The post-February 2026 war period marks a new phase in US–Iran relationship, a relationship of strange diplomatic impasse characterized by no war, nor peace, but a rotating cycle of ceasefire announcements, Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), and intermittent exchanges of fire across the Strait of Hormuz. This situation indicates structural problems that both sides are unprepared to address. The absence of a permanent peace treaty, as expected from negotiations, is the logical outcome of incompatible strategic objectives, domestic political constraints, and a shared preference for managed instability.

Recent reporting underscores this structural paradox. The US–Iran MoU, signed on 17th June 2026, is explicitly framed not as a peace treaty, but as a temporary framework to “pause hostilities and open negotiations.” Yet even this limited arrangement has already been strained by renewed maritime incidents and retaliatory strikes in the Gulf, where both sides accuse the other of violating the spirit of the ceasefire, straining peace negotiations.

This is not simply a failure of diplomacy, but a reflection of how both states have learned to manage confrontation as a long-term condition rather than solve it as a problem. The absence of a permanent peace treaty is not an anomaly. The MoU framework has been designed as temporary stabilisers rather than binding settlements.

This is not simply a failure of diplomacy, but a reflection of how both states have learned to manage confrontation as a long-term condition rather than solve it as a problem. The absence of a permanent peace treaty is not an anomaly. The MoU framework has been designed as temporary stabilisers rather than binding settlements.

It explicitly defers hard questions about nuclear capability, sanctions relief, regional proxy dynamics, and maritime security. 

Process diplomacy, and no end outcome

Modern US–Iran diplomacy is dominated by what might be called “process without closure.” Negotiations produce frameworks, technical committees, and phased agreements—but no final treaty. The problem is not that diplomacy is absent; it is that neither the US nor Iran has the real intent to drive negotiations to a successful end. MOUs allow both sides to claim progress while avoiding irreversible commitments. 

This structure creates a recurring cycle: escalation, emergency de-escalation or ceasefire, MOU or interim framework, partial compliance disputes, and renewed confrontation.  Each loop reinforces the next. 

READ: Iran warns it is ready for war if US fails to honour agreement

Why a treaty is structurally unlikely

A permanent peace treaty is a long process to complete, not a 60-day time frame to achieve lasting peace. Three structural barriers dominate Iran–US negotiations:

The first is the absence of a shared definition of security. For Washington, Iranian nuclear capability is a proliferation risk embedded in a broader regional security challenge, especially for........

© Middle East Monitor