By Jeremy Scahill – Drop Site News
If President Donald Trump does not force Israel to halt its escalating attacks on Lebanon, Iran told mediators it is prepared to suspend the agreement signed this week and launch retaliatory strikes against Israel, a senior Iranian official told Drop Site.
“Regarding Lebanon, we have warned both the mediators and the American side that if the regime fails to comply with the existing agreement, Iran will respond with substantial military measures without prior public notice,” said the Iranian official, who is not authorized to speak publicly. “Should the United States intervene, conditions particularly those related to the Strait of Hormuz could rapidly revert to a wartime environment.”
On Friday, reports emerged that a ceasefire agreement had been reached between Israel and Hezbollah, but an Israeli official said that even with a ceasefire, Israel would not withdraw its forces from Lebanon. Another Israeli official told Channel 12 that Israel retains the right to strike against perceived threats, a common Israeli claim used to systematically violate ceasefire agreements in Gaza and Lebanon.
Over the past week, Israel has continued to relentlessly attack Lebanon, and its forces remain deeply entrenched in the south. In a barrage of more than 20 airstrikes on Thursday night, Israel killed at least 47 people, according to Lebanon’s Health Ministry. Since March, when Hezbollah entered the war alongside Iran, Israel has killed more than 3,900 people in Lebanon and displace over 1.2 million. Hezbollah has continued to ferociously retaliate against Israel’s military campaign and has stunned Israel with its ability to inflict losses on its occupation forces. More than 30 Israeli troops have been confirmed killed in action since March 2.
On June 14, as Iran and the U.S. were finalizing the terms of the memorandum of understanding, Israel bombed the southern Beirut suburb of Dahiyeh. Iran came within hours of striking Israel in response, but officials said Tehran ultimately agreed to hold its fire after securing last minute concessions from Trump. Iran had previously called attacks on Beirut an escalation that would not go unanswered.
The continued war in Lebanon and Iran’s pervasive mistrust of Trump have called into question the viability of a lasting deal. Technical talks that were scheduled to begin Friday in Switzerland were postponed, with Iranian officials citing the continued attacks in Lebanon. Some officials have also denounced the prospect of Iranian leaders being photographed meeting with Trump or other U.S. officials responsible for assassinating the country’s Supreme Leader. U.S. officials have acknowledged the delay, but have not confirmed the reason. Late Thursday, the White House said Vice President JD Vance—who has been put forward as the public face of the U.S. negotiations—would not be traveling to Switzerland as previously announced, saying, “The logistics of these negotiations have never been simple or predictable.” A senior Pakistani official claimed the meeting was canceled because of religious observances related to the Islamic month of Muharram, a period of mourning for Shia Muslims.
The cancellation of what was initially portrayed as a formal signing ceremony, potentially featuring Trump, indicates the fragile nature of the entire process. “We fully recognize that the implementation of this memorandum will be highly challenging due to President Trump’s unpredictable and volatile approach,” said the Iranian official, who is not authorized to publicly speak about internal deliberations. “It is entirely possible that the Iran file, like several of Trump’s other political and economic initiatives, will be abandoned before reaching completion.”
As Israeli officials continue to publicly denounce Trump and the agreement, Vance has pushed back ferociously, offering an unprecedented rebuke of Israel from an administration that has given it carte blanche to expand its wars across the region.
“Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time, and he happens to be the head of state of the world’s superpower. If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world,” Vance said in a press conference Thursday, adding that Israeli leaders should “wake up and smell the reality.”
In remarks aimed at Israel, Vance told The New York Times, “You’re a country of 9 million people. You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have.” At the opening of the G7 summit in France Monday, Trump repeatedly criticized Israel, saying, “Israel has been fighting Hezbollah for too long and too many people are being killed.”
The White House has frequently pushed stories to friendly media outlets involving anonymous officials depicting Trump and Netanyahu in conflict only to turn around and endorse more aggressive Israeli attacks in both Gaza and Lebanon. The tenor of this criticism and the fact that it is being aired publicly by Trump and Vance directly is a new development.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing intense criticism inside Israel as he kicks off his campaign for re-election, with members of his own cabinet and opposition politicians alike denouncing the Iran deal and warning him against withdrawing from Lebanon. Some prominent political leaders have called for an expansion of the war.
Netanyahu has sought to strike a diplomatic tone with Trump, whom he has called “the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House,” but has sought to portray himself as capable of separating U.S. and Israeli interests. He has argued that Trump’s agreement with Iran does not bind Israel. “We will stay in the Lebanon security buffer zone for as long as necessary,” Netanyahu said on June 15. “Many times we see eye to eye,” Netanyahu said of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, “and there are also cases in which we see less eye to eye. I am responsible for Israel’s security interests. I stand up for them.” Defense Minister Israel Katz proclaimed Monday, “We oppose the withdrawal of the Israeli army from Lebanon, despite all current and future pressures.”
Iranian negotiators fought to have a complete Israeli withdrawal included in the memorandum of understanding, while the U.S. pushed for vague language about ceasing hostilities. In the end, the text declared “the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon” and “ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.” While Iran argues that this language means Israel must withdraw its occupation forces, top Iranian officials, including Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, have suggested the issue may not be resolved until a comprehensive deal is signed by the U.S. and Iran. “Without the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territories they occupied during this war, the war has not fully come to an end,” Araghchi said Tuesday.
Dueling Narratives
In the days since the terms of the memorandum of understanding signed by the U.S. and Iran became public, debate has spread in both countries. Trump is facing criticism from some of his most die-hard supporters who hoped he would continue to escalate the war and empower Israel to broaden its attacks on Lebanon. In Iran, there is ferocious debate within the elite political echelon and while Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei said he gave his consent for the country’s political leadership to sign the MOU, he asserted in a statement Thursday that he personally opposed some of its terms.
As the narrative battles continue to play out in both countries, the senior Iranian official, who has direct knowledge of Tehran’s decision-making process, provided Drop Site with an extensive account of how Iranian negotiators viewed the process that led to the deal and offered an assessment of the ultimate feasibility of the framework.
Throughout the two months following the signing of an initial ceasefire and the meetings in Islamabad between U.S. and Iranian officials, negotiators have engaged in indirect negotiations aimed at reaching an agreement to end the war. In public, Trump adopted the belligerent tone of a conqueror, claiming Iranians were “begging” him to make a deal and pledging that Tehran would surrender, U.S. troops would enter Iran to take custody of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, and that Iran would receive no money as part of a deal with the U.S.
Despite Trump’s public bravado, the reality was that it was the U.S. that repeatedly sought talks on ending the war. As Drop Site reported, Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff began sending messages to Iranian officials days after the war began on February 28. Iran took the position that it needed to re-establish a deterrent and would not allow a de-escalation until it believed it had done so.
Behind the scenes, once serious indirect talks began, Iran’s negotiators held firm to a set of red lines, among them: the Israeli war against Lebanon must be brought to an end, Iran would not agree to export its enriched uranium, and Iran is entitled to billions of dollars of its frozen assets.
“The formation of this memorandum was the result of persistent requests and insistence from the American side and various mediators,” said the Iranian official. “Nevertheless, from the outset we opposed both unlawful wars launched against our country, and we welcomed the prospect of peace after repeated requests for de-escalation.”
In the end, Trump agreed to Iran’s proposal to break the agreement into two main phases. The first would address an end to the war, including in Lebanon, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the architecture of financial compensation to Iran and a re-affirmation that Iran would not seek to produce or acquire a nuclear weapon. The second phase would involve an initial 60-day window to negotiate a comprehensive agreement on the future of Iran’s nuclear enrichment, the fate of its current stockpile and, crucially for Iran, terms that would lead to a lifting of all economic sanctions.
The senior Iranian official said the terms in the agreement governing the lifting of the U.S. military blockade in the Strait of Hormuz and endorsing Iranian management of the waterway, as well as the financial commitments—lifting of sanctions, unfreezing of money, and the establishment of a $300 billion reconstruction fund—included in the MOU “constitute an official record and a clear indication of the failure of President Trump’s policy that led to the initiation of two wars against Iran.”
Iranian negotiators emphasize that they do not trust Trump and frequently point out that twice in one year the U.S. claimed to be negotiating with Iran only to launch wars against it in the midst of a diplomatic process. At the same time, they argue, the geopolitical reality has been fundamentally altered since February. Iran’s use of asymmetric warfare, particularly in asserting control over the Strait of Hormuz, alongside its ability to launch ballistic missile and drone attacks across the region—combined with its refusal to capitulate to two nuclear powers—serve as a warning to the U.S. about the stakes of resuming the war.
“We were fully aware of the economic consequences of this conflict for the region and the wider international community. The prospect of a major disruption in the Strait of Hormuz was among the most significant factors that ultimately contributed to the emergence of peace,” the Iranian official said. “The immense costs imposed on all parties including extensive economic damage to countries across the region and the world were the price paid for President Trump’s curiosity to experiment with the capabilities of the U.S. military.”
Iranian officials say they intentionally negotiated for a deal structured through a reciprocal framework. If the U.S. does not abide by the terms, Iran has the ability to halt the process or respond militarily.
“This memorandum explicitly commits the United States to refraining from threats against Iran,” said the Iranian official. “Should President Trump once again issue public threats against Iran, each such threat will be met with costs imposed on American interests in the region through new and evolving means. We would also implement corresponding pauses in the execution of certain commitments under the memorandum.”
In his campaign to sell this deal as a victory, Trump has focused on the fact that Iran has formally agreed not to attempt to manufacture or procure a nuclear weapon. But this has been Iran’s longstanding position, beginning with the 1970 signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and was also stated explicitly in the 2015 Iran nuclear deal that Trump denounces daily. “Following two U.S.-Israeli wars against Iran, Washington once again succeeded only in obtaining Iran’s reiterated commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons,” the Iranian official said, saying “it was intentionally offered to President Trump as a symbolic concession, a cheap re-gift.”
While Iran sought to exclude any commitments on its stockpile of enriched uranium, it eventually agreed to some terms. Trump consistently insisted that Iran could have no nuclear enrichment and that the U.S. would take custody of its roughly 1,000 pounds of 60% enriched uranium. Instead, the MOU says the U.S. and Iran agreed to “resolve the disposition of stockpiled, enriched material” with a “minimum methodology to be down-blending on site under the supervision” of the International Atomic Energy Agency. This approach precisely mirrors the terms Iran had proposed before the war began in February when it was negotiating with U.S. officials.
“The formal acceptance of all provisions by the United States constitutes both the consolidation and official declaration of the Trump administration’s wartime policy,” the Iranian official said, saying the terms of the “agreement were drafted in alignment with our national interests and the interests of the broader region.”
Over the past several years, Iran has sought to deepen its ties with China, Russia, and other nations throughout the Eastern hemisphere. Since the launch of the 12-Day War in June 2025, Tehran has escalated efforts to expand its political, military and economic partnerships. Those efforts were kicked into high gear over the past four months. “This war will inevitably deepen our dependence on Eastern partners under circumstances imposed upon us. As a result, we will be compelled to pursue a far more rapid expansion of our security, economic, and political relations with China,” the Iranian official said.
The February war called into question the viability of the rapprochement between Iran and several of its Arab allies in the Persian Gulf that preceded it, as the U.S. widely utilized military infrastructure to wage its war against Iran. Most Gulf nations portrayed Iran as the aggressor in the conflict, regularly denouncing its ballistic missile and drone strikes overwhelmingly aimed at U.S. military bases and facilities as unjustified attacks against their sovereignty. Now, Iranian officials say, many of these relationships are being repaired and discussions are ongoing about joint economic projects and elevated diplomatic ties.
If this agreement does lead to an end to the active military war—which remains a very open question—Iran will face its own domestic realities. The attacks by the U.S. and Israel have had an undeniable unifying effect on Iranian society, which has seen nightly mass gatherings in public squares. This rallying around the flag was also aided by Trump’s threats to wipe out Iranian civilization and the attacks on civilians, including the bombing of the Minab girls school in the opening hours of the war. Israeli officials have made no secret of their intent to increase their covert actions in Iran, aimed at spurring an uprising. If the U.S. and Israeli bombing stops and Iran shifts from its role as fighting against the odds versus two nuclear powers, it will be left to face the economic and political issues confronting the country prior to the war. The extent to which the sense of unity on display since February will endure won’t be clear for some time.
“Political and social divisions will require considerable time to heal,” said the Iranian official. “The generational and institutional changes resulting from extensive assassinations and losses within Iran’s political, security, and military leadership will undoubtedly create additional obstacles to the country’s development.”
There is no doubt Iran and the U.S. are at a historic crossroads in the era that began with the 1979 Islamic revolution. Because of the erratic nature of Trump and the way in which he integrates ego, personal ties, and efforts aimed at enriching his friends and family, Iran must approach any deal with the U.S. as subject to abandonment, violation, or cancellation. The 2015 nuclear deal took years to achieve, yet it was ripped up in an instant by Trump, kicking off a series of events that led to the first open wars launched by the U.S. against Iran since 1979.
“Our assessment is that, due to deficiencies in the expertise and technical preparedness of the American negotiating team, the specialized nuclear negotiations are unlikely to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion within the proposed sixty-day timeframe,” said the Iranian official. “Our military institutions will therefore remain on full alert. Furthermore, should a definitive assessment emerge indicating a renewed likelihood of U.S. military action against Iran, preemptive measures against an updated target bank would be considered.”