An Iranian lawmaker said on Sunday that mediators were working to revive the 14-point Islamabad memorandum of understanding that briefly halted the war between Iran and the United States in June. Hassan Ghashghavi, spokesman for parliament's national security commission, said in a video interview that there was an effort underway to bring the deal back, with the Strait of Hormuz at the center of the discussion. He said there was an exchange of views and discussion over proposals, but gave no further detail.
The supplied report says the agreement was reached with the involvement of Qatar and Pakistan, with talks held in Islamabad. It included arrangements on the Strait of Hormuz and a resumption of diplomacy between Tehran and Washington for a broader deal, and it also called for an end to hostilities in Lebanon. According to the same account, the agreement later collapsed after Iran and the United States accused each other of violating its provisions. That means the current revival effort is not starting from a blank slate but from a failed framework that already tried to bridge multiple conflicts at once.
Ghashghavi's comments matter because they are one of the clearest public indications that talks are still moving, even if only indirectly. By saying the key issue is Hormuz, he tied the discussion to a chokepoint that has implications for shipping, energy and regional military escalation. He also avoided saying whether Tehran had accepted any new text, which leaves the negotiations in a familiar middle zone: active enough to be discussed, incomplete enough to remain fragile.
The diplomatic picture in the source is complicated further by Donald Trump's own statement. On Saturday, he said Washington and Israel had agreed to hold off on new strikes on Iran if a deal to end the months-long conflict could be reached rapidly. In a post on Truth Social, he said he had agreed to hold off any attack once the perimeters of a deal had been agreed to. That is not a formal treaty, but it does show the White House linking military restraint to diplomatic movement.
The evidence does not show the deal has been restored, only that mediators are trying to revive it and that both sides are still talking in broad terms. The most solid facts are therefore the narrowest ones: the June memorandum existed, it was tied to Hormuz and Lebanon, it later collapsed, and there is now a new effort to bring it back. Until something more concrete emerges, that is the full extent of what can safely be reported.
The key policy variable in the source is Hormuz, because it links the diplomacy to oil flows, shipping insurance and military posture at the same time. That is why the memorandum's revival matters beyond the talks themselves. If mediators can keep the process alive, they may be trying to freeze a wider escalation even before a final political bargain exists. The evidence does not show that they have succeeded, only that they are still circulating proposals and trying to keep both Tehran and Washington engaged. In a region where even temporary pauses can alter markets and military planning, that is still a meaningful signal.
