伊朗要求美国设定以军撤离黎巴嫩时间表，为最终协议设前提
德黑兰方面将以色列无条件撤军视为履行伊美谅解备忘录第一项条款的核心条件，此举显示不同行为体对停火机制存在严重分歧。
伊朗外交部发言人伊斯梅尔·巴盖伊近日在记者会上公开表示，全面执行6月18日伊朗–美国关于终结战争的谅解备忘录第一项条款是达成“最终且可持续的地区稳定协议”的必要条件。他明确要求华盛顿方面“采取一切必要措施迫使犹太复国主义政权停止对黎巴嫩的一切侵略和军事行动”，并呼吁尽快确定以军从所占黎巴嫩领土无条件撤离的时间表。这一表态将以色列的军事撤退作为美伊间任何后续协议的前提，实质上把黎巴嫩问题嵌入伊朗与美国的战略谈判框架。
伊朗议会（伊斯兰议会）议长卡利巴夫在与黎巴嫩议会议长贝里通电话时进一步强调，终止黎巴嫩境内的战争、恢复该国主权与领土完整是“伊斯兰堡谅解备忘录第一项条款的重要组成部分”。贝里则指认以色列与黎巴嫩政府在美国斡旋下达成的华盛顿协议为“阴谋与灾难”，并表示以色列正试图绕开恢复黎巴嫩主权的路径。双方同意尽快召开由伊朗、美国、黎巴嫩三方参与的冲突管控单元会议，以跟进该条款在黎巴嫩的落实。这一机制被德黑兰视为监督停火及撤军进程的渠道。
备忘录第一项条款原文要求“立即并永久停止所有前线的军事行动，包括黎巴嫩”，但并未明确写入以色列撤军的内容。以色列外交部长萨尔则针锋相对地指出，黎巴嫩和平取决于“终结伊朗在该国的影响并解除真主党武装”。黎巴嫩真主党议会代表法德拉拉更为激进，称以色列–黎巴嫩协议“绝不会得到执行”，并警告其将引发国内冲突。美国方面，根据伊朗方面的解读，负有迫使以色列履约的责任，但美方尚未公开确认撤军时间表的承诺。
伊朗国内对谅解备忘录能否落实存有疑虑。伊朗国家安全与外交政策委员会成员穆赫辛尼·萨尼警告说，在60天的最终协议窗口期内，华盛顿可能像撕毁伊朗核协议一样撕毁备忘录。这一不信任态度反映出伊朗政策圈对特朗普政府反复性的深度担忧。与此同时，围绕冲突管控单元的首次会议正在筹备中，其议程将直接检验各方对条款解释与执行能力的差距。整个局势的走向，尤其是在黎巴嫩南部真主党武装存留与以色列军事存在这对矛盾上，将决定该备忘录是从临时停火迈向稳定安排，还是沦为新的地缘对抗引爆点。
| 伊朗及相关媒体 | +0.70 | aligned |
|---|---|---|
| 阿拉伯黎凡特—马格里布媒体 | +0.60 | aligned |
| 大西洋／英语圈媒体 | −0.50 | critical |
We demand a binding timetable for the Zionist withdrawal from Lebanese soil; without it, no final deal with Washington is possible. The so-called ceasefire is a cover for continued occupation, and the Lebanese government's silence is complicity.
The bloc uses the rhetorical technique of 'sovereignty framing' — presenting Iran's demand as a non-negotiable principle of international law and national dignity, thereby delegitimizing any agreement that does not include withdrawal. It also employs 'victimization' by portraying Lebanon as a victim of Israeli aggression and Iran as its protector.
The bloc omits any mention of Hezbollah's military role in southern Lebanon and the fact that the Israeli presence is partly a response to cross-border attacks. It also does not report on the UAE's welcome of the framework agreement, which suggests division among Arab states.
This agreement is a document of shame that grants the enemy the right to stay on our land and move freely. The Lebanese state is celebrating while our people are prevented from returning to their homes. We demand the full withdrawal of Zionist forces, nothing less.
The bloc uses 'moral escalation' — framing the agreement as a betrayal of national honor and the resistance, thereby raising the stakes and delegitimizing any compromise. It also employs 'immediate evidence' by citing ongoing Israeli strikes to prove the agreement's failure.
The bloc omits any mention of the UAE's positive reaction to the agreement, which indicates that not all Arab states view it as a humiliation. It also does not discuss the internal Lebanese political divisions that led to the agreement, nor the fact that Hezbollah's own military activities contributed to the Israeli incursion.
Iran is once again making maximalist demands, linking a final deal to an unrelated issue — Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. Meanwhile, the US warns that any threat to the Strait of Hormuz will be met with military strikes on Iranian infrastructure. The cancellation of technical talks shows Tehran is not serious about negotiations.
The bloc uses 'issue linkage reversal' — framing Iran's demand as an artificial connection between two separate conflicts, thereby delegitimizing it as a negotiating tactic. It also employs 'threat hierarchy' by juxtaposing Iran's demand with US military warnings, implying that Iran is in a weaker position.
The bloc omits any discussion of the legal basis for Iran's demand (UN resolutions on Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon) and does not report on the Hezbollah perspective that the current ceasefire is a sham. It also ignores the UAE's welcome of the framework agreement, which could be seen as a diplomatic success.