It appears that the United States and Iran are working to consolidate their emerging understandings and turn them into a political and security reality in the region, while Israel seems to be the most skeptical party regarding the outcomes of this process.
اضافة اعلان
This raises serious questions about the agreement’s ability to withstand field complexities and regional tensions.
Recent statements from the Iranian Foreign Ministry carried multiple messages. On one hand, Tehran confirmed that frozen funds to be released will be under its full control without restrictions, and that exemptions related to oil sales have already entered into force. On the other hand, it stressed that the understanding with Washington is based on mutual respect and adherence to agreements, warning that any condescending rhetoric or attempts to impose new conditions could undermine the entire process.
These statements reflect an Iranian sense that Tehran has succeeded in consolidating its negotiating position and securing important political and economic gains after a period of tension and confrontation. However, the real challenge does not lie in what has been achieved at the negotiating table, but in how these understandings are translated on the ground, particularly in sensitive regional files, foremost among them Lebanon.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry considered that halting attacks on Lebanon is an integral part of the memorandum of understanding, pointing to the existence of a joint mechanism involving regional and international parties to monitor the ceasefire and prevent escalation. However, Israeli statements revealed the depth of the gap between Washington and Tehran’s vision on one hand, and Tel Aviv’s vision on the other.
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich clearly stated that negotiations with Iran “do not concern Israel,” affirming the continuation of military operations in Lebanon and rejecting any withdrawal before what Israel considers a direct security threat is eliminated. Recent statements by Benjamin Netanyahu, the defense minister, and the chief of staff regarding maintaining a military presence in southern Lebanon reflect the scale of Israeli concern over the new understandings, especially amid growing talk of international and regional mechanisms to regulate the security situation on the Lebanese border.
Notably, Israeli concerns are no longer limited to Iran’s nuclear program but have expanded to include the possibility that the US–Iran agreement could impose a new reality in Lebanon that limits Israel’s military freedom of action. Washington views the Lebanese arena as part of broader regional arrangements aimed at stabilizing the situation and preventing escalation, while Tel Aviv fears this could restrict its security options and grant indirect political gains to its adversaries.
Hence, the future of the agreement will not be determined solely by US or Iranian commitment, but also by Washington’s ability to contain Israeli objections and prevent them from turning into military actions that could undermine the ceasefire. Modern regional history shows that political agreements often collapse when they clash with security and power calculations.
Therefore, the coming phase appears to be a real test for all parties. If the understandings survive field pressures and challenges, they may open the door to a new phase of relative stability. However, if the language of force returns to dominate the ground, the current agreement may turn into nothing more than a temporary truce. In this context, Lebanon appears to be the first testing ground for the US–Iran understanding, where it will be determined whether these new arrangements can become a sustainable political and security reality or whether they will once again collide with the calculations of power and conflict in the region.
