Iran Continues to Violate Most of its MOU Commitments

On June 17, 2026, the Trump administration and the Iranian regime signed the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, which declared the conflict between them over and set the stage for further negotiations toward a “final deal.” As this analysis will lay out, the Islamic Republic has violated pledges in five paragraphs in the agreement since July 2.

Use or Threat of Force

In paragraph one of the MOU, the U.S., Iran, and “their allies in the current war . . . declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.” However, the Iranian regime has repeatedly attacked and threatened the U.S. and its allies since signing the agreement, including during the past week.

The Islamic Republic attacked U.S. military sites in Gulf states on July 8 and 9. On the 8th, Iran fired missiles at American bases in Bahrain and Kuwait. The following day, the regime launched missiles and drones at U.S. military sites in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and Jordan.

Further, regime officials have contravened paragraph one by threatening the U.S. and its allies with violence on multiple occasions. In particular, they have vowed to avenge the assassinations of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and military commanders, as well as the deaths of Iranian civilians.

On July 6, the Secretariat of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council stated that “resistance against adversaries” and “revenge for the blood of Iran’s martyred Leader” are the regime-approved, primary themes of the funeral procession for Khamenei. That same day, the commander of the Iranian Navy, Shahram Irani, warned that Iran’s adversaries must ready themselves to face “Muslim warriors” pursuing “blood revenge” for their assassinated leaders and commanders. Irani, speaking during a funeral procession for Khamenei, said that hostile nationals will soon experience “a crushing blow and slap” that will “completely shatter their faces.” Also on July 6, the chair of the Iranian parliament’s national security committee, Ebrahim Azizi, said that Iran will avenge Khamenei, assassinated military commanders, and Iranian civilians killed during the war.

One day later, on July 7, three regime officials made similar threats. Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who has also headed the Iranian delegation in negotiations with the U.S., promised revenge against Khamenei’s killers. Ghalibaf said that “the fulfillment of the divine promise is certain” and “the aggressors against the soil of Islamic Iran and the killers of the martyrs of this land, especially the leader of the Ummah, will pay for their actions.” Ghalibaf added that “the final step of revenge against the arrogant powers will materialize with the liberation of Holy Quds [Jerusalem].” That day, First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref said that the plea by attendees of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s funeral to “punish the killer terrorists” is a “legitimate demand,” adding that “the fulfillment of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s right to punish the perpetrators of this crime definitively is a sovereign obligation that will be achieved through strategic rationality.” Iranian lawmaker Hamid Rasaee made a more targeted and direct threat, saying that Iran should fire a missile at the location in Turkey where President Trump was staying for the NATO summit.

An Islamic Republic official also menaced the country’s Gulf neighbors on July 8, the same day that the regime had fired missiles at Bahrain and Kuwait. The spokesperson for the Iranian parliament’s national security committee, Ebrahim Rezaei, warned that “The Gulf states that have stood alongside Trump in the Iran-America regime conflict should watch over their oil and gas wells. In defense of the security of the great Iranian nation, we have no red lines.”

Not Negotiating and Achieving a Final Deal Expeditiously

Paragraph three of the MOU states that the U.S. and the Islamic Republic “commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in a maximum of 60 days, extendable by mutual consent.” However, on July 7, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that his government “will not resume negotiations as long as the first clause of the memorandum is not implemented and a ceasefire and cessation of hostilities [in Lebanon] are not achieved. There will be no final agreement with the Americans except after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, and no agreement without the implementation of this withdrawal.”

Interference with Freedom of Navigation

In paragraph five of the MOU, Iran shall “make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman, and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles and de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days.” However, since signing the agreement, Tehran has demonstrated that it intends to control the Strait completely and believes that “safe passage” means passage on its terms alone, with all other passage subject to Iranian violence and threats thereof.

In the first two weeks after the MOU was signed, the Iranian military first announced that it was closing the Strait and then attempted to dictate to ships that they could only take an Iran-approved route. The IRGC threatened and then attacked vessels attempting to take an alternative route, promoted by the International Maritime Organization, along the Omani coast. Over July 6 and 7, Iran struck again, firing missiles at three commercial ships transiting the Strait.

Refusal to Permit Verification of Nuclear Commitments

In paragraph eight, the regime “reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons” and “agreed,” together with the U.S., “to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph seven with the minimum methodology to be down-blending on site under the supervision of the [International Atomic Energy Agency].” Importantly, the paragraph also says that the U.S. and Iran” acknowledge the critical importance of the nuclear issues above mentioned and express their intention to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.”

Further, in paragraph nine, the Islamic Republic committed to “maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program” in exchange for the Trump administration’s pledge not to issue new sanctions on Iran or deploy further forces to the Middle East.

Iran’s compliance with its commitments in these paragraphs cannot be verified without complete access to its nuclear facilities and enriched uranium stockpile by the IAEA, as well as down-blending of that stockpile by the IAEA unless Iran agrees to a stronger arrangement, such as the removal of the stockpile from Iran by the U.S. However, the regime has categorically rejected engaging with and providing access to the IAEA, and did not budge from that position during the past week.

Finally, while more than one-third of the 60-day negotiating period has passed, Tehran has sought to evade discussing the nuclear issues, which paragraph nine says should be addressed “immediately.” The regime previously said that it intends to negotiate first over the unfreezing of its assets and the status of the Strait of Hormuz. Later, Iranian diplomats played games by refusing direct high-level meetings with their American counterparts, instead speaking with mediators from Qatar and Pakistan. Now, as noted above, the regime is outright refusing to negotiate until hostilities cease in Lebanon. These tactics enable Iran to avoid making concessions on its prized nuclear program and frustrate the Trump administration’s efforts to permanently prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons.

Conclusion

U.S. officials—including most importantly, the president—now recognize that the Iranian regime has not negotiated in good faith. As the Wall Street Journal reported, “Angered by the strikes [by Iran on vessels in the Strait of Hormuz on July 6], Trump pressed [Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth] on whether they believed Iran was serious about reaching a final deal. In the end, after discussing it with his senior aides, the president decided they weren’t.”

This realization has led President Trump to resume significant military strikes against Iran and say about the MOU that “For me, I think it’s over.” He later posted on Truth Social on Friday that talks would continue, but the ceasefire is over. The president should stick with that stance and void the agreement officially, ending an experiment that is based on the hope that, in exchange for financial incentives, the regime will turn over a new leaf and behave like any normal, responsible state. It will not, because the Islamic Republic is radical, revolutionary, and anti-American to its bones. While returning to full-fledged conflict with Tehran will not be an easy or popular decision, it will be grounded in reality, not wishful thinking.


Alan Goldsmith is UANI's Director of Outreach and Human Rights Research.