Sources say a return to the June 18 memorandum of understanding between Iran and the US is no longer sought by either side, with both seeking amendments to some clauses, further complicating negotiations, Al-Akhbar reports

In long-running negotiation cycles of this kind, the point at which both sides disown the prior working text has typically marked a shift from drafting to re-anchoring: the earlier document survives as a reference point but ceases to be the path to a deal, and each party tests whether the other's amendments are preconditions or bargaining position. The sourcing itself carries signal. This outlet has historically served as a channel for messaging from within the Iranian-led axis, so reports of this kind are better read as deliberate positioning from that side of the table than as neutral leaks, and the absence or presence of a denial from Washington is an early tell. The usual sequence after such stalls is a period of rhetorical hardening, continued contact through intermediaries, and only later either a revised draft or open escalation; past episodes have rarely moved in a straight line from impasse to rupture. The transmission to crude has tended to run through the size of the geopolitical risk premium rather than through immediate supply, with durable repricing historically requiring a physical trigger such as shipping incidents or changes in sanctions enforcement, visible first in freight rates, war-risk insurance and the prompt spreads. Worth watching are statements from the intermediaries, any parallel movement on enrichment or inspection access, and whether the disagreement centres on sequencing of sanctions relief against nuclear steps, since that distinction has separated resolvable disputes from structural ones in previous rounds.