On the one hand, Iranian officials, including Seyed Abbas Araghchi and Majid Takhtrovanchi, have emphasized the end of the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, and have announced that the second phase of negotiations will begin only after the conditions of the ceasefire have been established and the initial commitments have been implemented. On the other hand, a series of positions and actions over the past two days have raised the question of whether Washington and its regional allies really adhere to the spirit and provisions of the agreement or not.
Lebanon; The first field of honesty test
On the sidelines of the G7 summit, while defending the agreement reached, Donald Trump once again used literature that does not match the logic of ending the war. The American president clearly stated that the existing understanding is not yet the final text, and if he is not satisfied with the negotiation process or if the Iranian side does not show “proper behavior”, the United States will once again return to the option of bombing. This obvious threat is raised while basically the philosophy of forming an understanding for the end of the war was to abandon the language of force and transfer the differences to the diplomatic path.
At the same time, J.D. Vance, the vice president of the United States, has also tried to maintain a framework of pressure and threats in the atmosphere of the negotiations. The repeated emphasis that Iran will enjoy economic benefits only if the demands of the United States are fully implemented, and repeating the statement that Washington is ready to restore pressure, is far from the logic of a sustainable agreement, according to many observers. But the issue is not limited to the words of American officials. Worrying developments are taking place in the field as well. The central headquarters of Khatam al-Anbiya warned in a statement that the army of the Zionist regime violated the ceasefire 84 times in the last two days in southern Lebanon and continues its attacks and military actions. According to the same statement, if this process is not stopped, the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran will give an appropriate and decisive response to these measures.
The importance of this issue increases when we pay attention to Iran’s official positions on the nature of the understanding. From the very first days of the negotiations, Tehran emphasized that the end of the war with Iran is not separate from the end of the war on all fronts, especially in Lebanon. Araghchi also stated in his recent meeting with ambassadors that any new Israeli attack on Lebanon or continued occupation of Lebanese lands is considered a breach of understanding from the Islamic Republic of Iran’s point of view. However, in his statements, Trump has tried to make Israel’s attacks in Lebanon appear to be a minor issue and even claimed that the continuation of these conflicts will not necessarily affect the agreement between Iran and the United States.
This is where one of the most important challenges of the coming days shows itself. The issue is not just a disagreement over a field event; Rather, the disagreement is about the definition itself.
Negotiations under the shadow of threats do not remain stable
The fact is that what is observed today is more than anything a reminder of one of the most important experiences of Iran’s foreign policy in recent decades; An experience called Barjam.
During the JCPOA, the text of the agreement was one issue and the American version of the agreement was another issue. In the following years, it became clear that in many cases, Washington did not act based on what was written on paper, but based on its own interpretation of the agreement. The result was also clear; America gradually turned its narrative into the dominant narrative in the international space and from this path was able to create new pressures against Iran.
Even today, signs of the formation of the same pattern can be seen. On the one hand, Iran emphasizes the end of the war, removing the threat and ending the conflict on all fronts, and on the other hand, while welcoming the understanding, Trump and Vance keep the option of a military attack on the table. These two narratives cannot be true at the same time.
If the understanding of the end of the war is to have a real meaning and function, the first condition is to abandon the language of threats. Iran’s repeated threat to attack again, that too before the start of the new round of negotiations, is not only not compatible with the spirit of understanding, but basically questions the philosophy of two-stage negotiations. The war was supposed to end first and then more complex issues could be discussed in a calm atmosphere without military pressure. If the shadow of bombs and threats is supposed to remain over the negotiations, what is the difference between this situation and the era before the understanding?
The danger of negotiating under the shadow of threats
Another important point is that accepting such a trend can have dangerous consequences for the future. If the American side comes to the conclusion that the military threat is an effective tool to gain points in negotiations, it will be natural to repeat the same pattern in the future. In such a situation, a cycle is formed in which war, truce, and negotiation are not separate stages, but complementary tools for exerting pressure.
From the point of view of Iran’s national interests, there is another danger. The continuation of negotiations under the shadow of threats provides the possibility for the other side to insinuate in the public opinion of the world that Iran agreed to the agreement not based on political and legal logic, but under military pressure. Such an image is not only inconsistent with the reality of recent developments, but can be the basis of new demands and more pressures in the future.
This is why many analysts believe that before entering the second phase of negotiations, the full implementation of commitments related to the end of the war should be verified. Stopping the attacks in Lebanon, ending the occupation of the disputed areas, abandoning the literature of threats and practical adherence to the announced commitments are the minimum requirements that can show that the existing understanding is not just a political text, but there is a real will to end the crisis behind it.
Otherwise, the process that was supposed to stabilize peace and reduce tension may turn into a path to reproduce the same crises that the region has paid a heavy price for in the past months.
Now there are only a few hours left until the official signing of the agreement, but what will determine the fate of this agreement is not the signing ceremony in Switzerland, but the behavior of the parties in the days and weeks after. The understanding that was supposed to be the end point of the war is moving on the razor’s edge today; Where every new threat, every new attack and every attempt to impose a one-sided narrative can derail it. Therefore, perhaps the most important test of the agreement is not in the negotiation hall, but in the extent to which Washington and its allies adhere to the commitments they have accepted to end the war.
