On June 17, 2026, President Trump and Pezeshkian signed a 14-point memorandum of understanding ending the US-Iran tension, which was initiated after the assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei by American strikes on February 28, 2026. It is viewed as the end of all hostilities on all fronts, including in Lebanon.
According to Al Jazeera’s statement, a salient absence from the signing is Israel, the country that fought a war alongside Washington from February 2026 onwards and now finds its own military operations in Lebanon governed by an agreement it never negotiated. It unveils a fault line in the U.S.-Israel relationship that endures beyond any single ceasefire. This exclusion isn’t incidental.
Pakistan brokered a preliminary ceasefire on April 7-8, 2026, which was later expanded. Washington negotiated bilaterally with Tehran with the help of Pakistan and Qatar as mediators, leaving Israel and Hezbollah as other active belligerents in Lebanon. The result was immediate because Israel never agreed to the terms of the ceasefire; it just kept fighting. Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said after signing that Israeli troops would remain in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza indefinitely, contrary to what the U.S. and Iran had just decided.
Every time Israel attacked Lebanon after June 2026, including attacks after June 7 and June 19, Iran called it a violation of the deal and responded by closing the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway that carries about a fifth of the world’s oil shipments, as stated by both Iran and Hezbollah. A separate U.S.-brokered side deal between Israel and Lebanon on June 26, 2026, allegedly contradicts the original agreement.
There is a real reason why Washington did it this way, and it’s worth taking seriously rather than brushing it aside. U.S. officials argued that if both Israel and Iran had a seat at the table for negotiation, the two sides could block the entire deal because of mutual mistrust, so it was easier to make a deal with Iran first and deal separately with Israel.
An end to a war that already killed thousands and shut down a key oil route for weeks was worth pursuing, even if it meant abandoning an ally. But the plan only works if the excluded allies later quietly cooperate. Israel has not.
Here’s the deeper problem: A ceasefire that can be ignored by one of the actual belligerents isn’t really a ceasefire; it’s a problem on paper that binds only two parties who signed it. Iran understands this very well.
Blocking the Strait of Hormuz whenever Israel continues to fight in Lebanon has become Iran’s way of pressuring Washington to rein in an ally it chooses not to include. Within Israel, it has become a political issue; critics from all quarters have called the deal a defeat for Prime Minister Netanyahu, arguing that Israel fought and then watched peace talks take place without it.
All of this doesn’t mean the memorandum of understanding is wrong. Sixty days of negotiation from June 17 to roughly mid-August 2026 on Iran’s nuclear programme, missile stockpiles, and sanctions relief is the real development after five weeks of open conflict and chaos, resulting in the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz. This deal was never signed by Israel. That’s the main hurdle.
If one of the fighters ignores it, the peace deal can’t hold. This deal stopped within a week. Washington needs more than Iran’s signature. It needs Israel on board too. There is a need for the U.S. to talk to Israel directly.
At this point, Israel can just say it never agreed to anything. Such kinds of excuses won’t go away on their own. By mid-August 2026, nuclear talks are supposed to be over.
There is a probability of two situations: Iran will try to blame the U.S. on all terms and conditions. Similarly, Israel will keep striking Lebanon whenever it wants. Each one is blaming the other. That doesn’t mean that the war ended, but a temporary pause has been seen there. Nobody has given a transparent date for this deal.
The next fight between Israel and Hezbollah could reverse everything. So, Israel must sign this deal; otherwise, all this concept seems fragile. The US-Iran MOU comes at a point of increased tensions between the US and Israel. Israel and the United States stated that Lebanon wasn’t included in the ceasefire, while Pakistan, the mediator, and Iranian authorities stated it was.
Pakistan played the role of mediator in this crisis situation and helped both to reach a temporary ceasefire agreement. Israel didn’t sign the agreement, saying that achieving peace is difficult due to deep-rooted mistrust between Israel and Iran.
Violations of the US-Iran agreement also happened because Lebanon was included. But according to the Western stance, it wasn’t included. An important military actor who was fighting with Lebanon, but not included, so how would it be possible to reach an agreement, and why would Israel stop its actions in this scenario?
A peace agreement won’t be reached until Israel takes part.
The writer is an undergraduate student of International Relations at a leading university in Islamabad currently in the seventh semester, with interests in governance, geopolitics, foreign policy, Middle East affairs, regional politics and contemporary international issues.
She can be reached at mominafatimaibex@gmail.com for academic and professional correspondence.
We welcome your contributions to The Pakistan Observer. Submit your blogs, opinion pieces, press releases and news features to our editorial team.
Please send your submissions to our News Desk or Editorial team. We look forward to hearing from writers, journalists and contributors.
