Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei has authorized a memorandum of understanding with the United States, triggering a 60-day formal negotiating period between the two longtime adversaries. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps backed the move, though it issued a pointed warning against potential US violations.

What’s actually in the deal

Khamenei granted approval on June 18 after receiving assurances from President Masoud Pezeshkian and officials from Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. Those assurances centered on two things: upholding Iran’s national rights and protecting the interests of what Tehran calls the “Axis of Resistance.”

The MOU establishes mechanisms for future talks and deconfliction, with Lebanon specifically mentioned as a theater where coordination channels will be set up. Negotiators also agreed to address the security of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil passes daily.

The agreement coincided with the US lifting a blockade on Iran. A structured 60-day window is now open for both sides to hammer out details on the thorniest issues.

From hardline rhetoric to handshake mechanics

The “no war, no negotiations” line wasn’t just a talking point. It was a governing philosophy that shaped everything from sanctions responses to proxy warfare strategy across the Middle East.

The diplomatic channels that led to this MOU didn’t appear overnight. Earlier exchanges and negotiations built the groundwork through 2025 and into 2026.

Khamenei himself acknowledged “differing opinions” on the deal within Iran’s power structure.

What this means for crypto and risk assets

Geopolitical risk premiums affect risk assets broadly. When tensions spike between major powers, particularly around oil chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz, traders flee to safety. When tensions ease, capital flows back toward riskier bets.

The 60-day negotiating window creates a defined period where markets can price in the possibility of sustained de-escalation. Previous volatility swings following US-Iran interactions suggest that traders are already conditioned to respond to these diplomatic signals.

Iran and the US have been here before, most notably with the 2015 nuclear deal that eventually collapsed under the Trump administration. The difference this time is the IRGC’s explicit buy-in. In past negotiations, military hardliners operated as a shadow veto, undermining diplomatic progress through proxy actions or public opposition. Their endorsement, however conditional, removes one of the biggest historical obstacles to sustained engagement.