The political scientist called the 60-day ceasefire memorandum between the United States and Iran fragile.

Reports of a possible 60-day memorandum between the United States and Iran should be viewed not as a full-fledged peace agreement, but as an attempt at temporary de-escalation around the security of the Strait of Hormuz and negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. This was stated on May 29 by political analyst Dmitry Brije to Izvestia.

According to the expert, the document remains only a negotiating framework and requires the final approval of US President Donald Trump and the Iranian leadership. Among the conditions discussed are a 60—day ceasefire, free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, mine clearance within a month, and the resumption of negotiations on the nuclear dossier.

Bridge noted that the United States actually recognizes the impossibility of ensuring the security of the Strait of Hormuz without Iran's participation. At the same time, we are not talking about recognizing Tehran's control over the route, but Washington has to take into account Iran's ability to create serious risks for global shipping.

"The security of the Strait of Hormuz cannot be ensured only by US military force if Iran retains the ability to create constant threats to shipping," the political scientist stressed.

The expert recalled that about 20 million barrels of oil and petroleum products pass through the Strait of Hormuz every day, which is about a fifth of the global consumption of liquid hydrocarbons. According to him, even local attacks, mining or threats of strikes on tankers instantly turn from a regional problem into a global one.

The third is superfluous: the negotiations between the United States and Iran have stalled because of Lebanon

Tehran demands an end to Israeli attacks on Hezbollah, but they do not intend to stop in West Jerusalem.

Bridge believes that the sustainability of possible arrangements remains limited. In his opinion, the memorandum represents a tactical pause rather than a strategic settlement of the conflict. He called the lack of Trump's final agreement, disagreements over Iran's nuclear program, as well as the influence of Israel and Tehran's regional allies additional risks.

The political scientist also allowed for a further decline in world oil prices in the event of a real easing of tensions around the Strait of Hormuz. According to him, the market is already responding to expectations of the deal: over the past week, Brent crude has fallen by about 10% amid hopes for the US-Iranian agreement.

At the same time, the expert stressed that the price reduction would be limited, since the restoration of safe navigation would take time, and any new incidents could quickly return the "risk premium" to the market.

"The probability of a breakdown of the memorandum before the start of a full-fledged negotiation process remains high. Both possible military incidents in the region and differences in the interpretation of the terms of the deal between Washington and Tehran pose a danger," he explained.

The political scientist added that the situation around Iran directly affects not only the Middle East, but also the South Caucasus, Central Asia, as well as the global economy. In this regard, he considers it important for Russia and China to participate in the diplomatic settlement of the conflict.

On May 28, he reported that Iran and the United States had allegedly reached an agreement on a memorandum of understanding. The document provides for the extension of the ceasefire and the launch of negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. It is noted that the final approval from the President of the United States has not yet been received.