The memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the US and Iran seeking to end the conflicts expired on Monday, with neither side showing much willingness to renew it after weeks of mutual accusations over violations of the agreement.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Sunday that Iran reached the MoU with the United States with "dignity" and "power."

"We pursued the recent agreement with strength and did not surrender to our enemies," Pezeshkian said at a meeting attended by Education Minister Alireza Kazemi, adding that the MoU was drafted after careful deliberation and in-depth discussions with experts, according to a statement released by his office.

One day earlier, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf described the peace MoU as proof of "Iran's glory and victory" and being in line with the consolidation of the country's victory in the field of diplomacy, according to the official news agency IRNA.

Despite the public statements from senior Iranian officials who were closely involved in advancing the signing of the MoU, there has so far been no clear indication that either side is preparing to renew the agreement.

"We have not yet made a decision to restart negotiations with the United States," said Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in a post on Telegram.

Meanwhile, a senior White House official, speaking anonymously to Politico, described the negotiations between Washington and Tehran as "static."

With the 60-day window now closed and the future of the agreement hanging in the balance, attention is turning back to the document that was at the heart of the ceasefire effort and to what has happened in the two months since it was reached.

What was the US-Iran MoU?

The US-Iran MoU, signed and released on June 17, was an interim framework aimed at halting the more-than-three-month military confrontation and paving the way for a permanent agreement between Washington and Tehran.

The agreement calls for an immediate and permanent end to military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, while both sides pledged to respect each other's sovereignty and refrain from the use or threat of force.

Under the arrangement, the two sides were committed to negotiating a final deal within a maximum of 60 days, with the possibility of extending the period by mutual consent. The talks were expected to address Iran's nuclear program and other contentious issues between the two countries.

The agreement also seeks to restore maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz. The US agreed to begin lifting its naval blockade, while Iran pledged to facilitate the safe passage of commercial vessels through the waterway for 60 days.

Under the MoU, the US committed, together with regional partners, to formulate sanctions relief for Iran involving an at least $300 billion plan for the country's reconstruction and economic development, with the details to be worked out as part of a final agreement.

In essence, the MoU was intended to create a temporary period of de-escalation in which the two sides could move from a military confrontation to negotiations over a longer-term political settlement.

What happened after the MoU was signed and why?

But the truce proved fragile.

Disagreements over the implementation of the agreement emerged by late June and early July. Although the US and Iranian versions of the agreement differed slightly, most of the disputes since its signing have focused on basic questions regarding what each side was expected to do.

On July 7 and 8, the US launched military strikes on Iran for two consecutive days, saying they were in response to Iranian attacks on commercial vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran, in turn, launched missile and drone attacks on US facilities across the region including Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and Jordan.

US President Donald Trump said on July 8, while attending the NATO summit in Türkiye, that he believed the US-Iran MoU was "over." The same day, Iran's Foreign Ministry said the US strikes on Iran were a serious violation of the MoU.

The reopening the Strait of Hormuz had emerged as another major sticking point. The waterway was supposed to reopen under the framework, but Washington and Tehran soon developed sharply different views over how commercial shipping should resume and who should oversee maritime traffic.

Both the US and Iran have leverage over the Strait of Hormuz, said Wang Jin, an expert on Middle East issues at China's Northwest University. Iran can use its geographic advantage to control access to the strait, while the US can use its naval power to blockade Iranian ports and vessels from outside the waterway. As a result, neither side has been able to exert full control over the strait.

Wang said the two sides also have fundamentally different demands. The US wants commercial shipping through the strait to return to normal, as it was before the conflict began on February 28, without special controls or restrictions from Iran. Tehran, however, wants its role in managing the waterway to be recognized, a demand Washington cannot accept, he added.

With neither side showing signs of compromise, the dispute over the Strait of Hormuz is likely to continue for some time, Wang said.

Li Zixin, an assistant research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies, said the structural problems in the MoU caused the framework to unravel within weeks.

The core differences between the US and Iran were left vague rather than resolved. On the Strait of Hormuz, while the MoU required Iran to ensure ships could pass through the strait freely for 60 days, it did not clearly specify the routes they should take or how their passage would be managed.

The MoU's broader ceasefire framework involved third parties that were not bound by the agreement. Neither Israel nor Hezbollah was a signatory, meaning developments in Lebanon and elsewhere in the region could still affect the implementation of the deal.

Besides, the 60-day timeline was too short given the complexity of the issues involved, Li said, adding that reaching a final agreement on sanctions, frozen assets and reconstruction funding within such a short period was unrealistic.

Where do US-Iran relations and the wider Middle East stand now?

With the 60-day deadline now expired, the original MoU has run its course without producing a final agreement.

While direct diplomatic talks between the US and Iran have been suspended since the MoU fell apart, efforts to revive a broader diplomatic process are still underway, but have yet to yield a clear breakthrough.

Mediators from Qatar and Pakistan have exchanged messages with Iran, while Oman was involved in separate discussions with Iran over future shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz.

Li believed such indirect diplomacy is likely to remain the main channel for contact between the two sides in the near future.

At the same time, high oil prices and inflationary pressures are limiting Washington's room for maneuver, while Iran continues to face economic pressure. Li said new arrangements on shipping routes between Iran and Oman, as well as the signing of the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye, could create new opportunities for regional security cooperation and guarantees.

However, given the risk of further military escalation by any side could still pose major risks to any future agreement, the current state of neither conflict nor peace is likely to remain for some time, Li said.