Donald Trump says he has a peace deal with Iran. But does he?

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Morning Edition

Episode: Donald Trump says he has a peace deal with Iran. But does he?
Date: June 17, 2026
Host: Samantha Selinger-Morris
Guest: Peter Harcher (International and Political Editor)

Episode Overview

This episode examines the recently announced Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the United States and Iran, which former President Donald Trump has claimed is a “peace deal.” Host Samantha Selinger-Morris and guest Peter Harcher break down the agreement's details, its global economic impact, and the unresolved issues—particularly Iran’s nuclear program and the complex dynamics involving Israel and Hezbollah. The conversation evaluates whether this is a genuine peace breakthrough or merely a temporary, fragile pause in hostilities.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Is This Really a Peace Deal?

• No Signed MoU Yet:
  • As of recording, the MoU has not been published or formally signed; discussion is based on statements and leaks ([00:52]).
  • “We haven’t seen any Memorandum of Understanding yet. They tell us that they’ll publish it after they’ve formally signed it. So everything we say about it is based on statements from the protagonists and assumptions and expert interpretation.” — Peter Harcher, [00:52]
• Not a Peace Deal:
  • The MoU is not a comprehensive peace agreement; major issues are unresolved ([00:52]).
  • It’s better described as a temporary agreement or a ceasefire that includes a 60-day negotiation period post-signing ([01:50]).

2. Economic Impact: The Oil Factor

• Resumption of Oil Flow:

  • The biggest immediate effect is the restoration of oil exports, which has already brought oil prices down below US$80 per barrel from a high of US$120 ([01:51]).
  • “This is the best news for the world economy since this war started because the resumption of oil flow means that the oil price, well, it’s already come down.” — Peter Harcher, [01:51]

• Inflation and Growth:

  • The war previously fueled global inflation and economic downturn, with global worker incomes down by US$1.1 trillion during the conflict.
  • The freeing of over 500 oil tankers from the Strait of Hormuz marks a return to economic normalcy, but it will take weeks for full effects ([01:51]).

• Fragility of the Agreement:

  • Despite some economic optimism, reports indicate Iran may continue (or not have stopped) hostile actions in the Strait of Hormuz (drone attacks on shipping), adding uncertainty ([03:40--05:23]).

3. Unresolved Core Issues

• Nuclear Program:

  • No agreement yet on Iran's enriched uranium stockpile or future nuclear capabilities.
  • 440 kg of highly enriched uranium remains, buried and largely inaccessible after bombings ([06:19]).
  • Both sides reiterate their standard positions: US says Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon; Iran claims it does not want one ([07:30]).
  • “...to get the Iranians saying we promise we’re not going to have a nuclear bomb is nothing new and lacks any use or value whatsoever.” — Peter Harcher, [07:30]

• Proxy War and Hezbollah:

  • Iran insists that there is no peace unless Israel withdraws from Lebanon and stops fighting Hezbollah, but is not pressing Hezbollah to halt attacks ([08:30]).
  • Israel and Lebanon are not parties to these talks, making comprehensive peace unlikely.
  • Netanyahu remains defiant about maintaining Israeli operations in Lebanon ([09:57]).

• Complex Diplomacy:

  • The US–Iran talks do not directly involve Israel or Hezbollah, and the agreement’s durability is threatened by their actions ([10:39]).

4. Domestic and Political Pressures

• Trump’s Rhetoric and Motivation:

  • Trump is particularly eager for an end to the conflict, as seen by his repeated public statements about a deal being “imminent” ([13:12]).
  • His comments suggest a readiness to pressure Israel's Netanyahu, which is unprecedented in tone ([11:26]):
    • “We’ve heard Donald Trump make his most critical, most savagely critical comments of Netanyahu ... that Israel, without me, Israel would not exist. Without the United States, there would be no Israel. Without me, there would be no Israel because no other president was willing to do what I did.” — Peter Harcher, [11:26]

• Negotiation Leverage:

  • Iran appears to have the upper hand, using Trump’s eagerness to exit the war for leverage ([13:51]).
  • The pattern is seen as Iran pushing for broader concessions through intransigence and exploiting US political needs ([08:55]).

5. The Road Ahead: Conclusions and Predictions

• Outlook for the Next 60 Days:

  • The thorniest issues remain untouched; the 60-day window is likely to be extended.
  • “It’s pretty likely, I think, that the 60 days will expire and be extended again and they’ll continue talking.” — Peter Harcher, [10:39]

• Impact on Iranian Deterrence:

  • The war may have increased Iran’s ability to coerce both the US and the world, notably through its power over oil supplies ([14:35]).
  • “It’ll be a very long time before any American president thinks again about openly attacking Iran, deterring Iran.” — Peter Harcher, [14:47]
  • Iran’s broader definition of warfare (proxy, cyber, and gray zone actions) continues unabated ([15:20]).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “There is no peace deal. This is a temporary agreement, a ceasefire, and a period of negotiation where oil is allowed to flow again.” — Peter Harcher, [02:50]
• “Are the Iranians insisting that the memorandum is formally signed before they stop harassing shipping, or is the military, the IRGC, not obeying the civilian leadership and continuing to wage this war without sanction? These questions remain unanswered, but it’s not clean, it’s not clear.” — Peter Harcher, [04:18]
• “Which takes us back to where we were before this war started, by the way. The US And Iran were negotiating over the nuclear issue and other questions before the war, and now they’re going to return to the negotiations. So you have to really wonder what was the point of this war?” — Peter Harcher, [10:55]
• On Trump’s approach:
  “This has been signalling that he’s much more anxious to get out of this war than the Iranians. And that concedes a rhetorical and negotiating advantage to the Iranians.” — Peter Harcher, [13:35]

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:52: What the MoU is (and isn’t); context and caveats
• 01:51–05:23: Oil, global economic impact, fragility of “ceasefire”
• 06:19–09:53: Nuclear issue, proxy conflict with Israel, geopolitical complexities
• 10:39–12:43: Political roadblocks, domestic considerations (Israel election, US pressure on Israel)
• 13:12–13:51: Trump’s repeated claims, Iranian negotiation tactics
• 14:35–16:08: The war’s impact on US–Iran deterrence dynamics and “hybrid war” strategies

---

Tone & Final Takeaways

The episode maintains a cautious, analytical tone. While welcoming signs of a lull in conflict and falling oil prices, both speakers stress that core issues remain stubbornly unresolved. The so-called “peace deal” is more accurately a fragile and temporary window for further talks. The process is fraught with political and military obstacles, and enduring peace is far from assured.

“There is no peace deal...the hardest part remains ahead.” — Peter Harcher, [02:50]

Transcript

[A]

What have Iran and the United States actually agreed to in this Memorandum of Understanding that the two countries announced over the weekend? I'm Samantha Sellinger Morris and you're listening to the Morning edition from the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald Today. International and political editor Peter Harcher helps break it down for us to work out if it's a peace deal, a ceasefire or something else entirely. It's June 18th. Peter, welcome back to the podcast.

[B]

Pleasure, Samantha.

[A]

Okay, Peter, let's start off with what are the main takeaways from this Memorandum of Understanding that the US and Iran have settled on over this war? Trump has called it a peace deal. Is it?

[B]

No, it's not. The first thing about the Memorandum of understanding is that we haven't seen any Memorandum of Understanding yet. They tell us that they'll publish it after they've formally signed it. So everything we say about it is based on statements from the protagonists and assumptions and expert interpretation. That's the first thing. So we have to qualify everything we say with that. Second thing is, no, it's certainly not a peace agreement. All it does, and this is really important, it does, at least in principle, restore the flow of oil. All the big issues which are the supposed cause of this war and points of contention, plus some more are left unsettled and are supposed to be settled in a 60 day period of negotiation to follow the signing of this mou. Should it actually be signed, which is still in some question and it's meant

[A]

to be signed on Friday, I believe.

[B]

Yeah, that's right, in Switzerland. But let's not miss the lead to this story. Really, this is the best news for the world economy since this war started because the resumption of oil flow means that the oil price, well, it's already come down. So remember before the war, a barrel of Brent crude oil was trading at about 70. It peaked during the war at about US$120 with shocking implications for the price, obviously the price of energy around the world, but also for inflation, with inflation going up, erodes people's purchasing power. Everybody gets poorer with inflation and central banks have to put interest rates up and as several have done even in the last week. So that crimps growth, it dampens economic growth. So the war has already been terrible for global inflation and economic growth and collective worker incomes down by US$1.1 trillion in the last few months. It's just been disastrous for the global economy. So this is good news. This restores the flow of oil. It's back down below US$80 as we speak. So this is a huge improvement and it's expected to come down more in the months ahead as the full backlog of oil. There are some 500sh oil tankers sitting locked up in the Strait of Hormuz that can now move out. The flow can resume. It'll take weeks, but it is, it does seem to be underway. So this is the big news. All the peace strategy, contentious issues between the two of them are still there. The hardest part of this whole negotiation remains ahead. So let's just keep it in perspective. There is no peace deal. This is a temporary agreement, a ceasefire, and a period of negotiation where oil is allowed to flow again. However, whether even that modest improvement is maintained is in question. Because while the US has lifted its blockade and allowed Iranian oil tankers to start flowing out again out of the Strait of Hormuz just in the last 24 hours, we have reports now from the U.S. through NBC News that the Iranians are firing drones at commercial shipping trying to leave the Strait and have been every night since this deal was announced. And the US Navy has intercepted those drones, so they didn't do any damage to commercial shipping. So it's not clear. Are the Iranians insisting that the memorandum is formally signed before they stop harassing shipping, or is the military, the irgc, not obeying the civilian leadership and continuing to wage this war without sanction? These questions remain unanswered, but it's not clean, it's not clear. And to quote the head of the world's biggest shipping liner company and oil tanker company, Mitsui OSK Lines, he said it will take several weeks to see if this deal is the word he used was material material or whether it's just just more bluster from political leaders.

[A]

After the break.

[B]

The Iranians have successfully put a whole new and very difficult set of conditions on US Israel, using it as a mechanism to squeeze Israel in a way they've not been able to before.

[A]

Okay, well, that hints to, like you said, the lack of cleanliness, I guess, with regards to this deal, just how fragile it might be. And you mentioned, of course, the fact that the thorniest issues that have really kept Iran and the US at odds for decades, they have not been a part of this MoU as we understand it. So I guess just tell us where things are at with regards to Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium and of course, its proxy war with Israel. Those are yet to be discussed. Is that right? Is there any hints as to what each side has said about where they

[B]

land on those issues it remains completely unclear, but we are not hearing any hint that there is any agreed settlement on any point to do with that. No settled agreement. What we do know on the nuclear question is that the most sensitive part is that there's 440 kg of highly enriched uranium near weapons grade uranium, which is buried not only in a deep underground vault, but the vault itself has been collapsed by rubble that's fallen extensive debris from the Israeli and American bombing last year. So it's very deep, difficult to get at. But the US is insisting that it be dealt with, somehow removed. There are questions about how to do that and it's completely unsettled. Trump has said that the Iranians will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. And the Iranians have said themselves they don't want a nuclear weapon, but they've been saying that ever since they signed the Nuclear Non proliferation agreement in 1968, I think it was. So to get the Iranians saying we promise we're not going to have a nuclear bomb is nothing new and lacks any use or value whatsoever. And if that's as if that's the best they can do, the war has been completely pointless. And on the second point about the proxy militias that Iran has created funds, operates and directs, the cutting edge of this one is that the Israelis are fighting against Hezbollah, which is a major Iranian proxy militia in Lebanon. The Iranians are saying there is no peace deal until the Israelis stop fighting Hezbollah. However, there's no suggestion that the Iranians are telling Hezbollah to stop firing on Israel. So the question is, can those two countries, which are not participants in this MOU and not participants in the peace talks, be constrained by a set of talks by, by the US and Iran? Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, has made clear he has no intention of withdrawing Israeli troops from Lebanese territory. He might reduce the intensity of attacks, but he said they're not going to leave Lebanon. And the Iranians are saying, well, if the Israelis are staying in Lebanon, there's no peace deal. So that's why these are such difficulties, so intractable. And on that second point about whether this agreement can apply to the Iranian proxies and to Israel, this was not an issue in the last so called nuclear deal between the US and Iran, the JCPOA Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that the Obama administration signed in 2015. That deal dealt with the nuclear question quite effectively before Trump tore up the deal, but did not even attempt to include relations between Iran and its proxies and Israel. So what's happened here is that the Iranians have successfully put a whole new and very difficult set of conditions on U. S. Israel, using it as a mechanism to squeeze Israel in a way they've not been able to before. And they're taking the opportunity of this war and Trump's anxiety to get a peace deal to apply that pressure.

[A]

Okay, so I hate to be Debbie Downer here, but I just wanted to.

[B]

I think I was doing a pretty good job of that myself.

[A]

Well, I'm about to Trump you because I wanted to ask you on this point, of course, that Israel and Lebanon neither have been a party to this memorandum of understanding discussions between the US And Iran. But as we know, Israel is a key component. Right. As to whether the US And Iran can stop hostilities and whether this war can actually end. So looking forward, doesn't this mean that whatever deal the Iranians and the US Hash out, it's likely to become unstuck by Israel anyway because Netanyahu has said the struggle has not ended. He's been very defiant. Right. Of course, of wanting to keep the Israeli forces in Lebanon. And then, of course, the Iranian. That's a red line for them. So, yeah, what hope is there?

[B]

It looks difficult. It looks very difficult. That's why, I suppose, it hasn't been settled and why they've given themselves 60 days. These issues are so difficult. It's pretty likely, I think, that the 60 days will expire and be extended again and they'll continue talking.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Which takes us back to where we were before this war started, by the way. The US And Iran were negotiating over the nuclear issue and other questions before the war, and now they're going to return to the negotiations. So you have to really wonder what. What was the point of this war? The Iranians, if they continue to insist that Israel must stop bombing Lebanon, must stop bombing Hezbollah, then Donald Trump is going to have to be increasingly strident in the pressure he applies to Netanyahu if he wants to stop the Israelis. We've heard Donald Trump make his most critical, most savagely critical comments of Netanyahu, said that Netanyahu needs to be responsible, that he was using disproportionate force with his Bollah. I saw that attack. I saw where that bomb went. Did you see what happened? That was not. That was a vicious. That was too much, you know, you can do too much also. And even said that Israel, without me, Israel would not exist. Without the United States, there would be no Israel. Without me, there would be no Israel because no other president was willing to do What I did. So this is pretty strident rhetoric coming from Trump as he's getting frustrated with Netanyahu. If he hopes to actually stop the Israeli military action against Hezbollah, that's to prevent Israel from protecting itself against an Iranian proxy that is continuing to attack Israel. As Netanyahu is going to an election where he's under tremendous pressure to keep this war going and to defeat Hezbollah, how does Trump accomplish that? What's he going to do? It is a very, very difficult, to say the least, intractable question.

[A]

And that's just in October, right, this election for Netanyahu. So it's.

[B]

It has to be by October at the latest.

[A]

Okay. And just hours before we started recording this, on Wednesday morning, Donald Trump said that he hoped the war with Iran would soon be, quote, in the rearview mirror. So we know how he gets tired of wars, you know, similarly to how he was very engaged, I guess, with the war in Gaza and then seemed tired of that. Is that not the sort of thing that the Iranians might hear and just think, wow, we're primed to get greater concessions out of him?

[B]

This continues Trump's line of rhetoric that he's been engaged in for two months. American media have counted up all the times he said that we're very close to a deal with Iran. Maybe tomorrow, in a few days. We're nearly finished. Yeah, around 40 times he'd said that. So this has been signaling continuously the Iranians haven't said a thing. So this has been signalling that he's much more anxious to get out of this war than the Iranians. And that concedes a rhetorical and negotiating advantage to the Iranians that has been underway continuously and continues to this day.

[A]

Well, Peter, I guess just to wrap up then, speaking about the. What's seems to be the case that Iran has the advantage over United States. We know that Trump has just said at the G7 summit in France that the deal he struck with Iran means that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. Now, obviously, he often says things like this, but meanwhile, I mean, he does. The International Atomic Energy Agency recently reported that Iran is now more likely to acquire a nuclear weapon than it was before the war, presumably because, of course, that would give it the protection against the onslaught that it's just had from the United States. So if you were a betting man, Peter, and I don't know if you are, might Iran emerge from this conflict with a greater ability to deter the US Than the US has to deter Iran?

[B]

I'm not a betting man. There's way too much risk taking in my line of work already. Samantha. I don't. Well, I think after this war, the Iranians have so demonstrated their ability to coerce the US and, well, the whole world really, through the oil mechanism that it would be, it'll be a very long time before any American president thinks again about openly attacking Iran, deterring Iran. On the other hand, Iran has never stopped its attacks. The difference is that the Iranian definition of war has been different to the US Definition of war. The US Definition is kinetic war in the main, you know, bombs, bullets, missiles. The Iranians have been waging an indirect war, a hybrid war or a gray zone war or whatever you want to call it ever since the Islamic Republic was created after the revolution in 78. So sending assassins or training assassins within the US to kill people. That's why Trump himself was under protection long before he became president, because he was a target. They wage cyber war, they wage proxy war against Israel without the Iranians themselves. So there's two different definitions. The Iranians have never been deterred, ever. And I suspect this will only increase their ability to deter the U.S. well,

[A]

thank you, Peter, as always for your time.

[B]

Pleasure, Samantha.

[A]

In other news today, the University of New South Wales has toppled the University of Melbourne as the best ranked Australian university in a prestigious ranking survey. For the first, first time, the succession plans of Melbourne's billionaire Fox family are in disarray after the abrupt resignation of Lindsay Fox's eldest son from the family owned logistics business Linfox. And Kyle Sandilands has reached a $12 million settlement with his former employer, Kiss Radio Network owner Arn Media. You can read more at theage.com or smh.com Today's episode was produced by Chi Wong. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills. And our podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy and Tom McKendrick. If you like our show, follow the Morning Edition and leave a review for us on Apple or Spotify. Thanks for listening.