The Iran-US deal: suspense and feverish bargaining

A heavy, anxiety-filled suspense gripped the entire day and evening of this Sunday, June 14, which was supposed to be marked by the virtual, online signing of the framework agreement (or memorandum of understanding) intended to "suspend" hostilities between the United States and Iran for a period of 60 days, with the aim of launching a negotiation process over the dispute — nuclear, ballistic, financial, and geopolitical — with the Islamic Republic.

Over the past 48 hours, both President Donald Trump and the Pakistani Prime Minister repeatedly and insistently affirmed that the framework agreement would indeed be signed on Sunday. The signing was expected to take place "virtually," in the presence of U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Qalibaf. Yet well into the late evening (Levant time), the ceremony planned for this purpose had still not taken place. Two factors accounted for the delay: internal Iranian disagreements and a military escalation on the Lebanese front.

Regarding the latter, a snowball effect triggered a serious escalation in military operations. On Sunday morning, air raid sirens sounded multiple times across northern Israel, signaling missiles or drones launched from Lebanon and landing on Israeli territory.

This attack was carried out by Hezbollah despite the fact that Tel Aviv had repeatedly made clear that any rocket or drone fire hitting northern Israel would immediately trigger a retaliatory strike on the southern suburbs of Beirut. Indeed, the Israeli air force conducted a raid on that area around noon, killing a senior Hezbollah military official responsible for the party's telecommunications.

From early afternoon onward, media outlets and political circles across the region engaged in all manner of speculation about the possibility of an Iranian retaliatory strike against Israel following the raid on the southern suburbs.

In an apparent bid to "save" the framework agreement — to which he seems (mysteriously) fiercely committed — President Trump reportedly exerted heavy pressure on the Iranian regime to refrain from launching its retaliation against Israel. According to multiple consistent sources, he even offered the Iranian leadership a major concession — the lifting of the naval blockade — in exchange for Iranian military restraint. To no avail.

Late in the evening, an adviser to the Iranian Supreme Leader announced that "Iran will respond forcefully to the raid on the southern suburbs." The head of the influential National Security Commission of the Iranian Parliament echoed this, also stating that an Iranian response was in the making. The Iranian military command likewise indicated that a strike against Israel would take place shortly. At the same time, the Tasnim news agency — close to the Revolutionary Guards — reported the closure of airspace in eastern Iran.

Critics of the Iranian President

The second factor that likely explains the delay in signing the framework agreement is the emergence of serious internal divisions within the Iranian regime over whether a deal with the United States is advisable. These internal rifts were publicly confirmed by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who openly criticized the accusations of treason leveled against the Iranian Parliament Speaker (the principal negotiator with Washington) and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who is at the center of the ongoing talks. President Pezeshkian also condemned the fact that Iranian state television had broadcast remarks attributed to the Supreme Leader opposing dialogue with the United States.

It is worth recalling in this context that demonstrations hostile to any agreement with the Americans were held on Saturday in Tehran, most likely at the instigation of the Revolutionary Guards. Protesters went so far as to demand the resignation of the Speaker of Parliament and the Foreign Minister, even issuing death threats against any official who might support the deal in question. These demonstrations lend weight to analysts and media outlets who claim there is a faction within Iran convinced that the country has achieved a 'symbolic victory' over Washington and therefore has no need to sign any agreement with the United States.

Trump's grievances and uncertainty over the deal

In any case, and on a completely different note, President Trump published a post on his social media platform stating that 'this morning's strike on Beirut should not have happened.' In his message, he placed equal blame on Israel and Hezbollah, urging both sides to stop the escalation, as it 'could be the beginning of a long and beautiful peace' that no one should stand in the way of.

It is worth recalling that this week was marked by severe military tensions between Iran and the United States. American strikes on multiple targets in southern Iran followed the downing of a US Apache helicopter by the Revolutionary Guards. President Trump had even threatened a major strike during the night of Thursday to Friday (Levant time), before calling it off at the last minute. The world woke up on Friday to news of an imminent deal between the warring parties — announced, of course, by Trump himself on his social media platform.

Even as encouraging news was being picked up by the media, numerous 'leaks' in Iranian outlets systematically contradicted the wave of optimism. One Iranian tactic in this regard has been to spread rumors about the terms of the deal that directly contradict what Washington has disclosed. According to these 'reports' circulating in Tehran, Iran would retain control over the Strait of Hormuz, preserve its right to enrich uranium, and recover all Iranian funds frozen in banks around the world — which prompted President Trump to post an angry message on Friday accusing the Iranians of 'lacking honor.' Unexpectedly, it was Minister Araghchi who stepped in, urging Iranian media to stop publishing unfounded reports, drawing a favorable response from Trump.

What about the enriched uranium?

While the exact terms of the deal remain uncertain, American sources cited by pan-Arab channels suggest that frozen Iranian funds will not be released until the agreement is implemented, that the Strait of Hormuz would automatically remain open, that uranium stockpiles would be removed from the country, and that nuclear facilities would be dismantled.

As for the nuclear file, it is expected to be the subject of future negotiations beginning as early as next week, should a deal be signed. However, on Saturday, a CNN report raised alarming concerns on this matter. According to the network, during the current ceasefire period, Iranian authorities have reinforced the storage of their enriched uranium in ways designed to make access more difficult and more dangerous. They reportedly buried 450 kilograms of enriched uranium in tunnels rigged with mines — measures taken in response to President Trump's threats to task the US military with seizing the uranium.

Israeli discontent and the Lebanese unknown

One of the major unknowns surrounding this proposed Iran-US "deal" is its implications for Lebanon, particularly given Israel's clear displeasure on this front. The Iranians were quick to reassure Hezbollah that a ceasefire in Lebanon and an Israeli withdrawal are included in the document — which explains the immediately triumphalist tone struck by certain Hezbollah MPs, who boasted about the deal's "implications" for the Lebanese arena. They also took a swipe at the Lebanese authorities, calling on them to abandon the direct negotiations process with Israel.

Yet the next round of talks between Lebanon and Israel in Washington remains scheduled for June 22, according to multiple concordant sources. As for the Lebanese authorities, they are maintaining a firm stance against Iranian interference and remain committed to the direct negotiations process in Washington, as stated this week by President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam.

Another murky point is whether the agreement will compel Iran to distance itself from its proxies in the region — foremost among them the Lebanese Hezbollah, the only one that truly fought to help keep the mullahs' regime afloat. Numerous reports coming out of Washington suggest that this is indeed the case, even as Iranian officials continue to issue declarations insisting they would never abandon Hezbollah.

Meanwhile, the situation on the ground in southern Lebanon remains volatile, with clashes continuing between Hezbollah and the Israeli military. Clearly anxious about their freedom of movement in Lebanon, the Israelis are already pushing back against anything that might cause them to forfeit their "gains" in the South, particularly their territorial conquests. For its part, Hezbollah stands to benefit from a halt in the fighting, even though it has already been pushed back north of the symbolic Litani line — but it too has an interest in slowing Israel's advances.

This would explain the ferocity of the fighting in recent days along specific axes, as both sides compete for control of two key areas: Nabatieh and Tyre. Israel's military is clearly attempting to make as many territorial gains as possible before any development forces it to scale back the intensity of its military operations in Lebanon.

And as usual, it is Lebanese towns and villages that are paying the price. Evacuation orders are being issued in rapid succession for dozens of villages, some in areas that had until now been spared — such as Jezzine, for example.

Deal with Iran or not, all eyes will also be on Monday's G7 summit in Évian, which Donald Trump is attending. The American president is planning a meeting with Middle Eastern leaders — one that Netanyahu has reportedly already decided not to attend.