|
Madhura Meenakshi Tanikella
26 June 2026 |
In the news
On 19 June, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Israel reserved the right to continue military operations against Hezbollah. Iran condemned the operations as a breach of the Iran-US MoU.
On 20 June, US Vice President JD Vance and Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi arrived in Switzerland for the first round of negotiations. Lebanon reported strikes by Israel, and in response Iran announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, citing violations of the ceasefire.
On 21 June, the negotiations between the US and Iran, mediated by Pakistan and Qatar, began in Switzerland.
On 22 June, the negotiations between the US and Iran concluded, with an agreement on a 60-day roadmap for a final deal, a high-level committee to oversee the negotiations, a mechanism to end fighting in Lebanon, and a communications line to facilitate the safe passage of commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz. The US stated that Iran had “in principle” agreed to nuclear inspections, while Iran stated that discussions focused on sanctions relief, reconstruction assistance, and maritime security. On the same day, the US authorized the production, delivery, and sale of crude oil and petrochemical products of Iranian origin until 21 August.
On 23 June, Lebanon and Israel began a new round of talks in Washington. President Trump stated that Iran agreed to nuclear inspections. Additionally, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) launched an evacuation plan for ships and seafarers stranded in the Gulf.
On 24 June, the IAEA announced inspectors would return to Iran, while Tehran said this would only be resolved in the “final agreement.” The IMO evacuation plan came into effect. The US Senate voted in favour of the War Powers Resolution. A drone strike by Israel in southern Lebanon was reported.
On 25 June, the IAEA and Iran continued to dispute the timing of possible nuclear inspections. IMO announced that it suspended its emergency evacuation programme after a ship was reportedly struck by Iran’s drones.
On 26 June, the disagreement among the US, the IAEA, and Iran over the status of nuclear inspections persisted. Lebanon’s state media reported that Israeli forces dropped leaflets over a town in southern Lebanon, ordering residents to leave. Secretary Rubio and the Gulf Cooperation Council released a joint statement on the regional developments and the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran called “interventionist, irresponsible, and provocative.” Later that day, Secretary Rubio announced a 14-point “framework” between Israel and Lebanon, which Hezbollah said undermined Lebanon and served Israel’s interests. After the reported drone strike on a cargo ship on 25 June by Iran, the US military said it launched strikes on Iran. In response, the IRGC said its navy targeted locations in the Gulf where US forces were deployed and that the US strikes violated the UN Charter and the MoU between both sides.
Issues at large
1. Disagreements over nuclear inspections, the Strait of Hormuz, and Lebanon
Washington claims Iran "agreed in principle" to nuclear inspections, Tehran insists inspections are contingent on a final deal, and the IAEA states inspections will begin soon. This divergence has become a focal point of the post-MoU period, with the three sides disagreeing on the timing of the inspections. The MoU itself excluded IAEA inspections from its text, requiring a separate, supervised mechanism for Iran's enriched stockpile. Washington continues to assert commitments on nuclear inspections, but Iran has never explicitly affirmed them.
On the other hand, Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz days after the MoU was signed, citing Israeli strikes in southern Lebanon, and struck a cargo ship in the Strait on 25 June, reiterating Tehran's position that de-escalation in the Gulf remains contingent on a ceasefire in Lebanon and control over the Strait of Hormuz. This, in the backdrop of Hezbollah rejecting the 26 June Rubio-brokered Israel-Lebanon framework as serving Israeli interests, puts a ceasefire in Lebanon into question, and makes the transit through Hormuz uncertain.
2. Sanctions relief implementation
Amid disputes over inspections, flare-ups in Lebanon, and contentions over Hormuz, Washington's authorization of Iranian crude and petrochemical sales stands out as the one MoU commitment clearly implemented. The scope of other sanctions relief measures, reconstruction financing, and the release of frozen assets remains unclear, with conflicting statements on the use of frozen assets adding further hurdles to the 60-day negotiation period.
3. Exchange of fire post the MoU and Switzerland talks
The MoU called for an immediate end to operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. Strikes continued nonetheless till 26 June when Lebanon and Israel reached an agreement. After which, a reported drone strike on a cargo ship by Iran was followed by the US striking missile storage facilities in Iran, and the IRGC responding with strikes on US positions in the Gulf: marking the first direct military exchange between the two sides since the MoU was signed. The exchange of fire underscores that, despite the Switzerland talks and the gains made there on establishing communication channels, the MoU has not proven capable of preventing renewed military escalation when disputes over its implementation arise.
In perspective
The MoU has functioned more as a pause in hostilities than a resolution of them. While sanctions relief measures implemented so far have held, the disputes over frozen assets, nuclear inspections, the Strait of Hormuz, and Lebanon have each resurfaced the same disagreements the MoU was meant to settle. Additionally, the direct exchange of fire between the US and Iran on 26 June, four days after the Switzerland talks concluded, suggests that perhaps the underlying drivers of the conflict remain largely unaddressed.
