The announcement of a new agreement between the United States and Iran has been greeted with relief across global markets. Oil prices have eased, shipping insurers have relaxed and politicians have rushed to hail a diplomatic breakthrough.

The memorandum of understanding, which both sides have agreed to and are expected to formally sign in Switzerland on June 19, has even been described by some as a peace deal that will formally end the conflict. Yet that risks overstating what has actually been achieved.

What has reportedly been agreed is a diplomatic framework intended to guide future negotiations, not a peace treaty or a comprehensive settlement of the disputes that brought the two countries to the brink of a wider regional war. The most contentious issues – including Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions and broader regional security arrangements including Israel’s war and occupation in Lebanon – remain unresolved and subject to further talks.

The distinction is more than semantic. International diplomacy operates on a spectrum. A ceasefire halts fighting; a peace agreement resolves the disputes that caused it. The US-Iran arrangement falls somewhere in between. The core issues remain unresolved and have been deferred to future negotiations, while the wider pattern of “grey-zone” confrontation — proxy activity, economic pressure and limited military escalation below the threshold of full-scale war — remains largely intact.

There is another reason to be cautious about calling this peace. The war interrupted diplomatic talks that were already underway. This agreement will largely restore a negotiating process that existed before the conflict rather than........

© The Conversation