Published on 6/15/2026
|
Last update: 19:49 (Mecca time)
The United States and Iran announced, on Sunday evening, that they had reached a framework to stop the war and open the Strait of Hormuz, with the agreement to be officially signed on Friday, June 19, in Switzerland.
But what has been announced so far is still just a general “memorandum of understanding,” the full details of which have not been published, and are surrounded by different interpretations from both sides.
During the five days between the signing date, the path of the agreement seems to depend on thorny issues in Lebanon and the Strait of Hormuz, in addition to internal disputes in Israel and the degree of mutual trust between Washington and Tehran.
The following are the most prominent obstacles that may delay the completion of the text of the agreement or hinder its signing on time:
The ignition of the Lebanon front
The Lebanese arena is the greatest threat, because the framework clearly hinges on “the immediate and permanent end to military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon.” However, the field and political reality reveals three intertwined gaps:
Iranian side He holds Washington responsible for ensuring Israel’s commitment, as Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baghaei stressed that the United States must “ensure that the Zionist entity respects its obligations towards Lebanon.”
Hezbollah He welcomed the agreement, but linked it to “full withdrawal and the return of prisoners,” warning that “there is no return to what was before March 2.”
Israel Moving in the opposite direction, Defense Minister Yisrael Katz announced that the army would remain in areas of southern Lebanon “indefinitely,” as part of a broader policy that includes other arenas, rejecting any pressure to withdraw.
The agreement does not need a negotiated collapse in order for it to falter. A large-scale raid before Friday may be sufficient to give Tehran an excuse to say that commitments have not been respected, and to reshuffle the cards at the signing table.
Israel…a non-signatory party capable of obstruction
The second obstacle is the possibility that the Israeli positions of rejection will turn into a political or field undermining factor for the agreement during the next five days.
Although Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not comment publicly, statements transmitted by Israeli officials show that Tel Aviv does not see itself as a party bound by the memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran.
Criticism poured in from both the opposition and the coalition, as opposition leader Yair Lapid described the agreement as a “more complete” failure than any precedent, while opposition leader Yair Golan considered it “the biggest strategic failure in Israel’s history.”
As for the extreme right, National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir said that Israel is “not a banana republic” and is not subject to Washington, while Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called for continuing work to overthrow the Iranian regime.
These positions reveal that the crisis is not just military details in southern Lebanon, but rather a political uprising against the general framework of the agreement itself.
Based on this rejection, observers do not rule out that the next five days will witness a hidden “diplomatic or operational war” led by Tel Aviv, aiming to rig the draft agreement with new controversial points that will incapacitate the mediators and prevent its signing on the specified date.
Strait of Hormuz: fees and mines
In the Strait of Hormuz, the gap between the political declaration and the reality on the ground widens through two basic complexes: the conditions for opening the passage and the dispute over fees, and then fears of sea mines.
At the level of financial conditions, US Vice President J. D. Vance announced opening the strait “without fees” in the long term, while Tehran confirms that it will impose “allowances for navigational services, insurance, and environmental protection” and not “transit fees,” an item that the Iranian “Fars” agency reported was added “at the last minute” to the framework agreement.
This intermediate wording leaves a wide space for interpretation. If Washington or its allies consider that the “service allowances” have turned into disguised fees, a technical dispute may erupt during the detailed negotiations this week, delaying the completion of the text of the agreement before signing in Switzerland.
Lack of trust increases the fragility of the agreement
Above all, the mutual lack of trust remains a factor that doubles the fragility of the agreement in this short window of time. The Iranian Foreign Ministry acknowledged a “deep lack of trust” towards Washington, stressing that it “does not trust neither Israel nor the United States,” and that the agreement is “just a step” to reduce tension without an end to the crisis.
On the other hand, critics of the agreement in Tel Aviv and Washington believe that Tehran emerged from the war showing the ability to disrupt an important part of the global energy supply, and they fear that it will exploit any loophole in implementation to its advantage.
In light of this climate, a major raid in Lebanon, a sudden crisis over “service allowances” in Hormuz, or a security incident in the waterway is enough for the capitals to exchange accusations of violating the understanding, and Friday turns from a confirmed date for signing the agreement into a new test of the seriousness of the parties in charting the course of calm and ending the state of escalation that has ravaged the region during the past months.
