It is encouraging that there is a positive tone in the political atmosphere regarding a ceasefire and a de-escalation of the fierce conflict that has gripped us for months. Any agreement that stops bloodshed, halts destruction, reassures markets, restores hope for the resumption of trade and commerce, and guarantees the continued flow of air, land and sea transport is a positive development that deserves no objection.
However, we must now discuss the "text" and the "declaration" that is before us, as broadcast from 3 sources:
The first: from Pakistan, which described it as the Islamabad agreement.
The second: statements and writings from President Trump.
The third: an Iranian statement from Tehran.
What is agreed upon in the "text" — and not in the "interpretations" — is that we are looking at a "preliminary agreement of intent."
It is necessary here to explain the nature of what has been announced.
In modern negotiation theory, there are:
1 — An "agreement of intent," known in English as an MOU, which is not legally binding on any party, can be withdrawn from, and cannot be referred to international litigation or international arbitration.
2 — There is another type: the framework agreement, which is binding in its principles but leaves the detailed technical elements to be agreed upon by the relevant committees.
3 — The third type is the strongest legally and contractually: the comprehensive treaty.
Anyone following recent events over the past few hours will notice that both the American and Iranian sides are each announcing — from their own perspective and in their own way — that the outcome of what has been declared represents a complete victory for their will in the negotiations. There are 60 days ahead for technical and specialized dialogue dealing with the details, and as the saying goes: "The devil is in the details."