A fragile and nearly finalized peace agreement between the United States and Iran came under serious threat on Sunday after Israel launched military strikes on Dahiya, a Hezbollah stronghold on the southern outskirts of Beirut. The strikes sent shockwaves through ongoing negotiations at what had appeared to be the most promising moment yet for ending months of conflict across the Middle East.
Israel justified the action by accusing Hezbollah of firing drones and rockets toward communities in northern Israel, calling it a blatant cease-fire violation. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz confirmed in a joint statement that they had ordered the strike on a Hezbollah command center in Dahiya, adding that Israel would not tolerate fire into its territory. Israeli aircraft also launched additional attacks in the Tyre district and other areas of southern Lebanon, with Hezbollah confirming the death of one of its operatives near Tyre.
Trump publicly rebukes Netanyahu as deal hangs in the balance
The strikes drew an unusually sharp response from President Trump, who made clear his frustration at the timing. In a post on Truth Social, Trump called for all sides to stand down, saying the strikes should not have happened, particularly given how close the two sides were to finalizing a peace agreement. He acknowledged Israel’s right to self-defense but stressed that the provocation that prompted the strikes was, in his words, very small and resulted in no casualties.
Trump went further in remarks to a reporter, expressing that he was deeply angry at Netanyahu‘s decision to launch the strikes at such a critical moment, saying he had communicated that frustration directly to the Israeli leader. Despite his anger, Trump indicated he still expected a deal to be signed, and his team remained cautiously hopeful that the agreement could move forward even in the wake of the strikes.
What the proposed deal actually contains
The agreement under discussion is described as a memorandum of understanding rather than a comprehensive peace treaty. According to officials briefed on the terms, it would accomplish several immediate objectives: 1. reopening the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping, 2. lifting the U.S. naval blockade on Iranian ports in the Persian Gulf and 3. extending the existing cease-fire between the U.S. and Iran for 60 days. More complex issues, including Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions relief and the future of the Strait of Hormuz, would be deferred to a second round of negotiations during that window.
Iran would also reiterate its commitment to not develop or acquire a nuclear weapon as part of the memorandum, though the agreement does not resolve the question of Iran’s existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium, much of which is currently believed to be buried under rubble from earlier strikes.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed Sunday that once a deal is signed, the U.S. military would end its naval blockade of Iranian ports, while retaining the ability to reimpose it if necessary.
Iran pushes back as Lebanon complicates everything
Iran’s lead negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, condemned the Israeli strikes and suggested they undermined the credibility of the United States as a party capable of delivering on its commitments. His remarks cast fresh doubt on whether Tehran would be willing to move forward without assurances that Washington could restrain its ally.
Iran’s foreign ministry also confirmed that a signing would not take place on Sunday, though officials left open the possibility of finalizing an agreement in the coming days. A Qatari delegation traveled to Tehran on Sunday in coordination with the United States to help push negotiations forward, according to officials with knowledge of the situation.
Lebanon has emerged as the central sticking point in the broader negotiations. Iran has insisted that any lasting peace settlement include an end to Israeli military operations in Lebanon and a withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory. Israel, which is not a direct party to the U.S.-Iran talks, has maintained that it will continue striking Hezbollah if attacked, regardless of the diplomatic timeline.
Opposition growing inside Iran
The situation is further complicated by resistance within Iran itself. Conservative factions in the government and military have voiced opposition to the emerging deal, with protests reported outside a foreign ministry office in Mashhad and two members of Parliament publicly criticizing the terms. One lawmaker called for the impeachment of Iran’s top diplomat, while another described the agreement in stark terms as a capitulation to American pressure.
As of Sunday afternoon, the Israeli military said it remained on high alert and prepared for a range of defensive and offensive scenarios, while also confirming it had detected what appeared to be incoming aerial targets in Israeli territory following the Beirut strikes.
Source: The New York Times