Please Attention PHOENIX Readers: The Full Article Is Available via “Read Original”
According to a video on CNN, on Saturday June 13, 2026, national security analyst Alex Pitsas warned that while the United States and Iran appeared to be moving toward a preliminary agreement, the most consequential and technically demanding element of any deal, the fate of Iran’s nuclear program, remained deeply unresolved and would not be settled under the initial framework being discussed.
Speaking on CNN, Pitsas described the emerging agreement as a memorandum of understanding, a document that would establish a high-level framework but leave the most sensitive specifics to a subsequent 60-day negotiation period.
He drew an explicit comparison to the Gaza ceasefire process, in which a phase one agreement was reached while the hardest questions were deliberately deferred to a later phase that has still not been concluded.
Pitsas explained that the memorandum would include a general commitment to address Iran’s highly enriched uranium and would likely include language around a temporary halt to enrichment activities.
However, he was direct in stating that the precise terms, the verification mechanisms, the timelines, and the scope of compliance required would not be defined under the initial signing.
In his words, Alex Pitsas said, “What we’re looking at here looks very similar to Gaza. So let’s not forget we had the phase one deal in Gaza that pushed a lot of the difficult issues over into phase two that still, it’s overdue now and we haven’t finished that.
“We’re looking at an MOU for phase one, that memorandum of understanding, that will largely get to an agreement at a high level.
“The nuclear issues, you need to get rid of that highly enriched uranium. There’ll be an overall ban on enrichment for a certain period of time, but what the details look like are not going to be clear, and that’s what’s going to get worked out in the 60 days,” he said.
The concern raised by Pitsas was underscored by a separate point he made earlier in the interview.
He questioned whether the Trump administration had the right technical personnel engaged in the process to negotiate the specific nuclear details that any enforceable agreement would require.
