Iran has declared that any further Israeli military action on Lebanese soil, or the continued presence of Israeli forces there, constitutes a direct violation of the interim memorandum of understanding signed with the United States. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, addressing diplomats in Tehran on Tuesday, framed the agreement in starkly binary terms: “In our view, the two parties to this memorandum are the US and Israel on one side, and Iran and Hezbollah on the other.” The statement, broadcast on state television, elevates the fate of southern Lebanon to a central condition of the nascent accord, effectively linking the sustainability of the diplomatic track to an immediate and permanent cessation of hostilities across all fronts.

Araghchi briefed Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri on the memorandum’s provisions late Monday, stressing that Washington now bears responsibility for compelling Israel to halt its attacks and withdraw from occupied territory. Lebanese officials welcomed the framework, underscoring that their country’s stability is an inseparable component of any serious effort to end the wider conflict. The Iranian readout suggests Tehran is positioning itself as the guarantor of Hezbollah’s compliance, while demanding that the US deliver Israeli restraint—a reciprocal structure that immediately tests the deal’s resilience.

The diplomatic choreography is accelerating. Araghchi confirmed that a new round of negotiations will open in Switzerland on Friday, the same day the interim memorandum is formally signed, with the aim of reaching a final agreement within 60 days. Iran’s deputy foreign minister indicated that the next phase will tackle the core nuclear file, including enrichment levels, stockpiling, and Tehran’s technical needs, alongside sanctions relief. The sequencing implies that the initial MoU is primarily a conflict-freezing mechanism, designed to halt kinetic exchanges before the parties address the deeper, more intractable disputes over Iran’s nuclear programme.

Viewed from Washington, the picture is more ambiguous. US officials have privately questioned Iran’s willingness to comply with the framework, even as President Trump claimed Tehran had agreed to “never have a nuclear weapon.” Vice President JD Vance described the document as a “very general document,” hinting at the fragility of an arrangement that appears to lack detailed verification protocols. Analysts in European capitals note that by tying the deal’s integrity to Israeli behaviour in Lebanon, Iran is both raising the stakes and creating a potential off-ramp: any new Israeli strike could be cited as grounds to suspend nuclear talks. With the next round of negotiations set to begin in Switzerland on Friday, the interim MoU’s survival may depend less on the drafting table in Geneva than on the tense quiet of the Lebanese-Israeli border.