By scrapping Iran’s oil waiver after fresh missile strikes, Washington has effectively torn up its own promise of “no new sanctions” under the ceasefire deal.

Story Snapshot

• The United States–Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) clearly promised no new U.S. sanctions during a 60‑day ceasefire.
• After Iranian attacks on ships, President Trump declared the MoU “over,” and the Treasury revoked Iran’s oil sanctions waiver.
• Iran and foreign officials insist the MoU is still in force and say Washington has broken the deal.
• This fight over sanctions shows how U.S. leaders use flexible legal tools and vague terms to escape their own commitments.

What The MoU Really Promised On Sanctions

The Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran set up a 60‑day ceasefire and talks starting June 19, 2026. The text says both sides will keep the “status quo” during that time, and the United States “will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region.” It also promises that the United States will end “all” sanctions on Iran on an agreed schedule as part of a final deal, including United Nations and U.S. measures. To bridge the gap, the United States Treasury agreed to issue waivers so Iran could sell crude oil, petrochemicals, and related services while talks continued. Those waivers were described by experts as being issued “in implementation of its commitment in the MoU,” tying them directly to the no‑new‑sanctions promise.

The MoU is not a full treaty and does not itself change U.S. law, but it laid out clear expectations. Legal analysts note that actual sanctions relief must still be carried out through licenses, waivers, and other tools under existing Iran sanctions programs, which are built from many executive orders and laws. Even so, the MoU language on no new sanctions during the ceasefire is straightforward and contains no public clause saying attacks on ships automatically void that promise. That gap in the text is now at the center of the argument over whether Washington has honored its word or found a way around it.

Trump’s Strikes, Treasury’s Move, And The Claimed “Violation”

After Iranian missile and drone attacks on three commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, the Pentagon called the assaults a “clear violation of the ceasefire.” U.S. Central Command announced “significant strikes against Iran to impose substantial consequences” for targeting civilian ships in international waters. At a press briefing, President Trump said of the MoU, “To me, I think it’s over. I don’t want to deal with them anymore,” framing the attacks as Iran breaking the deal first. This rhetoric fits his broader “maximum pressure” approach, where sanctions and force are used together to punish what Washington sees as Iran’s destabilizing actions.

Alongside the military action, the U.S. Department of the Treasury revoked the key sanctions waiver for Iranian oil, known as General License X. A formal notice said the temporary relief had been “revoked and superseded in its entirety,” giving buyers until mid‑July to wind down deals. That waiver had allowed Iran to sell oil at full market prices instead of steep discounts and was widely seen as the main economic benefit of the ceasefire. By pulling the waiver, the administration restored the full weight of Iran sanctions law, which combines many executive orders and congressional statutes under the Office of Foreign Assets Control. This move is what many media outlets and foreign officials now call a breach of the MoU’s “no new sanctions” clause.

Iran’s Pushback And The Battle Over Who Broke The Deal

Iranian officials, including a deputy minister, say the MoU and its sanctions relief terms remain in force and accuse Washington of acting unilaterally. Pakistani officials involved in shuttle diplomacy also describe the deal as still valid, with core elements like asset releases and oil waivers meant to last throughout the ceasefire. They deny there was any agreement to void the MoU after vessel attacks, putting their reading directly against the Trump administration’s “it’s over” line. So far, Iran and its partners have not published a detailed legal brief, but they lean heavily on the plain text that bans new sanctions during the talks.

Major news outlets have mostly framed the U.S. action as a violation of the deal rather than a justified response. Reports note that the MoU language on no new sanctions is clear and that General License X was explicitly tied to that commitment, making its revocation look like Washington contradicting its own paperwork. At the same time, Side B—the critics of the U.S. move—has not yet produced independent forensic reports on the tanker attacks to challenge the Pentagon’s “clear violation” claim. That leaves a strange picture: Iran insists the MoU stands, the United States insists it is dead, and the text itself does not clearly support either automatic snapback or automatic protection when things go wrong.

What This Means For Ordinary Americans And Global Trust

For Americans looking on, the fight looks like another example of elites making promises and then walking away when events become messy. The MoU promised a break from war and a path to end one of the most complex sanctions regimes in the world. Yet the fine print always left room for the executive branch to use flexible tools—licenses, waivers, and legal “snapbacks”—to change course fast. That pattern also appeared in 2018 when the United States left the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions that had been lifted, after declaring a “material breach” without clear treaty text requiring it.

People on the right see Iran’s attacks as proof that the United States cannot trust hostile regimes and must be ready to hit back, even if that means tearing up deals. People on the left see yet another case where Washington breaks its own word, deepens conflict, and hurts ordinary families abroad while insiders and defense contractors stay protected. Both sides share a deeper worry—that complex foreign deals and sanctions are managed by a small circle of lawyers and power brokers who face little accountability when promises to the public are reversed. The struggle over the MoU’s “no new sanctions” clause shows how quickly a written pledge can give way to “national security” arguments, leaving citizens to wonder whose interests are really being served.

Sources:

zerohedge.com, nytimes.com, cnn.com, apnews.com, aljazeera.com, state.gov, en.wikipedia.org, bipc.com, ofac.treasury.gov, bbc.com, i24news.tv, abcnews.com, instagram.com, democrats-armedservices.house.gov, kff.org, politico.com, edition.cnn.com, energypolicy.columbia.edu, youtube.com