Iran’s demand for Israeli forces to leave Lebanon has thrown the emerging US-Iran truce into doubt, exposing sharp differences over an unpublished agreement intended to halt more than three months of war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told diplomats in Tehran that a full end to the conflict must include the end of Israeli military operations and troop presence in Lebanon, where Israel has fought Hezbollah since the Iran-backed group entered the war in early March. He warned that any continued Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory, or further Israeli attacks there, would be treated by Tehran as a breach of the memorandum of understanding negotiated with Washington.
Israel has rejected that interpretation. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Israel Katz have made clear that Israeli forces will remain in security zones in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza for as long as they deem necessary. Katz said Israel was not bound by terms agreed between Washington and Tehran and would respond “with full force” if Iran used the Lebanon issue as a pretext for renewed attacks.
The dispute has quickly become the first major test of the tentative deal announced by President Donald Trump after weeks of fighting that disrupted energy flows, drew in regional allies and raised fears of a wider Middle East war. The text of the agreement has not been released, leaving governments and armed groups to define its meaning in public before it is formally signed.
US officials have sought to narrow the dispute, saying Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon is not a formal condition of the US-Iran accord. They have also said Israel retains the right to defend itself against Hezbollah attacks, while pressing all sides to avoid actions that could unravel the ceasefire before detailed negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme begin.
Hezbollah has signalled that it views the Lebanon front as central to any durable settlement. The group said it believes Iran will not conclude a final nuclear agreement with Washington unless Israel withdraws from southern Lebanon, though it described such a withdrawal as an expected result of future negotiations rather than an immediate precondition. Fighting in Lebanon has eased since the US-Iran understanding, but it has not fully stopped.
The Lebanon dispute highlights the weakness of a deal that seeks to end a war involving more actors than those at the negotiating table. Israel joined the US campaign against Iran on February 28, while Hezbollah opened its front in support of Tehran days later. Israel’s ground and air campaign in southern Lebanon left it in control of areas it says are needed to prevent cross-border attacks, while Lebanon and Hezbollah describe the presence as occupation.
Trump has presented the agreement as a breakthrough that stops direct hostilities with Tehran, reopens the Strait of Hormuz and creates space for a permanent settlement. The waterway, through which about a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas normally passes, has been a key pressure point since the war began. Oil prices fell sharply after the announcement, though traders remain cautious because shipping through the strait is unlikely to normalise immediately.
The economic terms are also drawing scrutiny. The memorandum is expected to allow Iran to resume oil and fuel sales once it is signed, with waivers covering banking, transport and insurance services linked to exports. Any benefits are tied to Iranian commitments on nuclear weapons, enriched material and free navigation through Hormuz. Tehran maintains that its nuclear programme is civilian, while Washington says the next phase must prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
The diplomatic timetable remains fragile. A formal signing is expected in Switzerland this week, followed by talks on a broader nuclear and security framework. European governments have welcomed the halt in fighting but are concerned that the interim accord leaves major questions unresolved, including Iran’s missile capabilities, regional armed allies and verification mechanisms.
