Iran has thrown a potential peace agreement with Washington into doubt by demanding that any final deal be contingent on Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and senior negotiator Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf both stated this week that the continued presence of Israeli forces in Lebanese territory would constitute a breach of the memorandum of understanding reached with the United States. Their remarks came even as Israeli drone strikes killed at least four people in Lebanon on Tuesday, underscoring the fragility of a truce that has eased but not halted hostilities since the preliminary accord was struck.

Israel, which is not a formal party to the US-Iran talks, has made clear it intends to keep troops in the area it seized during a three-month campaign against Hezbollah. That offensive began in early March after the Iran-backed militia fired on Israel in solidarity with Tehran, drawing Israel into a war that had erupted between the US and Iran in late February. While the memorandum has significantly reduced the intensity of fighting, Israeli officials maintain that forces will remain in southern Lebanon “as long as necessary,” a position that now collides directly with Iran’s interpretation of the emerging deal.

Viewed from Tehran, the agreement cannot be divorced from the broader regional confrontation: Hezbollah, Iran’s most potent proxy, has itself signalled that a final nuclear accord will not be signed unless Israel withdraws. From Washington, however, a different picture emerges. An anonymous US official has insisted the deal does not require an Israeli pullback, suggesting the White House views the memorandum as a narrow US-Iran channel, separate from the Lebanon front. This gap in understanding—over what the tentative deal actually contains—has left diplomats scrambling, with the text still unpublished and officials offering contradictory accounts.

Israel’s rejection of the withdrawal demand, viewed from Jerusalem as an existential security necessity, places the entire framework in jeopardy. Analysts note that the US-Iran memorandum was designed to halt direct hostilities, but the Lebanese theatre remains active and deeply intertwined with Iranian strategic interests. Hezbollah’s alignment with Tehran means that any agreement perceived to abandon the group’s position in Lebanon would face fierce internal resistance within Iran’s power structure.

With a formal signing reportedly planned for Friday, the coming days will test whether the parties can bridge the chasm between Tehran’s expansive interpretation and Washington’s narrower one. Should Iran refuse to sign without an Israeli withdrawal clause—and should the US prove unable or unwilling to pressure its ally—the tentative peace could collapse, risking a resumption of full-scale war that would once again engulf the Levant.