The initial agreement that ended nearly four months of war between the US and Iran laid out a framework for negotiations on a final agreement within 60 days.
The pact was signed a week ago, but as officials from both sides sell it at home and reassure regional allies, a gap has emerged between their public positions and the text itself.
Here are four of the biggest points of contention:
1. Will Iran charge ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz?
This is one of the most contested elements of the agreement.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Tuesday, after arriving in Abu Dhabi, that no country can charge for passage through the waterway.
“That's the law. It's an international waterway. No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees,” he said on the tarmac at Al Bateen Executive Airport.
US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Iran had agreed to keep the strait open, that no naval blockade would proceed and American vessels would remain positioned if needed.
The agreement, however, is more ambiguous.
It says that Iran committed to ensuring the safe passage of commercial vessels, with “no charge for 60 days only”. That leaves open the question of what happens after the period expires.
It also says Iran will hold talks with Oman on the “future administration and maritime services” in the strait “in line with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states”.
In a joint statement after meeting on Tuesday, Iran and Oman said they had agreed to maintain talks to reach agreement on future administration of navigation in the strait and the “services that will be provided in this regard and the costs associated with them”.
So while Iran and Oman may not charge tolls or fees to ships navigating the strait, it appears they are going ahead with plans to impose expenses for services.
2. Did Iran agree to nuclear inspections?
Mr Trump said Iran had “completely agreed” to inspections. Iranian officials deny this.
The US President said Iran agreed to “highest-level nuclear inspections long into the future”, warning that without them there would be no further negotiations.
The memorandum sits between the two positions.
It states Iran “shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons” and says decisions on enriched material will be made later through a negotiated mechanism. Any down-blending would be done under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision.
So while the agreement indicates IAEA officials could visit Iran to oversee those efforts, it does not explicitly commit to new inspections, expanded access or a defined verification regime beyond existing arrangements.
Instead, nuclear verification is left for future talks.
In effect, the pact suggests an IAEA role but avoids committing to expanded inspections at this stage.
3. What about Iran’s ballistic missile programme?
There has been an assumption that missiles are central to the deal, but the text suggests otherwise.
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said ballistic missiles were never part of the agenda, were excluded from the agreement and were not discussed.
That aligns with earlier comments by Mr Trump, who said it would be unfair to deny Iran missiles if other regional states possessed them.
The deal itself contains no requirement for Iran to limit, freeze or dismantle its missile programme.
The only binding military restriction concerns nuclear weapons, which Iran reaffirms it will not develop. Both sides also commit to ending hostilities and maintaining the status quo during negotiations.
Mr Rubio indicated missiles and Iran-backed groups may still be raised later, but described them as issues “outside” the agreement.
For now, the absence of missile restrictions appears intentional and reflects the narrower scope of the framework agreement.
4. Does the agreement require Israel to leave Lebanon?
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has insisted Israel must withdraw from Lebanese territory and restore full sovereignty.
The agreement provides broad language but no such requirement.
It states that the US, Iran and their allies will end military operations “on all fronts, including in Lebanon” and commits to respecting Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
What it does not do is set a withdrawal requirement, timeline or enforcement mechanism.
That gap is increasingly significant as separate US-mediated Israeli-Lebanese discussions continue in Washington.
Mr Rubio has stressed Lebanon’s future will be handled directly with Beirut, not through the US-Iran track, saying it belongs to “the Lebanese people through their sovereign elected government”.
The result is a divergence between broad de-escalation language and Lebanon’s specific demand for Israeli withdrawal.
The bottom line
The agreement, signed on June 17, established a 60-day window for negotiating a final deal that can be extended by mutual consent. It was designed to end hostilities and create a structure for talks, not resolve all disputes immediately.
Many core issues are either left vague or explicitly deferred to later negotiations.
In some cases, sequencing matters as much as content, like the Hormuz provisions requiring Iran to consult Oman and Gulf states on future maritime arrangements.
The same applies to nuclear and regional security questions. The pact sets out broad principles – no nuclear weapons, cessation of hostilities and respect for sovereignty – while postponing enforcement mechanisms and verification details.
As a result, apparent contradictions between US and Iranian statements often reflect not only political messaging for domestic audiences, but the deliberate incompleteness of the agreement itself.
The next 60 days are therefore not about clarifying misunderstandings, but about deciding what the vague provisions of the deal will ultimately become.
