By Joe Fernandez
Iran, at best, has bought some time, the global uncertainty may resume in days!
Commentary And Analysis . . . In law, Agreements made under duress, or if one-sided, were not valid.
The MoU requires that the United States lift sanctions, issue waivers for Iranian oil exports, and release frozen assets.
These actions engage the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and 50 U.S.C. §1701. These permit the President on granting sanctions waivers as matter of executive forbearance.
However, because the MoU touches on Iran’s nuclear programme, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act 2015 (INARA) may require Congressional review.
The President’s threat on resuming bombing also engages the War Powers Resolution 1973, which limits the President’s ability on committing forces for hostilities without Congressional authorisation.
The MoU’s implementation was contingent not only on Iranian compliance but on the willingness of the US Congress viz. a political variable.
Iran
There are issues in conflict in the dispute between Iran and the US and Israel.
Whether the 60‑day MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) creates enforceable moratorium on US use of force against Iran; whether Iran has merely “bought time”, with risk of renewed bombing if negotiations collapse, whether all these are consistent with the UN Charter, US constitutional law, and the principle that truth manifests ipso facto (by the fact itself); and whether the MoU, signed under the shadow of a bombing threat, was voidable for duress.
Bombing
President Trump, speaking at the G7 summit, transformed the character of the Wednesday 17 June 2026 announcement on the Iran-US MoU: If negotiations collapse within 60 days, or if Iran doesn’t fulfil its end of the deal, we start bombing.”
With those words, the MoU shed diplomatic costume and revealed the true nature.
It is not a peace treaty. It’s not even binding ceasefire. It’s conditional pause, timed reprieve, sword of Damocles suspended by thread of Iranian compliance.
Iran, at best, has bought 60 days.
At worst, it has accepted terms that are unenforceable, contingent on a final agreement that may never materialise, and vulnerable at the unilateral whim of a US President who has explicitly threatened military operations.
Uncertainty
The global uncertainty that the war ignited has not been extinguished; it has merely been placed on timer.
Borders, under international law, must be defensible. Otherwise, as seen in Lebanon, Syria, Ukraine and the Gaza Strip, the international community would be helpless.
There’s also the right of self-defence under international law and the right of conquest, under unwritten international law, if there’s unprovoked war.
Agreement
The court of law cannot compel compliance on Agreement.
It can, at best, only offer compensation if Agreement was valid and there was breach.
There can be no emotions in law.
The court will rule on the quantum if the principle of compensation was accepted and the claim was quantified at the assistant registrar’s office.
The Iran-US MoU remains mere words on paper.
(https://jesseltontimes.com/2026/06/17/iran-us-ceasefire-mou-meaningless-words-on-paper/)
In law, it isn’t Agreement.
Security
The MoU, must be replaced for security, by treaty with Senate consent and an IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) verification protocol ex nunc (from now).
The law provides fragile framework.
Iran, under the MoU, gets reprieve. There are consequences for every enrichment centrifuge spun or bomb dropped. The truth will emerge from IAEA meters and, having lifeforce of its own, come into being in one form or another.
Iran has bought time. It isn’t remedy. There’s no peace.
Switzerland
There must be commitments. The court of law, being only about law, would not recognise the MoU set for formal signing in Switzerland on Friday 19 June 2026 as justiciable instrument.
The US bombing of Iran may resume and the law, with all its majesty, will remain silent.
The truth of the matter — that this is a ceasefire of convenience, not of conviction — will eventually emerge.
The 60‑day clock has begun ticking.
(https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22629/iran-deal-emboldened-hamas )
Nuclear
The nuclear issue stands deferred but the threat of resumed bombing was explicit.
Iran has reprieve at the cost of accepting an asymmetrical agreement that’s unenforceable, politically fragile, and under duress.
The MoU remains modus vivendi (way of living), conditional and revocable.
Renewed bombing remains lawful risk only if Iran commits an armed attack; otherwise, it violates the UN Charter. The President’s threat taints the consent but does not automatically invalidate the interim commitments unless proven it constitutes vis compulsiva (compulsive force).
“Time bought” remains accurate: Iran avoids immediate strikes; the US avoids immediate Congressional fight. Both retain the escalation option. The US says “no US money” for the fund but permits UAE projects. It’s consistent, using oblique funding via sanctions waivers.
Visible Surface
The Strait of Hormuz open, uranium downblend, and asset release are all about the visible surface.
There’s more in the form of the verification vacuum, US election cycle, Iran factional struggle, Israeli deterrence, and global energy fear.
Markets react about what’s visible.
History will judge the rest. — 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.
Conflict
1. Time vs. Security: Iran seeks time; the US seeks permanent dismantlement.
2. Force vs. Law: Trump’s threat versus the UN Charter prohibition.
3. Sanctions Relief vs. Verification: Iran wants upfront benefit; the US wants proof factum probatum (proven fact).
4. Executive Power vs. Congress: Presidential waiver versus the Senate treaty role.
5. Regional Stability vs. Deterrence: Gulf states want the Strait open; Israel wants zero enrichment.
6. Whether the MoU was legally binding treaty or non‑binding political commitment.
7. Whether the ceasefire extends for Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Events
28 February 2026: US and Israeli forces strike Iran; war begins.
February–June 2026: Iran retaliates; closes Strait of Hormuz; US blockades Iranian ports.
3 June 2026: Trump signals deal intent in Washington.
14 June 2026: Framework MoU announced.
15 June 2026: Iran declares permanent cessation of hostilities; terms unknown.
17 June 2026: Senior US officials reveal detailed MoU terms on a press call; Trump at G7 warns that bombing will resume if deal collapses.
Day 1‑60: Negotiations on nuclear details, sanctions schedule, asset release.
Day 60: If no final deal, US threatens bombing resumption; sanctions relief withheld.
Statutes And Instruments
1. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, Articles 2, 7, 11, 24‑26, 52.
2. Charter of the United Nations 1945, Articles 2(4), 39, 51, Chapter VII.
3. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982, Articles 37‑44.
4. International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701‑1708.
5. Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act 2015 (INARA), 42 U.S.C. § 2160e.
6. War Powers Resolution 1973, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541‑1548.
7. Nuclear Non‑Proliferation Treaty (NPT) 1968, Articles II, IV.
8. US Constitution, Article II, section 2.
9. Evidence Act 1950 (Act 56, Malaysia), sections 101‑103 — applied by analogy.
