Lebanon and the U.S.-Iran ambiguous understanding

The United States (U.S.) and Iran have reached a diplomatic memorandum of understanding (MoU) intended to reduce ongoing military confrontations and establish a preliminary framework for further negotiations toward a broader political arrangement. While the agreement signals an attempt to manage escalating regional tensions, it remains non-binding and its implementation depends on a series of unresolved political and operational conditions.

One of its most notable features is the explicit inclusion of Lebanon in the ceasefire provisions, considered an essential component of the wider regional settlement.

Rather than constituting a finalized settlement, the document sets out general obligations and a roadmap for continued negotiations, with the stated aim of reaching a more comprehensive agreement within a 60-day period. However, the timeline and practical feasibility of such an outcome remain uncertain given the scope of outstanding disputes and the absence of clearly defined enforcement mechanisms, while the immediate implementation appears to favor Tehran more than Washington by immediately resuming oil sales as well as waving banking, transport, and insurance sanctions.

A comprehensive 14-point framework

The 14 articles of the memorandum establish an extensive framework covering both immediate confidence-building measures and longer-term political commitments.

The agreement begins with an immediate and permanent cessation of military operations between the U.S., Iran, and their respective allies (meaning Israel and Iranian-backed groups) across all active fronts, including Lebanon. Both governments further pledge not to initiate future military actions or threaten the use of force against one another while reaffirming their commitment to Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The memorandum also contains mutual commitments to respect each other’s sovereignty and refrain from interference in domestic affairs, reflecting an effort to reduce the broader political tensions that have characterized bilateral relations for more than four decades.

To ensure that negotiations remain focused, both sides commit to concluding a final agreement within 60 days, with the possibility of extending the timetable by mutual consent.

Maritime security constitutes another central pillar of the agreement. The U.S. agrees to begin lifting its naval blockade and remove restrictions affecting Iranian maritime trade immediately after implementation begins, with full removal expected within 30 days. In return, Iran undertakes to guarantee safe passage for commercial vessels through the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, while removing mines and technical obstacles that could disrupt navigation. Tehran will also consult Oman and other Gulf states regarding the future administration of maritime services in accordance with international law.

Economic normalization represents one of the memorandum’s most ambitious objectives. Washington commits to working alongside regional partners to develop an economic reconstruction package worth at least $300 billion for Iran. Simultaneously, it pledges to provide all necessary financial licenses and exemptions required to facilitate commercial transactions associated with reconstruction efforts.

Perhaps the most significant economic provision concerns sanctions. The memorandum establishes a framework for gradually terminating international, multilateral, and unilateral sanctions imposed on Iran according to a mutually agreed timetable. Pending completion of that process, the U.S. will issue waivers allowing Iranian crude oil exports and related banking, transportation, insurance, and financial services to resume.

The nuclear file also occupies a prominent place in the agreement. Iran reiterates its commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons, while both sides agree to negotiate a mutually acceptable mechanism for managing Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium. Rather than transferring nuclear material abroad, the memorandum identifies the reduction of enrichment levels under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision as the minimum acceptable approach, while leaving broader questions regarding future enrichment activities for the final negotiations.

Additional provisions address the release of Iranian frozen assets, making those funds progressively accessible through mechanisms agreed during negotiations, and establish a joint implementation mechanism to monitor compliance with both the memorandum and any eventual permanent agreement.

In short, the MoU seems to benefit Iran more than it does with regards to the U.S. Indeed, Article 13 clearly states that articles 1, 4, 5, 10, and 11 (which mainly end the U.S.-imposed naval blockade, allow the export of crucial Iranian crude oil, and release Tehran’s frozen assets) must be implemented first before settling other equally important matters that concern the U.S. and its regional allies; namely Iran’s proxies, ballistic missiles, and nuclear program.

Outstanding challenges on the path to a final agreement

Despite its broad scope, the memorandum deliberately postpones several of the most politically sensitive issues until the final negotiations.

Foremost among these is the detailed timetable for lifting sanctions. Although Washington commits to ending various categories of sanctions, the sequencing, verification procedures, and legal mechanisms remain subject to further negotiation. Similarly, the precise modalities governing the release of Iran’s frozen assets and the implementation of the proposed $300 billion reconstruction initiative have yet to be finalized.

The nuclear issue also remains only partially resolved. While Iran agrees not to develop nuclear weapons and accepts the principle of reducing enrichment levels under international supervision, the memorandum leaves unresolved important questions regarding the future scale of uranium enrichment, permissible stockpile levels, verification procedures, and the long-term structure of Iran’s civilian nuclear program.

In addition, the issue of Iran’s regional proxies has been left for future discussions. This potentially includes the material and economic support of Iran to the aforementioned non-state armed groups. It is worth mentioning that the latter have played a key role in destabilizing not only the countries in which they reside, by the wider region as well; evident through the Houthi attacks against Saudi Arabia and the civilian ships crossing the Red Sea as well as Hezbollah’s participation in the Syrian civil war.

Likewise, the agreement establishes only broad principles regarding implementation and compliance monitoring. The composition, authority, dispute-resolution procedures, and enforcement powers of the joint implementation mechanism will be determined during subsequent negotiations.

The memorandum therefore functions primarily as a framework agreement rather than a comprehensive settlement. Its success will depend on whether negotiators can transform these broad political commitments into detailed, enforceable legal arrangements over the coming weeks.

Lebanon at the heart of the regional de-escalation framework

Unlike many previous diplomatic initiatives involving Iran, Lebanon occupies a central position throughout the memorandum rather than appearing as a secondary issue.

The ceasefire explicitly extends to the Lebanese front, recognizing that lasting regional stability cannot be achieved while hostilities continue between Israel and Hezbollah. The agreement’s repeated references to protecting Lebanon’s sovereignty, particularly in Article 1, further underscore the country’s strategic importance within the broader regional security architecture.

At the same time, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has stressed that Lebanon’s negotiations with Israel remain entirely independent of the U.S.-Iranian understanding. According to the Lebanese presidency, any future arrangements concerning Lebanon will be negotiated exclusively by the Lebanese state and will not be subordinated to agreements reached by external powers.

This position seeks to reassure both domestic and international audiences that Lebanon retains full sovereignty over its diplomatic and security decisions despite benefiting from the broader regional de-escalation.

The noticeable decline in military activity following the announcement of the memorandum has reinforced hopes that the agreement could create more favorable conditions for future Lebanese-Israeli negotiations while reducing the risk of renewed escalation along the southern border. Whether this calm evolves into a durable settlement, however, will largely depend on the successful implementation of both the regional agreement, Israel’s and Hezbollah’s compliance, and Lebanon’s own negotiation track.

Hence, the agreement’s explicit inclusion of Lebanon highlights the growing recognition that sustainable regional peace cannot be achieved without addressing the interconnected conflicts that have shaped the country and even the region.