The agreement, signed on June 14 and scheduled for an official ceremony in Switzerland on June 19, includes provisions for an “immediate and permanent” end to military operations and outlines commitments by Iran to pause nuclear enrichment activity in exchange for sanctions relief and the release of frozen funds, though several terms remain subject to final negotiations.

Iran has sought broad economic relief as part of the arrangement, including the lifting of sanctions and access to frozen assets, while Iranian state media has cited a draft proposal that reportedly includes the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian funds during the negotiating period, though this has not been confirmed by either side.

A central obstacle lies in the United Nations Security Council’s “snapback” mechanism under Resolution 2231, which allowed for the reimposition of previously lifted sanctions on Iran following a notification of non-compliance by France, Germany and Britain in August 2025, resulting in sanctions being restored in September 2025.

Those measures include restrictions on Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes, asset freezes, travel bans and limits on Iranian banks’ access to the global financial system, and remain in force despite the US-Iran agreement, which does not affect UN-level restrictions.

The legal framework governing the sanctions means that while the United States can adjust its own unilateral measures, any reversal of UN sanctions requires consensus among Security Council members, a process complicated by deep divisions over the legality of the snapback mechanism.

China and Russia have challenged the legitimacy of the reimposed sanctions, arguing that earlier UN resolutions had expired, while Western states including the US, France and Britain maintain that the mechanism was properly triggered and therefore binding.

Analysts say this divergence has created an uneven enforcement environment in which some states continue limited trade with Iran while others adhere to restrictions, limiting the effectiveness of both sanctions and potential relief.

Daniel Forti of the International Crisis Group said lifting UN sanctions would require full Security Council agreement, noting that the sanctions cover multiple regimes targeting Iran’s nuclear programme, missile development, financial networks and related assets.

Iranian officials have indicated they will seek a new Security Council resolution to endorse any final agreement, a move that analysts say could provide legal clarity and international legitimacy but would require unanimous approval among permanent members of the Council.

The outcome of the ongoing negotiations will therefore depend not only on bilateral US-Iran terms but also on whether the Security Council can bridge its divisions over the snapback sanctions framework, which remains a central point of contention in the implementation of any broader settlement.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said Tehran had conveyed its concerns to the United States and that diplomatic contacts were continuing, although he declined to provide details of the latest exchanges.

Washington and Tehran have traded proposals since fighting began on Feb. 28, with only one direct round of talks held so far under a fragile ceasefire that has been in effect since April 8.

“As we announced yesterday, our concerns were conveyed to the American side,” Baqaei told reporters during a weekly press briefing, adding that negotiations were proceeding “through the Pakistani mediator.”

Baqaei reiterated Iran’s core demands, including the release of Iranian assets frozen overseas and the removal of longstanding US sanctions, saying Tehran’s negotiating team had consistently defended those conditions.

He also insisted that Iran’s request for war reparations remained justified, describing the conflict as “illegal and baseless.”

Iranian state-linked media reports suggested the latest US proposal sought major concessions from Tehran in exchange for limited relief measures.

According to Fars News Agency, Washington presented a five-point framework that included restricting Iran to a single operational nuclear facility and transferring its stockpile of highly enriched uranium to the United States.

The report said the United States had rejected demands to release a substantial share of Iran’s frozen assets and refused compensation for wartime damage. It also said Washington conditioned a full cessation of hostilities on Tehran entering formal peace negotiations.

Separately, Mehr News Agency criticized the US position as seeking concessions unattainable during the conflict itself, warning the demands risked deadlocking negotiations.

Iran’s earlier proposal, submitted last week, called for a complete halt to military operations across the region, including Israeli operations in Lebanon, and demanded an end to a US naval blockade imposed on Iranian ports since April 13.

Tehran also insisted it would maintain control over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy shipping route that Iran has largely restricted since the outbreak of the conflict.

Baqaei said Iran remained prepared for any renewed military escalation if diplomacy failed.

Foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said Tehran’s response focused on what it described as Iran’s “legitimate rights” rather than demands for concessions from Washington.

“We did not demand any concessions. The only thing we demanded was Iran’s legitimate rights,” Baqaei told reporters during a weekly press briefing in Tehran.
According to Baqaei, Iran’s position included calls for “an end to the war in the region,” the lifting of what he described as a U.S. naval blockade and the release of Iranian assets frozen in foreign financial institutions for several years.

Iran has long sought access to billions of dollars in overseas funds restricted under U.S. sanctions, which were intensified after Washington withdrew from the 2015 nuclear agreement during President Donald Trump’s first administration.

The latest comments come amid heightened tensions across the Middle East, where regional conflicts involving Israel, Iran-aligned groups and U.S. forces have increased diplomatic pressure on Washington and Tehran to prevent wider escalation.

Iranian officials have repeatedly linked broader regional stability to the easing of sanctions and the normalization of economic access, while U.S. officials have maintained pressure over Tehran’s nuclear activities and support for armed groups in the region.

Baqaei did not provide further details about the contents of the U.S. proposal or indicate whether negotiations between the two sides were ongoing.

The remarks come as indirect diplomatic contacts between Tehran and Washington continue against the backdrop of military tensions stretching from Gaza and Lebanon to the Red Sea and Gulf waters.