Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi has sharply escalated the stakes surrounding the interim memorandum of understanding with Washington, declaring that any Israeli military strike on Lebanon or continued occupation of Lebanese land now constitutes a direct violation of the deal. Speaking to foreign diplomats in Tehran on Tuesday, Araghchi insisted that the memorandum’s parties are not merely Iran and the United States, but rather “America and Israel on one side, and Iran and Hezbollah on the other.” The statement, reported across Iranian and regional media, effectively ties the fate of the nuclear-focused framework to the conduct of Israel’s campaign in Lebanon, a linkage that Washington has not publicly endorsed.

Araghchi’s remarks came as he briefed Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri on the memorandum’s contents, stressing that a complete end to hostilities in Lebanon is an inseparable component of any broader peace. The Iranian minister placed the onus squarely on the United States to ensure what he termed the “proper implementation” of the provisions, including a full cessation of Israeli attacks. Lebanese officials welcomed the Iranian position, viewing it as a potential lever to stabilise their southern border. The diplomatic flurry precedes a new round of negotiations scheduled for Friday in Switzerland, where both sides aim to convert the interim understanding into a final agreement.

Viewed from Tehran, the insistence on a Lebanon clause serves multiple strategic purposes. It publicly binds the nuclear file to Iran’s regional security architecture, elevating Hezbollah’s status as a recognised stakeholder and compelling Washington to restrain its ally if it wishes to see the nuclear deal progress. Analysts in London note that the move also tests the Biden administration’s willingness to pressure Israel at a moment when the US is seeking to de-escalate on multiple fronts. American officials, however, have signalled deep scepticism. While President Trump has claimed that Iran agreed to “never have a nuclear weapon,” Vice President JD Vance dismissed the memorandum as a “very general document,” and US officials privately question Tehran’s commitment to compliance.

The Swiss talks will now unfold under the shadow of this explicit linkage. For the United States, accepting that the nuclear file is contingent on Israeli behaviour in Lebanon would mark a significant diplomatic concession, one that could alienate a key ally and complicate an already fragile interim framework. For Iran, the linkage is a test of American sincerity and a means to secure relief from Israeli military pressure on its most important non-state partner. Whether the memorandum can survive this early stress test will depend heavily on whether Washington can—or is willing to—compel a change in Israeli operations along the northern border, a prospect that remains far from certain.