President Donald Trump declared victory after the United States and Iran reached an interim framework to end a war launched by the US and Israel in February, but the deal’s first test may be whether Washington can keep a temporary ceasefire from being undermined by its closest regional ally.
The agreement, described by US and Iranian officials as a memorandum of understanding, is expected to be formally signed Friday in Switzerland after Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced the framework early Monday local time. Pakistan served as a mediator in the talks, while Qatari negotiators reportedly flew to Tehran on Sunday morning as part of the final push to secure the agreement.
“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete,” Trump wrote on Truth Social shortly after Sharif’s announcement. In a separate post, Trump said, “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 president did not mention that the war began when US and Israeli forces first attacked Iran on February 28. Since then, thousands of people have been killed, mostly in Iran and Lebanon, according to the source material. Iran struck Israel and Gulf states hosting US bases, effectively shut down the Strait of Hormuz for months, and pushed up global energy prices. US forces responded with a naval blockade of Iranian ports.
The interim deal reportedly includes a 60-day ceasefire, an end to the US blockade, and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical corridor for global energy shipments. Trump said the waterway would reopen “toll free” and added, “Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!”
Oil markets responded quickly. Brent crude futures fell 4 percent in early Monday trading, while US West Texas Intermediate slid more than 4.6 percent. But the immediate market reaction does not resolve the larger question of whether the ceasefire can hold long enough for negotiators to settle the harder issues left outside the interim framework.
Those unresolved issues include sanctions relief, Iran’s nuclear program, the release of seized Iranian assets, possible war reparations, and Israel’s ongoing military operations in Lebanon. Sharif said the pact called for “the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon,” a provision that could put the US-Iran framework on a collision course with Israel’s stated military posture.
Lebanon has been one of the most volatile points in the talks. Iran has demanded an end to Israel’s bombing and incursions in southern Lebanon, while Israel and Hezbollah have continued attacks on each other despite calls from Trump and others to stop. On Sunday, as the deal was nearing completion, Israel struck the southern suburbs of Beirut in an attack it said targeted Hezbollah.
Trump criticized the strike before the deal was announced. “This morning’s attack on Beirut should not have happened, particularly on a special day when we are so close to a Peace Deal with Iran,” he wrote.
Iranian negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said the Beirut attack showed that the US lacks “the will and ability to fulfill your commitments.” Iran’s Foreign Affairs Ministry said it held the US responsible for the attack, while Iran warned of a “strong response.” Its top joint military command said the “finger [is] on the trigger” ready to fire at the “enemy’s heart.”
The strike also drew concern from figures who support the deal but warn that Israel could still derail it. Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, said the agreement to “end the disastrous US-Israeli war on Iran” was “welcome news,” but said it remained fragile.
The deal, Abdi said, “was finalized despite the considerable effort of [Israel Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu to sabotage it, striking into the southern suburbs of Beirut in a clear provocation intended to deter Iran from signing the deal. It didn’t work—this time—but his motivation to drag the US back into war with Iran will remain so long as he is in office. President Trump was right to sharply criticize Netanyahu again, and he will have to keep one eye on the Israeli Prime Minister if he wants his peace with Iran to stick.”
Israel was not a party to the planned US-Iran agreement, and its leaders signaled that they do not consider themselves bound by it. Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz told Haaretz on Monday that Israeli forces would not withdraw from positions in occupied Syria, Lebanon, or the Gaza Strip. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir was more direct: “Trump’s agreement doesn’t bind us. Israel is not subordinate to the United States; we are an independent and sovereign state.”
That position creates an immediate enforcement problem for Washington. If Israel continues operations in Lebanon, Syria, or Gaza while the US and Iran attempt to negotiate a broader settlement, Iran could treat those actions as evidence that US commitments are hollow. Fox News quoted an unidentified diplomat involved in the talks as saying the Israeli strikes complicated efforts to finalize the deal and amounted to an attempt to sabotage those efforts.
Joe Kent, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center who resigned from the Trump administration in March in protest over the Iran war, said US policy toward Israel will have to change if the ceasefire is to survive. “We can strengthen our chances of this deal holding,” said Kent, “by cutting all military and intelligence assistance to Israel, [which] took every opportunity to tank this deal and will likely do so again unless we take action.”
Iranian officials, meanwhile, are not presenting the MOU as a gesture of trust. Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, said a broader agreement covering sanctions relief would be negotiated during the 60-day ceasefire. “We have incorporated all our important positions into the draft MOU,” Gharibabadi said Sunday. “This memorandum does not mean trusting the enemy; it has been written with active distrust. We will monitor the implementation of US commitments.”
Speaking Monday on state television, Gharibabadi said “Iran’s approach combines diplomacy with readiness for defense,” adding that Iran “remains fully prepared to counter any future threats” from the US and Israel.
The nuclear issue remains one of the most significant unresolved disputes. A senior Iranian official said the draft deal would require Iran not to produce or acquire nuclear weapons, while maintaining the nuclear status quo, including no uranium enrichment or expansion of nuclear facilities, until a final agreement is reached. A US official, speaking before the deal was announced, said the agreement would ultimately lead to the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program and the destruction and removal of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. A senior Iranian official said the draft deal would allow Iran, which denies seeking a nuclear bomb, to dilute its enriched uranium inside the country.
Those different descriptions point to a difficult negotiation ahead. A temporary freeze, dismantlement, removal, and domestic dilution are not the same outcome. The 60-day ceasefire may therefore function less as a settlement than as a narrow window for diplomacy after months of war.
US lawmakers who opposed Trump’s invasion and broader regional policy welcomed the agreement while casting the war as avoidable and costly. “The ceasefire agreement with Iran with the opening of the Strait of Hormuz is welcome news,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said. “Democrats should support it. I am glad it includes a provision for mutual respect of the US and Iran’s sovereignty so we do not launch a dumb war of choice again.”
Khanna said the war had failed to achieve its stated ambitions. “The war was a costly lesson for the US,” he said. “As expected, Trump failed to bring about regime change. The terms seem no better than what [President Barack] Obama secured under the [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] JCPOA nearly a decade ago. America lost 14 precious service members and wasted billions of dollars on this foolish endeavor. But today, we can be relieved that gas and food costs will start coming down for Americans. And that no more American or civilian lives will be lost.”
The war had also become a domestic political liability for Trump and Republicans in Congress as rising gas prices angered Americans ahead of November’s midterm elections. The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz could ease some of that pressure, but only if shipping resumes safely and the ceasefire prevents renewed escalation.
The United Nations welcomed the diplomatic opening. UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the deal a “critical step” and expressed hope “that the parties will build on this new momentum and redouble their efforts towards a final resolution of the conflict” that includes a “durable and comprehensive peace.”
Hardliners inside Iran have already signaled opposition to compromise. At pro-government rallies across Iran on Saturday night, some protesters reportedly chanted “Death to the compromiser,” apparently referring to Foreign Affairs Minister Abbas Araghchi. In Washington, sanctions relief, frozen assets, and possible reparations are likely to face political resistance. In Israel, senior officials have indicated they intend to continue military operations regardless of the US-Iran framework.
The deal therefore marks a possible end to active hostilities, but not yet a durable peace. Its survival depends on whether the US and Iran implement the ceasefire, whether the Strait of Hormuz reopens without renewed confrontation, whether negotiators can bridge deep disputes over sanctions and nuclear policy, and whether Israel’s military actions trigger another round of escalation.
Abdi said the policy choice was always between peace and war, and that the lesson of the conflict should shape what comes next. “We know the price of war, and so we must do the hard work to forge a stronger peace. We have seen where maximum pressure, sabotage, and military escalation lead: impoverishment, repression, regional instability, and finally a disastrous war with global consequences. The lesson could not be clearer,” Abdi said.
COMMENTS