TEHRAN: Iran’s top diplomat stated on Tuesday that any agreement to end its conflict with the United States necessitates Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanese territory. The assertion comes amid growing questions about the terms of a yet-to-be-published accord and whether differing interpretations, particularly concerning Israel’s presence in Lebanon, could lead to a prolonged conflict.
Information was available with The Chenab Times that Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasized that Israel’s continued occupation of southern Lebanon would constitute a violation of the memorandum of understanding recently reached between the United States and Iran. He further stipulated that the cessation of hostilities in Lebanon is an integral component of a complete resolution to the conflict.
“The end of the war in Lebanon is an inseparable part of the complete end of the war,” Araghchi communicated to foreign diplomats in Tehran, with his statements broadcast on Iranian state television. He added, “Without the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territories they occupied during this war, the war has not fully come to an end.” Araghchi also indicated that any further Israeli attacks on Lebanon would be regarded by Iran as a breach of the memorandum of understanding.
The United States has not officially confirmed whether Lebanon was included in the final terms of the agreement. However, Araghchi’s interpretation appears to diverge from statements made by Israeli officials regarding the deal intended to conclude the war that commenced with joint US-Israeli airstrikes on February 28. Israel is not a direct party to the agreement. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the accord as President Donald Trump’s decision, asserting that Israel maintained its own priorities and intended to remain in a buffer zone in Lebanon for as long as deemed necessary.
This divergence in understanding mirrors ambiguities seen in past negotiations, including a temporary ceasefire brokered in April. That earlier agreement failed to lead to broader peace or the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, primarily due to differing frameworks announced by the United States and Iran.
The unresolved issues surrounding the current agreement cast a shadow over its long-term viability. The accord is intended to establish a meaningful truce in a month-long conflict that has resulted in thousands of casualties across the Middle East, including the demise of senior Iranian theocracy leaders, and has significantly impacted global fuel and food prices.
According to a senior U.S. official who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity, the unpublished agreement includes provisions for the immediate opening of the Strait of Hormuz and the lifting of the blockade. Pakistani officials involved in brokering the deal indicated that it begins with the simultaneous lifting of Iran’s closure of the strait and the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports. Following this, the United States and Iran are set to commence 60 days of negotiations concerning Iran’s nuclear program and the potential lifting of sanctions, according to Pakistani officials privy to the unpublished text.
Senior U.S. officials also disclosed that the agreement may involve the release of Iran’s frozen assets, sanctions relief, and the establishment of a USD 300 billion fund to aid in Iran’s reconstruction, contingent upon Tehran meeting specific benchmarks. Araghchi’s statements on Tuesday align with the understanding of two regional officials who possess direct knowledge of the interim deal. These officials, speaking anonymously to The Associated Press about the closed-door negotiations, stated that the accord would necessitate Israel’s withdrawal from nearly all territories occupied in Lebanon, excluding a few border hilltop positions seized earlier.
The officials further indicated that Iran had insisted on the inclusion of Lebanon in the final stages of negotiations. Regarding the timeline for the release of frozen Iranian assets, it is reportedly tied to Tehran’s implementation of the deal. Additionally, Gulf Arab states have reportedly pledged significant financial contributions to Iran’s economy.
Beyond the issue of Lebanon, a significant point of contention remains Iran’s nuclear program. The interim deal initiates a 60-day period for discussions regarding Tehran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium. Iran has reportedly agreed to explore methods for potentially diluting or removing its stockpile, although it is unclear whether hard-liners within Iran will consent to such measures.
U.S. officials have yet to provide details on how the agreement will address Iran’s nuclear program, including the mechanisms for verifying Iranian compliance and the process for the destruction or removal of highly enriched uranium believed to be stored at sites damaged by U.S. strikes last summer.
Meanwhile, world leaders convened in France for the Group of Seven (G7) summit, where Iran and regional stability were key agenda items. Discussions included a working session dedicated to “ending crises and ensuring stability in the Middle East,” with leaders from Egypt, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates joining the talks. President Trump had previously expressed disagreements with European leaders regarding the lack of consultation before initiating military action in Iran. Despite this, leaders were expected to adopt a measured approach aimed at mitigating the economic repercussions of rising oil prices stemming from the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
Prior to their meeting, the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, along with Canada, issued a joint statement congratulating the United States, the Iranian government, and the mediators on what they termed a “diplomatic breakthrough.” The statement emphasized the critical importance of detailed negotiations and the swift implementation of the deal to ensure the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to tanker traffic.
The Chenab Times News Desk