Iran’s lead negotiator and parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, has disclosed that a memorandum of understanding with the United States—reached after the recent Ramadan war—includes binding provisions to halt military operations against Iran’s allies in the so-called resistance front and to respect the territorial integrity of regional states. In a series of meetings with senior figures from Hamas, Hezbollah, Yemen’s Ansarallah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, held on the sidelines of the funeral of the late Supreme Leader, Ghalibaf stated that the agreement is now being implemented, describing the process as “difficult but feasible.” The remarks, reported by multiple Iranian and regional outlets, offer the most detailed public account yet of the understanding’s scope, though no independent confirmation has emerged from Washington.

According to Ghalibaf, Tehran insisted during negotiations that the text include an end to the war against its partners and guarantees for Lebanese sovereignty. He specified that articles one, three, four, five, ten and eleven of the memorandum were consolidated into a binding clause, and that the US and Israel were compelled to “practically recognise” Iran’s allies. Viewed from Tehran, the agreement represents a diplomatic consolidation of battlefield achievements, with Ghalibaf emphasising that diplomacy can only succeed when backed by full military readiness. He told the visiting delegations that Iran would continue to support Muslim nations and allied groups through both military and political means, in line with the guidance of the country’s leadership.

Allied factions welcomed the memorandum as a strategic gain. Hamas political leader Mohammad Darwish said every clause marked a victory for Iran and a defeat for the United States, while Hezbollah’s Mohammad Fneish credited Iran’s intervention with halting the war in Lebanon and compelling Washington and Israel to accept the terms. Ansarallah deputy president Mohammad al-Nuaimi described Iran’s wartime conduct as a “school” for the entire resistance front. These reactions, reported by Iranian state-linked media, underscore the extent to which Tehran’s non-state partners view the understanding as formalising their role in regional security arrangements—a development that, from the perspective of Western capitals, would mark a significant departure from previous frameworks that sought to isolate such groups.

The memorandum was concluded following a conflict that, according to Ghalibaf, saw the US and Israel set nine specific objectives against Iran, none of which were achieved within forty days. The fighting drew in Hezbollah, which he said entered the war in response to Israeli strikes on Iran and sustained heavy casualties. The funeral of the late Supreme Leader, which drew hundreds of foreign bloggers and low-level diplomatic delegations according to Iranian organisers, provided the backdrop for the consultations. The implementation of the Islamabad understanding now becomes a focal point for regional diplomacy, with Ghalibaf indicating that Iran is pursuing transparent communication with neighbouring states. The dossier remains open: while Iranian officials assert the agreement is operational, the absence of a parallel narrative from Washington leaves the precise mechanisms and durability of the commitments uncertain.