, and the law of the sea, all construed through unified theories on law.
No mens rea (state of the mind) or actus reus (the act) was imputed for any party. — TJT
Longtime Borneo watcher Joe Fernandez has been writing for many years on both sides of the Southeast Asia Sea. He should not be mistaken for a namesake formerly with the Daily Express in Kota Kinabalu. JF keeps a Blog under FernzTheGreat on the nature of human relationships.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Jesselton Times.
