US-Israel war on Iran

Air raids come after US revokes a waiver that allowed Iran to sell oil, citing the attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

The US military says it has launched airstrikes against Iran as explosions were reported in several locations in the south of the country.

The US Central Command (CENTCOM) said the strikes began on Tuesday, and are being conducted “in response to Iranian attacks on three commercial vessels that were transiting the Strait of Hormuz”.

Iranian media have reported several explosions in the southern port city of Sirik, as well as Qeshm Island and Bandar Abbas.

“According to state TV, six explosions have been heard on the island of Qeshm which is the largest island in the vicinity of the Strait of Hormuz, with very geostrategic significance when it comes to Iran’s control and authority over the Strait of Hormuz,” Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi reported from Tehran.

“The state TV also says that at least seven explosions have been heard in the areas close to Sirik Port which is very important because it oversees the Strait of Hormuz, another strategic point from which Iran imposes its control and authority over the Strait of Hormuz,” Asadi said.

Starting from the time after the signing of the [memorandum of understanding], we have been witnessing limited confrontation and escalation in this highly escalated situation at the Strait of Hormuz,” he added.

Following the blasts, Iran’s foreign ministry said it held the US government responsible for the consequences of breaching the memorandum of understanding (MoU) agreed between the two countries in June, which was supposed to put to an end to the war the US and Israel began against Iran in late February. The MoU mandated lifting the US naval blockade on Iran in exchange for Tehran reopening the vital Strait of Hormuz.

The US also agreed at the end of June to waive sanctions on Iranian oil for 60 days.

However, the US Treasury Department on Tuesday moved to revoke the temporary suspension of sanctions on Iranian oil, less than 20 days sales after the MoU was signed. The department cancelled a licence announced in June that had allowed Iran to produce, sell and deliver crude oil and related products through August 21.

The move by the Treasury Department comes after tankers in the Strait of Hormuz were attacked. A Qatari tanker caught fire off the coast of Oman Monday after being struck by an “unknown projectile” in the Strait of Hormuz, according to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO).

Iranian television reported claims that the LNG tanker came under attack after ignoring warnings, but Tehran did not directly claim the assault. Neither the US Central Command (CENTCOM) nor the IRGC commented on the incident.

A second ship, a Saudi-flagged crude oil tanker, was also damaged in the Strait of Hormuz when the IRGC fired missiles, sources told Reuters news agency.

A US ⁠official warned that Iran’s attacks on vessels in the Strait ‌of Hormuz were “wholly unacceptable” and would ‌be ‌met with consequences, Reuters reported Tuesday.

In response, Iran’s foreign ministry said it would take any measure it deemed necessary to safeguard the country’s interests and national security.

“The United States’ action in revoking the waiver for the exemption of sanctions on Iran’s oil sales constitutes a blatant violation of Article 10, and the subsequent military operations of this country against Iran also constitute a serious violation of Articles 1 and 2 of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding.” Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, said in a post on social media.

Gharibabadi said the US has “repeatedly” violated the MoU, citing Israeli attacks in Lebanon and threatening statements made against Iran.

The United States-Israel war on Iran has inflicted the greatest disruption to merchant shipping since the back-to-back shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Since the start of the war in late February, shipping lines have faced attacks on their vessels, lengthy delays and steep rises in operating costs.

Yet even after more than four months of turmoil for the industry, the most enduring legacy of the war for shipping may end up being just how little it ultimately changes.

While shipping firms are expected to more explicitly factor risk into their expenses and diversify supply chains where possible in the future, the indispensable nature of seaborne trade means the industry is likely to continue much as before over the long term, analysts say.

That is likely to be especially the case for the container shipping industry, which, unlike the operators of the oil and gas tankers whose dislocation has roiled energy markets, is not heavily reliant on the Strait of Hormuz to transport its cargoes, which range from agricultural produce to apparel and consumer electronics.

While there is no alternative to the strait to access oil-producing Gulf nations by sea, container shipping firms have had the option of redirecting their vessels along longer alternative routes to avoid conflict in the region, including attacks by the Iran-aligned Houthis in the Red Sea.

The global shipping industry has long stood apart for its resilience in the face of crises, bouncing back from major upheaval at remarkable speed.

In 2020, the first year of the COVID pandemic, global container shipping volumes fell by just 1.2 percent compared with the previous year, according to the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), one of the world’s largest associations for shipowners.

By January 2021, the volume of cargo handled at ports worldwide had already surpassed pre-pandemic levels, rising 6.4 percent year-on-year, according to data from the Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics.

By contrast, it took more than four years for global air travel to fully recover from the shock of COVID-19.

While the Iran war and Houthi attacks in the Red Sea since 2023 scrambled regional supply chains, shipping companies have been rapidly adding capacity since Washington and Tehran signed their memorandum of understanding on ending the conflict on June 17.

After plummeting from 3.2 million TEU (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit of cargo) to 74,000 TEU as of mid-June, container capacity in the region has already rebounded to pre-war levels on some routes, according to Xeneta, an ocean and air freight rate market analytics platform.

Capacity between Asia and the United States’ West Coast last week surpassed its pre-conflict record, hitting 350,000 TEU, according to Xeneta.

On Monday, Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd, the second- and fifth-largest container shipping firms, respectively, announced that they would begin sailing through the Suez Canal again for the first time since February, following an assessment of the security situation in the Red Sea.

Shipping is indispensable to global trade, in large part because no other mode of transport comes close in terms of capacity and cost-effectiveness.

The world’s largest container ships have capacities exceeding 24,000 TEU – the equivalent of roughly 12,000 trucks, 2,240 cargo planes, or 360 freight trains.

Lacking genuine competition in the transport of goods in huge volumes, shipping facilitates about 90 percent of global trade.

Shipping will look “remarkably familiar” in five years from now because it is an industry driven by demand, said Punit Oza, the head of the consultancy Maritime NXT and the former executive director of the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration.

Even the most severe conflict cannot change the “physics or the economics” of seaborne trade, he said.

“Ships do not sail because shipowners want them to; they sail because consumers somewhere want grain, iron ore, gas, or televisions,” Oza told Al Jazeera.

“It is the consumers of shipping – the cargo interests, the economies, the households – who ultimately shape the industry, and their demand will endure long after the headlines fade.”

Judah Levine‏, head of research at freight booking company Freightos, said container shipping in the future is likely to look “quite similar” to how it did before the war, with Dubai’s Port of Jebel Ali continuing to serve as the region’s main hub for both Gulf-bound goods and cargoes destined for Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas.

But Levine said diversion of cargoes to smaller hubs – such as the UAE’s Port of Fujairah and Khor Fakkan Port, and Port Sultan Qaboos in Oman – during the war offers a preview of the contingencies shipping firms are likely to deploy in future crises.

“All of a sudden, they were handling much larger volumes, and then creating these land bridges, usually to go on to Jebel Ali,” Levine told Al Jazeera.

“Containers find a way,” Levine said.

“It’s kind of like water. They’ll trickle, you know, to where they need to go by other paths.”

Another lasting impact of the war could be greater international cooperation on maritime security and safety.

The International Maritime Organization, the UN body responsible for shipping and seafarers, has listed the protection of shipping lanes as one of its top agenda items for discussion at its biannual meeting taking place from Monday to Friday.

“Seafarers have tragically lost their lives in connection with this conflict, and the impact has been felt well beyond the region, with real consequences for global trade, energy and food security,” IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez said in opening remarks to the session on Monday.

Ruth Banomyong, a professor of logistics and supply chain management at Thammasat Business School in Bangkok, Thailand, said he expects to see international coordination to strengthen trade routes that integrate both land and sea even as shipping networks remain “largely the same”.

“This means ensuring that maritime transport, ports, inland logistics, customs procedures and alternative land transport options work together as an integrated system when disruptions occur,” Banomyong told Al Jazeera.

“Maritime freedom is no longer just about freedom of navigation. It is about ensuring the continuity of global trade.

“The long-term lesson is not to replace the Strait of Hormuz, but to reduce overdependence on any single transport corridor,” Banomyong added.

Oza, the head of Maritime NXT, said the ad hoc naval coalitions deployed to ensure freedom of navigation during times of conflict could ultimately be succeeded by a multilateral security framework with “regional ownership rather than purely external enforcement”.

“Freedom of navigation is too important to be left to improvisation,” Oza said.

“If there is one consistent lesson from shipping’s long history, it is that human ingenuity always finds a way – pipelines get built, reserves get repositioned, technologies emerge, and trade, like water, finds its path. It will do so again,” Oza added.

“The innovations that follow this war will be a tribute to human resilience; the tragedy is that it took a war to summon them.”

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

Iran’s TV claims the tanker ignored warnings, but no direct responsibility for the attack has been declared.

A tanker travelling off the coast of Oman in the Strait of Hormuz has caught fire after being struck by a projectile, according to the United Kingdom’s military.

The attack early on Tuesday was the latest targeting a vessel moving through the Gulf’s critical waterway, through which a fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas passed before the US-Israel war on Iran began in late February.

Iranian television said the liquefied natural gas tanker came under attack after ignoring warnings, but Tehran did not directly claim the assault.

Tehran has repeatedly declared that only its approved route through the Strait of Hormuz is safe, and it is suspected of attacking other ships that have used another route close to the Omani shore.

The UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) centre said the tanker had been hit near Limah, Oman, in the strait. The projectile hit the port side of the vessel while it was trying to travel south out of the strait towards the Gulf of Oman, the UKMTO said.

Talks between Iran and the United States on a permanent end to the war appear to be on hold until after the burial of Iran’s former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed at the beginning of the US-Israel war on Iran on February 28.

Authorities flew Khamenei’s body to the Shia seminary city of Qom overnight, where mourners honoured him on Tuesday.

In Fox News interview, Israeli prime minister lauds US alliance and argues that Ankara should not receive F-35 jets.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says his ties with US President Donald Trump are “fine”, dismissing reports of rifts between the two leaders over the ceasefire with Iran and Israel’s attacks in Lebanon.

In an interview with Fox News on Monday, Netanyahu heaped praise on the United States and Trump.

“America has been a tremendous force for good, and without America, there won’t be any democracy in the world, and there won’t be any freedom in the world,” he said.

The Israeli prime minister added that he and Trump see eye to eye on “just about everything”.

His comments come amid criticism by some members of the Israeli cabinet of the memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran that calls for a regional ceasefire, including in Lebanon.

Israel has refused to withdraw from Lebanon, insisting that it has the right to bomb the country at any time to respond to “threats”. An Israeli strike in southern Lebanon on Monday killed four civilians, including a teacher.

Netanyahu said there can be differences between the US and Israel, but the two countries are “model allies”.

“My relationship with the president is fine, and we have a way of ironing out our differences as allies who respect each other,” he said.

The prime minister confirmed he will soon visit the US again, but said no date has been set for the trip.

Asked about his agenda during the visit, Netanyahu took aim at Turkiye, saying that he will lobby against the transfer of F-35 jets to Ankara.

“I don’t think they should be given F-35s or the engines for their fighter jets because that’ll upset the power balance in the Middle East, which is ultimately guaranteed by Israeli air superiority, and also by, I think, by America’s posture in the Middle East,” he said.

Turkiye, a NATO ally of the US, has been an outspoken critic of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Trump is set to visit Ankara later this week for a NATO summit.

Netanyahu attempted to draw a contrast between Israel and Turkiye.

“They didn’t lift a finger to help you in Iran. We did,” he told Fox News, a conservative US media network mostly watched by Trump voters. “We’re the model ally that fought next to your great soldiers.”

Netanyahu has called for the US to attack Iran for decades, leading to the US-Israel war on Iran that broke out on February 28, which proved to be overwhelmingly unpopular with American voters.

Some Israeli commentators and politicians have been escalating rhetoric against Turkiye, suggesting that the country is the next regional rival and target after Iran.

Turkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned on Saturday against Israel’s efforts to undermine the US-Iran agreement.

“We are closely following the Israeli administration’s attempts to dynamite the deal,” he said. “The current war-addicted Israeli government must not be allowed to drown our geography in the smell of gunpowder and blood again.”

Millions of people have attended funeral prayers in Tehran for Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who was killed in a joint US-Israeli strike on February 28. Aerial video reveals the scale of the crowd.

Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and members of his family were killed in a joint US-Israeli air strike in February.

Iran has marked the second day of funeral processions for its late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Masses of supporters came to view his body despite a sweltering heatwave, with water misters installed at Tehran’s Grand Mosalla Hall and volunteers distributing cold drinks to mourners.

The Israel-Lebanon framework agreement “threatens to betray the victims of war crimes” in Lebanon, according to six prominent human rights and media freedom organisations.

In a joint statement released on Friday by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH), Legal Agenda, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the Union of Journalists in Lebanon, they warned that parts of the agreement “appear to be aimed at preventing victims of serious international crimes from seeking justice before international forums”.

The organisations pointed out that clauses 3 and 13 of the agreement, brokered by and signed in the United States on June 26, were particularly concerning as they would “prevent Lebanon and Israel from having recourse to international courts, including the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice”.

The six organisations warned that “Clause 3 further violates international law and the prohibition of forced displacement, conditioning the return of residents to specified zones along the border, currently occupied by Israel, to the ‘successful disarmament of non-state armed groups and dismantlement of their infrastructure”.

“Under international humanitarian law, people must be allowed to return once hostilities have ended or the reasons for their displacement cease to exist,” their joint statement said.

The organisations said that Clause 13 was particularly concerning as it prevents civilians from “actions in international political or legal fora [forums]”. This comes after “months of hostilities resulting in immense civilian harm, including as a result of war crimes, violations of international humanitarian law, and gross human rights abuses”.

Many in Lebanon have protested and criticised the government for signing the agreement with Israel.

Many critics of the framework deal, which does not force the Israeli army to withdraw from the areas it occupies, are people most impacted by the war, which has killed at least 4,300 people, injured over 12,000 and forced hundreds of thousands from their homes since early March.

The six organisations said the US-brokered agreement appears to “contradict the countries’ international legal obligations to pursue accountability for serious international crimes committed on their territories,” although it “does not appear to commit Israel to halt any initiatives in international forums against Hezbollah”.

“Victims of war crimes and other violations deserve justice,” said Agnes Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International. “Any agreement that fails to center their rights to justice, accountability and reparations will falter underneath the very impunity it builds.”

Ghida Frangieh, head of litigation at Legal Agenda, added: “Accountability and respect for international law are not bargaining chips. They are legal obligations. International law is clear: States cannot waive or negotiate away their obligation to investigate and prosecute the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. Nor can states extinguish individual rights to truth, justice and reparation”.

But Lebanon’s President said on Friday that the framework deal with Israel “does not legitimise the continued Israeli occupation of Lebanon”, but instead empowers the Lebanese army to extend its authority across the country’s territory.

Joseph Aoun made the remarks during a meeting with a delegation from the Association of Lebanese Universities, the Lebanese Order of Physicians and the Lebanese Maronite Order, according to a statement from the presidency.

“Our sovereign decision to separate our track from the Iranian-US track is a problem for some who have become accustomed to being under guardianship that controls us, decides for us and negotiates on our behalf,” Aoun said, adding that the Lebanese army will “fully assume its responsibilities in achieving security and stability in the south after the withdrawal of Israeli forces”.

Meanwhile, with a “ceasefire” in Lebanon agreed on June 21 as part of a deal between Iran and the US, and the Israel-Lebanon framework agreement signed five days later, many displaced Lebanese have been returning to their homes in southern Lebanon.

In a report on Thursday, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) said 646,107 IDPs (internally displaced persons) have begun returning to their communities, while about 500,000 others remain displaced, based on data collected with local authorities since June 22.

Lebanese authorities said they were working to remove informal encampments in and around capital Beirut and to reduce the number of official shelters.

However, many people in southern Lebanon said they have nowhere to return to, as dozens of towns and villages near the border have been destroyed by Israeli forces.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the military “will not leave” southern Lebanon as long as Hezbollah remains a “threat”. Hezbollah has rejected the deal with Israel as “null and void”, saying any attempt to link an Israeli withdrawal to its disarmament crossed “all red lines”.

Military command issues threat a day after Qatari mediators hailed ‘positive progress’ in indirect US-Iranian talks.

Iran’s military command has threatened ships that attempt to cross the Strait of Hormuz using unapproved routes with a “forceful response,” casting new doubt over trade flows in the critical conduit for global energy supplies.

Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters issued the threat on Thursday, a day after Qatari mediators hailed indirect negotiations between US and Iranian officials as making “positive progress” towards a peace deal.

“Any failure to comply with and depart from the designated route or disregard for the navigation protocols of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Strait of Hormuz will be met with an immediate and forceful response from the armed forces, and will endanger the security of the offending vessels,” the military command said in a statement carried by the country’s semi-official Tasnim news agency.

While Tehran did not specify what prompted the warning, it came after US Central Command (CENTCOM) on Wednesday said it had presided over a security dialogue in Bahrain during which regional leaders expressed their commitment to the “free flow of commerce” in the strait.

Iranian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Kazem Gharibabadi hit out at CENTCOM’s statement on Thursday, saying the forum “cannot establish legal order and security for the Persian Gulf”.

“The region’s security will be ensured through the end of interventions and the US withdrawal from the area, respect for countries’ sovereignty, and acceptance of new geopolitical realities – not under the military umbrella of America,” Gharibabadi said in a post on X.

The Strait of Hormuz, which facilitated about one-fifth of the global trade in oil and liquefied natural gas before the US-Israel war on Iran began in late February, has become a major sticking point in Washington and Tehran’s talks aimed at turning their fragile ceasefire into a lasting peace.

While Iran agreed to make its “best efforts” to arrange the safe passage of ships in the strait in the memorandum of understanding it signed with the US on June 17, Tehran has repeatedly threatened to attack ships that do not use its preferred route close to the Iranian shoreline.

At least 49 attacks on commercial vessels have been recorded in the strait since the start of the war on February 28, according to MarineTraffic.

Most of those incidents, including drone attacks on a Singapore-flagged cargo ship and Panama-flagged merchant vessel on Thursday and Saturday, respectively, have been blamed on Tehran.

While transits through the waterway have risen since US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed their MoU on June 17, they remain far below the roughly 130 daily crossings that took place before the conflict.

At least 45 vessels crossed the strait on Wednesday, up from 34 on Tuesday, according to MarineTraffic data.

After dropping to pre-war levels on Thursday on reports of productive talks in Doha, oil prices largely held steady as markets opened in Asia on Friday.

Brent futures for August delivery stood at $72.07 per barrel as of 02:30 GMT, after dropping below $71 for the first time since the war the previous day.

An estimated 10 million mourners attended Iran’s first Supreme Leader’s funeral in 1989, making it one of the world’s largest gatherings. As Iran prepares for the funeral of Khamenei, it’s expecting even bigger numbers.

Maritime monitoring service TankerTrackers.com said on Thursday that a ship which Iranian media reported had run aground in the Strait of Hormuz has in fact been stuck in the same spot since March and is part of an operation managed by the notorious Iranian oil magnate Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani.

Here is what we know about Shamkhani, whom the US and EU allege is a central figure in Iranian and Russian shadow fleet operations, generating billions of dollars of oil revenues for both, and what happened to his ship in the Hormuz strait.

What do we know about the stranded ship?

On Thursday, TankerTrackers.com reported that the ship that Iranian media said had run aground in the Strait of Hormuz after using a “US-suggested route” has actually been stuck in the same spot since March.

It identified the vessel as the Arista, and reported that while it is Comoros-flagged, it is in fact part of an operation managed by the sanctioned Iranian oil magnate Shamkhani.

Who is Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani and what are the allegations against him?

Shamkhani is an Iranian oil shipping magnate who has multiple Western sanctions imposed on him. He is the son of the late Ali Shamkhani, a senior political adviser to Iran’s former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Ali Shamkhani led the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) for a decade until 2023, making him the second-longest-serving security chief since 1979 after former President Hassan Rouhani, who was SNSC secretary for nearly 16 years.

He was reportedly killed in the first Israeli-US strikes on Tehran on February 28 , which triggered the war with Iran and also killed Khamenei, whose funeral begins tomorrow.

In March, the Sarajevo-based Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) reported that following an investigation, Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani and his brother had used aliases and Caribbean “golden passports” to amass a $29m million property portfolio in Dubai.

The US Treasury, which has sanctioned the Shamkhani shipping empire, says it is part of a massive Iranian and Russian oil smuggling ring and that the Comoros‑flagged Arista aground in Hormuz is part of that network.

How does Shamkhani’s oil shipping operation work?

According to the US Treasury, the Shamkhani network makes use of “front” companies to buy Iranian and Russian oil for which it falsifies shipping documents. It switches the oil between vessels frequently via its shipping operations and sells the oil on to buyers who pay for it via their own front companies to obscure the flow of money.

Additional profits are funnelled through hedge funds and other money-laundering operations, the US Treasury alleges.

It said Shamkhani relies on a mix of crude oil, oil product and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) tankers to generate billions of dollars for the Iranian and Russian regimes.

According to the European Commission, Shamkhani “uses the company Milavous Group Ltd to blend crude oil with various petroleum products from Russia and to rebrand for exporting purposes, thereby concealing their origin”.

Shamkhani is not known to have responded publicly to these allegations.

What sanctions have been imposed on Shamkhani?

Shamkhani was first sanctioned by the US last July, amid a large number of Iran-related sanctions. In April, the US Treasury Department announced additional sanctions on Shamkhani’s network.

“Treasury is moving aggressively with Economic Fury by targeting regime elites like the Shamkhani family that attempt to profit at the expense of the Iranian people,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said.

A statement from the US Treasury added that Shamkhani “heads a multi-billion dollar Iranian and Russian petroleum sales empire that enriches a family connected to the highest echelons of the Iranian regime at the expense of the Iranian people”.

The European Union sanctions tracker website says Shamkhani is also subject to EU sanctions, describing him as “a businessperson active in the Russian oil trade and a central player in Russia’s so-called ‘shadow fleet’.”

Russia’s shadow fleet is a network of hundreds of ageing, poorly regulated oil tankers that Russia uses to export crude and fuel while evading Western sanctions imposed after its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

An August last year, the UK government also announced sanctions against Shamkhani including an asset freeze, director disqualification and travel ban. Minister for the Middle East Hamish Falconer said: “The UK is announcing sanctions against those who operate on behalf of Iran, fuelling its attempts to undermine stability in the Middle East and global security.

“Iran’s reliance on revenues from trading networks and connected organisations enables it to carry out its destabilising activities, including supporting proxies and partners across the region and facilitating state threats on UK soil.”

Brent falls below $71 a barrel amid reports of progress in talks to end the war.

Oil prices have fallen to levels not seen since the start of the US-Israel war on Iran amid rising hopes for a breakthrough in negotiations aimed at sealing a permanent peace deal.

Brent crude fell more than 1 percent on Thursday to below $71 a barrel, returning the international benchmark to pre-war prices.

Brent futures for August delivery stood at $70.82 per barrel as of 04:30 GMT, lower than at any point since February 27.

Following the latest drop, Brent prices are down more than 38 percent from their post-war peak of more than $126 a barrel on April 30.

The slide came after Qatar, a key mediator between Washington and Tehran, said that US and Iranian officials had made “positive progress” in indirect talks aimed at resolving issues related to their memorandum of understanding (MoU) on ending the war.

US President Donald Trump also cast a positive light on the talks on Wednesday, saying the “denuclearisation of Iran is moving along well”.

Vandana Hari, the founder of the Singapore-based oil market analysis provider Vanda Insights, said a steady uptick in oil flows out of the Gulf and “cautiously optimistic geopolitical sentiment” had driven prices lower.

“Several key issues in the MoU remain unresolved, but the two sides appear to have backed off confrontation on the issue of the interim Hormuz transit regime, at least for the time being,” Hari told Al Jazeera.

“I expect crude to continue grinding lower until the backlog of stranded barrels has cleared, and prices could even swing into oversold territory,” she said.

“The real test of normalisation of Persian Gulf supply will come after that, necessitating fresh supply-demand balance recalibration.”

Shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, a conduit for one-fifth of the global trade in oil and liquefied natural gas in peacetime, has shown tentative signs of recovery in recent days after a sharp decline following attacks on two commercial vessels in the waterway on Thursday and Saturday.

At least 40 vessels transited the strait on Tuesday, according to data from MarineTraffic, up from 27 crossings on Monday and 22 on Sunday.

Maritime traffic nonetheless remains far below its pre-war level of roughly 130 daily crossings amid persistent concerns about safety in the waterway.

While Iran agreed to make its “best efforts” to arrange the safe passage of vessels in the MoU it signed with the US on June 17, Tehran has since repeatedly claimed the sole right to control movement through the strait.

At least 49 attacks on commercial vessels have been recorded in the strait since the start of the war, according to MarineTraffic, most of which were claimed by Tehran or blamed on its forces.

US president says a meeting with Iran will take place in Doha today, but Tehran says there are no plans for talks in the coming days.

US president says talks will take place on Tuesday, but Tehran has not confirmed the negotiations in Doha.

President Donald Trump says a meeting will take place between Iran and the United States in Qatar on Tuesday, suggesting that diplomacy is still on track despite the recent military skirmishes in the Gulf.

Trump’s announcement on Monday came less than two hours after a top Iranian official said that technical talks over the memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Washington and Tehran “are not planned” for this week.

“IRAN HAS REQUESTED A MEETING. IT WILL TAKE PLACE TOMORROW IN DOHA!” Trump wrote in a social media post.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said the meeting would take place after conditions are met, without providing details.

“Although consultations with Qatar, including regarding the follow-up of the implementation of the other party’s commitments, are ongoing as usual, the news from some media outlets that technical talks of the working groups will be held in Doha cannot be confirmed,” Gharibabadi told Tasnim news agency.

The two statements from Washington and Tehran appear to contradict each other, but it is possible that a breakthrough finalising the meeting occurred after Gharibabadi’s comment.

Iran, however, has not confirmed that talks have been scheduled.

White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, will lead the US negotiating team in Doha.

“Special Envoy Witkoff and Jared Kushner will be flying to Doha for high-level meetings this week as we continue to discuss the memorandum of understanding,” she told Fox News.

Leavitt added that technical talks will take place on the sidelines of the high-level negotiations.

The US and Iran reached a deal to end the war earlier this month, kicking off a 60-day period of negotiations over the thorniest issues in the relationship – Tehran’s nuclear programme.

But the deal has been tested by Israel’s continuing attacks in Lebanon and Iran’s assertion of control over the Strait of Hormuz.

The first sentence of the 14-point MoU calls for a full ceasefire in Lebanon, “ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty” of the country.

But the US has sponsored a separate agreement between the Lebanese government and Israel that conditions Israeli withdrawal on the disarmament of Hezbollah across the country.

Hormuz has been another sticking point. Iran has rejected routes through the strait outside of its control and fired at ships passing through lanes not designated by Tehran.

The US has struck Iranian positions near the waterway, to which Iran responded with missile and drone attacks against American bases in Bahrain and Kuwait.

But diplomatic and de-escalation efforts appear to continue, despite the trading of attacks.

“As far as we’re concerned, we’re holding up our end of the ceasefire,” Leavitt said on Monday, but she warned that “violence will be met with violence” if Iran attacks commercial ships or US interests.

On Monday, Trump hailed the drop in oil prices that followed the deal, which lifted Tehran’s blockade on Hormuz and eased US sanctions on Iran’s energy products.

“GAS PRICES COMING DOWN, FAST! REPORT ANY ABUSES AT RETAIL LEVEL,” the US president wrote on his Truth Social platform.

The average price of one gallon (3.8 litres) of gasoline in the US has dropped to $3.86, down from a peak of $4.56 in May. It was less than $3 before the war.

Brent crude edges up as tit-for-tat strikes imperial return to normality in key waterway.

Oil prices have climbed following the latest flare-up in hostilities between the United States and Iran.

Brent crude, the primary international benchmark, rose about 0.9 percent on Monday after tit-for-tat US and Iranian strikes over the weekend renewed doubts about a return to normal shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

Brent futures for August delivery stood at $73.21 a barrel as of 03:30 GMT, 127 cents higher than the day before the US and Israel launched their war on Iran on February 28.

“Brent’s partial rebound this morning reflects a market that had perhaps run too quickly on ceasefire optimism,” Fabien Yip, a market analyst at IG in Sydney, Australia, told Al Jazeera.

“Oil had nearly unwound its entire war premium, despite an MoU with no enforcement details and ongoing strikes. Thursday’s attack on a commercial vessel was a reality check, and this weekend’s tit-for-tat exchanges have compounded that,” Yip said.

Asian stock markets were mixed on Monday morning, with losses in Tokyo and Seoul and gains in Hong Kong and Taipei.

Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225 was 0.7 percent lower, while South Korea’s Kospi was down 1.9 percent.

Japanese and Korean stocks tied to the AI boom saw some of the biggest losses amid heated debate about whether tech firms’ massive investments in the emerging technology will pay off.

Japanese tech giant SoftBank Group fell about 5 percent, while Advantest Corporation, a key maker of semiconductor testing equipment, slumped 3.7 percent.

South Korean memory chip giants Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix dropped about 5 percent and 4 percent, respectively.

Hong Kong’s benchmark Hang Seng Index and Taiwan’s Taiex both rose, gaining 2.2 percent and 1.4 percent, respectively.

“Quarter-end profit-taking is adding to the selling pressure, with investors locking in gains from what has been a remarkable run. The Kospi is up roughly 95 percent this year, and the Nikkei up 37 percent,” IG’s Yip said.

“The underlying concern, however, is whether the AI boom can continue to translate into sustained earnings growth, or whether margin pressure is arriving sooner than the market anticipated.”

US Central Command announced strikes against Iran on Friday and Saturday, citing Iranian attacks on two commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, which in peacetime serves as a conduit for about one-fifth of the global trade in oil and liquified natural gas.

Iran responded to the strikes by launching a series of missiles and drones targeting US military assets in Bahrain and Kuwait.

Washington and Tehran agreed to cease their attacks and renew their negotiations on ending the war, multiple media outlets reported late on Sunday, citing unnamed US officials.

Axios, citing an unnamed senior US official, reported that the sides would hold talks in Doha, Qatar, on Tuesday.

Iran has yet to comment on the reported agreement to cease hostilities or the planned talks.

US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed a memorandum of understanding to end the war on June 17, but the agreement has repeatedly come under strain due to flare-ups in hostilities and disagreements about the meaning of the text.

Washington and Tehran have agreed to stop attacks and renew talks in the Qatari capital, Doha, Axios reports.

Beirut, Lebanon – After the governments of Lebanon and Israel on Friday signed a United States-brokered framework agreement following months of direct negotiations, protesters took to the streets of the Lebanese capital to express their anger at the deal.

Many of the demonstrators waved flags of the Iran-backed group Hezbollah, which has been militarily confronting Israel’s ongoing invasion and occupation of large swaths of southern Lebanon.

Israel and Hezbollah have been fighting since October 2023, with varying levels of intensity, but the former has twice escalated the conflict – first in September 2024 and then nearly four months ago.

Some of the harshest critics of the framework, which does not force the Israeli army to withdraw from the areas it occupies, have been those most deeply impacted by Israel’s war, which has killed more than 4,200 people and forced hundreds of thousands from their homes since early March.

“After everything my family, my village, the south, and Dahiyeh have endured – the destruction, the displacement, the grief and the loss – it is incredibly difficult for me to accept an agreement with the same state that carried out the military actions that devastated our communities,” said Ali Zaytoun, a resident of Beirut’s southern suburbs, known as Dahiyeh.

Zaytoun, who runs a popular Instagram account called History of Dahieh, said he had been displaced multiple times due to Israeli attacks.

“Imagine someone destroys your home and your life, and then you’re expected to simply move on as if nothing happened,” said Zaytoun. “My protest is about remembering those who suffered, standing up for my community, and expressing that this agreement does not reflect the justice or respect that people who lived through this war deserve.”

A new Oslo?

The Israeli intensification on March 2 came after Hezbollah fired on Israel for the first time in more than a year following the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in a joint US-Israeli air attack on Tehran two days earlier, and as a response to more than 10,000 Israeli violations of a ceasefire reached in November 2024.

On the same day, the Lebanese government declared Hezbollah’s military activities illegal and later tried – unsuccessfully – to expel the Iranian ambassador.

Its position was that Hezbollah’s actions invited Israel’s wrath in a war fought on behalf of Iran and not the people of Lebanon.

Hezbollah, however, continued fighting Israel in southern Lebanon, where the Israeli army has established what it calls a “security zone” that goes as deep as 10km (6.2 miles) into the country.

As attacks continued, Lebanon’s government entered the United States-brokered negotiations with Israel, despite Hezbollah’s objections.

The final text of the 14-point Washington agreement states Israel has no claim to Lebanese territory and that the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) will eventually be the authority in southern Lebanon, “pending the verified disarmament of” non-state armed groups such as Hezbollah.

Proponents point to Israel recognising Lebanon’s authority over its own territory, though critics say the framework relies too heavily on the US – Israel’s main military and diplomatic backer and a signatory to the deal – to enforce it.

“The United States is unlikely to act as a neutral mediator and will almost certainly align with Israeli positions whenever disputes arise over the interpretation or implementation of the agreement,” said Karim Emile Bitar, a professor of international relations at the Saint Joseph University of Beirut.

“This creates a fundamentally asymmetric negotiating environment in which Lebanon has little leverage and few effective guarantees.”

Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem declared the agreement “null and void”, calling it “humiliating, shameful, and a surrender of sovereignty”, while Hassan Fadlallah, a Hezbollah lawmaker, warned of “internal conflict” in Lebanon.

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri called for calm but also declared that the deal was an attempt to incite strife.

Those who backed the government said it had originally little choice but to enter direct negotiations, given its limited leverage in a war where Israel has technological superiority and unwavering US support.

Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam wrote on social media after the agreement’s signing that it “aims to achieve Israel’s withdrawal from all Lebanese territories”, while President Joseph Aoun called it “a first step” towards restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Still, the final terms of the deal were criticised by many analysts.

“This framework agreement essentially mirrors the reality of the military and political balance on the ground, which is decisively tilted in Israel’s favour,” said Bitar.

Bitar said the agreement was reminiscent of the Oslo Accords, a series of US-brokered agreements signed by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel in the 1990s.

“We see a similar pattern here: Israeli negotiators seek recognition and get the other side to relinquish leverage while offering no binding timetable or reciprocal obligations,” he added.

On Saturday, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz insisted soldiers will remain in Lebanon until Hezbollah is disarmed.

US reliance

Days before the signing of the Washington framework, Iran and the US agreed on a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that aims to end the war launched by the US and Israel against Iran in late February.

The MoU declared, among other things, “the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon”, between the two countries and their allies.

Lebanon’s inclusion in the MoU was reportedly an Iranian priority, while a “deconfliction cell” was formed to bolster the supposed ceasefire in the country.

Throughout the war and the period of negotiations, Lebanon’s government has tried to separate itself from Iran – but some said it may have gone too far in the other direction.

“We are seeing the confirmation of what Hezbollah has been warning all along. Not because Hezbollah got it right, but because the Lebanese state got it so wrong,” said Lebanese writer Elia Ayoub.

“I understand the need to not depend on Iran, but what we’ve instead done is become even more dependent on the US than we’ve previously been,” added Ayoub, the founder of the podcast The Fire These Times.

“And it’s the US that has been bankrolling Israel’s genocide in Palestine and war crimes in Lebanon,” Ayoub added.

Analysts also questioned whether the government would be able to implement the deal.

“It appears that the Lebanese side has come under significant US pressure to sign an agreement that is very likely to remain little more than ink on paper, and very unlikely to be implemented in any meaningful way,” said Bitar.

Karim Safieddine, a nonresident fellow with the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, said the framework left the Lebanese government with “very little agency”.

“It’s Israel imposing a deal,” he added. “It’s very clear what this deal is. It’s just a surrender agreement.”

At the same time, some pointed to similarities to the 2024 ceasefire agreement, expressing doubt whether Israel will be incentivised to respect the framework.

“It’s one thing to sign a declaration of intent; it’s another thing to have it implemented, and I can see all kinds of problems emerging from this,” said Nicholas Blanford, a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council and author of a book on Hezbollah.

Last year, Israel repeatedly complained that LAF’s efforts to disarm Hezbollah were either too slow or ineffective. The US often sided with Israel despite diplomatic attempts from European and other officials encouraging it to support LAF.

In a call with his US counterpart, President Donald Trump, on Saturday, Aoun said Lebanon “would assume its responsibilities” in implementing the framework and expressed hope Washington would help ensure that commitments ‌are fulfilled, particularly by pressing Israel to pull out from the areas it occupies.

Point 9 of the agreement states Lebanon’s government commits to a “rigorous, performance-based program to enable the capacity of the LAF to assert full military and security control within Lebanon … to implement the disarmament of all non-state armed groups”.

This provision has some in Lebanon worried about potential confrontations between LAF and Hezbollah, but Blanford said the possibility of a large escalation is currently not likely.

“The Lebanese army and the government are unwilling to use force against Hezbollah,” he said. “Forcibly trying to disarm a group that is refusing to disarm is an act of war. And I think the Lebanese army and the Lebanese government would be extremely wary of that.”

The memorandum of understanding (MoU) the United States and Iran have signed is not a peace treaty. It is not even a credible framework for one. A vocal chorus of critics has rushed to portray it as a humiliation – evidence that President Donald Trump was manoeuvred into negotiations and extracted a poor deal from a regime that outplayed him.

That reading mistakes a mirage for reality. The Trump administration entered these talks with a precise understanding of what the Iranian regime is, what it wants and what any agreement with it is actually worth. No one in that negotiating team harbours the illusion that Tehran intends to honour commitments that constrain its core ambitions. The MоU is not a peace settlement. It is a mutually understood pause – a tactical intermission chosen by both sides for reasons that have nothing to do with trust and everything to do with time.

To grasp why, one needs only consult Iran’s unbroken record. That record is not a matter of interpretation or political dispute. It is a documented history of agreements made, commitments given and obligations systematically abandoned whenever honouring them conflicted with the regime’s objectives.

The pattern is consistent enough to constitute a doctrine: Iran negotiates under pressure, signs what is necessary to relieve that pressure and resumes its course once the immediate threat has passed.

The deeply flawed 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was the most prominent recent demonstration of this cycle. Presented as a landmark of multilateral diplomacy, it was in practice a subsidised intermission – a breathing space Iran used to consolidate resources, sustain its proxy networks and continue advancing its strategic programme. The JCPOA did not change Iranian behaviour. It funded and protected it.

The Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign was a direct response to that lesson: A regime of this kind cannot be managed through diplomatic lifelines. It can only be constrained by pressure severe enough to leave it no viable alternative to compliance.

The new MoU does not signal that Iran has changed. Its calculus remains what it has always been – survival and expansion, pursued through whatever tactical posture the moment requires. When pressure mounts, Iran negotiates. When pressure eases, Iran advances. Its negotiators are, by all available evidence, prepared to offer assurances they have no intention of keeping. This is not a failure of diplomatic craftsmanship. This is simply the nature of any negotiation with a regime like Iran’s.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Iranian nuclear programme. As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has repeatedly committed to transparent cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. It has repeatedly broken those commitments, blocking inspections, constructing clandestine enrichment facilities, destroying evidence and systematically deceiving the international community. The pattern is not one of occasional noncompliance. It is deliberate, sustained deception in pursuit of a single unwavering objective: the acquisition of a nuclear weapon.

A state genuinely committed to civilian nuclear energy has no need for a vast and enormously expensive domestic enrichment programme. Nuclear fuel can be purchased – from Russia, among others – at a fraction of the cost and without the international confrontation such a programme inevitably provokes.

Iran has chosen the far more costly and dangerous path for one reason: Enrichment is not a means to an end, but the end itself. Its rulers are committed to a nuclear weapon, and that commitment has survived changes in personnel, shifts in rhetoric and decades of pressure.

It will not be bargained away – and here lies the critical point that no amount of diplomatic optimism can paper over. Iran’s rulers are not pragmatic actors engaged in a conventional cost-benefit calculation. Their goals are theological and strategic in a way that places them beyond the reach of ordinary negotiation.

They do not govern in the interests of the Iranian people. The sanctions they have endured have devastated ordinary Iranians – driven up poverty, hollowed out the middle class, denied the population access to medicines and opportunity. None of that has moved the regime one degree from its course.

This is a regime that could, if it chose, transform its position entirely. It could make peace with its neighbours, normalise relations with the international community, shed the sanctions that have devastated its economy and dramatically improve the lives of Iranians. The price is not beyond reach: abandon the nuclear weapons programme, cease development of offensive ballistic missiles and end the sponsorship of terrorist proxies. Iran’s rulers have refused that bargain consistently and completely.

That is the essential context for understanding what the Trump administration is actually doing. It would be a serious misjudgement to read this MoU as evidence of American weakness or strategic confusion. The team that designed and executed the most effective pressure campaign against Iran in recent memory is not naive about this adversary.

Trump enters this pause knowing that Iran will not honour commitments that genuinely constrain it. He is not expecting otherwise. Neither side, in all likelihood, operates under any such illusion – which is precisely what makes the critics’ alarm about a “bad deal” somewhat beside the point.

You cannot be cheated by an agreement you never expected the other party to keep.

What this MoU represents is a mutually understood strategic pause, a breathing space both parties have chosen, for entirely different reasons, over immediate confrontation. Iran needs economic relief. A regime facing internal decay and a depleted treasury has strong incentives to buy time, replenish its resources and wait out what it calculates to be a finite window.

Tehran is acutely aware that Trump has roughly two and a half years remaining in office. From its perspective, survival through that period is itself a form of victory.

Washington’s calculus is different in kind. Keeping the Strait of Hormuz open is an immediate, non-negotiable goal – a choked strait means an energy price shock with global consequences. Beyond that, the US has its own repositioning to accomplish. Military inventories drawn down through recent operations are being restocked. Strategic options are being preserved and expanded.

A pause that enables that rebuilding, while avoiding a premature confrontation on unfavourable terms, is not a concession. It is preparation.

Trump has never wavered in his commitment to eliminating Iran as a strategic threat – not through wishful diplomacy, but through the kind of pressure that forecloses options. That commitment did not expire with the signing of this MoU. The question for Tehran is not whether American resolve exists but whether it can be outlasted. That is a wager the Iranian regime has made before and lost.

The international community will, as usual, observe from a careful distance. Many nations will urge Iran to be stopped while taking few steps to stop it, criticising US action and inaction with equal facility.

Trump understands this dynamic. It is the foundation of his approach to alliances – the insistence that partners bear proportionate burdens rather than simply drawing on American resolve while contributing little of their own.

The MoU will not resolve the Iranian problem. It was not designed to. When its terms expire or when Iran decides it has served its purpose, the nuclear programme will resume its advance, the proxies will be better resourced, and the Strait of Hormuz will once again become a flashpoint.

That outcome is not a possibility. Given Iran’s record, it is a near-certainty. The only consequential variable is whether the US and those willing to stand alongside it will be better positioned to act decisively when that moment arrives. Far from a mirage, the evidence suggests that is precisely what this administration is working to ensure.

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

Tehran, Iran – The memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed last week between Iran and the United States appears to be in jeopardy after a second day of military strikes, as well as the a framework agreement that entrenches Israeli forces on Lebanese soil.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on Sunday released video showing the launch of ballistic missiles overnight, with a message written on them in English and Persian saying US President Donald Trump was insisting on a “defeated war”.

The IRGC said it had fired missiles and drones towards the US Ali Al Salem airbase in Kuwait and the US Fifth Naval Fleet in Bahrain in retaliation for a second day of US strikes. It threatened more attacks if the deal is violated again by the “deceitful” US, which, along with Israel launched air attacks across Iran on February 28.

The exchanges of fire come after the US coordinated the transit of vessels out of the Strait of Hormuz in cooperation with Oman and the International Maritime Organization.

Many ships were being directed through Oman’s waters, which prompted the IRGC to hit a container ship and a tanker with explosive-laden drones in an attempt to force traffic to pass through Iranian waters instead.

Speaking to reporters in neighbouring Iraq on Sunday, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran will exercise sole management and oversight of the critical waterway for the next 30 days before allowing full traffic to resume.

He also emphasised the first clause of the June 17 MoU, which says military operations must immediately and permanently end on all fronts, including Lebanon, and urged Washington to exert pressure on Israel to stop attacking southern Lebanon.

The governments of Israel and Lebanon reached a US-brokered framework deal on Friday that allows Israeli forces to remain in southern Lebanon, until Tehran-backed Hezbollah is fully disarmed. That appears to contradict the MoU signed with Iran.

Hezbollah swiftly rejected the agreement, calling it “humiliating, shameful and a surrender” of Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Negar Mortazavi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, said she expected the Lebanon issue to negatively impact the MoU because Hezbollah was not on board and the Lebanese government’s previous ceasefire deals with Israel have been repeatedly violated.

She also told Al Jazeera that Iran has found tremendous leverage with the Strait of Hormuz, treating it as a “golden card”, as the disruption to oil exports has heavily impacted markets and made the war unpopular among many, including in the US.

“They are using that leverage to the max and not going back to the status before the war, pretending like no war happened,” she said, adding that Iranian authorities and the IRGC have sought to centre themselves in the process of coordinating transit through the strait.

“They’re saying they want traffic to go through in coordination with them, and I think they will be able to exert that kind of power,” she said.

On Saturday, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian, Speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and judiciary chief Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei released an image of their first publicised trilateral meeting since the start of the war more than four months ago.

Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has not been seen or heard from since succeeding his father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in a US-Israeli attack on the first day of the war. But a new written text message attributed to him on Sunday said: “What is certain is that the criminals must be seized by the collar and made to face the punishment for their criminal acts”.

Supporters of the Islamic Republic cheered on the latest IRGC attacks against US interests as they continued demonstrating on the streets overnight into Sunday as hardline politicians and analysts called for further attacks until Iran gets better concessions.

On the state-linked talk show, Tamam Rokh, political analysts said Tehran should significantly strengthen its ties with Moscow and Beijing.

“We could do many things with help from Russia and China to damage US strategic equipment in the region like vessels, refuelling aircraft and electronic warfare,” pro-state analyst Ali Samadzadeh said on the programme on Saturday.

“There was no movement in Tehran to tie Beijing and Moscow to the war, and this major flaw exists in the form of the negotiations and the text of the MoU as well,” he said.

More than 60 hardline legislators on Sunday postponed plans to protest against the closure of parliament since the start of the war after its presiding board said it would meet to reconvene the assembly, following Ali Khamenei’s burial next month.

Many others say demands for extracting major concessions from the US and Israel do not correspond with the reality of the situation after months of war.

“In terms of military power, we couldn’t do anything about the US blockade and we didn’t think the crisis would get so serious,” pro-state commentator Vahid Ashtari told crowds at a street event in Tehran.

“I think a type of blind idealism has emerged that believes we are on top and at the peak, so we shouldn’t make a deal. But there are facts on the ground. We have some missiles and drones to carry out an asymmetric defence, but we have no fighter jets to fly to the US and hit Trump. Not only could we not avenge [Khamenei], we could not avenge Haj Qassem either,” he added, in reference to General Qassem Soleimani, who was assassinated by the US in 2020.

After two nights of attacks, Iran’s financial markets also reacted poorly, with the national currency losing gains since the signing of the MoU to trade at about 1.7 million rials against the dollar in Tehran’s open market on Sunday.

The main index of the Tehran Stock Exchange also lost more than 100,000 points to stand at just over five million points at the end of trading on Sunday, the second day of the working week in Iran.

Vahid, a 37-year-old mechanic who also deals in car parts in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar, told Al Jazeera that while the market has marginally improved since the signing of the deal with the US, it is still treading on thin ice.

He said parts for foreign cars are becoming harder to find, while prices have been rising rapidly for both domestic and foreign vehicle parts.

“I think the war will start again over the coming months and some in the bazaar think the same,” he said.

Iran’s foreign minister has urged ‘all parties not to interfere’ in the management of the Strait of Hormuz, after the US bombed Iran for a second day following a drone attack on a vessel. Abbas Araghchi says the MoU gives Tehran control of the waterway, during a press conference with his Iraqi counterpart in Baghdad.

Bahrain and Kuwait have condemned Iran’s retaliatory attacks after a second day of US strikes on Iran. Tehran University academic Hassan Ahmadian argues the US is trying to find its way out of the Memorandum of Understanding that Trump signed 10 days ago, ending the war.