Iran

On June 14, the United States and Iran agreed to a framework to end their war. The Strait of Hormuz is to reopen, the bombing of Lebanon is to end and – most importantly – the killing is to stop. After more than 100 days of war that killed thousands, including Iran’s most senior leaders, and pushed the world economy to the brink, even a fragile truce feels like first light.

Let us welcome it, but also let us understand it. To grasp why this war happened, and the string of wars before it, we must name their common cause. That cause is “Greater Israel” – not the country of Israel but an idea of it – a terrible one. The idea of “Greater Israel” has been the cause of wars in Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran.

It holds that Israel should stretch over all of historic Palestine – from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea – and to parts of neighbouring countries as well.  According to United States Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, a fundamentalist Protestant whose geopolitical compass is set by biblical texts from 500 BC, “Greater Israel” stretches from the Nile to the Euphrates. Last summer, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu professed to be “very” attached to a vision of “Greater Israel” that, he said, takes in the Palestinian territories and neighbouring Arab lands.

This absurd and dangerous doctrine has two parents. The first are secular hardliners like Netanyahu who say that Israel must control all the land from the river to the sea to be safe, and damn the eight million Palestinians in the way.

The second is the Jewish supremacist creed of Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir that God gave the land to the Jews alone: There is, in Smotrich’s words, “no such thing as a Palestinian”. Asked recently how Israel should answer its collapsing global standing, Smotrich vowed Israel would not relinquish military control of the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanese or Syrian territory: “We won’t commit suicide to make them happy.”

“Greater Israel” is paranoia, megalomania and religious zeal braided into a single programme. The doctrine should have been repudiated on its first airing decades ago. Instead, it has driven Israel’s foreign and military doctrine for three decades – and has survived until today because Netanyahu has taken the US for a ride.

He has done it with two American constituencies: Jewish Zionists who love Israel and will forgive it anything and Christian Zionists who love the prophecy of the End Times and the Second Coming of Christ more than they love any living Palestinian or, for that matter, any living Israeli.

Delusion has led on to delusion, and the road has run from one war to the next.  We are 30 years into this fiasco now.

The war on Iran was simply the latest “Greater Israel” fantasy. The government of 90 million people was to be toppled in a single, glorious day. Of course, it did not happen. Israeli and American bombs killed Iran’s leaders on February 28, but that did not deliver the promised collapse. It resulted instead in thousands of dead, a choked Strait of Hormuz and a global oil shock.

We have seen this film before. The Israel-US plan to bring down President Bashar al-Assad in Syria was also meant to be quick, one or two years at the most. Instead came a dozen years of carnage, fed by a covert war armed and financed by the CIA with Israel’s ardent backing. The result was an ancient country reduced to rubble. The promised one-day victories always become decade-long graveyards.

US President Donald Trump has been battered by joining the “Greater Israel” delusion, and he knows it. The new agreement with Iran is his escape valve, a way out of a fatuous war that was never his to win.

That is precisely why Israel’s “Greater Israel” politicians are trying to strangle the new agreement in the cradle, for peace with Iran is a defeat for “Greater Israel”. Even after the deal was sealed, Israel has continued to bomb Lebanon, killing 47 people in a single day on Friday and another 32 on Saturday hours after a Lebanon-Israel ceasefire took effect.

Here is the deeper truth: “Greater Israel” is not saving Israel. It is killing it. The friction now visible between Trump and Netanyahu is only the surface. Beneath it lies the collapse of Israel’s standing throughout the world. According to a recent Pew opinion survey, the world now holds an overwhelmingly unfavourable view of Israel. In the US, Israel’s indispensable patron, six in 10 adults view it unfavourably.

A state that makes itself hated by the world, and by its only protector, is not pursuing security. It is threatening its own survival to feed a delusion.

So the way to peace in West Asia is to stop “Greater Israel”. End the war on Iran, stop the genocide in Gaza and halt the strangulation of the West Bank. Most importantly, do the thing the doctrine forbids, which is to create the State of Palestine as the 194th United Nations member state alongside the State of Israel on the 1967 lines with genuine security for both countries and a regional framework to guarantee it, which should include Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon and Syria.

The Iran ceasefire makes the case in miniature: It was won not on the battlefield but through mediation. It became possible when Washington decided it wanted peace more than it wanted “Greater Israel’s” war.

Israel can survive, but not as “Greater Israel”, a disastrous idea that has marched it and the US from one war to the next.

The glimmer of hope today is real. Whether it becomes a true dawn depends on whether the US finally lets Palestine be born, and thereby lets Israel live. The Arab world and Iran need to keep insisting to the US that breaking with “Greater Israel” is the only path to lasting peace.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

The chief of the White House World Cup task force says it’s “pretty amazing” Iran’s football team has been given visas for the tournament. Andrew Giuliani defended the US’s treatment of the team, which has been forced to base itself in Mexico and fly in and out for matches.

Iranian and US officials are set for high stakes talks in Switzerland aimed at reinforcing the Memorandum of Understanding framework. Al Jazeera’s Osama Bin Javaid says intense diplomatic efforts have kept negotiations on track, but key disputes remain unresolved.

Lebanon to top the agenda as US and Iran to hold talks in Switzerland’s Burgenstock mediated by Qatar and Pakistan.

United States Vice President JD Vance has arrived in Switzerland for talks with Iran days after they signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) aimed at ending the US-Israel war on Iran, which had sent oil prices soaring above $100 per barrel and rattled international markets.

The latest round of talks mediated by Pakistan and Qatar is scheduled on Sunday as Israel has intensified attacks on Lebanon, killing dozens of people on Saturday.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced on Saturday that it was closing the Strait of Hormuz, accusing Israel of violating the ceasefire in Lebanon. The Iranian delegation, including parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, has also arrived in Switzerland.

Here’s what we know about the conflict, which has entered its 114th day:

Diplomacy

• The US and Iran are to hold high-level talks in Switzerland’s Burgenstock on Sunday with the US delegation led by Vance. US President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner are also part of the US delegation. Before departing for the talks, Vance told reporters he hoped to make “progress on the nuclear issue” and “on the Lebanon ceasefire issue”.
• Iran’s delegation, led by Ghalibaf and Araghchi, said its main goal is to ensure all parties fully implement the interim deal to end the war.
• Esmaeil Baghaei, spokesperson for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said the Iranian delegation “will be pressing for implementation” of US commitments outlined in the MoU and “seeking clarity on how exactly the other side intends to carry out those commitments”.
• Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and military chief Field Marshal Asim Munir have left for Burgenstock to take part in the talks. “Pakistan will continue to support and advance the implementation of the understandings reached between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States,” the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement posted on X.
• Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani is also expected to take part in the key talks as Israel’s Lebanon attacks threaten to unravel the deal signed electronically by Trump and his Iranian counterpart, Masoud Pezeshkian, on Thursday.
• Egypt will host a four-way meeting with the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan amid the Iran-US talks. The group first met in Riyadh on March 18, followed by meetings in Islamabad on March 29 and Antalya on April 18, reflecting growing efforts by regional powers to address crises through regional diplomacy rather than external intervention.

In Iran

• Mohammad Mokhbar, adviser and assistant to Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, warned that Tehran will not accept a paper agreement unless Washington fully implements its commitments. In a post on X, Mokhbar said the US understood pressure in economic terms. “Americans understand the language of economics and cost-benefit better,” he wrote. “When the agreement remains just on paper, the flow of Middle East energy will also come to a halt.”

• Al Jazeera’s Mohammed Vall, reporting from Tehran, said the delegation from Tehran is going to drive home the idea that Iran is not going to move forward in the implementation of the MoU unless the Israelis abide by the agreement. “They say the Americans bear the responsibility for that and that the Americans have to guarantee that the Israelis comply,” he said.
• Iran’s ⁠oil ⁠industry will be a key testing ground ⁠for any final peace agreement ⁠with the US if Western parties remain committed to its ‌spirit, Oil Minister Mohsen Paknejad says. The ministry’s Shana news agency quoted Paknejad as ⁠saying that in a ⁠post-agreement era, Iran’s oil sector would offer the global ⁠economy significant investment ⁠opportunities and ⁠has hundreds of investment projects as well as technical ‌and operational partnership contracts ready to be ‌signed.
• Amir Ghalenoei, the coach of Iran’s national football team, has criticised increasingly difficult preparation conditions for the team before Sunday’s World Cup match against Belgium, saying “conditions have become even harder” than before their opening match with New Zealand. Iran have been based in Tijuana, Mexico, for the tournament and have been travelling to the US for Group G matches due to restrictions on their stay, an issue that has drawn scrutiny throughout the World Cup.

In the US

• Trump said there will be no tolls for passage through the Strait of Hormuz unless they are collected by the US. This came after the IRGC said it had closed the waterway, through which a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies passed before the war.
• David Sacks, Trump’s technology adviser, has defended the US-Iran MoU, calling it “a tremendous achievement” and a better path than prolonged conflict. Speaking on the All-In Podcast on Saturday, Sacks dismissed calls to escalate, arguing a ground invasion of Iran would make no sense, given Iran’s size and could require as many as a million troops. He branded any such attempt a “suicide mission”.
• Members of the Democratic Party are continuing to criticise Trump over his handling of the war with Iran. Johnny Olszewski, a Democratic congressman from Maryland, said Trump’s “war of choice” was a “disaster” and argued that the agreement with Iran was already breaking down.

In Lebanon

• Five people were killed, among them a child, a woman and two elderly people, in an Israeli raid on the village of Sohmor in Lebanon’s western Bekaa Valley, according to the National News Agency (NNA), citing the Ministry of Public Health. Sunday’s report did not specify when the attack took place. Two people of Palestinian origin were killed in Rashidieh in southern Lebanon’s Tyre district, the NNA reported.
• The Times of Israel reported on Sunday that an Israeli soldier has been killed and 13 others wounded when a barrage of rockets and a drone struck the soldiers’ position in Kfar Tebnit in southern Lebanon.
• Israeli media reports said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered invading troops to hold fire in Lebanon except for those engaged in a battle raging on the Ali al-Taher Hills near Nabatieh.

TIJUANA — About 150 miles from SoFi Stadium, south of the Mexican border, sits the hotel housing Iran’s World Cup team for its games at the Inglewood venue.

The entrance to the Marriott in Tijuana is barricaded, flanked by police and members of the Mexican National Guard, guns held close. No one enters without a hotel reservation or special pass.

Despite the tensions and challenges surrounding Iran’s participation in the World Cup, early Saturday morning finds the mood inside the four-star hotel relaxed, even jubilant. Several dozen fans mingle and bond over their shared excitement to see the squad’s players before they depart for their second group-stage match at SoFi.

“I wanted to come down to support Iranian soccer, and cheer for them when they exited the building and make them happy,” says Lucas Zarrabi, 13. The teen, who attended Monday’s 2-2 draw with New Zealand and has a ticket for Sunday’s match against Belgium, is one of several fans from Los Angeles who made the drive to stay with the team. Others flew in from San José and even Miami, turning up at the hotel not quite four miles from the U.S. border crossing.

Showing up is important, some said, because of what they describe as unfair conditions imposed on the team. After the outbreak of war, the Iranian team was forced to move its base camp from Tucson to Tijuana. Eleven team officials and staff members did not receive U.S. visas. The Trump administration has also denied Iran’s requests to arrive two days before matches — and mandated that the team must leave immediately after each game.

“Every little technicality is making it difficult for the team,” says Abbas Eftekhari, 65, who was born in Iran and has lived in the U.S. for more than 40 years. “I think this is going to drain them psychologically and also physically.”

Iran’s soccer federation has been vocal about the obstacles, saying it would lodge a complaint with FIFA.

“Football shouldn’t lose its power to politics,” Hedayat Mombeini, secretary-general of the Iran Football Federation, said Friday. He added that the restrictions “are certainly having a negative effect on us, but we are trying to overcome these problems with our Iranian pride.”

Since the team landed on June 7, Ali Eslami has visited the hotel gates nearly every day.

“It’s the best pleasure for me. I wished them the best luck. I told them it’s hard but they’re doing excellent things,” said Eslami, who splits his time between Southern California and Tijuana.

He was there again Friday, waiting for the players to return from afternoon training blocks away at the Estadio Caliente, home to the Liga MX’s Xolos.

“I have been in America for 50 years — this has been the most emotional thing, to see the team that I have not seen in 50 years,” he said.

Some Iran fans fear reprisal from fellow members of the diaspora for supporting the team, insisting they were in Tijuana for the love of soccer and the players, not politics. Eftekhari worries that the mood at Iran’s first match, where fans and protesters clashed, affected the players.

“As soon as they see that their countrymen have slogans against them, it also has a negative psychological effect on them. But, that’s how things are at this time,” Eftekhari says.

Just over 24 hours until Sunday’s noon kickoff, it’s not just Iranian fans contributing to the atmosphere. A group of flight attendants from China staying at the hotel embrace the excitement, donning jester hats and waving scarves colored red, white and green. And soccer fans from Tijuana are eager to show some local hospitality. Iran has diplomatic ties with Mexico, unlike with the U.S., and sought to move its group-stage matches to the country where it has an embassy.

“We love the Mexican people very much, and for us, the best situation is for our games to be held in Mexico,” Abolfazl Pasandideh, the Iranian ambassador to Mexico, said at the time.

Leonardo Ramirez Lopez, a 10-year-old soccer fanatic from Tijuana, clutches his autograph album in hopes he’ll get new signatures.

“It’s a new team that I don’t have experience with how they play,” he says. But Iran is already his third-favorite team, behind Colombia and Argentina.

After more than two hours of waiting, several dozen fans break into cheers as players finally file through the lobby. The squad smiles and waves, stopping for a few autographs. As each player leaves, he kisses a Quran, pressing his forehead against it before boarding the bus to Tijuana’s airport.

“Iran, Iran! Whoop, whoop!” fans cry, breaking into song.

Angueira writes for the Associated Press.

The United States will not ease the travel restrictions on the Iranian team for their World Cup matches in Los Angeles and Seattle despite the ⁠team saying they would lodge a complaint with FIFA, the cohost nation’s top tournament official has confirmed.

The US will continue to assess the Iran squad’s travel arrangements, but for now the original plan remains in place, Andrew Giuliani, executive director of the White House Task Force for the tournament, told the Reuters news agency on Saturday.

Iran are unhappy at restrictions that mean they can only travel to venues within 24 hours of their ⁠fixtures and must depart back to their training base in Tijuana, Mexico, directly after each game, with coach Amir Ghalenoei suggesting his side were “the most oppressed team in the whole World Cup”.

The Iranian delegation left the US hours after the full-time whistle at their first World Cup match against New Zealand last week.

The Group G match ended at about 8pm local time (03:00 GMT), and Iran returned to their base camp in Mexico within a few hours, prompting criticism of the US handling of their visas as the team did not get a day to recover at their hotel.

Ghalenoei said the team had expected to spend the night in California to maximise the normal recovery process after their opening game.

The US faced further pushback as Iran winger Mehdi Torabi’s entry visa expired after the first game. Team officials confirmed Tuesday afternoon that they had secured him a new, multiple-entry visa allowing him to travel into the US for future matches.

“This issue has been resolved,” the US Department of State said.

The same travel protocol will be in place for Iran’s fixture against Belgium on Sunday.

The Iranian team was due to arrive in Los Angeles on Saturday evening, about 24 hours before kickoff time for their match.

‘Situation is dynamic’

Giuliani, however, says the situation is fluid and they will discuss what measures will be in place for Iran’s third game against Egypt in Seattle on Friday.

“The ‌situation is dynamic,” Giuliani said in Houston. “We have a plan right now. Tomorrow afternoon [after the match against Belgium], they will take the 27-minute flight back to Tijuana.

“We will see how it goes for match two, and then there will be discussions the day after in terms of what it looks like for match three in Seattle.”

Giuliani defended the measures in place and said the pre-tournament change in training bases for the side from Tucson to Tijuana had shortened Iran’s travel time.

“The shift from Tucson to Tijuana, I think, was good for everybody involved. Certainly it reduces their travel time to Los ⁠Angeles too,” he said.

“Their flight is an hour shorter than it would be from Tucson. And we’re ⁠happy with the way that things went for match one in Los Angeles.

“I would just point to the fact that all players have received visas. All the coaches have received visas. There are some team officials that have not received visas, and that’s because we’ve seen some derogatory information on them, and this ⁠is the balance that we talk about.”

Giuliani said the goal has always been to protect the interests of the US and the international visitors at the World Cup.

“We want ⁠to make sure we have this incredible soccer tournament, where people are welcome ⁠and enjoy the World Cup, while also making sure that we are not just protecting American citizens, but we’re also protecting all those international visitors that are coming here,” he said.

He revealed that no threats to the tournament had been identified, but that officials remain vigilant.

“What I can tell you is our intelligence community has ‌tripled down on this since the beginning of this year,” he said. “We’re in discussions every hour on it. But there have been no credible threats at this moment.”

Giuliani has been pleased with the opening 10 days of the World Cup.

“Things are going as planned,” ‌he ‌said. “It’s been fantastic to see the great play on the pitch, that seems to be the majority of the conversation, which has been fantastic.”

United States President Donald Trump has pledged there will be no tolls for passage through the Strait of Hormuz, unless they are collected by his own country.

Trump’s statement, made in a Saturday afternoon post on Truth Social, is the latest sign that a recently signed memorandum of understanding (MOU) may be unravelling.

“There will be NO TOLLS in the Hormuz Strait for 60 days during the Cease Fire Period, and there will be NO TOLLS after the 60 day period has expired,” Trump wrote, “unless they are imposed by and for the United States of America.”

Since the US and Israel launched a war against Iran on February 28, Iran has successfully used the Strait of Hormuz as a pressure point, closing the strategic waterway to traffic.

But under the terms of Wednesday’s ceasefire memorandum, the strait is supposed to reopen for an interim period of 60 days. During that time, Iran is barred from charging vessels for passage.

On Saturday, however, Iran’s joint military command said it had closed the Strait of Hormuz, citing a “clear breach” of the memorandum’s commitments.

US Central Command (CENTCOM), the agency that oversees military operations in the region, denied that report and maintained that the traffic continues to flow through the waterway.

The Strait of Hormuz has long been a flashpoint in the conflict between the US and Iran. Nearly 20 percent of the world’s oil and natural gas is transported through the strait, as well as about 30 percent of the global fertiliser trade.

Closure of the strait has caused global fuel costs to soar and has tested agricultural sectors across the world.

Trump had responded to Iran’s chokehold over the strait by imposing a US naval blockade on Iran’s ports in the region.

But that naval blockade was lifted under the terms of Wednesday’s memorandum. The deal also paused fighting on all fronts in the regional conflict, including in Lebanon.

The memorandum, though, was not intended as a long-term deal. It serves as a launching point for negotiations on key issues, including the future of Iran’s nuclear programme.

Several points of divergence also went unaddressed in the memorandum. Nowhere does the memo say that future tolls cannot be collected from the strait after the 60-day period expires.

Before the war, there was no charge for passage through the strait. Trump himself said in an interview with The New York Times that the waterway should remain “permanently toll-free”.

But he appeared to reverse course in Saturday’s post, once again floating the possibility that the US could extract tolls in the strait, while barring Iran from doing so.

No fees should be levied, Trump wrote, “unless they are imposed by and for the United States of America, should the deal not be completed”.

He explained that such a charge would compensate the US “for services rendered as the Guardian Angel to the countries of the Middle East for purposes of both past, present, and future reimbursement of costs”.

Trump used similar language in his New York Times interview earlier this week, floating the US becoming “the guardian of the Middle East” in exchange for 20 percent of its revenue.

Saturday’s post is not the first time Trump has mused about the US imposing tolls in the strait, either.

In April, for instance, he discussed the idea with reporters, saying, “What about us charging tolls? I’d rather do that than let them have them. Why shouldn’t we? We’re the winner. We won.”

There has been no indication that Trump’s plans have been officially presented to countries in the region, many of whom have struck a careful balance in their dealings with both the US and Iran during the war.

Iranian officials, meanwhile, have repeatedly said they will not rule out imposing tolls in the strait, framing the issue as a matter of sovereignty and regional negotiation. The strait sits between Iran and Oman.

Further discussions are expected on the matter in the coming weeks.

But such negotiations have been thrown into jeopardy amid ongoing Israeli military operations in Lebanon, which threaten to violate Wednesday’s ceasefire memorandum.

Iran claimed that Saturday’s closure of the strait was a result of new Israeli attacks in southern Lebanon, which killed dozens of people after the ceasefire was announced.

Iranian officials have also said that any upcoming talks should focus on proper implementation of the initial memorandum, and that the 60-day negotiating period stipulated in Wednesday’s deal would begin after that was settled.

Pakistan, a top mediator between the US and Iran, has said that follow-up talks are set to begin in Switzerland on Sunday.

Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs has confirmed that an Iranian delegation, led by parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, has already arrived for the negotiations.

On the US side, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, special envoy Steve Witkoff and Vice President JD Vance are expected to attend.

Vance departed for Switzerland late Saturday.

Analyst Alexandru Hudisteanu warns that Iran’s overuse of Strait of Hormuz as leverage could transform the strategic chokepoint from a deterrence tool into an instrument of extortion, potentially turning the country into an international pariah.

Pakistan says talks between the United States and Iran which were postponed on Friday will begin in Switzerland on Sunday, as Tehran announced it was again closing the Strait of Hormuz because of continued Israeli attacks in Lebanon.

Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman, Esmail Baghaei, confirmed on Saturday that an Iranian delegation, including Parliament Speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi and other senior officials, was heading to Switzerland.

In Washington, Vice President JD Vance confirmed that the top US negotiators Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff were already in Switzerland working through technical details of anticipated negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme.

Vance told Fox News that he expects to leave for Switzerland “sometime in the next couple of days” but acknowledged that “it’s always a delicate coordination dance.”

The planned meeting on Sunday will start technical-level negotiations towards a final US-Iran deal. That is after both sides signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) earlier in the week declaring a permanent end to “military operations on all fronts”, including in Lebanon.

The MoU stipulates that a final deal should be reached within 60 days, “extendable with mutual consent”.

But even getting to the negotiating table following the MoU proved difficult. A round of talks originally planned for Friday was pushed back after Iran failed to send its delegation, as deadly Israeli strikes persisted in Lebanon.

Although Israel agreed to a renewed ceasefire with Hezbollah on Friday, its attacks in Lebanon continued into Saturday, killing at least 32 people, according to Lebanon’s civil defence and state media reports.

On Friday, Israeli attacks killed 83 people and wounded 141, Lebanon’s health ministry said.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on Saturday announced it was re-imposing restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz over Israeli “crimes” in Lebanon and what it called a US violation of commitments to establish a ceasefire.

It warned ship crews not to approach the strategic waterway, saying their security would be at risk ⁠if they do.

Mohammad Mokhber, an adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, warned that the flow of energy in the Middle East would halt so long as the US-Iran agreement “remains only on paper”.

The US military said its forces were still operating in the “general area” of the Strait of Hormuz and “remain present and vigilant” to make sure “all aspects of the agreement with Iran are adhered to”. It said 55 commercial vessels had transited the strait on Saturday and that safe passage was still “intact”.

‘Things are moving backwards’

According to Pakistan’s foreign ministry, Pakistani and Qatari mediators will join the US-Iran talks on Sunday in the Swiss mountain resort of Burgenstock.

Reporting from there, Al Jazeera’s Osama bin Javaid said there has been a flurry of behind-the-scenes diplomatic activity ahead of the formal negotiations, with Qatar’s Prime Minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, already holding meetings. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, has been holding talks in Egypt and Pakistan’s Interior Minister, Mohsin Naqvi, travelled to Iran.

Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Baghaei has signalled that progress may be scarce until Iran feels the US is living up to its end of the interim deal.

In comments broadcast by Iran’s IRIB, Baghaei said Iran “must naturally be very firm and serious in demanding fulfilment of obligations” considering the US’s past “failure to honour commitments”.

Al Jazeera’s James Bays, reporting from Burgenstock, said there are indications “things are moving backwards from when the MoU was signed”, citing Israel’s continued bombardment of southern Lebanon.

“The Iranians see this as a serious breach of the MoU,” he said. “Their first sanction was by not coming here. They have now utilised their best weapon by closing the Strait of Hormuz.

“Iran believes this tactic will help get things back on track with regard to southern Lebanon,” added Bays.

Iran has said it remains committed to implementing the MoU signed with the United States. However, Tehran warned that it would take reciprocal measures if Washington fails to honour its obligations under the agreement.

The 14-point Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran deserves cautious support, not celebration. Its most important promise is immediate and permanent cessation of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. That is a serious achievement if it holds. The reported US-Iran text also commits both sides to avoid threats or use of force and to respect sovereignty. But wars do not end because officials announce elegant clauses. They end when armies, proxies, navies, banks, inspectors and political leaders behave differently the next morning.

The reported Versailles signing, with President Macron nearby, gave the accord theatrical weight. The reported confirmation by Iran’s Foreign Ministry gave it visibility in Tehran. Yet the title “Islamabad” may be the most revealing symbol. It suggests that diplomacy around Iran is no longer owned by Washington and Europe alone. Pakistan, Qatar, Oman and Gulf states now matter. That is healthy. But symbolism cannot replace sequencing. A memorandum is useful only if it becomes a disciplined path toward a final settlement.

Hormuz is the pressure point

The Strait of Hormuz is the economic heart of this agreement. The International Energy Agency describes it as one of the world’s critical oil chokepoints, so restoring commercial shipping is a global necessity. The MOU’s promise of safe, toll-free passage for 60 days can calm markets, but it cannot settle maritime governance. Iran’s future talks with the Sultanate of Oman and other littoral states must produce rules on fees, inspections, de-mining, escorts and disputes. Without that, Hormuz remains a bargaining chip, not a secure passage.

The most controversial part is economic. Washington would provide waivers for Iranian oil exports, make frozen assets usable, avoid new sanctions during talks and support a reconstruction plan of at least $300 billion. This could be pragmatic statecraft or a strategic mistake. The OFAC Iran sanctions system affects banks, insurers, traders and shippers. Recent State Department sanctions show how aggressively Iranian petroleum networks had been targeted. Relief must therefore be sequenced with measurable action. If Tehran receives benefits before verification, critics will call it capitulation. If Washington delays relief after compliance, Tehran will call it bad faith.

Nuclear language cannot stay vague

Iran’s renewed pledge not to build nuclear weapons is necessary, but not enough. The decisive issue is the future of enriched material, enrichment activity and inspection access. Any final deal must put IAEA Iran monitoring at the centre. The IAEA’s NPT safeguards framework and the Non-Proliferation Treaty offer the right balance: Iran has civilian nuclear rights, but the world has a right to credible assurance that military pathways are closed. Down-blending enriched material under inspection may be a start. It cannot be the finish line.

Including Lebanon in the ceasefire is wise, but risky. The promise to protect sovereignty echoes the UN Charter. But Lebanon has long suffered from the gap between formal sovereignty and armed reality. If Hezbollah, Israel, Iran or any other actor treats Lebanon as a loophole, the ceasefire will collapse at its weakest seam. The final text must clarify what “all fronts” means, how non-state armed groups are restrained, and what happens if a party violates the ceasefire through an ally.

The final agreement must be public and enforceable

A binding UN Security Council resolution is essential, but it should not rubber-stamp ambiguity. The history of Resolution 2231, wider UN sanctions practice, IAEA reports to the Security Council, and the UN record on Iranian ballistic missiles shows why detail matters. The final agreement must define deadlines, verification triggers, consequences for breach and the exact sanctions schedule. The Guardian’s analysis and Iran International’s reporting underline the same reality: the MOU buys time, but time can be wasted.

The Islamabad MOU is not peace. It is a pause with possibilities. It should be supported because war has already proved disastrous, but it must be judged by performance: ceasefire maintained, Hormuz reopened, sanctions relief sequenced, nuclear material verified, Lebanon protected and the final deal anchored in law. Anything less would turn a promising memorandum into another diplomatic mirage.

Iranian deputy foreign minister says Iran ‘ready to move forward’ on diplomacy with US, but war must end on all fronts.

Lawmakers and pro-Israel groups have issued calls for United States President Donald Trump to ask Congress to review a recent memorandum of understanding (MoU) designed to end the US-Israeli war with Iran.

They cite the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA) as a precedent. Passed in 2015, the law says any agreements with Iran related to its nuclear programme must be submitted to Congress for review and a possible vote of disapproval.

The act came into effect when former US President Barack Obama was negotiating the now-defunct Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, and it remains on the books today.

US Senator Lindsey Graham was among the first lawmakers to invoke the act after this week’s memo was announced.

“Under our law, any nuclear deal with Iran will be sent to Congress for review and a vote. I look forward to reviewing the final product,” Graham, a longtime Iran hawk, wrote in a social media post on Sunday.

Critics, including some Democrats and pro-peace groups, have questioned the newfound interest in Congress asserting its powers, after Republicans repeatedly flouted the legislature’s authority during the war itself.

Some see the push as an effort to give the memorandum greater legitimacy, as Trump comes under fire for its terms. Others question whether Iran hawks are invoking INARA to push for a return to war.

Here’s what to know about the debate:

What does the law say?

INARA creates requirements for any agreement between the US and Iran “related to the nuclear program of Iran”, no matter “the form it takes” or whether the agreement is legally binding.

Ahead of its passage in 2015, it was championed by bipartisan opponents of the JCPOA. That deal, which saw Tehran curtail its nuclear programme and submit to regular inspections in exchange for sanctions relief, was subsequently subject to provisions of the law.

The law requires the president to submit the text of any agreement he strikes with Iran to Congress within five days, along with any related materials. That triggers a 30-day approval period.

During that period, members of Congress can choose to pass a joint resolution of disapproval to scuttle the deal.

Still, such a resolution would be subject to the presidential veto. A successful disapproval resolution would therefore require a two-third majority from both chambers to override any vetoes, an extremely high bar.

During the congressional review period, the president “may not waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of statutory sanctions with respect to Iran under any provision of law or refrain from applying any such sanctions pursuant to [the] agreement”, the law states.

Those terms could limit this week’s memorandum, as it includes sanctions relief for Iran.

Does INARA apply to the memorandum of understanding?

Trump has suggested he was open to sending the US-Iran memorandum to Congress, telling reporters earlier this week: “I like the idea. I mean, who wouldn’t approve it?”

But his administration has not yet done so. Administration officials have also not articulated a stance on whether or not they believes the memo is subject to the law. Trump, after all, has frequently denied needing congressional approval for his actions against Iran.

This week’s memorandum opens the Strait of Hormuz, lifts the US blockade on Iran’s ports, and halts fighting on all fronts, including in Lebanon.

It also immediately lifts US sanctions on Iran’s fossil fuel industry, while launching negotiations on the future of Iran’s nuclear programme, among other issues.

As part of the deal, both countries agree to maintain their nuclear “status quo” during ongoing negotiations, and Iran commits to diluting its highly enriched uranium “on site”, with details to be determined during the negotiations.

While Trump has yet to acknowledge INARA’s authority, legal experts from across the ideological spectrum have argued that his memorandum is subject to the law.

Tess Bridgeman, a legal adviser for the Obama White House, wrote that the law applies to “this new MoU, and any future final agreement that might be negotiated in the coming months”.

But in an article published in the policy forum Just Security, she argues that INARA should be repealed, so as to not impede the ongoing diplomacy.

“INARA was never an appropriate way for Congress to engage on Iran’s nuclear program, and that is even more true today,” Bridgeman wrote.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, also believes that the memorandum should trigger an INARA review.

He also notes that Trump’s commitment to “immediately” lift sanctions on Iran’s oil industry appears to run afoul of INARA.

“I don’t think the president has the authority under domestic law to issue these waivers,” Goldsmith wrote on the Executive Functions website.

Still, he anticipates that neither Congress nor the judicial branch will confront Trump over the issue.

Will Trump comply with the law?

Trump’s second term has been defined by a broad interpretation of presidential power.

His administration has previously flouted the US Constitution’s provision that Congress alone has the power to declare war.

Trump has maintained that Iran represented an “imminent threat” to the US, which allowed him to launch defensive strikes without congressional approval.

Administration officials have also argued that the president is not beholden to the legal requirement that he gain congressional approval within 60 days of launching an attack. The war, which started on February 28, has lasted nearly three and a half months.

In an interview with the news outlet Axios on Thursday, Trump mused that the war taught him there are “no limits” to his power as president.

It remains unclear if Trump will change course and embrace the congressional collaboration required for diplomacy under INARA.

In her article, Bridgeman argued that Trump could flout the law in whole or in part, particularly when it comes to the immediate sanctions relief, because his party controls Congress.

Goldsmith, meanwhile, pointed out that the administration could also try to argue that the memorandum only sets out terms to reach an eventual agreement and is not an agreement itself.

While Goldsmith believes that argument is faulty, he noted that “it’s doubtful that any institution will make the president comply with INARA”.

A newfound interest in congressional oversight?

Several pro-Israel groups, including The Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), have been among the loudest voices calling for congressional involvement in the deal.

Since the outset of the war, JINSA defended Trump’s claims that Iran represented an “imminent threat” to the US, thereby granting him authority to attack without congressional approval.

However, the group also called on Congress to pass an Authorisation for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to bolster his actions.

Congress, however, has repeatedly sought and failed to re-assert over its authority to send the US to war.

Since February, several war powers resolutions have been introduced to halt US action against Iran and force Trump to engage with Congress.

Initially, several Democrats backed by AIPAC, including Senator John Fetterman, Representative Jared Moskowitz and Representative Josh Gottheimer, broke from the party to oppose those efforts.

Moskowitz and Gottheimer eventually shifted their stances in March to vote in favour of one of the resolutions. But Congress has yet to pass a bill with enough votes to overcome an eventual Trump veto.

Meanwhile, Republicans in both the House and Senate chose to ignore a 60-day deadline in May that legally required Trump to get congressional approval for continued military operations — or stop fighting.

In a statement on Friday, Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen characterised the Republican embrace of INARA as evidence of hypocrisy.

“Republican senators who were AWOL [absent without leave] regarding their constitutional duties around STARTING the war against Iran all of a sudden demand that Congress play a role in STOPPING the war,” he wrote.

“A whole lot of warmongering going on.”

Khatibzadeh tells Al Jazeera diplomacy is way forward, but US must ensure that Israel stops its attacks on Lebanon.

Iran’s deputy foreign minister says Tehran wants to continue the diplomatic process with Washington, if the United States is serious about respecting their agreement and ensures Israel abides by the terms of the memorandum of understanding (MoU).

“We are ready to move forward step by step, if the other party demonstrates the same seriousness,” Saeed Khatibzadeh told Al Jazeera Arabic in an interview on Friday.

His comments came after talks between the US and Iran that were due in Switzerland on Friday were called off, and US Vice President JD Vance cancelled his planned trip there.

Earlier, officials including mediators Pakistan and Qatar said the two sides would meet in Burgenstock to begin negotiations on a host of issues as outlined in the MoU signed between the US and Iran this week.

Reports said the talks may have been called off after intense fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon on Friday. Lebanon’s health ministry said Israeli attacks killed at least 47 people since midnight.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Khatibzadeh denounced the latest Israeli attacks in Lebanon, saying Israel’s “continued war-making” would have “serious and immediate consequences”.

He said Iran was seeking “peace on all fronts, including Gaza”, and explained that Lebanon had been included in the MoU because of its direct connection to the conflict.

Article 1 of the MoU explicitly states that ending the war in Lebanon is an integral part of the broader ceasefire arrangement across all fronts.

“There will be no peace or stability in Lebanon and the region without ending the occupation and Israel’s commitment to international law,” Khatibzadeh added.

On the Strait of Hormuz, he said Iran would continue to provide navigation services in coordination with Oman and in accordance with international law.

He added that Tehran would not impose passage fees during the 60-day period outlined by the agreement, but said a new mechanism for managing the waterway would be introduced afterwards and presented to regional countries.

Khatibzadeh also said that any future agreement must include the release of all frozen Iranian funds.

Esmaeil Baghaei, spokesperson for Iran’s ministry of foreign affairs, said on Friday that the necessary consultations involving the US deal are being carried out through mediators, and that if the conditions for starting negotiations are met an official announcement will be made.

Regarding the Lebanon ceasefire required for talks between the US and Iran to continue, a Hezbollah official told Al Jazeera that the ceasefire would hold if Israel abided by it.

Israel’s ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter said on X: “Israel remains firmly committed to an immediate ceasefire. If Hezbollah honours the agreement and ceases its hostilities, they will be met with quiet”.

Following the US and Israeli airstrikes on Iran in February, reverberations were felt globally. But is the world really safer and Iranians freer or has the war unleashed disastrous consequences?

Mehdi Hasan goes head to head with David Des Roches, retired colonel, former Pentagon official and professor at the National Defense University on the justifications and costs of the war – and whether President Donald Trump sent U.S. troops to fight Israel’s war.

Joining the discussion are:
Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini – founder and CEO of the International Civil Society Action Network
Mohammad Ali Shabani – Middle East scholar and Editor of Amwaj.media, a London-based news outlet focused on Iran, Iraq and Arabian Peninsula countries
Barak Seener – Associate Research Fellow, Henry Jackson Society

Recorded shortly before the announcement of a deal between the US and Iran.

June 19 (UPI) — Global oil prices have fluctuated slightly on Friday, briefly reaching back above the $80 per barrel mark for Brent crude, as the United States and Iran called off further talks in Switzerland.

A stall in talks between the United States and Iran have cast doubt over the preliminary peace agreement reached earlier this week. The oil market has begun reflecting that uncertainty early Friday.

Vice President JD Vance was set to travel to Switzerland to continue into the next phase of negotiations with Iran. Vance’s trip has been postponed while Israel has opened up more strikes on Lebanon.

Part of the agreement between the United States and Iran included an end to military operations in Lebanon.

The Swiss foreign ministry said talks between the United States and Iran will no longer take place on Friday as previously planned. The White House confirmed that Vance will not be traveling to Switzerland, citing logistical issues involving negotiations.

Vance said during a press conference Thursday that Iran will not receive “a single penny from the United States.” He added that Iran will not receive any of the benefits from the preliminary agreement unless “they comply fully and change their behavior.”

Overall oil prices are heading toward a second consecutive week of falling prices. August Brent crude oil, the international benchmark, traded at about $80.23 per barrel on Friday morning. July West Texas Intermediate futures, the U.S. benchmark, traded for about $75.96 per barrel.

Altogether, benchmark crude oil is on pace to be down in price by about 8% for the week.

After falling below $4 per gallon on Thursday, the U.S. national average for premium gas edged down to $3.97 per gallon on Friday. The price of gas remains higher than prior to the start of the Iran war. A year ago, the average price of gas was $3.20 per gallon on average, AAA reports.

WASHINGTON — Most Americans continue to disapprove of how President Trump is handling Iran, while his overall presidential approval holds steady, according to a new AP-NORC poll that was conducted as he suggested a deal with Iran had been reached.

The poll points to just how unpopular the war, which began Feb. 28, has been with Americans even as the Republican president turned abruptly from threatening Iran to reopening negotiations. Support for his handling of the war remains lopsidedly partisan. About two-thirds, 65%, of U.S. adults disapprove of how Trump is handling issues with Iran. But while the vast majority of Democrats and independents view Trump’s actions negatively, only 28% of Republicans are unhappy.

Americans’ views on how the president is handling Iran are roughly in line with his overall job approval, which stands at 37%, unchanged from an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in May.

The new survey was conducted June 11-17, just after Trump called off threats to escalate the war with Iran. The poll was fielded as Trump announced a deal with Iran and authorized an end to the U.S. naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, concluding just before the deal was signed Wednesday.

Approval of Trump’s actions on Iran has been low over the past few months. But in interviews, some Republicans also weren’t pleased with the outcome of this week’s agreement, which gives Iran an immediate benefit, allowing it to sell its oil freely again.

The deal also reopens the strait without tolls for two months, restarts talks between the U.S. and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program and calls for Tehran to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

David Farrington, a 79-year-old Republican-leaning independent in Fort Worth, Texas, “doesn’t have any love lost” for Iran, but he’s frustrated the agreement focused on the strait and didn’t deliver more on the country’s nuclear weapons program.

“Any agreement regarding the strait is hardly what I would consider a recognizable concession on the part of Iran,” Farrington said. “So, I consider that some fluff that attempts to make this agreement look better when it’s not.”

Trump’s approval on Iran remains flat

Only about one-third of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling Iran in the new poll, in line with May.

Donald McBride, a 28-year-old independent in Plano, Texas, is frustrated that Trump has not maintained his campaign promise to keep America out of foreign wars. McBride voted for Trump but he opposed going to war with Iran.

“I would like the war to end,” he said. “The original objective of the war was to end the Iranian regime, and that’s just not possible. I don’t really know why we’d continue fighting.”

The poll suggests most Americans want action in Iran to wrap up. Even with an agreement on the horizon, 53% of U.S. adults said American military action against Iran had “gone too far,” only a slight decline from 59% in March.

About 4 in 10 Republicans, though, said in the latest poll that action has been “about right,” and 37% said it had not gone far enough.

Joan Jones, a 64-year-old independent in northwest Florida, believes the United States’ actions in Iran have been necessary to address the threat Iran posed.

“Those attacks are ultimately to protect us from nuclear attacks,” Jones said. “I think we have to go through that … and eliminate that worry so we don’t have that hovering over us.”

Few approve of Trump’s approach on Israel

About one-third, 34%, of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling Israel.

Tensions have been rising between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump as the president criticizes recent Israeli attacks in Lebanon, which jeopardized negotiations between Washington and Tehran.

James Huffman, a 69-year-old Republican in Medway, Ohio, thinks Trump is taking the wrong strategy when it comes to Netanyahu.

“Netanyahu is not going to do everything Trump wants. He’s going to do what he wants,” Huffman said. “I just don’t think it’s effective.”

Only about one-third approve on the economy

About one-third of U.S. adults approve of Trump’s approach to the economy. That’s in line with last month, and continues a challenging stretch for Trump on the issue.

Jones, the Florida independent, is more optimistic than most. She said she can hardly leave the house some hours without getting stuck in the traffic of tourists headed to the beach on vacation. She also spots lines around the block for Starbucks, McDonalds and Chick-fil-A in her community — all signs to her that the economy is doing well overall.

“I think President Trump’s policies are contributing to a better economy,” Jones said.

Other Republicans are more skeptical, a troubling sign for a president who prides himself on his business acumen. Only 69% of Republicans approve of how he’s handling the economy, slightly lower than the 78% who approve of how he’s handling the presidency overall.

Patricia Bailey, a 42-year-old Republican in Parkersburg, West Virginia, sees an economy where prices have gotten out of control. “I just said the other night, ordering pizza is for rich people,” she said. Bailey voted for Trump but added, “He’s kind of let me down a little bit.”

Even if high prices preceded Trump, Bailey doesn’t think he’s lived up to his pledge to improve the economy.

“I think he got so distracted with the war that he forgot some old promises,” she said.

Sanders and Thomson-Deveaux write for the Associated Press.

The AP-NORC poll of 3,040 adults was conducted June 11-17 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.

The Foreign Office has lifted its no-go travel warning after Iran and the US signed a deal

A travel expert has provided an update on journeys to and from the Gulf region following the US and Iran reaching an agreement to cease hostilities between the two nations. Speaking outside the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), Simon Calder confirmed that travel insurance was ‘once again valid’ after both the Iranian and American presidents put pen to paper on a deal to end the conflict.

This prompted the FCDO to lift its advice against travelling to several Gulf States. Nevertheless, it cautioned that the ‘situation remains unpredictable’ amid ongoing regional tensions.

Mr Calder stated that those wishing to visit the region could now do so ‘with some confidence’. He said: “I’m at the Foreign Office which has just changed its advice for travellers going to the Gulf region, in particular Dubai, which last year was visited by 1.4 million British travellers.

“As from now, the no-go warning which prevailed for the whole of the UAE, including Dubai and Abu Dhabi, as well as to the countries of Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait, has been lifted. The Foreign Office still warns that you need to be ready for trouble to resume at any time, but it means that travel insurance is once again valid and anybody planning a trip to the UAE or Qatar or elsewhere in the region can do so with some confidence.

“The immediate effect, I think, is going to be a big marketing campaign by the giant airlines: Emirates of Dubai, Etihad of Abu Dhabi, and Qatar Airways based in Doha. They will be wanting to get people to both connect through their hubs, but also to take summer holidays. Be warned, it is extremely hot with average daily highs around 40°C.”

Not only do millions of holidaymakers head to the Gulf states, but countless others use them as a stopover for journeys to Asia and Australia. That meant the tourism industry took a particularly severe blow when the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran in late February.

The FCDO decision means tourists can now return without putting their travel insurance at risk. But that doesn’t mean flights will restart straight away.

Virgin Atlantic halted flights until winter 2027 after the conflict began, and a spokesperson confirmed on Thursday that this ‘remains the case’.

British Airways announced earlier in June that it wouldn’t restart flights to the UAE until October 2026. Emirates has maintained flights to and from the region throughout the hostilities.

Mr Calder continued: “The immediate effect, I think, is going to be a big marketing campaign by the giant airlines: Emirates of Dubai, Etihad of Abu Dhabi, and Qatar Airways based in Doha. They will be wanting to get people to both connect through their hubs, but also to take summer holidays. Be warned, it is extremely hot with average daily highs around 40°C.”

“But it means that anybody who’s planning to travel perhaps to Asia or to Australia now will be able to travel with confidence through one of the Gulf hubs. In addition, I imagine that airfares will fall because the Asian carriers will not be able to command such a premium.

“Stand by for some really good holiday offers, but I personally won’t be seeing you on the beach in Dubai until about November.”

Al Jazeera’s Dominic Kane explains that the EU won’t lift crucial sanctions on Iran until a formal nuclear agreement is reached. The bloc’s foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas also clarified that human rights-related sanctions will continue regardless.

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.”

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has signed a US-Iran memorandum of understanding aimed at ending the war between the two countries. US President Donald Trump and Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian signed on Wednesday.