US-Iran peace deal faces conflicting claims as regional tensions persist

The United States and Iran continue to present differing interpretations of the recently signed Islamabad Memorandum

The United States and Iran continue to present differing interpretations of the recently signed Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, a framework agreement intended to end months of conflict and reduce tensions in the region.

Speaking on Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump stated that Iran had assured Washington that it would not impose any fees on ships passing through the strategically important Strait of Hormuz. The agreement follows a first round of negotiations held in Switzerland earlier this week and has been described by supporters as a significant diplomatic breakthrough. However, disagreements remain over several key issues, including financial arrangements, maritime security, and the broader regional conflict involving Israel and Lebanon.

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf described the agreement as a sign of American failure rather than Iranian concession. Addressing a conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, he said the understanding resulted from Iran’s resilience and national strength, arguing that resistance by both the military and civilians forced the United States and Israel to bear significant costs. Ghalibaf emphasized that Middle Eastern countries should be responsible for their own security and called for the withdrawal of foreign military forces from the region, which he claimed contribute to instability.

He also reaffirmed Iran’s support for its regional allies, particularly in Lebanon, stressing that an end to Israeli military operations there remains a priority. According to Ghalibaf, recent events demonstrate that powerful nations can no longer impose their will on independent states.

Meanwhile, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi stated that no meeting had taken place with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi in Switzerland. He added that Iran currently has no plans to grant access to facilities damaged during the conflict or to nuclear materials, insisting that such matters would only be addressed under the terms of a final agreement.

Despite these comments, Grossi maintained that IAEA inspections would proceed, citing provisions in the memorandum that require international supervision of Iran’s nuclear activities. He stated that inspections are inevitable, even if the timing remains uncertain.

On the regional front, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz declared that Israeli forces would remain in southern Lebanon regardless of any pressure from Washington. He argued that a military presence is necessary for security reasons and rejected calls for withdrawal.

China welcomed the U.S.-Iran agreement, calling it a positive development that should be protected and implemented by all parties. Beijing reiterated its support for diplomatic solutions, respect for national sovereignty, and regional stability.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also discussed the agreement during a meeting with United Arab Emirates President Mohamed bin Zayed. The two leaders reviewed efforts to maintain safe navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, while Rubio reaffirmed America’s commitment to the UAE’s security.

In Washington, Trump criticized the U.S. Senate after it approved legislation directing him to halt military action against Iran. Although largely symbolic, the resolution passed both chambers of Congress and reflected growing concern among lawmakers regarding the conflict. While the White House argues that the measure lacks legal force, supporters maintain that Congress has a constitutional role in authorizing war. The vote highlights increasing debate in the United States over the future of relations with Iran and the long-term sustainability of the recently reached agreement.