deal

WASHINGTON — The White House pushed back Thursday against growing bipartisan criticism of a negotiated settlement to the war with Iran, arguing its concessions to the Islamic Republic were contingent on its conduct and essential to securing peace.

The administration’s defensive posture came as details of the framework agreement, known as a memorandum of understanding, were finally shared with the public, revealing a raft of compromises with Tehran long opposed by Republicans.

Vice President JD Vance, who helped negotiate the deal, told reporters Thursday that the deal was structured to reward Iran for good behavior. But the text of the agreement suggests otherwise.

The Trump administration agreed to release billions of dollars in Iranian assets that were frozen and restricted by the United States “upon the implementation” of the memorandum — before any further actions are taken or additional negotiations begin. The president will issue sanctions waivers on Iranian oil, allowing Tehran to resume trading its most valuable export and breaking with decades of policy. And to facilitate that trade, boosting Tehran’s revenues, Trump agreed to immediately end a U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports.

Still more concessions were offered to the Iranians, including a commitment by the U.S. administration to establish a fund of “at least $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic” — in effect providing reparations for the war Trump started.

“All required licenses, waivers and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America,” the memorandum reads.

Taken together, the document reads as a stunning reversal of U.S. policy toward Iran after decades of concern across administrations in Washington — including throughout Trump’s two terms — that the Islamic Republic represents the nation’s greatest security threats as the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism.

Criticism from Republican senators, in particular, has been sharp and swift.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the $300-billion fund “would make Iran’s payoff under President Obama’s 2015 deal look like a pittance by comparison.” And Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) accused the Trump administration of giving Iran money it would use to kill Americans.

“History demonstrates that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is an exceptionally bad idea, and I think, unfortunately, the president is receiving some really bad advice on this deal,” Cruz said. “I don’t want to see us send a penny to the ayatollah. And I hope that we don’t.”

The Obama-era deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, included structured sanctions relief for Iran in exchange for concrete and verifiable steps by Tehran to dismantle much of its nuclear program — a framework that Republicans broadly criticized at the time.

By contrast, Trump’s agreement commits the United States to pursuing economic relief for Iran while providing no clarity about the future of Iran’s nuclear program — the very issue Trump cited as the rationale for launching the war.

The memorandum includes a pledge by Iran to never purchase or construct nuclear weapons — a vow the Islamic Republic has made multiple times before, including by signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in a religious edict issued by the late supreme leader and in the Obama-era nuclear accord.

Vice President JD Vance speaks to reporters at the White House on June 18, 2026.

(Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

Detailed negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program — including whether Tehran could continue domestic uranium enrichment, at what level, and under what monitoring regime — were left for another day.

For more than a decade, the U.S. intelligence community has assessed that Iran sought a threshold nuclear capability, securing the strategic advantages of a nuclear power without incurring the costs of openly pursuing a bomb.

The agreement does include a commitment by Iran to do its “best” to bring commercial shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital international waterway, back to prewar levels. But critics of the president said he had to make deep, historic concessions just to secure a status quo ante upended by the war he started. And in the document, Tehran agreed to refrain from imposing a toll on ships transiting the strait for only a 60-day period.

“Unless you were homeschooled by a day drinker, no one’s confident that Iran is going to do anything,” Sen. John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, told reporters this week.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, Kennedy’s Republican counterpart from Louisiana, called the deal “the worst foreign policy blunder in decades” that would have President Reagan “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,” Cassidy said.

“Before the war, the strait was open, Iran was being crushed by sanctions, and 13 service members were still alive,” he added. “Now, 13 Americans are dead, families have paid billions at the pump, sanctions will be lifted, and the bombing has stopped.”

Despite mounting criticism, Trump put his signature to the memorandum on Wednesday night while attending a dinner with the French president in Versailles, a palace infamous for hosting a treaty signing that disgraced Germany at the end of the First World War.

He defended the agreement while in Europe and suggested further concessions might be forthcoming, including recognition of Iran’s claimed right to enrich uranium and a new willingness to tolerate its continued ballistic missile development — another program that Trump had vowed to eliminate as a central war aim.

“He took America to war — killing 13 soldiers, thousands of Iranian civilians and costing taxpayers $60 billion — to get rid of Iran’s missile program. And now that he’s lost the war, he pretends like it’s no big deal,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut.

“Just unforgivable,” he added. “What a charlatan.”

Authors: Kung Chan and Yang Xite*

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent state visit to China, which was his first foreign trip of 2026, is a clear indication of the shifting dynamics of the bilateral relationship. Accompanied by an unprecedented delegation of 39 high-ranking officials, including five deputy prime ministers, eight ministers, the central bank governor, and energy executives, the scale resembled a partial cabinet relocation. This massive mobilization reflects Moscow’s urgency to secure an agreement on the Power of Siberia 2 natural gas pipeline, a strategic super-project stalled in commercial negotiations since 2012. Planned to span over 2,600 kilometers with an annual capacity of 50 billion cubic meters, the pipeline would traverse Mongolia to link Russian fields with Chinese markets. For Russia, finalizing this energy artery is an economic imperative to replace the European market, where Western sanctions aim to eliminate Russian pipeline gas imports by the end of 2027.

Evaluating the geopolitics of this energy relationship requires analyzing five distinct strategic dimensions.

First, Beijing has strong incentives to resist quick concessions. The negotiation deadlock is largely on pricing. Russia reportedly seeks approximately US$ 265 per thousand cubic meters to cover the high extraction and infrastructure costs of its Yamal fields in Western Siberia, whereas China targets roughly US$ 120. Unlike Russia, China commands significant leverage, boasting robust domestic pipeline networks, stable Central Asian infrastructure, and diverse liquefied natural gas imports. Given Russia’s acute financial pressure and diminishing options due to sanctions after the war in Ukraine, Beijing has the luxury of strategic patience, allowing it to wait for terms that align with market principles rather than rushing a deal under political pressure.

Second, the pipeline is less about energy revenue for Moscow and more about maintaining global geopolitical relevance. In the current international order, Russia finds itself sidelined from primary great-power management. Consequently, Putin seeks to leverage the Ukraine conflict to engage Washington while simultaneously trying to bind Russia’s economic future to China, much like it previously did with Europe. This anxiety within the China-United States-Russia triangular relationship was highlighted by the timing of the visit, which occurred just days after the U.S. President Donald Trump departed Beijing. As the war enters its fifth year and energy weaponization loses its potency in the West, shifting exports eastward has transformed from a strategic choice into a necessity for regime survival. By proposing a 30-year, multibillion-dollar pipeline network, Moscow hopes to anchor itself to the world’s largest energy consumer, ensuring it remains an indispensable player rather than a marginalized resource base.

Third, the proposed pipeline route serves as a geopolitical lever within the post-Soviet space. Passing through Mongolia, the route allows Russia to entrench its influence over Ulaanbaatar, which has recently deepened its engagement with the United States and NATO, while monitoring China’s northern energy ingress. This alignment requires Beijing to pay substantial transit fees and leaves its energy security vulnerable to the political stability of a third country. For Moscow, the project simultaneously secures the Chinese market and reinforces its traditional sphere of influence across Central Asia and Mongolia, using infrastructure to manage the economic and diplomatic trajectories of neighboring states.

Fourth, the protracted timeline works in Beijing’s favor. The longer negotiations stall, the more China’s bargaining position strengthens against an increasingly isolated Russia. While Moscow faces a liquidity crisis within its National Wealth Fund and the fiscal drain of a prolonged war, China’s energy diversification has progressed rapidly. Construction on Line D of the Central Asia-China gas pipeline is advancing alongside commitments from Turkmenistan, while maritime LNG capacity expanded by over 10 million tons recently with imports from Qatar, Australia, and the United States. Furthermore, China’s domestic shale gas production and global leadership in renewable energy insulation provide a structural ceiling on long-term natural gas demand. Middle Eastern instability in the Strait of Hormuz elevates the short-term value of overland corridors, but it ultimately reinforces Beijing’s commitment to resilience rather than a singular dependence on Moscow.

Fifth, China’s optimal energy architecture centers on the Southern Corridor, specifically what can be called the “Turkmenistan-Uzbekistan-Tajikistan (TUT) Corridor” framework. This network offers a direct alternative that circumvents Russian territory, extending through Xinjiang and across the Caspian Sea toward Azerbaijan and Europe. Lines A, B, and C of the Central Asia-China pipeline are already operational, and the completion of Line D will raise total capacity to 65 billion cubic meters annually. This infrastructure is backed by deepening diplomatic ties. Beijing and Dushanbe codified their strategic partnership via a friendship treaty, and China’s trade volume with the five Central Asian republics surpassed US$ 100 billion, cementing its status as their primary trading partner. A fully integrated Central Asian energy network directly erodes Russia’s traditional influence in its southern flank, creating a new economic center of gravity.

Ultimately, while Putin’s high-profile delegation sought to secure a vital economic lifeline, the unresolved pipeline agreement exposes the cold calculation of national interests underlying the partnership. For Beijing, maintaining a deliberate pace maximizes its buyers’ advantage and allows alternative supply chains to mature. The true key to Eurasian energy security lies not in a single northern pipeline, but in a diversified, networked western corridor that mitigates risk and ensures supply chain autonomy, a structural reality that will shape the continent’s geopolitical architecture for decades.

*Yang Xite, a Research Fellow at ANBOUND.

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio stood silent and stone-faced behind Donald Trump on Wednesday as the president joked of passing the buck if his deal with Iran, under increasingly withering criticism and scrutiny, ultimately falls apart.

The blame, Trump said, would likely fall on his vice president, JD Vance, who led the negotiations toward a memorandum of understanding with Iran and will sign the agreement this week in Switzerland — a ceremony that will generate indelible images for a politician openly considering a run for the White House.

The controversial diplomatic breakthrough poses a quandary for Vance, whose aides see Rubio as his most viable challenger for the Republican presidential nomination should the secretary choose to run.

“If it works out, I’m going to take the credit,” Trump said of the Iran deal, with Rubio by his side.

“If it doesn’t work out, I’m blaming JD,” he joked. “You better be careful, JD!”

Silent secretary

Rubio, who also serves as the president’s national security advisor, has remained effectively mum since news of a preliminary peace deal was announced by the administration on Sunday.

His absence has drawn notice across foreign policy circles — not only because Rubio has served as chief architect of the administration’s global strategy thus far, but also because he has become one of the president’s most effective communicators, both at home and abroad.

By contrast, Vance, on a scheduled press tour promoting his new book, has emerged as the face of an agreement that appears to be fracturing a Republican Party already divided over America’s role in the world.

The administration’s internal divide over Iran extends beyond the war to broader U.S. support for its historic allies, including Israel in the Middle East, Canada and Mexico in this hemisphere, and Ukraine and Europe against a revanchist Russia.

“Rubio has always been a hawk on Iran, and Vance has always been an appeaser,” said Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, describing the vice president as positioning himself “as Trump without the flaws.”

“Rubio has a harder job because he’s more of a traditional Republican,” she said, adding that a competitive presidential run by the secretary might require him to pitch “a return to normalcy.”

No guarantee of success

Behind closed doors, Rubio advocated against the deal in its current form, citing intelligence reports that found it highly unlikely Tehran would give up its nuclear ambitions, according to two sources familiar with the matter. Rubio’s internal skepticism was first reported by Axios.

The deal kicks down the road highly technical discussions over the mechanics of unwinding Iran’s nuclear program — with no guarantee of success — while granting Tehran immediate relief, lifting a U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports that will allow Iranian imports and exports to resume.

In exchange, Iran has only agreed in principle not to pursue nuclear weapons — a vow it has made multiple times before — and to do its “best” to return commercial shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz back to prewar levels. It commits in the deal to refrain from implementing a toll system in the strait, according to U.S. officials, for a mere 60-day period.

“This agreement is a road map for Iran to become a rising, stronger power in the [Persian] Gulf — stronger than it is even today,” said Robert Pape, a political science professor at the University of Chicago.

“That is going to be an issue for the balance of power with Israel, which before the Iran war was the rising power. Now it’s lost that paradigm,” Pape said. “And this is going to be an issue with the future disposition of American forces in the region, because the [memorandum of understanding] states quite clearly that Iran is expecting those forces to withdraw.”

Positioning by the vice president

Despite mounting skepticism, Vance has embraced his role in ending a war that a powerful faction of Trump’s base aggressively opposed from the start.

“I think there are some people who just want the bombing to continue, regardless of whether it accomplishes anything for Americans,” Vance told CBS News on Wednesday.

“I do think there are people,” he added, “who sometimes confuse the ends with the means.”

Because the preliminary Iran deal leaves key details unresolved, further negotiations virtually ensure the agreement remains in flux through the election season — potentially thrusting the talks into the center of the presidential primary campaign.

“Given the distance between the parties on the core nuclear issues, as well as the Trump administration’s poor track record with coercive diplomacy, I fully expect the 60-day window for talks to be extended, as the [memorandum of understanding] text permits, taking this issue to the heart of the midterms and beyond,” said Reid Pauly, a professor of nuclear security and policy at Brown University.

“There will be a lot of incentive in the administration,” Pauly added, “to distance oneself from this fiasco.”

As a guest on Megyn Kelly’s podcast this week, Vance acknowledged the political realities of Trump’s base splintering over the Iran war, noting that a coalition of isolationists — as well as those advocating what he called a more “aggressive” foreign policy — had together swept Trump back into office.

The war may be breaking that coalition apart, he said.

“We have a constituency right now that is saying, we’re going to send boots on the ground — they want Donald Trump to send hundreds of thousands of ground troops into Iran,” Vance told the former Fox News host.

“Those are Republicans,” Kelly said.

“We need people to be pushing back from inside the tent,” Vance replied.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: He graduated high school with honors. ICE detained him the next day
The deep dive: What we know about two SoCal men arrested in alleged plot to attack White House UFC fight
The L.A. Times Special: L.A. defies the skeptics for a World Cup marked by unity, mutual respect, fearlessness

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

The money-saving expert said earlier in the week that he expected energy prices to drop soon in some rare ‘good news’ for hard-pressed Brits

Martin Lewis says that energy deals are already becoming more affordable following an agreement between the US and Iran. The money-saving expert stated earlier this week that he anticipated prices would fall soon in some rare ‘good news’ for financially stretched British households concerning energy costs.

This followed an announcement of an accord between the US and Iran to cease hostilities and reopen the crucial Strait of Hormuz. The memorandum of understanding, which is now active, was signed on Wednesday by Donald Trump and Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian.

This has seen the cost of oil and natural gas decline, resulting in a reduction in energy prices. At the time of writing, Brent crude has fallen by approximately $7 a barrel and UK natural gas by roughly 14 per cent.

Mr Lewis confirmed that fixed energy deals were already being made available that were around 5 per cent more affordable. He stated: “Energy fixes have started to get cheaper, now 5% below April price cap.”

However, Mr Lewis cautioned earlier this week that people shouldn’t anticipate a substantial reduction in the next price cap, which runs from October to December.

The next price cap is expected to be announced on August 26 by energy regulator Ofgem. Approximately 60 per cent of households in England, Scotland, and Wales remain on a standard variable tariff, meaning their costs are governed by the price cap.

The current energy price cap is due to increase on July 1 by 13 per cent. This means that a home with typical energy consumption paying by direct debit will face charges of £1,862 annually.

That marks a rise of £221 compared to the previous price cap – and Mr Lewis cautioned it could climb even higher, despite the cessation of hostilities.

He stated: “The US and Iran signing a framework deal has pushed natural gas prices down. These wholesale prices are a key driver of UK gas and electricity bills. As the six-month graph shows, though, prices still have a long way to fall before returning to pre-conflict levels.

“The good news is that this could lead to slightly cheaper fixed tariffs being launched in the coming days. However, without substantial further drops the October price cap still looks likely to be significantly higher than it is today.”

He was subsequently questioned about why he believed the price cap would increase from October. He responded: “It’s the same reason the energy Price Cap HASN’T yet risen due to the Middle East crisis. It is time-lagged. So slow to rise, slow to fall.”

Oil fell sharply in early trading after US President Donald Trump and his Iranian counterpart, Masoud Pezeshkian, put their names to an initial accord to halt hostilities, a move expected to restore the flow of crude through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important shipping arteries.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

At the time of writing on Thursday morning, the front-month contract on WTI, the US benchmark, was down by 2.3% to $75 a barrel, while Brent crude, the international gauge, traded 2% lower at around $78 a barrel.

Both remain above the roughly $70 level seen before the conflict, but they have fallen well below the peaks of more than $100 reached only weeks ago.

The deal sets a 60-day window for the two sides to negotiate a final settlement on Iran’s nuclear programme, with Tehran agreeing in the interim to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

Crucially for energy markets, it lifts US-backed sanctions, allowing Iran to resume selling its oil freely, and clears the way for tankers to move crude out of the Persian Gulf once more.

US President Donald Trump has said the strait will be fully open by Friday and operate without transit charges, a pledge that has encouraged traders to bet on easing supply pressures.

After signing the memorandum of understanding, Trump stated, “oil down, stocks up”, with hand motions.

An oil market still running on depleted reserves

The optimism arrives against a strained backdrop.

In its June Oil Market Report, the International Energy Agency said strategic oil reserves across advanced economies had slipped to their lowest level since 1990, with government stockpiles in OECD countries down by 163 million barrels since the conflict began as emergency releases accelerated.

The agency also trimmed its outlook for global demand, which it now expects to contract through 2026 as elevated fuel prices and supply disruptions bite, before recovering next year.

It cautioned that any rebound in supply may be gradual, citing the slow clearance of mines and continued disruption to shipping routes even with the interim deal in place.

Flows through the Strait of Hormuz had already begun to recover, rising from a May low to around 12 million barrels a day in early June.

Stocks mixed after the Fed signals possible hikes

Equities offered a patchier picture following Wednesday’s losses on Wall Street, where the S&P 500 fell 1.2% after fresh Fed projections showed nearly half of policymakers expect at least one interest rate hike this year.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average shed 1%, and the Nasdaq Composite slid 1.3%.

In his first press conference as Fed chair, Kevin Warsh declined to forecast where rates would end the year and signalled a rethink of how the central bank communicates, dropping the customary hints about future policy direction from its statement.

US President Donald Trump, who had long pressed Warsh’s predecessor to cut rates, was unusually relaxed about the outcome.

“It’s all right. Whatever,” Trump told reporters in France as he attended the G7 meeting.

Asked about the prospect of a hike, he said it was “hard to believe” but that, with Warsh now in place, he was “guided by what he wants.”

US stock futures pointed higher early on Thursday, with contracts on the S&P 500 up 0.9% and on the Nasdaq Composite around 1.4% higher.

In Asia, Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 and South Korea’s Kospi both jumped 2.3%, helped by hopes for an end to the Iran war and strong demand for technology shares.

European trading was more subdued, with the Euro Stoxx 50 rising 1% but the broader pan-European Stoxx 600 trading flat.

The UK’s FTSE 100, Germany’s DAX 30, Italy’s FTSE MIB, Spain’s IBEX 35, the Netherlands’ AEX, and Switzerland’s CH20 all traded between 0.4% and 0.8% higher than their Wednesday close.

France’s CAC 40 led the pack and jumped roughly 1.3%.

Additional sources • AP

Under the MOU, an initial 60-day negotiation period, which can be extended, will begin once the preliminary agreement is signed.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry has said that the signing of a memorandum of understanding in Switzerland, expected to take place on Friday, could take place in the presence of President Masoud Pezeshkian and Donald Trump.

Previously, Iran had said that Washington and Tehran would be represented by Vice President JD Vance and Parliament Speaker and top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, respectively.

On Wednesday, ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei told reporters that Iran’s plans “for the Swiss summit have not changed”.

“Regarding the manner of signing the memorandum of understanding, one of the ideas is for it to be done by the presidents of the two countries, which is currently being considered,” he added.

Speaking at the G7 summit in France earlier, Trump said he expected the agreement with Iran to be signed “shortly” without specifying the exact date.

“The deal we reached with Iran on Sunday will be signed shortly, tomorrow [Thursday], maybe the next day [Friday],” Trump told a news conference after previous announcements that it would be signed on Friday in Switzerland.

Hormuz to be ‘restored to normal’

In a statement, Baghaei added that maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz will be restored to normal within a defined timeframe, while insisting that outside powers will have no role in the process and that managing that process would be handled by Iran alone.

“This is our own task, and we alone will do it, and there will be no need for participation or intervention from other parties,” he stated.

“Iran and Oman will cooperate to develop a mechanism for managing the Strait of Hormuz, and we will exchange views with other countries in the region wherever necessary.

He said that Iran and the US agreed to “negotiate a final agreement within 60 days”, adding that the naval blockade “must end within 30 days.

A senior US official, briefing reporters on Wednesday, said the MOU establishes a new “minimum” threshold for downblending Iran’s stock of highly enriched uranium and contains measures aimed at safeguarding Lebanon’s “territorial integrity” following Israel’s latest strikes on Hezbollah inside the country.

In exchange, Washington would move to waive, though not fully lift, some of its broad sanctions on Iran once the agreement is signed.

The US-drafted text also guarantees toll-free transit through the Strait of Hormuz for a period of just 60 days, and leaves open the possibility that transit fees could be imposed later, the official added on condition of anonymity.

Israeli air strikes have continued to target towns in southern Lebanon despite an agreement between the United States and Iran set to be formally signed on Friday to end the war on all fronts.

Israeli drones carried out three attacks in Tyre that resulted in injuries while a drone also targeted the Bint Jbeil district in Nabatieh, Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency said on Wednesday.

The fighting in Lebanon is considered one of the biggest threats to the framework agreement in the US-Israel war on Iran with Tehran warning that new Israeli strikes on Lebanon and continued occupation of its territory would be regarded as a violation of the deal.

Earlier on Wednesday, Al Jazeera Arabic correspondents on the ground reported that Israeli forces carried out an air strike on the outskirts of Kfar Tebnit, also in the Nabatieh district. They also launched raids on the town of Nabatieh al-Fawqa and shelled the Ali al-Taher heights and the outskirts of the town.

Hezbollah fighters, meanwhile, launched at least 10 rockets towards Israeli forces near Kfar Tebnit.

A day earlier, Israeli attacks killed at least four people in Nabatieh, including in drone strikes on several vehicles.

There has been a reduction in violence since the US-Iran agreement was announced, but attacks have not stopped, Al Jazeera’s Zeina Khodr said, reporting from Beirut.

“Security sources believe that the Israeli army is trying to occupy more ground, especially strategic high ground around Nabatieh,” she said.

“Yes, families have started to return to their villages, but people are worried. They say they don’t trust that Israel will abide by the ceasefire.”

United Nations spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said the number of projectiles fired between Israeli forces and Lebanon fell to 174 on Sunday, compared with 705 the previous Sunday.

Of these, 169 were attributed to Israel and five to Hezbollah, he said.

Lebanon ‘most sensitive issue between the sides’

The situation in Lebanon is one of the main pillars of the US-Iran agreement, Al Jazeera’s Almigdad Alruhaid said, reporting from Tehran.

“As we approach the signing of the deal, it is becoming the most sensitive issue between the sides,” Alruhaid said.

Iran said the Israeli military has violated the ceasefire in Lebanon 84 times in the past two days and warned that Israel should expect “a harsh response” if it does not stop its attacks, he reported.

This came after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the withdrawal of the Israeli military from Lebanese territory is one of the core demands right now to move forward with the framework agreement Iran has with the US, Alruhaid said: “So the Iranians say the situation in Lebanon, in particular southern Lebanon, is an integral part of the memorandum of understanding.”

Lebanon was among the top priorities for the Iranians when they started negotiations with US President Donald Trump’s administration, according to Mohammad Eslami from Tehran University.

“Once the Iranians not only retaliated against the Israeli attacks on Dahiyeh and Beirut but also pre-emptively attacked Israeli territory, they showed right from the outset they are determined and very serious about supporting Lebanon, the Lebanese people, the Lebanese government and the resistance factions in Lebanon,” Eslami told Al Jazeera.

Israel’s invasion akin to ‘war crimes’

Meanwhile, the human rights group Amnesty International said on Wednesday that the Israeli army’s mass forced displacement orders in Lebanon amount to war crimes under international law.

“In parts of southern Lebanon, the Israeli military’s forced displacement of civilians and prevention of their return amounts to unlawful transfer – which is a war crime,” Amnesty said in a statement.

The Israeli army has “radically expanded” its use of such orders, displacing hundreds of thousands of people across Lebanon, it said.

“Instead of forcibly uprooting communities and designating entire swathes of Lebanese land as ‘no-go zones’ for civilians, Israeli forces must immediately withdraw from Lebanese territory,” said Kristine Beckerle, Amnesty International’s deputy regional director for the Middle East and North Africa.

The Israeli military declared about 4.6 percent of Lebanon as a “no-go zone” on November 28, 2024, a day after a previous ceasefire took effect, Amnesty noted.

This year, just three days after an April 17 ceasefire announcement, the restricted area was expanded to about 6 percent of the country, and residents were ordered not to return to villages previously home to tens of thousands of civilians.

Lebanese officials said Israel, which has been carrying out a large-scale offensive in the country since March 2, has killed more than 3,800 people, wounded 11,850 and displaced more than one million.

US President Donald Trump has accused his predecessor Barack Obama of ‘bribing’ Iran to agree to the 2015 nuclear agreement, by referring to a $1.7B settlement of a decades-old lawsuit. He used profanity in his brief comments to the media alongside Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

EVIAN-LES-BAINS, France — The United States could soon reimpose sanctions on Russian oil shipments after President Trump and fellow leaders at the Group of Seven summit of major industrialized democracies moved Tuesday to put the war in Ukraine back on top of their agenda, more than four years after Russia launched its full-scale invasion.

The Iran war has recently overshadowed Ukraine, but Trump said he wants to shift the focus following the announcement of an agreement to end the 3½-month-old conflict in the Gulf.

Trump said Iran will soon be “back in the rearview mirror.”

Trump said the sanctions on Russia that were eased during the Iran war to help lower oil prices can go back in place as more oil moves through the Strait of Hormuz.

“Soon we’ll be able to do that because the oil is now flowing,” Trump told reporters in Evian, the French spa town close to the Swiss border that is hosting the summit. “We’re in a position to do that soon.”

The U.S. in March temporarily eased some sanctions on some Russian oil shipments as crude prices sharply increased. The waiver has been extended.

Zelensky joins G7 leaders for talks

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky joined the G7 leaders for talks on the war in his country. They wrapped quickly, after just 75 minutes.

Zelensky said Ukraine is serious about peace while Russia toys with world leaders. “The entire ‘Seven’ supports Ukraine unanimously today,” he said.

Zelensky added that G7 leaders supported Ukraine’s need for more Patriot missiles and discussed how to increase production by licensing production. Patriot missiles are able to counter Russian ballistic missile attacks on Ukraine’s power grid and cities.

As the U.S. under Trump has cut back aid to Ukraine, France and its European allies are now the biggest providers of military and financial support to Kyiv.

Trump downplayed the impact of the Russia-Ukraine war on the U.S. but lamented the death toll.

“The whole thing is ridiculous,” Trump said. “So, yeah, I’m going to do whatever I can.”

Meanwhile, the U.K. announced new sanctions targeting the “shadow fleet ” Russia uses to ship oil and gas, and the finance networks used by Moscow to evade Western sanctions. The ships targeted include several recently purchased by Russia to transport liquefied natural gas from its sanctioned Arctic LNG 2 project.

Russia fires again at Ukraine’s biggest cities

Hours before the summit began Monday, Russia fired hundreds of drones and dozens of missiles at Ukraine’s biggest cities in a barrage that killed 11 people and set fire to a religious landmark.

The attacks came after Zelensky and Putin spoke separately by phone with Trump on Sunday, the U.S. leader’s 80th birthday.

While campaigning in 2024 for a return to the White House, Trump claimed he could end the Russia-Ukraine war within 24 hours of taking office. However, negotiations have faltered and Trump has acknowledged it has proved much harder than he thought.

Ukraine on Monday officially started European Union membership negotiations, launching a process that will require its government to commit to years of political reforms even as it fights the Russian invasion.

Ukraine sees EU membership as a security guarantee for a stable future once the war ends. Its best guarantee would be membership in the NATO military alliance, but the Trump administration insists that cannot happen, and others are wary of Ukraine joining while the war continues.

Trump says he may send Iran deal to Congress

The U.S.-Iran ceasefire deal got plenty of attention at Tuesday’s sessions, with Trump voicing his openness to sending the deal to Congress for review. The text has not been made public.

“I like the idea, send it to Congress please,” Trump said at the start of a meeting with United Arab Emirates President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan on the summit’s sidelines. He added, “I mean who wouldn’t approve it?”

Republicans on Capitol Hill say they want Trump to provide more information about the agreement, with some expressing skepticism that the deal can deter Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Trump also met with the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani. The Gulf nations are not part of the G7, but French President Emmanuel Macron extended invitations to their leaders at a fraught moment for their region.

Trump also expressed frustration over Israel’s continued hostilities with the Iranian-backed militia Hezbollah in Lebanon, telling reporters he’s “not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and with Hezbollah.”

Trump said Israeli operations to target Hezbollah “should have been able to deal with them faster,” adding: “It just goes on forever. And when that happens, it throws a negative light on the big deal. And that’s the deal with Iran.”

Macron said France and other Western partners are “ready to take action very quickly” to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz peacefully to ease the economic impact of rising oil prices. France and the U.K. have championed a mission to restore maritime security there as soon as conditions allow.

The G7 comprises France, the United States, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom. Other guest nations, including Brazil, India, Kenya and South Korea, were invited to participate in some discussions.

Superville, Corbet and Madhani write for the Associated Press. Madhani reported from Geneva. AP writers Jill Lawless and Samuel Petrequin in London, Collin Binkley in Washington and Illia Novikov in Kyiv contributed to this report.

Tottenham Hotspur have agreed a £52m deal with Brighton for Dutch defender Jan Paul van Hecke.

The 26-year-old started in his country’s 2-2 draw with Japan on Sunday at the World Cup.

Van Hecke has a year left on his current Brighton contract and showed no inclination to extend the deal.

Brighton had already turned down one offer for a player who joined them from NAC Breda in 2020.

However, they have now accepted Tottenham’s offer, which should clear the way to Van Hecke rejoining former Brighton boss Roberto de Zerbi in north London.

The deal also includes a significant sell-on clause with Brighton profiting further should Spurs sell the player.

Van Hecke made 131 appearances for the Seagulls and started 36 out of 38 Premier League games for Fabian Hurzeler’s side last season as they secured an eighth-place finish. That secured European qualification for only the second time in the club’s history.

Tottenham have already strengthened De Zerbi’s squad in an effort to improve markedly on successive 17th-placed finishes.

Scotland defender Andy Robertson has already signed from Liverpool, with Argentinian centre-half Marcos Senesi agreeing a move from Bournemouth.

June 16 (UPI) — Venezuela’s government signed a memorandum of understanding with U.S.-based GE Vernova, General Electric’s energy division, and state-owned utility Corpoelec to repair, modernize and stabilize the country’s struggling national power grid.

The plan aims to restore 1,000 megawatts of generating capacity over the next 24 months and more than 5,000 MW within four to five years.

The agreement, signed Monday by Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez, comes shortly after the National Assembly approved reforms to the country’s electricity law. The changes create a new framework that allows foreign investment in the sector after 15 years of an exclusive state monopoly.

During the signing ceremony, attended by Venezuelan government officials, company representatives and U.S. Charge d’Affaires in Caracas John Barrett, Rodriguez said the project will address both hydroelectric and thermoelectric infrastructure.

“We want to move forward steadily in the recovery of the national electricity system, for the benefit of the entire country but also to facilitate conditions for all the international investments arriving in the country,” Rodriguez said during the ceremony, which was broadcast on state television.

GE Vernova technical teams spent six weeks conducting an audit of Venezuela’s electrical system. The assessment confirmed the deteriorated condition of Corpoelec’s facilities, which have contributed to electricity rationing and widespread blackouts, particularly in western states such as Zulia, the center of Venezuela’s oil industry and a major agricultural region.

“We want to move quickly so the system works as well as possible within a few months, and I believe we can do that together,” GE Vernova Chief Sustainability Officer Roger Martella said. “We already have an agreement on the technical aspects and how we can move forward rapidly. Over the next 12 months and beyond, we will strengthen the national electric system.”

According to local media reports, the Guri Hydroelectric Plant, which supplies about 70% of the country’s electricity, has suffered significant wear because of a lack of original replacement parts. New equipment will be used to stabilize and rehabilitate generating facilities at hydroelectric dams in southern Venezuela.

GE Vernova’s equipment also is expected to help restore local thermoelectric generation capacity, reducing pressure on the Guri complex and improving energy independence for central and western regions.

Transmission lines that cross the country face constant overloads and aging substations. The plan includes energy management software and upgrades to substations to improve reliability and reduce recurring power fluctuations.

The legal reforms approved this month allow concessions of up to 25 years in power generation, transmission and distribution, providing legal certainty for companies such as GE Vernova to deploy technology and services in the sector.

The legislation also establishes stricter accountability requirements for operators and creates a formal framework for renewable energy development.

In addition to increasing generating capacity and modernizing grid operations, the agreement includes a specialized training program for Venezuela’s technical workforce.

The US-Iran memorandum of understanding expected to be formally signed in Switzerland on Friday could allow for the establishment of a $300bn investment fund for Iran, as part of a broader settlement to end the war that triggered a global energy crisis and upended markets worldwide.

US Vice President JD Vance told CBS News on Monday that the incentives would be connected to Iran’s “performance” in adhering to the deal, which was digitally signed by both sides on Sunday.

The scale of the financial incentives grabbed the headlines due to US President Donald Trump’s longstanding criticism of a 2015 nuclear accord that he claimed delivered economic benefits to Tehran.

In a bid to manage perceptions around this politically sensitive issue, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to claim that “the story that the US is paying Iran 300 million Dollars is Fake News,” while Vance told CBS News that the money would not be a US payout in exchange for Iran’s enriched uranium.

“When people say that billions of dollars of assets will be released, that’s not true,” the vice president told the CBS Morning programme. “What is true is that Iran will have a much better and much more prosperous future if they meet the obligations they make in this agreement.”

What do we know about the $300bn investment fund?

Vance said the deal “fundamentally extends a hand to Iran and says, ‘Look, if you guys are willing to honour your obligations, if you’re willing to allow real inspections of your nuclear programme, then we will welcome you back into the world economy.’

“That’s the sort of thing they could have access to, funded by the Gulf Coast coalition, so long as they honour their end of the obligation,” Vance told CBS. He also claimed that while US money would not be injected, economic opportunities could arise once Iran repositions itself in the global economy.

The New York Times quoted sources saying the fund would not come from governments but be created for companies eager to invest in Iran.

Muhanad Seloom, a non-resident senior fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, said the setup was a no-lose solution for Washington. “If Iran reforms, the administration owns the peace; if it doesn’t, the US loses nothing and the Gulf carries the risk,” he told Al Jazeera.

What about the Iranian frozen assets?

Seloom said the idea of an investment fund was built precisely to escape the optics of releasing Iran’s frozen funds. While the exact amount of Iran’s frozen assets is unclear, official Iranian reports and experts have set the total amount at more than $100bn.

Iran’s economy has been crippled due to years of sanctions imposed on the country by the United States and other nations following the Islamic revolution in 1979, and then amplified over Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missiles programmes. These measures have restricted Tehran’s ability to access its own assets, such as revenues from oil sales, which have been frozen in foreign banks.

Tehran was granted sanctions relief in the wake of the landmark 2015 nuclear deal signed under President Barack Obama, but Trump tore it up in 2018 during his first term. The 2015 deal had put limits on Iran’s nuclear enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief.

Iran’s state-affiliated Mehr News agency reported on Sunday that the 14-point draft memorandum of understanding provided for the release of $24bn in frozen Iranian assets.

Pressed by CBS News on the possibility of releasing frozen funds, Vance said the $24bn figure “just doesn’t appear anywhere in any of the texts that we’ve talked about with the Iranians”.

“What we have said is that we’re willing to talk about unfreezing assets, but a much, much bigger deal is unsanctioning their economy – so long as they make the long-term commitments on the nuclear programme,” the vice president added.

For Iran, where the war inflicted an estimated $29bn damage and the population is struggling with the highest inflation rate since 1942, the investment fund may constitute a much-needed lifeline.

But the optics will not be as favourable, raising a “dignity problem”, Seloom said. “Tehran reads this as supervised, conditional money rather than sovereign relief,” the analyst told Al Jazeera.

Which other contentious issues will be discussed after signing the deal on Friday?

One of the US’s main declared objectives has been to assuage concerns surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme, including a stockpile of more than 440kg (970lbs) of enriched uranium.

The memorandum extends an existing ceasefire arrangement for another 60 days, during which the two sides are expected to hold further negotiations on issues including the disposal of the enriched uranium.

Vance said Tehran had agreed to surrender its stockpile, undergo regular inspections and refrain from producing or buying nuclear weapons, but the full text of the memorandum of understanding has yet to be disclosed.

The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which has been subject to competing blockades by the US and Iran, has also been a point of contention. Trump suggested an agreement to reopen the waterway had been reached when he announced a deal on Sunday with the words: “Let the oil flow!”

Speaking to CNBC, however, Vance acknowledged that not all sticking points surrounding the passageway had been resolved. “Well, our expectation is that the strait is gonna be opened in a toll-free way for the long term, and that’s the sort of thing that we’re gonna figure out in these technical negotiations,” he said.

Israel’s ongoing aggression on Lebanon is also expected to create friction, as Iran has insisted any ceasefire deal must include the allied nation. Israel has so far rejected any arrangement that would limit its ability to strike what it says are Hezbollah targets. Defence Minister Israel Katz on Friday said the military would continue operating in Lebanon regardless of any agreement with Tehran.

Mixed reactions to the agreement

Iranian ⁠⁠Foreign ⁠⁠Minister Abbas Araghchi said the memorandum of understanding would reap economic benefits for Iran but stressed that Tehran would not rely on those benefits for all of its needs.

“We have a history of broken promises, non-compliance, and the tearing up of agreements,” Araghchi said on Monday, according to Press TV. He said discussions about the lifting of US sanctions and Iran’s nuclear programme would be held during a 60-day period of negotiations following the official signature on Friday.

Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has yet to comment. Some Iranian observers objected to the timing of the announcement, which coincided with Trump’s birthday. Referring to the assassination of former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at the beginning of the US-Iran war, conservative journalist Parisa Nasr wrote on X: “Was giving a birthday gift to the killer of the martyred Leader also one of the unwritten conditions of the deal?”

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Iran’s Supreme National Security Council had approved the deal so that “America’s genuine commitment to respecting the rights of the Iranian nation could be tested in practice.”

Speaking at the G7 summit in France on Tuesday, Trump described the deal with Iran as “fair”, “good”, and under which Iran “can’t have a nuclear weapon” or “they get blown up.”

Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, who is also attending the summit, said the Iran-US agreement will result in positive outcomes for the region.

“This is a very important deal, there’s still a lot of work to be done, but with this momentum – if we continue like that, Mr President – I think we can achieve and do great things in the region,” Sheikh Tamim said.

US Democratic lawmakers welcomed a deal to halt the war with Iran but stressed that its terms must be made public. Senator Gregory Meeks said “any final agreement must be durable, enforceable, transparent” and more than “vague announcements or political spin”.

US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham on Sunday said he was “pleased” about the deal but also “somewhat concerned that Iran’s view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming”.

Seloom, at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, said the different narratives underlined that the two sides were “not really talking to each other”. “They’re talking past each other, to domestic audiences,” he said. “Each side has to sell this as a victory it cannot sell honestly.”

South Korea has begun consultations with the United States, Iran and other relevant countries regarding navigation through the Strait of Hormuz following the signing of a preliminary deal aimed at ending the monthslong war in the Middle East, the foreign ministry said Tuesday.

According to U.S. officials, President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Iran’s parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf inked the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that would extend the countries’ ceasefire for 60 days, during which negotiations will take place to address nuclear and other issues to reach a final peace deal.

A large number of vessels, including two dozen South Korea-linked ships, have been stranded in the waterway, which Iran has effectively choked off with threats of missile and drone strikes amid the war.

“We are assessing the details related to maritime transit and have begun necessary communication with relevant countries, including the U.S. and Iran,” ministry spokesperson Park Il said during a regular press briefing.

According to Park, the government is closely monitoring a range of factors before making judgments on passage operations, including the presence of naval mines, the overall security situation in the strait and shipping traffic conditions.

He said the government will continue to prioritize the safety of South Korean vessels and sailors while working to ensure the smooth resumption of shipping.

Park added the government will also maintain close consultations with shipping companies in assessing developments in the region.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

Venezuela has signed an agreement with General Electric Vernova aimed at boosting electricity generation as the country seeks to improve a power system plagued by years of outages. Officials say the deal could add 5 gigawatts of capacity over four years.

Here’s TWZ’s weekly carrier tracker monitoring America’s flattop fleet, including deployed Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) and Amphibious Ready Groups (ARG), using publicly available open-source information. Check out last week’s report here.

The U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports remains in full effect, for now, pending the execution of the ceasefire agreement, scheduled to be formally signed on Friday in Geneva, according to a notice released today by NAVCENT. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces launched multiple waves of strikes last week against Iran following the shootdown of a U.S. Army Apache helicopter, and disabled an additional two commercial vessels that tried to skirt the blockade, bringing the total to nine. Two carriers, USS Abraham Lincoln and USS George H.W. Bush, embarked with a combined seven squadrons of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, two squadrons of EA-18G Growlers, and one squadron of F-35C Lightning IIs, continue to support “self defense” strikes and blockade operations.

The Lincoln CSG has been deployed for nearly seven months and would likely be among the first naval assets to rotate out of the theater if the blockade winds down. The details, and scale, of the drawdown of forces in the CENTCOM area of responsibility (AOR), as agreed upon in the memorandum of understanding (MOU), are murky as of publication. More than 20 U.S. Navy surface combatants have been operating in the region.

U.S. Navy fighter jets and command and control aircraft prepare to take off from USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) as the ship transits the Arabian Sea. pic.twitter.com/SAGl2e7y0e

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) June 13, 2026

USS Nimitz entered the final leg of her homeport shift to Norfolk, operating off the east coast in U.S. 2nd Fleet AOR after a monthslong circumnavigation of South America, according to flight tracking data and public AIS. Nimitz conducted operations northwest of Cuba and the Bahamas last week. On Thursday, six Super Hornets, attached to the “Kestrels” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 137, carried out an air power demonstration and show of force, dropping MK-82/BLU-111 bombs on a simulated target in the Gulf of America.

On the west coast, USS Theodore Roosevelt continues working up in preparation for a future deployment. The flattop got underway on June 10 for INSURV inspections to verify readiness and returned to San Diego the following day. The group was also spotted conducting a live fire exercise with the Mk 38 25mm machine gun. USS Carl Vinson got underway for sea trials after a nine-month Planned Incremental Availability (PIA) and moored at port in San Diego on June 13.

In the Western Pacific, USS George Washington is on a summer patrol and operating in the Philippine Sea. The CSG conducted a replenishment-at-sea with USNS Earl Warren and helo operations while underway in the vicinity of Guam last week. Destroyer USS Shoup, part of the CSG, pulled into Apra Harbor early this morning, according to AIS.

Eyes in the sky.

An MH-60S Sea Hawk assigned to Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 12 operates above Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73) while underway in the Philippine Sea.

The George Washington Carrier Strike Group is operating in the @US7thFleet… pic.twitter.com/l4UWAVHUAW

— U.S. Navy (@USNavy) June 15, 2026

Two ARG-MEUs are currently deployed. Forward-deployed USS Tripoli continues operations in the CENTCOM AOR, and USS Boxer is underway in the Indo-Pacific (INDOPACOM) AOR, operating in the South China Sea. For a detailed review of America’s amphibious assault fleet, check out our recent report here.

Note: Positions are general approximations. Non-deployed LHA/LHD amphibious warships are not shown.

Contact the author: ian.ellis-jones@teamrecurrent.io

Benchmark S&P 500 rises 1.7 percent, while tech-heavy Nasdaq jumps 3.1 percent.

US stocks have rallied on hopes that the tentative deal to end the US-Israel war on Iran will restore stability to energy supply chains roiled by months of disruption in the Strait of Hormuz.

The S&P 500 rose 1.7 percent on Monday, taking the benchmark index within touching distance of its all-time high.

The tech-focused Nasdaq Composite jumped 3.1 percent, aided by a 19.6 percent gain by SpaceX, which on Friday made the biggest market debut in history and minted the world’s first trillionaire in Elon Musk.

The blue-chip Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 0.9 percent, closing at a record high.

Brent crude futures, the primary benchmark for global oil prices, fell nearly 5 percent to just above $83 a barrel, the lowest price since the first week of the conflict.

Asian stock markets were largely flat on Monday morning, after surging the previous day on the back of US President Donald Trump’s announcement of his deal with Tehran.

As of 01:30 GMT, Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225 was 0.01 percent lower, while South Korea’s Kospi, the best-performing major index this year, was down 0.06 percent.

In Taiwan, the TAIEX was up 0.2 percent.

Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index was down 0.07 percent.

Jay Goldberg, a senior analyst for tech-related equities at the Chicago-based Seaport Research Partners, said the announcement of the US-Iran deal had tilted investors’ risk balancing act towards buying into the market.

“To oversimplify, the debate has been: AI spending is strong, but there’s a war going on,” Goldberg told Al Jazeera.

“The war is over, it seems, so that side of the argument falls away. Investors are now feeling better about taking on more risk,” Goldberg said.

While Washington and Tehran’s framework has raised hopes for a return to stability in global energy markets, it is expected to take months before energy flows fully return to normal, due to the massive backlog of vessels around the Strait of Hormuz and the need to ensure the waterway is safe from Iranian naval mines.

According to the International Shipping Chamber, about 500 ships are still waiting to pass through the strait, which normally carries about one-fifth of global supplies of oil and liquefied natural gas.

WASHINGTON — The terms of a deal to end President Trump’s war with Iran remained a secret on Monday as both sides claimed victory and the months-long conflict reached a nebulous end.

The memorandum of understanding, providing a rough framework to conclude the war, was signed digitally Sunday, with a ceremony scheduled to take place on Friday in Switzerland, U.S. officials said.

Trump hailed the document as a breakthrough after months of negotiations. Yet its broad contours remained unclear more than a day after the deal was announced, as each side offered conflicting public messaging about what had been agreed.

Iran said it would continue regulating traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic paradigm shift from the prewar status quo that was denied by the White House. The two sides expressed disagreement over whether the status of Iran’s ballistic missile program would be addressed in future negotiations, or whether Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon was a part of the deal.

And Trump administration officials rejected Iranian claims that the United States would provide immediate sanctions relief as misleading “spin.”

Hours later, another U.S. official suggested that Iran, in fact, might receive some relief at the front end.

“We are prepared to release frozen funds, and we are prepared to release sanctions,” a senior U.S. official told reporters on a call. “And we’ll do some small gestures of that in the beginning, if they make some small gestures to us that show they’re willing to meet their commitments as well.

“We’ll know over the next two to three weeks whether those understandings will turn into actual agreement,” the official added.

Trump started the war in February citing Iran’s nuclear program, which had expanded after he withdrew from a prior nuclear agreement negotiated by President Obama. That deal capped more than two years of intensive diplomacy but ultimately failed under the weight of political criticism from Republicans — led by Trump — over its inclusion of sanctions relief for Tehran.

Trump administration officials said the new agreement would include a commitment from Iran not to develop or purchase nuclear weapons — a vow the Islamic Republic has repeatedly made through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Obama-era deal and a religious edict from the late supreme leader. Yet the enforcement mechanisms for policing Iran’s nuclear work were left to negotiate another day.

Iran could get sanctions relief

In an interview with CBS News, Vice President JD Vance acknowledged that Iran could get significant sanctions relief — and up to $300 billion in reconstruction funds — if they abide by U.S. terms, such as the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important commercial waterways.

“Our expectation is that the strait is going to be opened in a toll-free way for the long term, and that’s the sort of thing that we’re going to figure out in these technical negotiations,” Vance said.

In a separate interview, he described the president’s policy as “extending an open hand” to Tehran.

“The hard-liners of the Iranian system will overemphasize the benefits that Iran gets,” he added, “while underemphasizing all the things that they have to concede, and all the things that they have to provide, in order to get these benefits.”

Uncertainty across the region

The news of peace came with a sense of bewilderment and uncertainty in a region that suffered as collateral damage through months of war.

Sunni Arab states that once hoped Iran would emerge weakened from the war issued tepid support for an agreement that could ultimately leave the fate of their oil exports at the whims of an emboldened adversary. And Israeli leaders, across the political aisle, expressed deep concerns over the deal in private, warning they would not be bound by an agreement to which they were not a party.

Israel’s decisions moving forward — particularly in Lebanon— may ultimately decide whether the agreement survives over the next 60 days, when Washington and Tehran plan on ironing out its more technical details.

Hours after word of the signing came out, a stream of cars crowded the highway leading to southern Lebanon, full of displaced families desperate to check on homes and villages they hadn’t seen for more than 100 days.

They did so in defiance of Lebanese officials, who called on people to remain where they were until an official end to war in Lebanon — a secondary front in the larger U.S.-Israel war on Iran that has nevertheless seen staggering levels of destruction.

A woman and her children return to their Lebanese village Monday following the ceasefire announcement.

(Mohammed Zaatari / Ap Photo/mohammed Zaatari)

In the more than three months since the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah attacked Israel, nearly 3,800 people have been killed, and almost a quarter of the country’s 6 million people are displaced. Israeli troops occupy more than 10% of Lebanese territory, leaving a trail of destruction that has seen swaths of the country’s south all but razed.

‘Everything is gone’

None of that discouraged Hassan Shareef from leaving where he was staying in Beirut at 7 a.m. to head to Nabatieh, one of south Lebanon’s largest cities and a frequent target of Israeli strikes in recent weeks, to check on his tailoring business.

“I wasn’t afraid. I had to come. But what I saw would make you cry,” he said. “Everything is gone. My house, I can’t live in it. And the business is destroyed.”

Aqeel Khalaf, an herbalist, hit the road in the early morning with his brother, son and daughter-in-law. They reached Nabatieh in two hours.

Yet it was less of a homecoming than Khalaf hoped: Israeli troops were still stationed near his village, a few miles down the road from where he stood in Nabatieh’s central market. Their house was tantalizingly close, but for the moment it might as well have been on the moon.

“It’s hard for me, but the Lebanese army told us we can’t go yet. We have no choice,” Khalaf said. “Maybe in 24 hours, when things crystallize with the deal.”

He could at least check on his shop here in the central market, though he already knew there would be damage: The family regularly checked satellite images of the area and saw the building was hit about a week ago.

Standing before it, Khalaf saw how the wall of the adjacent building had toppled onto the ground floor, flooding the shop with rubble and coating everything with a film of fine gray dust. A nearby blast had collapsed the roof.

“Nabatieh was hit very hard this time,” he said. Still, he could salvage something, he said, pointing to his son as he fished out boxes of herbal treatments from under the rubble.

Two ceasefires in the last two months, forged during U.S.-led talks between the Lebanese and Israeli governments but without Hezbollah or Iran’s involved, were broken as soon as they were announced. A previous ceasefire from November 2024 saw Hezbollah stop all attacks while Israel continued military operations in south Lebanon.

This iteration of the truce appeared to have more success: On Monday, Hezbollah launched no missiles but announced an attack on an Israeli force to stop its advance; and the Israeli military mostly stayed its fire as well, barring a number of shelling incidents and a drone strike on a car in the village of Kfar Tebnit that injured a journalist and killed one person, according to Lebanese media.

Obstacles to a durable peace

Lebanese army units, meanwhile, deployed in parts of the south, barring motorists from reaching areas near Israeli troops. Lebanon’s army remained on the sidelines during the war, but 30 soldiers, including a general, having been killed in Israeli attacks since March 2. Hezbollah attacks killed at least 30 Israeli soldiers and one civilian contractor.

Obstacles to a more durable peace remain. Israeli officials insist on freedom of action against Hezbollah, and they will create a so-called security zone in Lebanon indefinitely so to protect Israel’s northern border. For its part, Hezbollah says it will respond to any attack and will continue fighting until Israel withdraws.

Though the truce appeared to be holding for now, Khalaf, who had raced to reopen his Nabatieh shop after the 2024 ceasefire, was waiting this time. For now, he would take what stock he could and open a shop in Sidon or Beirut.

“We have to work and feed our families. But the damage is too much this time. I’ll come back when things are better,” he said. “And my home too. When I get to see it, even if it’s a mound of rubble, I’ll pitch a tent on it and rebuild.”

Wilner reported from Washington and Bulos from Nabatieh.

The preliminary deal to end US-Israel war on Iran has sent oil prices tumbling to a three-month low amid hopes that the Strait of Hormuz will reopen.

But it could be months before American consumers see major relief at the petrol pump.

The closure of the strategic chokepoint disrupted global energy markets for more than three months, cutting off a major shipping route through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas normally passes.

On Sunday, US President Donald Trump said prices would “drop like a rock” once the strait reopens, a claim he has made multiple times in the past few weeks.

However, experts caution that a major decline in prices is unlikely to happen as quickly as Trump suggests.

While Asian markets rely more heavily on oil shipped through the Strait of Hormuz than North American markets, tighter supply and steady demand have pushed prices higher worldwide.

On Monday, petrol prices in the US remained above $4 per gallon (3.78 litres), averaging $4.06 nationwide, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA). This was a dip from a high in early May of $4.48 per gallon.

By comparison, prices stood at $2.98 per gallon on February 28, when the US and Israel first struck Iran, triggering a ripple effect across global energy markets.

Energy prices have risen sharply in the US in recent months, increasing 7.7 percent over the last two months alone, and are up 40 percent from a year ago, according to last week’s inflation report from the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics,

However, prices are beginning to fall, a dip that began as Washington and Tehran entered negotiations.

“The potential deal that the US and Iran agreed to over the weekend certainly could pave the way for even lower prices… in the next two to three days by what we saw over the weekend,” Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, which tracks petrol prices, told Al Jazeera.

But De Haan expects a plateau and says that consumers may not see gas prices at pre-war levels until 2027, even if the ceasefire holds.

“It may take many months, if not beyond a year, for global oil inventories to recover to pre-war levels,” De Haan said.

Amid strains on the supply chain, producers will also need time to ramp up output, while port bottlenecks and heightened demand during the busy summer travel season could delay any substantial relief for everyday consumers.

“There are some mitigating factors that are going to slow the decline in prices. There are a lot of organisations and companies that have to re-up their stockpiles [like the US’s strategic petroleum reserve] and fulfil contracts that have been on hold for the last few months,” John Deal, managing director of capital markets at the Post Oak Group investment bank, said.

Supply chain strains

Fixing kinks in the supply chain takes time.

Oil production slumped amid the war. More than 14 million barrels per day, or 14 percent of the world’s demand, has been shut, according to the International Energy Agency.

Deal said it would take time to get oil production back online.

“My sense is that there’s going to be sustained high demand through the summertime, and we probably won’t get back to pre-war levels [on petrol prices] until after the summer, maybe September or October,” Deal said.

Mark Jones, a professor of political science at Rice University, said that producers might be reluctant to bring full operations back online until they can see the ceasefire hold.

The agreement opening the blockade is for a 60-day negotiation period between the two countries.

“Many [producers] may be reluctant to restart production until they are convinced that the peace will hold, because the last thing they want to do is carry out the costly effort to restart production only to see the conflict revived and then have to shut it down once again,” Jones told Al Jazeera.

Getting production back online is also dependent on the impact individual producers have faced throughout the war.

Refineries that were shut as a precaution could reach as much as 95 percent capacity within 40-60 days, Vitol Bahrain’s head of research, Bader Nooruddin, told the Reuters news agency. Those damaged in the fighting could take much longer.

But bottlenecks at ports could be the biggest hurdle, according to Deal.

“There’s a lag time with shipping capacity. Shipping capacity is perhaps the most significant constraint,” Deal said.

This is because there are more than 500 ships still awaiting passage, according to shipping data from Kpler.

With the ships headed all over the world, it will take them weeks to reach their destinations, dock, and unload at the ports.

That also means a wave of empty ships is waiting in limbo for spots at ports to load cargo and ramp back up to normal operations.

Major shipping giants are in a holding pattern.

Norway’s Wallenius Wilhelmsen and Denmark’s Maersk both told Reuters that they have not changed their Middle East operations in the wake of the announcement.

During the war, there was limited passage through the Strait of Hormuz, with an average of 10 ships a day passing through, compared with 135 that normally transit the waterway, according to an analysis by Bloomberg.

“Tankers take months to reach their final destination and then come back again. So the ability to replenish the stocks is going to take until, I think, the early fall, just from a shipping perspective, to get back to the status quo that was in place before the conflict started,” Jones said, referring to the preferred term for the months of September through November in North America.

At the same time, US strategic reserves are running low, at their lowest levels since 1983. Reserves have tumbled by 18 percent since the war began.

“Demand might keep prices high through the summer as strategic reserves get refilled,” Deal added.

Jet fuel demand will also put pressure on consumers amid the normally busy JuneAugust travel season in the US.

“The war has really affected airlines and their ability to schedule and anticipate how the summer months are going to go,” Deal added.

In April, United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby said that airfares for the carrier may have to jump as much as 20 percent on higher fuel prices.

Grocery woes

The increase in prices is also hitting food budgets.

The most recent consumer price index report showed US inflation ticked up by 4.2 percent compared with this time last year. While inflationary pressures were mostly driven by fuel prices, the impact has still been felt at the grocery store.

Almost half of the world’s urea, which is used in fertiliser, is produced in the Gulf region and passes through the Strait of Hormuz. For American farmers, that means access to fertilisers for the next crop season is more expensive.

Tomato prices, already driven up by Trump’s tariffs on Mexico, have surged 40 percent in the last year amid rising transportation costs.

Lettuce prices rose by more than 16 percent in May, and the price of ground beef increased by about 12 percent compared with this time last year.

Jones warned that food prices may not go down.

“Many retailers, wholesalers, and producers will keep them where they are or only reduce them if forced to from a sales perspective. Unlike petrol, which tends to ebb and flow with the price of oil, prices for many other goods that have been adversely affected by all of this are much less likely to return to where they were prior to the start of the conflict,” Jones said.

“For groceries, for manufacturing goods, for anything that has gone up during the conflict, the price that is there now often becomes the new baseline from which prices move in the future.”

This can be compared with the COVID-19 pandemic period. When the pandemic stalled supply chains, producers increased prices. A 2024 investigation by the Federal Trade Commission found that retail grocers kept prices elevated after supply chain constraints brought on by the pandemic had eased.

“Some in the grocery retail industry seem to have used rising costs as an opportunity to further raise prices to increase their profits,” the report said.

The announcement of a preliminary US-Iran agreement has generated cautious optimism in Lebanon, where months of conflict have displaced large portions of the population and devastated communities across the south.

While the framework reportedly calls for the immediate cessation of military operations, Lebanese authorities are warning residents against assuming that conditions are safe enough for a rapid return.

The caution reflects uncertainty over how the agreement will be implemented and whether all parties will abide by its terms.

Adding to those concerns, Israel has made clear that it does not consider itself bound by the agreement and intends to maintain security zones in southern Lebanon.

Lebanon became one of the principal battlegrounds of the wider regional conflict after Hezbollah opened a front against Israel in support of Iran following the outbreak of hostilities.

The resulting escalation led to extensive Israeli military operations across southern Lebanon, causing widespread destruction and one of the largest displacement crises in the country’s recent history.

Entire communities were uprooted as residents fled bombardment and military activity.

Iran consistently pushed for any agreement with Washington to include provisions addressing Lebanon, viewing the conflict there as inseparable from broader regional tensions.

The inclusion of Lebanon in the framework agreement therefore represents a significant diplomatic concession and a central element of Tehran’s negotiating position.

Why This Matters

Lebanon has become one of the clearest examples of how regional conflicts can produce devastating humanitarian consequences.

The conflict has:

• Displaced more than a million people.
• Damaged homes, infrastructure, and businesses.
• Increased pressure on Lebanon’s already fragile economy.
• Deepened political and social instability.

A durable ceasefire could allow reconstruction efforts to begin and reduce the risk of further regional escalation.

However, the humanitarian benefits will depend on security conditions improving on the ground rather than merely on diplomatic declarations.

The Challenge of Returning Home

For displaced families, peace announcements do not automatically translate into confidence.

Many residents remain uncertain about:

• Whether military operations have truly ended.
• The presence of Israeli forces in southern areas.
• The condition of homes and infrastructure.
• Future security guarantees.

The hesitation expressed by displaced residents reflects a broader reality in conflict zones: trust often takes much longer to rebuild than physical infrastructure.

Even if active fighting stops, communities may remain reluctant to return until they believe the risk of renewed conflict has genuinely diminished.

Israel’s Position Complicates the Picture

A major obstacle to immediate normalization is Israel’s position.

Israeli officials have indicated they will continue maintaining security zones and reserve the right to conduct operations they deem necessary for national security.

This creates ambiguity regarding implementation of the broader agreement.

While the US-Iran framework may establish a diplomatic foundation for reducing violence, the practical situation on the ground will depend on decisions made by actors who were not direct participants in the negotiations.

This distinction could prove crucial in determining whether the agreement produces lasting stability.

A Test of Regional Diplomacy

The inclusion of Lebanon in the agreement demonstrates how interconnected Middle Eastern conflicts have become.

The war was never confined solely to the United States and Iran. It involved multiple regional actors, proxy groups, and overlapping security concerns.

As a result, success will be measured not only by whether Washington and Tehran uphold their commitments but also by whether the agreement influences behavior across the broader region.

Lebanon is likely to become one of the first and most visible tests of that process.

Key Stakeholders

• Lebanon and its government institutions
• Displaced Lebanese civilians
• Israel and its military leadership
• Hezbollah
• Iran
• The United States
• Regional mediators including Pakistan
• Humanitarian organizations operating in Lebanon

What to Watch Next

• Whether military activity in southern Lebanon decreases in the coming days.
• Israeli decisions regarding security zones.
• Hezbollah’s official response to the agreement.
• The pace of civilian returns to southern communities.
• International support for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance.
• Broader negotiations during the 60-day ceasefire period.

The agreement creates an opportunity for Lebanon to move toward greater stability after months of destruction and displacement.

If implemented successfully, reduced hostilities could pave the way for reconstruction, humanitarian relief, and the gradual return of displaced populations.

Yet significant uncertainty remains. Security concerns, damaged infrastructure, and competing interpretations of the agreement could slow progress and complicate efforts to restore normalcy.

For many Lebanese families, the end of active conflict would represent only the beginning of a much longer recovery process.

Analysis

The most revealing aspect of Lebanon’s reaction is the disconnect between diplomacy and reality.

International leaders may celebrate ceasefires and framework agreements, but people living through conflict judge peace by different standards. They look not at official statements but at troop movements, security conditions, and whether it is safe to return home.

That gap is already visible in southern Lebanon. While diplomats describe the agreement as a breakthrough, local authorities are warning residents against rushing back. Israel’s decision to maintain security zones further reinforces uncertainty about how quickly conditions can normalize.

This highlights a recurring challenge in conflict resolution. Agreements can stop wars on paper, but rebuilding trust often takes far longer than negotiating a ceasefire.

Lebanon’s experience may therefore become a key measure of whether the US-Iran agreement delivers meaningful change beyond diplomatic symbolism. If displaced communities can safely return, reconstruction begins, and violence declines, the agreement will gain credibility. If insecurity persists despite the deal, questions will quickly emerge about its effectiveness.

Ultimately, Lebanon represents the human dimension of the broader regional settlement. The success of the agreement will not be judged solely by geopolitical outcomes or energy markets but by whether ordinary people feel secure enough to rebuild their lives after months of war.

With information from Reuters.

The preliminary memorandum represents the first formal framework outlining how Washington and Tehran intend to move from military confrontation toward diplomacy.

While many details remain unpublished, statements from U.S., Iranian and Pakistani officials provide a broad outline of the deal’s structure.

Rather than resolving every dispute immediately, the agreement establishes a phased process aimed at reducing tensions first and addressing more difficult issues later.

The approach reflects the reality that both sides were able to reach consensus on ending hostilities more easily than on the underlying disputes that fueled the conflict.

Phase One: Ending the Fighting

The first stage focuses on immediate de-escalation.

According to mediator Pakistan, both sides have agreed to permanently halt military operations across all fronts.

The formal memorandum is expected to be signed in Switzerland, after which implementation would begin.

The objective of this phase is straightforward: stop active hostilities, reduce the risk of escalation, and create space for broader negotiations.

This represents the most immediate achievement of the agreement and is likely the reason markets reacted positively.

Reopening the Strait of Hormuz

The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz is arguably the agreement’s most significant economic provision.

The waterway serves as one of the world’s most important energy transit routes and has been at the center of global concerns throughout the conflict.

Both sides indicate that commercial shipping will resume following the signing of the memorandum.

The restoration of maritime traffic could:

• Increase global oil supply.
• Reduce shipping disruptions.
• Ease pressure on energy prices.
• Lower inflation risks for major economies.

However, questions remain over how the route will be governed.

Iran has suggested it will coordinate management of traffic with Oman, potentially giving Tehran a more formal role in overseeing one of the world’s most strategically important waterways.

That issue could become a future source of diplomatic friction.

The Nuclear Issue Has Been Deferred

The most controversial subject in the negotiations remains unresolved.

Rather than settling the nuclear dispute immediately, both sides appear to have agreed to address it during a 60-day negotiation period.

According to Iranian officials, Tehran would freeze nuclear activities during that time by halting additional enrichment and refraining from expanding facilities.

The long-term future of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains unclear.

Washington continues to emphasize inspections and preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Tehran continues to insist that its nuclear program is peaceful and seeks recognition of its right to maintain civilian nuclear activities.

These competing positions are likely to dominate the next phase of talks.

Sanctions Relief Could Shape the Success of the Deal

Economic issues may ultimately prove as difficult as nuclear negotiations.

Iran expects meaningful sanctions relief as part of any final settlement.

Iranian officials have spoken about:

• Temporary waivers on oil sanctions.
• The release of frozen assets.
• Financial support mechanisms.
• A pathway toward lifting U.S. and international sanctions.

The Trump administration has signaled a more cautious approach.

Washington has indicated that sanctions relief will depend on Iranian compliance and future negotiations rather than automatic implementation.

This difference highlights one of the central tensions in the agreement: each side expects benefits on different timelines.

Lebanon Remains a Flashpoint

The agreement’s treatment of Lebanon illustrates how regional conflicts have become intertwined.

Iran views a ceasefire in Lebanon as a critical component of the broader settlement.

Lebanese political leaders have welcomed the inclusion of Lebanon in the framework.

Israel, however, has made clear that it does not consider itself bound by all aspects of the agreement and intends to maintain military positions in areas it views as strategically important.

This creates uncertainty about whether the Lebanon component can be implemented as envisioned.

The issue could quickly become one of the first tests of the agreement’s durability.

Why This Matters

The memorandum matters because it shifts the conflict from the battlefield to the negotiating table.

The agreement addresses several immediate concerns:

• Rising energy prices.
• Shipping disruptions.
• Escalating regional instability.
• Growing economic uncertainty.

At the same time, it leaves the most difficult questions unresolved.

This means the framework should be viewed as the beginning of a diplomatic process rather than its conclusion.

Its success will depend on whether negotiators can transform temporary understandings into binding commitments.

Key Stakeholders

• United States
• Iran
• Pakistan (mediator)
• Israel
• Lebanon
• Oman
• European powers
• Gulf Arab states
• International energy markets
• Global shipping industry
• International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and nuclear inspectors

What to Watch Next

• Formal signing of the memorandum in Switzerland.
• Reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
• Progress during the 60-day negotiation period.
• Discussions on Iran’s nuclear program.
• Decisions regarding sanctions relief.
• Reactions from Congress and international partners.
• Israeli actions in Lebanon and other contested areas.

The memorandum creates a framework for de-escalation, but its long-term success remains uncertain.

If implemented effectively, the agreement could stabilize energy markets, reduce regional tensions, and create momentum for broader diplomatic engagement.

However, many of the issues that triggered the conflict remain unresolved.

Nuclear enrichment, sanctions, regional security arrangements, and competing strategic interests are all likely to generate difficult negotiations.

The coming 60 days will therefore be more important than the announcement itself.

They will determine whether the framework becomes a durable peace process or merely a temporary pause in a conflict whose underlying disputes remain intact.

Analysis

The structure of the agreement reveals a pragmatic calculation by both Washington and Tehran.

Rather than attempting to solve every dispute at once, negotiators prioritized issues where agreement was achievable: ending active hostilities, reopening shipping routes, and creating a mechanism for future talks.

This approach reflects the political realities facing both governments.

For President Trump, reducing energy prices and ending a costly conflict addresses growing domestic pressure. For Iran, halting military operations while preserving room to negotiate on sanctions and nuclear issues offers a path to economic relief without immediate capitulation.

Yet the framework’s greatest strength may also be its greatest weakness.

By postponing the hardest questions, the agreement creates momentum for diplomacy but also leaves significant room for disagreement later. Nuclear enrichment, sanctions relief, and regional security arrangements are not peripheral issues—they are the core disputes that drove the conflict.

As a result, the memorandum should be viewed less as a peace treaty and more as a diplomatic bridge. It lowers immediate risks and creates opportunities for negotiation, but it does not yet resolve the strategic rivalry between the United States and Iran.

Whether this becomes a historic breakthrough or a temporary truce will depend on what happens after the signatures are placed on the document. The real negotiations are only beginning.

With information from Reuters.