Amidst Bloodshed continues in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank
Iran, US war takes a halt

Dr. Mohammad Ajmal
Assistant Professor: Centre of Arabic and African Studies School of Language, JNU, New Delhi.

An interim peace agreement has been reached between the United States and Iran. The MOU was announced on  June 15, and the formal signing ceremony held in Switzerland on June 19. According to President Trump, on Sunday, US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf digitally signed the memorandum, giving it the form of a legal commitment. The Pakistani Prime Minister said that the two sides have expressed their determination to immediately and permanently end military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon.

The ongoing talks between Iran and the United States in Switzerland are raising new hopes for peace in the region, but the bloodshed in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank is not taking a halt. This contradiction is the biggest tragedy of this entire diplomatic process, that on one side the negotiating table is being set up, and on the other side, heavy bombardment is continued on the battlefield. Expressing concern over this situation, the spokesman for the Iranian delegation, Ismail Baqai, said that according to the first clause of the Islamabad MOU, there should be a complete end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon. According to him, the United States will ultimately have to choose between attacks and talks. However, Israel’s recent actions do not seem to indicate that it is willing to take this demand seriously.

Amid the ongoing tensions in the Middle East, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, economic and military pressure on Iran, Israeli attacks and US threats, this is perhaps the first time that the two sides seem willing to lay down their swords, at least temporarily. Although this stage cannot be called complete peace, it is certainly the beginning of a process that creates hope for saving the region from further destruction. The “Islamabad Declaration” is not a final peace agreement but, in the words of President Trump himself, “A Deal to Make a Deal,” that is, an agreement that will provide the basis for future comprehensive negotiations.

But the biggest question about the Islamabad memorandum is what is actually written in it? Because both sides have offered different interpretations of the memorandum. Washington sees it as a major victory for Iran over its nuclear program, while Tehran argues that the real focus at this stage is on a ceasefire, the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of the naval blockade, frozen assets and a reduction in regional tensions. President Trump has called the news of a $300 billion recovery fund and financial concessions  as “fake” and Democratic propaganda, but a senior administration official told reporters that the return of frozen assets, easing of sanctions and a large financial package for Iran’s reconstruction have been discussed. President Trump said the text of the MOU would be released after Friday’s signing ceremony, while his aides said the text could be published within 24 to 48 hours. Vice President JD Vance also could not clearly answer the question: If Iran is misinterpreting the agreement, then why is the text not being made public?

The ambiguity surrounding the Islamabad memo seems to exist not only between Washington and Tehran, but also within the US administration itself. Vice President J.D. Vance said the key provisions of the deal include the return of international nuclear inspectors to Iran and the elimination of enriched uranium stockpiles. According to him, these points are recorded in the memorandum in a “very clear” manner. But on the other hand, according to the American news agency Axios, the head of the CIA, John Ratcliffe, while giving a briefing to President Trump, said that the assessment of American intelligence shows that Iran’s intentions are not consistent with the commitments made under the agreement. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pet Hegseth have also expressed similar concerns.

Even President Trump’s own statements are not entirely consistent. Sometimes he says that Iran has agreed to give up its nuclear weapons forever, and sometimes he argues that the details of the agreement are still in the technical stages. If the Vice President is interpreting the agreement correctly, then why is the CIA not satisfied? And if the intelligence agencies’ assessment is correct, how can the Vice President say so confidently that the issue of enriched uranium and inspectors has been settled? It seems that the ambiguity lies less in Iran’s position and more in the American interpretation. Tehran has consistently maintained that it never intended to build nuclear weapons, but in Washington the President, the Vice President, the CIA, the State Department, and the Pentagon seem to be reading the same document from different angles. Perhaps that is why the full text of the memorandum has not yet been made public. If the US administration itself does not agree on its meaning, has an agreement really been reached, or has it simply been announced as an agreement that still needs to be interpreted?

The immediate priority of this interim memorandum appears to be a ceasefire and de-escalation rather than the nuclear program. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi has made it clear on several occasions that formal talks on the nuclear program will only begin when the implementation phase of the interim agreement is advanced. The available information gives the impression that the current understanding prioritizes issues such as a ceasefire on various fronts, including Lebanon, the restoration of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of the naval blockade of Iran, the issue of frozen assets, and the reduction of regional tensions. It seems that an attempt is being made to calm the battlefield first and then the more complex nuclear conflict will be discussed.

The MOU is undoubtedly an important development, but the fundamental differences have not yet been resolved. The Iranian position on the Strait of Hormuz is that the pre-war situation will not be restored and that Iran will not compromise on its administrative and sovereign role. If this position holds, it can be considered a major diplomatic victory for Tehran. Similarly, the two sides are offering different interpretations about the enriched uranium stockpile. American circles call it a decisive step towards resolving the nuclear dispute, while Iranian officials continue to deny that any final agreement has been reached on the transfer or withdrawal of enriched uranium. This is the point that could prove to be the most sensitive in future negotiations.

The biggest test of the whole process will be Israel’s reaction. Israeli political circles, especially some leaders of the opposition, have expressed serious reservations about the proposed MOU. They argue that the agreement could create further complications in the future if clear guarantees are not included regarding Iran’s missile program, regional activities and nuclear capabilities. These differences show that the interests of Washington, Tehran and Tel Aviv are still different from each other and that this divergence could affect the negotiation process at any moment.

The most welcome thing at this time is that after more than 110 days of bloodshed, there is at least hope for a pause in the war and the start of negotiations. However, this path is still not without risks. President Trump’s aggressive statements, Israeli concerns, the conflict over enriched uranium, the future of the Strait of Hormuz, and the conflicting interests of regional powers can give rise to new tensions at any time.

In an interview after the agreement on the memorandum, President Trump said that military action could resume if Iran fails to reach a final nuclear deal with the United States. He even said that the United States could become the “guardian” of the Middle East. Threats of force at the initial stage of negotiations do not bode well for any peace process. Such statements not only undermine trust but also force the parties to adopt a defensive position. What is more worrying is that signs of external control over the resources or income of the Middle East can be a cause of concern not only for the countries of the region but also for major powers such as Russia and China. China in particular, which derives a large portion of its energy needs from the Middle East, may view such statements as a threat to regional stability.

If a historic understanding is truly emerging, it should be welcomed with dignity and understanding. But the root of the dispute, the reality of Iran’s nuclear program, is unclear. The United States wants guarantees from Iran that it will not develop nuclear weapons, while Tehran says it never intended to have nuclear weapons. The program to acquire and develop nuclear energy began in 1957 with US cooperation, which President Eisenhower himself called Atoms for Peace, and this commitment is the basis of a global agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known as the 5+1, in 2015, which was ratified by both houses of the US Congress and the United Nations with a two-thirds majority. It is as if the United States wants guarantees from Iran that it will not do something that Iran never wanted.

At present, the interpretation of the Islamabad Memorandum seems to be the subject of debate more than the text. If the parties to the agreement and its guarantors still do not agree on its words and objectives, the real test will not be the signature, but its implementation. The coming weeks will determine whether the Islamabad Memorandum is truly the first step towards peace in the Middle East or merely the beginning of a journey whose destination is still shrouded in mist.

It is too early to say to what extent Israel will comply with this memorandum and US instructions, as the facts on the ground still raise many questions. The guns in the Persian Gulf have apparently fallen silent after the Islamabad MOU. The Iranian people have also breathed a sigh of relief after the easing of the naval blockade on Iran, and the risks of a wider war in the region seem to have temporarily diminished. According to Pakistani PM Shehbaz Sharif, Lebanon is also part of this understanding, and on June 14, President Trump explicitly instructed Israel to refrain from further attacks on Lebanon. However, it is too early to say to what extent Israel will comply with this memorandum and US instructions, as the ground realities still raise many questions.

A ceasefire has been in effect in Lebanon since April 16, but according to Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, Israel has carried out 3,500 attacks on Lebanon since the peace agreement. In addition to the bombings, more than 400 civilian and rural settlements have been bulldozed. This is why the concept of a ceasefire in Lebanon has not been able to move beyond paper documents and into civilian populations. Israel is now also targeting Lebanese forces in the name of Hezbollah, which led to the Lebanese army retreating from the southern Lebanese city of Nabatieh on June 13. Before returning, the local general said that we do not want a clash with the Israeli army. It is incomprehensible for the army to abandon its citizens in the face of intense Israeli bombing and tank attacks.

Reports of bombings, drone strikes and shelling have been received continuously in Beirut, Tyre and the Litani River area. Some citizens have accused Israel of dropping fuel bombs on the residents of these areas, and some images published on social media show unarmed civilians running to escape fires blazing in the streets. Some observers believe that the aim of the recent attacks is not only to hit military targets but also to disrupt the ongoing diplomatic process in the region. According to them, the escalation of tensions in Lebanon could damage the ongoing peace process between Iran and the United States. On the other side, despite the easing of tensions in the Gulf, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza continues to unfold. Israeli operations, blockades and closures of aid routes have deepened the difficulties. The closure of the Karem Salem crossing has severely disrupted the supply of food, medicine and other essential goods, while local and international agencies are warning of a worsening humanitarian crisis.

More casualties have been reported in Khan Younis and Jabaliah as a result of shelling. Facilities for treating the wounded are already inadequate and hospitals are under severe strain. Images emerging from the devastated streets of Gaza illustrate the enormity of the humanitarian tragedy. In one image, a young boy is seen carrying his sick brother in a rusty cart. The scene is not just the story of one family, but a metaphor for the collective plight of the entire Gaza Strip, where for many families a cart is an ambulance, a taxi and the last hope of life.

According to a recent United Nations report, an average of one Palestinian child has lost his life every day over the past eight months. The report stated that since the ceasefire in October 2025, at least 265 Palestinian children have been killed and more than 400 have been seriously injured. A large number of these injured children are fighting for their lives in an environment where hospitals are destroyed, medicine is scarce and medical facilities are extremely limited. When this series of child deaths continues even in the context of a ceasefire, aid is limited, and there is no effective arrangement to treat the injured children, what can be called it but organized genocide? If a child is dying every day, where is the ceasefire?

As a result of the Israeli advance, Gaza’s population has been driven to the coastline, and fishing has become the only source of food for many families. Last week, Mohammed Abu Diab, forced by hunger to go ashore to fish, was killed by deliberate Israeli naval gunfire. While the world’s attention is focused on Gaza and Lebanon, tensions in the West Bank have not abated. Palestinian villages, agricultural lands, shops and residential buildings are under constant pressure. Incidents of property damage, burning of crops and targeting of religious sites have been reported in Ramallah, Qalqilya, Jenin and other areas.

An attempt to set fire to the Al-Nour Mosque in the town of Burqa in Ramallah has caused serious concern among the local population. Fortunately, local women took quick action to control the fire and avert major damage. Such incidents are considered to be not only a threat to property but also to religious and social harmony. Terrorist extremists wrote “revenge” in Hebrew after setting fire to the mosque. In Ma’ale Adumim, near East Jerusalem, occupiers ran over and killed a 20-year-old Palestinian with a car. Last week, Al Jazeera published a heartbreaking report on the serious physical, psychological and sexual abuse of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli detention centres. The report, which includes interviews with former detainees, features visuals so horrific that they are almost impossible to watch. The report cites statements from UN experts, human rights organisations and former detainees who say that these incidents are indicative of a wider problem, rather than just individual abuses. As expected, Israeli authorities have dismissed the allegations as baseless and fabricated, but justice demands that these incidents be investigated by an independent, transparent and impartial international investigation to ensure that the victims receive justice. Far from probe and investigation, it is noteworthy that Israel’s Minister of Internal Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, has suggested that Hezbollah women and children be arrested in the occupied territory of Lebanon. In a meeting of the war cabinet, he said that along with bombing and killing fighters, detaining their women and children would be more painful for them than death. In other words, bombing and killing are not enough, but there is a need to strike at the reputation of the resistance fighters.

According to the latest reports, following four days of direct negotiations during the fifth round, Lebanon and Israel signed a “framework agreement” in Washington on 27 June, in the presence of U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The document—reported by the Lebanese news agency citing the US website “Axios”—included a declaration by Lebanon and Israel of their “intention to definitively end the conflict between the two countries, address its underlying causes, and formally terminate any existing state of war.”

The 14-point framework stipulated that the Lebanese Armed Forces would gradually assume full and effective security responsibility in pilot areas in southern Lebanon from which the Israeli army withdraws. It noted that Israeli and Lebanese forces had agreed on two initial pilot areas, with any subsequent pilot areas to be determined by mutual agreement between the two sides. It also stated that the governments of Israel and Lebanon “commit to a reciprocal, phased process—following a clear sequence and specific conditions—whereby the Lebanese Armed Forces extend the country’s actual authority across all Lebanese territory, following verification of the disarmament of non-state armed groups and the dismantling of their infrastructure,” thereby enabling Israeli forces to gradually redeploy outside Lebanese territory.

Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem rejected the framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel, describing it as “humiliating, shameful, and a surrender of sovereignty.” He also called on the Lebanese authorities to withdraw from it, deeming the linkage of an Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of the Resistance a crossing of red lines.

Separately, in the first comment by a Hezbollah MP regarding the framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel, Ihab Hamadeh—a member of the “Loyalty to the Resistance” bloc—stated that the authorities bear the responsibility for exerting maximum effort to ensure the Israeli occupation persists and to push forward the project of eradicating Lebanon’s largest component.