Iran’s deal euphoria clashes with war and dissent

Iran’s reaction – In Iran, the memorandum signed with the United States on June 15 has triggered public triumph and claims of “everything we wanted” being achieved through negotiation—but skepticism is spreading fast inside the Islamic Republic. Lawmakers and officials are ques

On June 15. a memorandum of understanding was signed between the United States and Iran—an agreement that. according to the account here. delivers stipulations American officials had previously called unacceptable. including total sanctions relief and the unfreezing of billions of dollars held abroad.

In Tehran, the ink was still fresh when Iran’s mood began to split.

Iran’s state-aligned and hardline media have leaned into victory language. The front page of Javan. an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-aligned newspaper. depicted a crowd of Iranians breaking through a wall of threats made by the Trump administration. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. Iran’s chief negotiator. said. “everything we wanted to achieve through military action. we achieved many times over through negotiation.”.

But the celebrations have not settled the political argument simmering beneath them. Supporters of a conservative bloc in Iran’s Parliament—the Front of Islamic Revolution Stability—have begun pressing objections since early April. a period already marked by deep mistrust among many Iranians who point to past negotiations as cover for war preparations.

They are not speaking in the abstract. In April, Israel unilaterally insisted it wasn’t party to the ceasefire in Lebanon and continued fighting there. The same pattern. the source says. was used to prepare wars in June 2025 and February 2026. leaving much of the country cautious rather than jubilant.

That caution has made room for friction inside Iran’s own diplomatic team.

In late May. criticism of the efforts led by Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi aired on an Iranian state television program called “Soraya.” The program was suspended days later. Its host. Mohsen Maqsoodi. then held live conversations in Tehran’s Valiasr Square. where political commentator Ali Abdi criticized the state for not striking Israel even as its army continued to bulldoze Lebanon—an exchange that is tied in the account to the program’s cancellation. Rumors circulated online that the cancellation came from an intervention by an adviser to Ghalibaf.

Public anger sharpened further after Araghchi spoke on state TV on June 12. saying Iran would have to make concessions in its dealings. Angry demonstrators who were attending nightly state-sponsored rallies demanded the diplomatic corps remember the “blood of the Leader [Khamenei].” In Enghelab Square. a speaker led marchers in chants of “Death to the compromiser. ” targeting those who think “America has something to offer [Iran].”.

In Parliament, conservatives affiliated or allied with the Front have moved from pressure campaigns into demands. They have called for Araghchi to be barred from contacting Steve Witkoff, the Trump administration negotiator. Others are urging Parliament to see the deal before it is signed. One representative described the agreement as worse than “the JCPOA and [the Treaty of] Turkmenchay. ” referencing the 1828 treaty that ceded swathes of Iranian territory to the Russian Empire.

Among the most prominent critics is Tehran representative Mahmoud Nabavian. He has attacked Araghchi for leaving openings in the memorandum that America could exploit—especially the immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. which the account says would erase Iran’s economic leverage. and the document’s lack of clarity on timelines for the lifting of sanctions and the exit of American forces from the region.

What remains less defined, at least publicly, is how Iran could extract more concessions. Still, the skepticism appears to be moving up the chain.

The source describes Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei as expressing unease even while approving the deal. In a statement announcing his approval. Mojtaba raised eyebrows among some analysts by saying he “had a different view” than what was agreed to by negotiators. but that he nonetheless acceded to President Masoud Pezeshkian’s wishes on the condition that Iran rejects “excessive demands” made by the United States. Mojtaba said Iran “await[s] the realization of the aforementioned conditions.”.

The account contrasts that messaging with how Ali Khamenei. Mojtaba’s father. handled JCPOA-style negotiations—reserved public criticism of red lines crossed until the deal was later torn up years after by the Trump administration. It cites coverage in Axios from an Israeli analyst speculated that Mojtaba’s position could be designed to place any failure of the deal on Pezeshkian.

Even so, the biggest crack is not political language. It is the agreement’s own first clause.

The memorandum is described as requiring an immediate and permanent end to the war in Lebanon. That has not held.

Israel. mirroring earlier statements made when a ceasefire was initially reached in early April. has argued it needs to remain in southern Lebanon for as long as Israel’s national security demands it. A ceasefire apparently brokered between Hezbollah and Israel on Friday was broken within minutes as Israel continued to bombard the Lebanese south. By Saturday. the account says an order came from Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz for Israeli forces to stop firing in Lebanon but not withdraw from any positions. and to respond to any Hezbollah attack on occupying forces. The result. according to the reporting. is an open question about how Israeli doctrine in southern Lebanon is supposed to change.

The deal also intersects with U.S. moves beyond the memorandum’s text. Vice President JD Vance is described as saying that the $300 billion in reconstruction funds would not be released to Iran unless the nation stopped funding “terrorist organization[s]” like Hezbollah. The memorandum is said to contain no mention of Iran’s support for allied organizations abroad or its ballistic missile program—both identified earlier as primary targets of the Israeli–American war.

Iran. for its part. closed the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday in response to Israel’s refusal to stop the war. It is still sending negotiators to Switzerland to speak with Vance. but the account says they are not going there to negotiate a final deal right now—rather. to demand U.S. compliance with the agreement’s terms.

One demand, as described here, is a total withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. For now, the reporting says there is little indication the U.S. will agree.

The tension is playing out across multiple fronts. Israeli officials continue to press for further action and heighten pressure on other fronts, including the West Bank, in an effort to divert attention and lessen the blow the account says most Israelis agree the country has suffered.

Within Israel’s political right, there is no sign of softness. For National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, the diplomatic track is not an option. On Friday, the account says he remarked: “For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep. All of Lebanon must burn!”

The memorandum may be producing extraordinary concessions on paper. But inside Iran—and in the war zone it depends on to stop—public triumph and official skepticism are now moving side by side, and the battlefield is already testing whether the deal’s promises can outlast the fighting.

Iran United States memorandum of understanding sanctions relief unfreezing funds Strait of Hormuz Lebanon ceasefire Hezbollah Netanyahu Mojtaba Khamenei Abbas Araghchi Ghalibaf