Tehran rejoices, Israel fumes, Lebanon holds its breath

Following the official announcement of a framework agreement between Washington and Tehran on a memorandum of understanding to serve as the basis for talks between the two capitals, the picture looks like this: effusiveness in Tehran, where the document is being hailed as a historic victory; anger in Israel; calculated restraint in the United States; cautious optimism in Lebanon; and relief in Gulf countries and Europe, accompanied by a drop in oil prices.

The memorandum of understanding, announced late Sunday night by President Donald Trump, is set to be signed on Friday in Geneva, where Trump arrived Monday to take part in G7 meetings. The document is said to have already been signed electronically.

However, a Qatari delegation's trip to Islamabad on Sunday evening suggests that some details may still need to be ironed out. Doha had joined the mediation efforts led by Pakistan at Washington's request.

This assumption is further supported by comments from U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who indicated that the document would be unveiled sometime this week, without providing any further details.

In the meantime, Tehran has made a point of dwelling at length — with triumphant commentary — on the provisions of the 14-point memorandum of understanding. The text lays the groundwork for a ceasefire intended to lead to lasting peace, following negotiations that will span 60 days. Two long months for a process fraught with obstacles, as the memorandum of understanding is merely a document outlining the broad strokes of the negotiations to come.

Iranian media reported that it calls for a "permanent and immediate halt to the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and the unfreezing of $24 billion in Iranian assets, half of which would be released before talks begin."

Also according to Iranian media, the document provides for the suspension of sanctions on the sale of Iranian oil, petrochemical products, and their derivatives.

In exchange for an end to hostilities and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, Washington would gradually lift the blockade on Iranian ports as well as the sanctions that have been strangling the Islamic Republic's economy.

But the central issue for both parties remains the fate of enriched uranium stockpiles and Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Tehran only mentioned the nuclear program, claiming that Washington had agreed to allow the Islamic Republic to continue enriching uranium to 3%, a point on which the United States had previously been unyielding. There was no mention, however, of the ballistic missile program.

If the Iranians are to be believed, it is they who managed to have all their conditions accepted by the United States. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi announced that final talks would only begin "once the United States has fulfilled key commitments, including ending the naval blockade, halting military operations, and releasing frozen Iranian funds." "Once these urgent commitments are carried out, we will immediately enter into negotiations," he told state television.

"The unfreezing of Iranian assets as well as reparations for damages are two essential points" of the agreement, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said at his weekly press briefing. According to him, "the American side has committed to taking steps in both of these areas" — a claim that U.S. Vice President JD Vance was quick to deny.

At a press conference, he assured that Iranians "will get nothing until they honor their commitments." "They only talk about what they stand to gain while staying silent about what they will give in return," he added, stressing that Donald Trump will have achieved through diplomacy what he had sought to impose through war — namely, that Iran never have the possibility of obtaining a nuclear weapon and that it stop funding terrorist activities throughout the Middle East.

While Tehran claimed to have wrested from Washington an unlocking of compensation funds for the reconstruction of sites destroyed or damaged by Israeli-American strikes, JD Vance insisted that the only funds the Islamic Republic would receive would come from already frozen Iranian assets.

The United States also expects the Strait of Hormuz to reopen "toll-free" on Iran's part, he continued, while Iranian diplomats had spoken of maritime "service fees."

At the same time, Donald Trump was congratulating himself on the fact that ships "some of them laden with oil, are beginning to exit the Strait of Hormuz and sail along a route that is completely secure."

Demining operations are expected to begin shortly. French President Emmanuel Macron confirmed that France will engage in this process alongside the United Kingdom. He also stated, on the sidelines of the G7, that Iran's highly enriched uranium capabilities must be "neutralized" under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Anger in Israel

Widely welcomed by the international community, particularly in Europe, the Iran-US agreement is far from meeting the expectations of Israeli authorities, who have made no secret of their anger. Tel Aviv considers that the framework agreement does not neutralize the Islamic Republic's capacity for harm — let alone its proxies, particularly Hezbollah, which still poses a threat to the security of northern Israel. Israel had wanted Washington to "finish the job" rather than fall into agreements that Tehran has mastered the art of circumventing.

The announcement of the memorandum triggered a genuine political storm within the Israeli cabinet, which deemed it "dangerous." Several ministers openly criticized the American administration, calling the agreement a "capitulation to state terrorism." Even the Israeli opposition condemned it.

In the evening, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated at a press conference that Iran would not acquire nuclear weapons "with or without a deal." He did not comment on the memorandum of understanding but pledged to "remain vigilant in repelling any threat from Tehran's allies against Israel, particularly from Hezbollah."

In this context, he announced that his army "will remain in Lebanon for as long as necessary" and that it had not withdrawn under Iranian pressure because he had remained "very firm." "I believe our American friends respect this firmness and this position. We will stay in Lebanon."

Notably, he signaled a desire for military independence by announcing a defense budget of nearly $121 billion. "We are going to develop concepts that go beyond imagination," he declared, in what appears to be a message to the United States, which provides substantial military aid to Tel Aviv.

For Israeli officials, the memorandum legitimizes Iranian influence and protects Hezbollah's paramilitary structures — which Tel Aviv had been gradually dismantling — from the moment it included the Lebanese front within the announced ceasefire framework.

Israel is also convinced that the unfreezing of Iranian funds will enable Tehran to rebuild its ballistic missile arsenal.

The Israeli government has also warned that it does not consider itself bound by the document and that a withdrawal from Lebanon is not being considered as long as Hezbollah has not been disarmed. This is an argument it can easily make, given that it has already reached a ceasefire agreement with Lebanon under Washington's sponsorship.

In this context, several Israeli ministers have argued that Tel Aviv reserves the right to act unilaterally to defend its interests, even if doing so runs counter to the ongoing diplomatic momentum.

Fragile calm in Lebanon

In Lebanon, Hezbollah was quick to echo Iran's triumphalism. Since the announcement of the memorandum of understanding, the group immediately halted its strikes on Israeli targets, falling in line with directives from its Iranian patron — all to suggest that it is thanks to Iran that a ceasefire has been established on the Lebanese front. Hezbollah, it should be noted, does not recognize the Lebanese-Israeli truce agreement, due to its fierce opposition to direct negotiations between the two capitals.

On the ground, a fragile calm prevailed throughout the day in southern Lebanon, where sporadic Israeli fire targeted Nabatieh and Kfar Tebnit, where an Israeli drone killed the driver of a vehicle. A journalist was also wounded in a drone attack in the same town.

By evening, unconfirmed reports from unofficial sources indicated that the Israeli army was advancing toward the strategic hill of Ali Taher, overlooking Nabatieh, and that clashes had broken out with Hezbollah militants.

Many villagers rushed to return to their towns despite warnings from the Lebanese army.

On the political front, Lebanese authorities welcomed the memorandum of understanding, while the pro-Iranian group was quick to exploit 'the Iranian victory' by calling — through the voice of Jaafari mufti Mohammad Ahmad Kabalan — for a change of government.

Most alarming was his line of reasoning. According to him, the new cabinet must 'reflect the national balance, now that the factors that justified the pro-American camp's rise to power have disappeared.'

In the mufti's view, the new ministerial team should include 'Hezbollah's (Christian) allies, namely the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) and the Marada,' led by Gebran Bassil and Sleiman Frangieh respectively — a move aimed at restoring Christian legitimacy to a movement entirely subservient to Iran and completely isolated domestically.

Sheikh Ahmad Kabalan also argued that 'Lebanon must withdraw from direct negotiations with Israel,' which are set to resume on June 22 in Washington. To achieve its goals, will the pro-Iranian group follow through on its threats to bring down the government?

When asked about Lebanon, President Trump replied: 'We really want to see if we can sort out that country's problems. It's a tiny piece of what we're doing. But it shouldn't be that hard. We just need to have a little chat with Hezbollah.'