The Iran-US Memorandum of Understanding

The technical negotiations at the Lake Lucerne Summit in Switzerland, which commenced on 21 June 2026, mark a critical operational step in translating the historic Iran-United States Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) into a permanent security framework. Led by US Vice President JD Vance and Iran’s Chief Negotiator Muhammad Bagher Ghalibaf, these talks aim to establish concrete mechanisms for the 14-point MoU signed on 17 June.  The importance of this agreement lies in its potential to defuse an active military conflict that has severely destabilised West Asia and crippled global energy markets. By securing a 60-day timeline to formally settle complex security, economic, and nuclear issues, the MoU provides an unprecedented de-escalation pathway. For global commerce, its significance is underscored by provisions to lift the US naval blockade and reopen the vital Strait of Hormuz chokepoint. Furthermore, it offers Tehran massive economic relief through the potential revocation of multilateral sanctions and the release of $24 billion in frozen funds, while simultaneously strengthening international non-proliferation objectives via IAEA-supervised down-blending of Iran's enriched uranium. Ultimately, this framework represents a pivotal shift from military coercion to multipolar diplomacy, though its success hinges on overcoming fierce resistance from Israel and domestic political critics in Washington.

The Iran-United States Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) reached on 15 June 2026 is a significant diplomatic breakthrough following months of conflict that destabilised West Asia and disrupted global energy markets. The deal provides a framework for ending hostilities, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, easing economic restrictions on Iran, and initiating technical negotiations on unresolved issues, including Tehran’s nuclear program. Although both sides are presenting the MoU as a pathway toward regional stability, its implementation faces substantial political and strategic challenges. One of the most critical obstacles remains Israel’s reservations regarding the deal and its continued military posture in Lebanon where it has created a deep military buffer zone, which Iran has linked to the success of future negotiations. International reactions have been overwhelmingly positive which reflects a broad convergence of interests in restoring regional stability and safeguarding global economic flows. The MoU therefore marks an important transition from military confrontation to diplomatic engagement even as its long-term success will depend on translating the preliminary framework into a sustainable regional security arrangement.

Introduction 

On 15 June 2026, Iran and the United States reached a 14-point Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) intended to provide a framework for ending a conflict that has significantly destabilised the Persian Gulf and broader West Asian region besides disrupting global energy markets. It was Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif who first announced that Iran and the United States have “declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon” while declaring that the two sides have henceforth vowed against launching “any hostile action against each other”.[1] The agreement was signed electronically by President Donald Trump and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian on 17 June, along with Pakistan PM Sharif as its endorser.[2] The deal marks a potential turning point in the regional balance of power, the future of Iran-US relations, and the evolving security architecture of the region. 

The two sides have commenced the technical negotiations for the final deal led by US Vice President JD Vance and Iran’s Chief Negotiator Muhammad Bagher Ghalibaf at the Lake Lucerne Summit in Switzerland on 21 June. Qatar and Pakistan, deal mediators, in a joint statement asserted that the talks were being “conducted in a positive and constructive atmosphere” with significant progress on creating “a mechanism for further technical talks”. [3] Yet, the challenges remain, particularly from Israel’s far-right government led by Benjamin Netanyahu which has vowed against adhering to the MoU provisions, including stopping attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon and withdrawing its troops from the buffer zone it has created within Lebanese territory. Tel Aviv has described MoU as a deal between Iran and United States. 

The significance of the understanding lies in both its provisions and the strategic context within which it has emerged. The months long active military conflict has demonstrated the capacity of regional crises to rapidly acquire global economic consequences, particularly through energy supply disruptions due to Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz and subsequent naval blockade by the United States. It also highlights the limits of military coercion in resolving complex political disputes, the increasing importance of diplomatic engagement in an emerging multipolar order, and the growing role of middle powers such as Pakistan in conflict mediation. 

What is in the Deal?

The 14-point MoU provides a comprehensive framework for reaching a final agreement within 60 days, with the negotiation timeline to be extended if needed. In its first provision, the US and Iran “declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.”[4] The two sides further pledged “not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain [from] the threat or use of force against each other and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.”[5] Given that Tehran has succeeded in pushing for Lebanon’s inclusion in the deal despite considerable opposition by Israel which has occupied parts of the country and established a buffer zone is significant.  

In the second provision of the MOU, the two sides have vowed “to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs”,[6] which addresses the core Iranian concern that Washington interferes in its internal affairs. The most recent example of this was explicit American support for the late January protests in Iran, which turned violent and left thousands of Iranians, including both government officials and civilians, dead. Iran accused the US and Israel of arming groups to foment violence in the country.

In the fourth provision of the deal, Washington committed to fully lift its blockade of blockade around Iranian posts within 30 days, besides withdrawing “its forces from the proximity” of Iran. [7] Together with another provision (seventh) in which the US has pledged to revoke “all types of sanctions” imposed on Iran, including those through the UN Security Council,[8] as part of the final agreement between the two sides, it constitutes a major gain for Tehran. It will allow Iran, whose economy has been crippled due to decades of unilateral US sanctions along with those imposed through multilateral bodies like the UN, IAEA and EU, to restart oil and gas exports, which will help alleviate its economic crisis. Moreover, Washington has pledged (11^th provision) “to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets” [9] to Iran upon the implementation of the deal. This provision could make $24 billion in frozen funds available to Iran and thus provide economic succour to Tehran. While the US administration insists that the sanctions relief will come only if Iran fulfils its commitments under the deal, the termination of sanctions is expected to bring major economic relief to Tehran, providing the Iranian government another narrative victory to claim that it has not only forced the American forces away from its vicinity, something it had wished for a long time, but also secured the end of crippling economic sanctions.  

In return, Iran has pledged (fifth) to “make arrangements using its best efforts” to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and allow “safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days”.[10] However, the major gain for Iran is the deal’s recognition of its claims over the critical waterway, as it states that Iran and Oman will “define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz,” while keeping other Persian Gulf littoral states in the loop.[11] This allows Tehran to operationalise its recently established Strait of Hormuz Authority to manage the traffic in the waterway and potentially levy environmental taxes.

In another provision (sixth), the US has pledged to develop a comprehensive plan with its allies for the “reconstruction and economic development” of Iran with at least $300 billion in financing.[12] This addresses Tehran’s insistence on seeking the repatriation of what it said was an imposed war on the country. While it is highly unlikely that Donald Trump will agree to invest directly in the reconstruction plan, he could push the Gulf countries to do the heavy lifting in this effort. 

In the eighth provision of the MoU, which deals with the core issue between the two countries, that is Iran’s nuclear program, Tehran has affirmed its non-proliferation treaty (NPT) commitments by reiterating that “it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons”.[13] It holds that the fate of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile will be addressed in the final agreement “with the minimum methodology to be down-blending on site under the supervision of the I.A.E.A”.[14] It needs to be seen how the technical deal shapes up and whether there will be any time limit over Iran’s nuclear activities, like the 15-year cap imposed by the 2015 nuclear agreement, and whether Iran’s enriched stockpile will be shipped out of the country or locally diluted. Should Tehran succeed in persuading the United States to accept local IAEA-supervised down-blending, it will also mark a gain for the Islamic Republic, which has perceived surrendering its enrichment technology and nuclear stockpile as a breach of its sovereignty and rights as enjoyed by other NPT signatories.

The structure of this brief yet comprehensive agreement suggests that both Tehran and Washington sought to create a sequencing mechanism through which security, economic and nuclear issues could be addressed simultaneously. For Iran, sanctions relief and the reopening of maritime trade routes address immediate economic concerns, while for the United States, the emphasis on nuclear commitments and verification mechanisms allows the administration to present the agreement as strengthening non-proliferation objectives. The MoU therefore reflects a carefully balanced exchange in which both parties can claim strategic gains while postponing the most contentious technical issues to future negotiations.

However, it remains to be seen how the other major stakeholder in the war, that is, Israel, which has expressed deep displeasure towards the understanding, behaves. Already, there were reports that the Israeli forces, which have occupied parts of Lebanon and Syria besides Gaza, have conducted attacks on what it said were Hezbollah targets in the south of Beirut. With Iran linking the fate of this MOU and the final deal to the cessation of hostilities across all fronts, it will have to be seen how Israel’s continued belligerence will affect the ongoing engagements between Iran and the United States. Nevertheless, there has been a measured response from both the governments in the United States and Iran, with both sides avoiding triumphalism.

How did US leadership view the MOU?

In a post on his Truth Social, US President Donald Trump hailed the MoU as a ‘great deal’ that “will bring peace and security to the whole region”, something that “many presidents have tried” but failed to achieve.[15] In another post, he stated that “The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete”, adding he has authorised “the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously…the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade.”[16]

The US president and his administration have emphasised that the deal represents a decisive path forward, carrying strict conditions that will ensure Iran never acquires a nuclear bomb. Ahead of the G7 meeting in France, President Trump, on 16 June, further claimed that Iran has fully agreed not to have a nuclear weapon and a strong verification regime. “The Iran deal that we made is going to bring a lot of, a lot of success to the world, because the oil was really blocked up there for a while”.[17]

Beyond the administration, though, the domestic debate in the United States has reflected a broader tension that has traditionally characterised American policy towards Iran. From cautious optimism at first, there is growing pessimism within both Trump’s Republican and the opposition Democratic bloc, with leadership across the aisle blasting the Trump administration for what is described as a weak deal. Senator Lindsay Graham, a well-known Republican hawk, in an X post, expressed apprehensions that “Iran’s view of the agreement seems different from what the American negotiating team is claiming”.[18] Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican hawk, criticised the deal, arguing that it will funnel billions of dollars to the Iranian regime. “History teaches that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is a bad idea. Under the terms of what’s been released, somewhere between $10 billion and $30 billion will flow to the Ayatollah immediately before they make even a single nuclear concession,” Sen. Cruz said, as quoted by The Daily Wire.[19] 

Another Republican Senator Bill Cassidy described the MoU as the “worst foreign policy blunder” of the United States in decades. In an X post, he said: “Reagan is rolling over in his grave. Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future. Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal”.[20] Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also struck a cautious note, while holding that “Any funds available to the regime - whether paid to them directly, provided by sanctions relief or via releasing escrowed funds - will go straight toward rebuilding the IRGC military capabilities and its terrorist proxies. When your enemy is at its weakest - win”.[21]

Democratic Party leadership, which initially welcomed the efforts that ended the war, has criticised Trump for tearing up the 2015 deal and signing a weaker one, while calling for transparency from the administration. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York expressed concern that there was a “massive confusion about Trump’s “understanding” with Iran”, even after three days. “This is foreign policy by clown car,” he posted on X while demanding Trump brief Congress.[22] Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused Trump of tearing up the 2015 deal and going to war with Iran, which cost American lives and the economy, only “to sign a failure of a “deal” that costs taxpayers billions”.[23]

Such reactions indicate that the durability of any final agreement will depend not only on Iranian compliance but also on the extent to which the Trump administration can generate bipartisan political support for its implementation. 

How did the Iranian Leadership Respond 

The reaction from the Iranian leadership reveals an attempt to frame the agreement as both a diplomatic achievement and a product of strategic resilience.
For instance, President Masoud Pezeshkian stated that the deal, if implemented properly, was a “pride for the country,” while crediting chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and foreign minister Abbas Araghchi for their roles in the negotiations. President Pezeshkian stated that “what has been agreed upon is an important step toward stopping the war and beginning negotiations” towards a final agreement, while warning that Iran “has prepared itself for all options, and the government’s focus—with or without an agreement—is sincere service to the people”.[24]

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, also the country’s parliament speaker, declared the MoU an ‘Iranian victory’, praising the “historic resistance and the valor of the armed forces” for guarding the “life of this nation and the destruction and surrender of this homeland”.[25] He emphasised that this was a step towards the monumental victory of Iran. 

Therefore, by emphasising resistance and national sacrifice while welcoming the deal and the upcoming negotiations, the Iranian leadership has sought to avoid perceptions of concession while preserving room for diplomatic engagement with the United States. This kind of balancing act demonstrates the broader challenge that the Iranian leadership faces in translating the newly accumulated military and political leverage into sustainable diplomatic gains without appearing vulnerable to domestic critics.

The Israeli Conundrum

The Israeli government gave a muted response to the Iran-US agreement. Though an active party to the war, it was not part of the negotiation process with the United States against Iran. The MoU has triggered a severe political and security crisis for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose far-right coalition has strongly criticised the deal ahead of the country’s upcoming October elections. 

PM Netanyahu, while avoiding direct criticism of the agreement, stated that his government has achieved the main goals of not allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons. “With an agreement or without an agreement, Iran will not have nuclear weapons — not today and not tomorrow. As long as I am prime minister of Israel, it will not happen”, the prime minister declared.[26] He emphasised that the Israeli troops will not withdraw from Lebanon, where they have taken over large swathes of territory, creating a buffer zone where they will stay “as long as necessary”.[27]

Defence Minister Israel Katz stated that Tel Aviv was not bound by the Iran-US deal and vowed that the Israeli military will not withdraw from Lebanon while warning that should Iran decide to target its forces there, it will strike back with full force. He said that “IDF will remain in the security zones in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza, without any time limit”, adding that the security zones will be “cleared of local residents, and all terror infrastructure, above and below ground, including the houses in the contact-line villages that served as terror outposts, will be destroyed”.[28]

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a far-right ally of Netanyahu, also described the deal as “bad for Israel and for the entire free world” [29] while National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, another far-right leader, declared that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us”.[30]

Israel did carry out multiple strikes targeting South Lebanon on 16 June, a day after the Iran-US deal was concluded, killing at least four people, thereby testing the durability of the agreement.[31] This forced President Trump to issue a rare public reproach to the Israeli leadership. In his remarks at the G7 Summit in France, also published by White House on X, he stressed that “Too many people have been killed. You don’t have to knock down an apartment house every time you’re looking for somebody, because there are a lot of people in those apartment houses, and they’re not all Hezbollah.”[32] Meanwhile, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi maintained that the continued presence in Lebanon constituted a deal violation, insisting that “without the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territories they occupied during this war, the war has not fully come to an end”.[33] Iran declared to have shut the Hormuz Strait once again on 20 June ahead of the Lake Lucerne Summit citing continued attacks by Israel in Lebanon declaring it a direct violation of the MoU, demonstrating how Israel posed a direct threat to halt the technical negotiations going ahead. 

As such, Israel’s response highlights creeping potential divergence between American and Israeli strategic priorities in the region. Although Washington appears increasingly focused on ending the war with Iran, regional stabilisation and economic normalisation by helping restore the energy supply chain through the Hormuz Strait, sections of the Israeli leadership continue to view military pressure as the only indispensable instrument to contain Iran, destroy its nuclear program and break its regional proxy allies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and Houthis in Yemen.

While this divergence does not imply a breakdown in the US-Israel partnership, it reflects differing assessments regarding the most effective means of achieving long-term security objectives. For the United States and President Trump, the costs of prolonged conflict increasingly extend to global energy markets, international shipping and broader regional stability. For Israel, security calculations remain closely tied to the perceived capabilities and intentions of Iran and allied groups operating across the Levant.

Therefore, the durability of the MoU will not only depend on Iranian and American compliance but also on the extent to which Washington can control Netanyahu’s government from undermining the deal while aligning Tel Aviv’s security concerns with the broader diplomatic framework to be negotiated.

Regional and Global Response 

The agreement has attracted widespread support from the region and beyond. The UN and OIC support reflect preference for negotiated conflict resolution. The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres welcomed the announcement and called it “a critical step towards the peaceful settlement of the conflict.”[34] The General Secretariat of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), in a statement while welcoming agreement “expressed its hope that the agreement would be fully implemented and that the parties concerned would participate earnestly in the forthcoming rounds of negotiations to address all issues and maintain security and stability in the region.”[35] The European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called for prioritising the “swift and full implementation” of the agreement, describing it as “essential for regional stability and the global economy. It opens the door to broader negotiations on peace and security in the Middle East”.[36] The G-7 grouping at its 16-17 Summit in Évian-les-Bains, France, has also welcomed the deal, with members backing the efforts towards concluding the final deal in the days ahead. 

The E-4 leaders comprising the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy, in a joint statement called the MoU “a moment of opportunity to restore regional stability and stabilise the global economy” while expressing their readiness to support the technical negotiations ahead to conclude the final agreement. The statement, signed by 22 other European countries along with Japan, Canada and Australia, further called for “urgent reopening of the Strait of Hormuz with unconditional and unrestricted freedom of navigation” and vowed to “work intensively with the US, Iran and regional partners to seize this moment, maintain momentum and achieve a long-term diplomatic settlement”.[37]

In a separate statement, the UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer described the agreement as “a hugely important step forward in ending the war, ensuring regional stability and reopening the Strait of Hormuz”. While offering the UK’s support for technical talks, Starmer urged called for “fully implementing the memorandum of understanding to ensure the Strait reopens and remains fully and permanently open, and that the detailed elements of the nuclear agreement are finalised.”[38] Likewise, the French President Emmanuel Macron called for the deal’s “rapid and complete implementation by all belligerents” while hoping that it “paves the way for comprehensive negotiations in service of peace and security for all in the Middle East.”[39] German Chancellor Friedrich Merz also welcomed the deal, hoping that this understanding “can pave the way towards a reinvigorated global economy and a more secure Middle East. It is crucial to implement it with determination”.[40] Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese welcomed the agreement, emphasising that “Australia has long called for de-escalation and an end to the conflict, including in Lebanon. As we have said, the longer this war goes on, the greater the impact will be. Continued restraint and constructive engagement will be essential to ⁠prevent further escalation and secure a lasting agreement”.[41] As such, Europe and the broader Western support for the deal are driven by energy security, economic stability, and the avoidance of another prolonged regional conflict that could eventually draw them in.

China’s reaction reflects its role as a major Gulf energy consumer and its growing diplomatic ambitions in West Asia. Beijing, which has emerged as a close ally of Tehran over the years, welcomed the agreement, hoping that the deal “will be signed according to the agreed timetable and all relevant parties will stay committed to peaceful solutions and resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation.”[42] Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian further emphasised that Beijing “stands ready to join the international community in playing an active role in restoring peace and tranquillity to the Middle East and Gulf region at an early date.”[43]  

Within the region, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar see the agreement as an opportunity to consolidate the post-Iran-Saudi rapprochement. In a statement, Saudi foreign ministry stated that the Kingdom hoped the understanding and the final deal ahead achieves “peace in a manner that enhances the security of the region and the world through a lasting agreement that takes into account the security interests of regional countries and upholds the principle of respect for the internal affairs of states.”[44] In another statement, it revealed that its Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan bin Abdullah received a call from his Iranian counterpart Abbas Aragchi to deliberate on “regional developments” during which it was the “importance of continuing joint efforts to achieve lasting and sustainable stability in the region” was emphasised.[45]

The United Arab Emirates, which has increasingly aligned with Israel in the region and was reported to have also conducted military strikes against Iran in the initial weeks of the war, in its response called for “prioritising dialogue and diplomacy, and adhering to international law, in a manner that reinforces regional security and stability”. [46] It further sought “full compliance with the provisions of the agreement, ensuring an immediate and comprehensive cessation of hostilities in the region, respect for the sovereignty of states and the principles of good [neighbourliness], strict adherence to international law, and the protection of maritime routes and freedom of international navigation, including the uninterrupted flow of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, thereby advancing security, stability, and economic prosperity at both the regional and global levels.”[47]

Qatar, which alongside Pakistan played an important role in mediating between Iran and the United States, described the deal as “an important step towards consolidating sustainable peace and promoting economic growth regionally and internationally.” [48] In a statement from its foreign ministry, Doha expressed “full support for all efforts and initiatives aimed at enhancing regional security and stability and reaching sustainable solutions to outstanding issues through dialogue and peaceful means, in accordance with the principles of international law and good-neighbourliness, in a manner that contributes to opening new horizons for cooperation, development, and prosperity, and serves the common interests of the peoples of the region and the world.”[49] Likewise, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan described the MoU “as an important development for establishing peace and tranquility in our region,” while asking for avoiding “rhetoric, provocations, and actions that could escalate tensions in the period leading up to the signing of the agreement, and to remain vigilant against possible sabotage.”[50]

Pakistan, which acted as an important conduit between Iran and the United States, welcomed the deal, which was first announced by its Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on 15 June.[51] Its Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar called the MoU a “significant breakthrough reflects the power of sustained diplomatic engagement and the collective resolve of friendly nations to choose dialogue over confrontation.”[52] Dar further added that the deal sent “a reassuring message to the international community and provides much-needed confidence and stability to global markets and the world economy, particularly for developing countries that are most vulnerable to regional instability.”[53]

These reactions reveal a rare convergence of interests among otherwise competing actors. While their motivations differ, most stakeholders share an interest in preventing renewed military escalation and restoring stability to international energy markets.

India’s Response to the Deal

India has welcomed the deal and expressed hope that it will lead to durable peace in the region. While emphasising the serious global economic disruption and humanitarian losses due to the war on Iran, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in an X post, hoped that the deal’s implementation “will help restore peace and stability in the region and ensure the freedom of navigation and commerce.”[54] For India, as for many other countries in the Global South, the significance of the agreement extends beyond immediate energy security concerns. The conflict demonstrated the vulnerability of India’s economic interests to disruptions in the Gulf region, including hydrocarbon imports, maritime commerce, and the safety of Indian nationals employed across West Asia. While New Delhi did secure an understanding with Tehran on the navigation of its ships through the Persian Gulf chokepoint, the second blockade enforced by the United States effectively derailed its efforts. The death of three Indian sailors during the conflict, who were killed by US strikes on an oil vessel, MT Settebello, a Palau-flagged vessel with 24 member Indian crew onboard, in its attempts to exit the Strait on 10 June, underscored the human dimension of these vulnerabilities. It forced New Delhi to issue a démarche and to summon Jason Meeks, the United States’ charge d’affaires in India, to protest the incident.[55]

Moreover, the agreement not only provides economic relief by restoring India’s energy supply chain but also aligns with India’s broader strategic objective of maintaining balanced relations with all major regional actors, including Iran, Israel, the Gulf states, and the United States. New Delhi’s response reflects its longstanding preference for diplomatic solutions, freedom of navigation and regional stability. Therefore, a successful implementation of the MoU would contribute to safeguarding India’s energy security while reducing geopolitical uncertainty in one of its most important external regions.

Conclusion 

The Iran-US Memorandum of Understanding represents an important diplomatic breakthrough, but it should be viewed as the beginning rather than the culmination of a negotiation process. Its significance lies in creating a framework for gradually transforming military confrontation into political bargaining. The principal challenge ahead is not merely the implementation of agreed provisions but the reconciliation of the competing security visions held by Iran, the United States, Israel and regional actors. 

The agreement’s success will depend on whether it can evolve from a crisis-management instrument into a broader regional security framework. If implemented successfully, it could contribute to stabilising the Gulf, restore confidence in international energy markets, and create conditions for sustained diplomatic engagement. But if implementation falters, the underlying disputes that produced the conflict will remain unresolved, preserving the potential for renewed instability. 

It will also depend on how far President Trump is willing to constrain the Israeli leadership, which remains more interested in war than in resolution, and which is looking at the developments from an electoral perspective, with elections in Israel due in October 2026. That they have already claimed that the provisions of the Iran-US MoU did not bind Israel and that they will not withdraw from Lebanon or cease attacks in Gaza directly challenges the dealmaking efforts of President Trump. Tehran’s preconditioning to include Lebanon in the final deal means that any continued military actions by the Israeli army and its refusal to withdraw would continue to overshadow it. Therefore, the coming weeks of technical negotiations will be critical not only for the future of Iran-US relations but also for the wider regional stability.

References: 

[1] Shehbaz Sharif [@CMShehbaz] (2026), “Following intensive talks, we are pleased to announce that the Peace Deal between the United States of America and Islamic Republic of Iran has been REACHED. Both sides have declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.” [X], 15 June, Available at: https://x.com/CMShehbaz/status/2066268332832194810?s=20 (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[2] Al Jazeera Staff (2026), “Iran confirms that MoU has been signed electronically by both sides”, Al Jazeera News, 17 June, Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/17/iran-confirms-that-mou-has-been-signed-electronically-by-both-sides (Accessed 18 June 2026

[3] Bao, A., Huang, E. & Li, Y. (2026), “U.S., Iran agree on roadmap for final deal and plan to end military operations in Lebanon”, CNBC, 21 June, Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/22/us-iran-roadmap-final-deal-switzerland-talks-lebanon-deconfliction.html (Accessed 22 June 2026)

[4] Treene, A., Liptak, K. & Salem, M. (2026), “US–Iran war memorandum of understanding: Full text”, CNN International, 17 June, Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/06/17/middleeast/us-iran-war-mou-text-intl (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[5] Ibid. 

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Donald J. Trump [@realDonaldTrump] (2026), “This Great Deal will bring Peace and Security to the whole Region. Many presidents have tried to make Peace with Iran, and all have failed before me. The Leaders of the Region have, for the first time, found a President who can help them achieve real Peace. With the opening of the Strait upon the signing of the Deal on Friday, for purposes of mine removal, oil will flow on both ends again for the Region, and the World! President DONALD J. TRUMP” [Truth Social], 15 June, Available at: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/116750814874397998 (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[16] Donald J. Trump [@realDonaldTrump] (2026), “The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all! I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade. Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow! President DONALD J. TRUMP” [Truth Social], 15 June, Available at: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/116750587569914985 (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[17] Parker, A. & Hudson, J. (2026), “Trump claims victory over Iran deal, is silent on nuclear weapons”, The Washington Post, 15 June, Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/06/15/trump-claims-victory-over-iran-deal-is-silent-nuclear-weapons/ (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[18] Lindsey Graham [@LindseyGrahamSC] (2026), “I am pleased to hear the memorandum of understanding with Iran to allow the Strait of Hormuz to open has been agreed to. I will be watching closely the ensuing negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear program and other matters…” [X], 17 June, Available at: https://x.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/2066294532220580103?s=20 (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[19] Domenech, B. (2026), “Instant Reaction: Ted Cruz Blasts Plan To Send Billions To Ayatollah”, The Daily Wire, 17 June, Available at: https://www.dailywire.com/news/instant-reaction-ted-cruz-blasts-plan-to-send-billions-to-ayatollah (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[20] Bill Cassidy [@SenBillCassidy] (2026), “Reagan is rolling over in his grave. Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future. Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal. Before the war, the strait was open, Iran was being crushed by sanctions, and 13 service members were still alive. Now, 13 Americans are dead, families have paid billions at the pump, sanctions will be lifted, and the bombing has stopped. This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.” [Twitter/X], 18 June, Available at: https://x.com/SenBillCassidy/status/2067318744552997372 (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[21] Mike Pompeo [@mikepompeo] (2026), “A deal with Iran must recognize that this regime has no desire to be a responsible member of the community of nations. They do not regret the last 47 years nor think it was a mistake to kill Americans. They are all radical Islamists. Any funds available to the regime - whether paid to them directly, provided by sanctions relief or via releasing escrowed funds - will go straight toward rebuilding the IRGC military capabilities and its terrorist proxies. When your enemy is at its weakest - win.” [Twitter/X], 17 June, Available at: https://x.com/mikepompeo/status/2066977956371828881 (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[22] Chuck Schumer [@SenSchumer] (2026), “Three days later and there’s still massive confusion about Trump's "understanding" with Iran. This is foreign policy by clown car. Trump must brief Congress, release the official text of the “understanding”, disclose any secret side deals to the public immediately, and end this war now.” [X], 17 June, Available at: https://x.com/SenSchumer/status/2067298322163904805?s=20 (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[23] Nancy Pelosi [@SpeakerPelosi] (2026), “President Obama masterfully negotiated an agreement that prevented Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Trump tore it up and went to war—only to lose the lives of 13 brave Americans, raise prices at the pump, and sign a failure of a “deal” that costs taxpayers billions.” [X], 18 June, Available at: https://x.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/2067441105977725091?s=20 (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[24] Masoud Pezeshkian [@drpezeshkian] (2026), “What has been agreed upon is an important step toward stopping the war and beginning negotiations, and a final agreement has yet to take shape.  The Islamic Republic of Iran has prepared itself for all options, and the government's focus—with or without an agreement—is sincere service to the people. The Iranian nation has learned from its martyred Imam not to submit to humiliation.” [X], 15 June, Available at: https://x.com/drpezeshkian/status/2066576320138555575?s=20 (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[25] Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf [@mb_ghalibaf] (2026), “Beloved and tall-statured people of Iran! With your historic resistance and the valor of the armed forces against those who sought the life of this nation and the destruction and surrender of this homeland, Iran took a great step toward final victory. They wanted to, but they couldn't. We stand firm, and in the end, #Iran_Our will triumph, by the grace of God.” [X], 15 June, Available at: https://x.com/mb_ghalibaf/status/2066544344694141104?s=20 (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[26] Freiberg, N. & Berman, L. (2026), “Netanyahu avoids criticizing US–Iran deal, claims war’s main goals have been achieved”, The Times of Israel, 16 June, Available at: https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-avoids-criticizing-us-iran-deal-claims-wars-main-goals-have-been-achieved/ (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[27] Ibid.

[28] Fabian, E., Karmel, & A., Sokol, S. (2026), “Israel vows to stay in south Lebanon if Iran strikes: ‘We’ll hit it with full force’”, The Times of Israel, 15 June, Available at: https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-vows-to-stay-in-south-lebanon-if-iran-strikes-well-hit-it-with-full-force/ (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Al Jazeera Staff (2026), “Israeli strikes kill four in southern Lebanon amid ceasefire talks”, Al Jazeera, 16 June, Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/16/israeli-strikes-kill-four-in-southern-lebanon-amid-ceasefire-talks (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[32] Pamuk, H. (2026), “Trump criticizes Israel’s tactics in Lebanon, says it is killing civilians”, Al-Monitor, 15 June, Available at: https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2026/06/trump-criticizes-israels-tactics-lebanon-says-it-killing-civilians (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[33] IranWire Staff (2026), “Araghchi: War has ended but any Israeli attack on Lebanon violates the agreement”, IranWire, 15 June, Available at: https://iranwire.com/en/news/153795-araghchi-war-has-ended-but-any-israeli-attack-on-lebanon-violates-the-agreement/ (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[34] Reuters Staff (2026), “Global leaders react to announcement of US-Iran peace agreement”, Reuters, 15 June, Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/global-leaders-react-announcement-us-iran-peace-agreement-2026-06-14/ (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[35] Organization of Islamic Cooperation [@OIC_OCI] (2026), “#OIC General Secretariat Welcomes the Agreement on the Memorandum of Understanding between the #UnitedStates and #Iran” [Twitter/X], 18 June, Available at: https://x.com/OIC_OCI/status/2066449259902230824/photo/1 (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[36] Reuters Staff (2026), “Global leaders react to announcement of US-Iran peace agreement”, Reuters, 15 June, Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/global-leaders-react-announcement-us-iran-peace-agreement-2026-06-14/ (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[37] UK Government (2026), “Joint E4 Leaders’ Statement on the US–Iran Peace Deal”, Gov.uk, 15 June, Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-e4-leaders-statement-on-the-us-iran-peace-deal-14-june-2026 (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[38] UK Government (2026), “PM response to the peace deal between the United States and Iran”, Gov.uk, 15 June, Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-response-to-the-peace-deal-between-the-united-states-and-iran-14-june-2026 (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[39] Emmanuel Macron [@EmmanuelMacron] (2026), “I welcome the agreement reached between the United States and Iran, the result of a diplomatic effort to which several partners have contributed. I call for its rapid and complete implementation by all belligerents…” [X], 15 June, Available at: https://x.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/2066291258721468594 (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[40] Reuters Staff (2026), “Global leaders react to announcement of US-Iran peace agreement”, Reuters, 15 June, Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/global-leaders-react-announcement-us-iran-peace-agreement-2026-06-14/ (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[41] Ibid.

[42] Ministry of Foreign Affairs – People’s Republic of China (2026), “Foreign Ministry Spokesperson’s Remarks on US–Iran Agreement” Ministry of Foreign Affairs – PRC, 15 June, Available at: https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xw/fyrbt/lxjzh/202606/t20260615_11945847.html (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[43] Ibid. 

[44] Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Saudi Arabia [@KSAmofaEN] (2026), “#Statement | The Foreign Ministry expresses the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s welcome of the agreement reached between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran to end military operations and commence detailed negotiations over a 60-day period with the aim of reaching a permanent agreement.” [X], 15 June, Available at: https://x.com/KSAmofaEN/status/2066439182814253438?s=20 (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[45] Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Saudi Arabia [@KSAmofaEN] (2026), “Foreign Minister HH Prince @FaisalbinFarhan received a phone call from Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.” [X], 15 June, Available at: https://x.com/KSAmofaEN/status/2066480696751706357?s=20 (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[46] Ministry of Foreign Affairs – United Arab Emirates (2026), “UAE Welcomes Agreement Between the United States and Iran”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs – UAE, 15 June, Available at: https://www.mofa.gov.ae/en/mediahub/news/2026/6/15/uae-iran (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[47] Ibid. 

[48] Ministry of Foreign Affairs – State of Qatar (2026), “Qatar Welcomes the Agreement Reached on the Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States and Iran on Addressing Outstanding Issues”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Qatar, 15 June, Available at: https://mofa.gov.qa/en/latest-articles/statements/qatar-welcomes-the-agreement-reached-on-the-memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-united-states-and-iran-on-addressing-outstanding-issues (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[49] Ibid.

[50] Reuters Staff (2026), “Global leaders react to announcement of US-Iran peace agreement”, Reuters, 15 June, Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/global-leaders-react-announcement-us-iran-peace-agreement-2026-06-14/ (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[51] Shehbaz Sharif [@CMShehbaz] (2026), “Following intensive talks, we are pleased to announce that the Peace Deal between the United States of America and Islamic Republic of Iran has been REACHED. Both sides have declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.” [X], 15 June, Available at: https://x.com/CMShehbaz/status/2066268332832194810?s=20 (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[52] Ishaq Dar [@MIshaqDar50] (2026), “Pakistan warmly welcomes the understanding reached between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran…” [X], 15 June, Available at: https://x.com/MIshaqDar50/status/2066374691489751310?s=20 (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[53] Ibid.

[54] Narendra Modi [@narendramodi] (2026), “I welcome the understanding reached between the United States and Iran on ending the conflict in West Asia, which has caused serious economic disruption across the world and led to loss of life in many countries….” [X], 15 June, Available at: https://x.com/narendramodi/status/2066420565821530220?s=20 (Accessed 18 June 2026)

[55] Kaul, A. (2026), “In Big Step, India Issues Demarche To US Diplomat After Attack On Ship”, NDTV, 10 June, Available at: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/in-big-step-india-issues-demarche-to-us-diplomat-after-attack-on-ship-11619054 (Accessed 18 June 2026)

* Mohmad Waseem Malla is a Research Fellow with the Centre for Peace Studies, New Delhi where he also serves as the Associate Editor of Journal of Peace Studies. He is also the Founder and Editorial Director of Middle East Outlook.  

** Faiza Rizwan is a Junior Research Analyst with the Centre for Peace Studies. She is a postgraduate in Peace and Conflict Studies from Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.