A newly signed 14-point memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Iran and the United States has triggered a political and constitutional dispute over whether it must be approved by Iran’s parliament before implementation. The agreement, which is expected to pave the way for a final deal within two months, has divided politicians and legal experts, while senior officials have yet to clarify whether lawmakers will be asked to review it.
The debate centres on whether the MoU falls under constitutional provisions governing international agreements. Iran’s constitution requires parliament to approve treaties, conventions, contracts and international agreements before the president can formally sign them. Supporters of the government argue that the document is a memorandum of understanding rather than a treaty and therefore does not require legislative approval. Critics, including the conservative Keyhan newspaper and a group of hardline MPs, insist parliament must review the text before it is implemented.
The dispute is particularly significant because Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf serves as Iran’s chief negotiator, while President Massoud Pezeshkian signed the agreement. Forty-four lawmakers have also called for parliament to resume in-person sessions to oversee the implementation of the MoU, arguing that the agreement has not secured the full support of the country’s leadership.
Previous agreements provide mixed precedents. The 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) was presented as a political arrangement rather than a legally binding treaty, allowing the government to implement it without parliament approving the text itself. However, a 1983 interpretation by Iran’s Guardian Council stated that memoranda creating binding obligations should be treated as contracts and therefore comply with constitutional approval requirements. The new Iran-US MoU includes multiple commitments by both sides, raising questions over whether that interpretation applies.
Although implementation of parts of the memorandum has already begun and parliament has not yet convened, the current agreement is unlikely to be blocked. Senior Iranian officials, particularly Qalibaf, have defended the MoU, while lawmakers may instead seek a greater role if negotiations produce a permanent agreement between Tehran and Washington.
