Islamabad-based analysts say the proposed US-Iran memorandum of understanding may lower tensions but leave Israel wary of unresolved nuclear, missile, and regional threats
[ISLAMABAD] A proposed US-Iran memorandum of understanding appeared to face a delay on Sunday, as Iranian officials signaled that Tehran had not yet given final approval despite earlier statements from US President Donald Trump and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif that a virtual signing ceremony would take place within 24 hours.
The emerging agreement, reportedly mediated by Pakistan and Qatar, is intended to ease regional tensions, advance follow-up nuclear negotiations, and reopen key transit routes. Its timing has become a central question as competing signals from Washington, Islamabad, Tehran, Doha, and Jerusalem shape expectations about whether the deal will move forward.
Iran’s Fars News Agency, citing a source it described as credible, reported Sunday afternoon that Iran had not reached a final decision on the proposed understanding with the United States. The report said political, legal, and technical reviews of the proposal were still underway inside the Iranian system.
According to Fars, the source said the Islamic Republic had consistently maintained that any decision on a potential agreement would be made solely to safeguard national interests, preserve Iran’s red lines, and obtain the necessary guarantees.
Saudi news outlet Al Arabiya reported that the United States and Iran were still expected to sign an agreement during a virtual meeting Sunday. The talks, reportedly mediated by Pakistan and Qatar, are expected to include the signing of a memorandum of understanding to ease tensions and restore regional transit routes.
Tasnim News Agency reported that a high-ranking Qatari delegation had arrived in Tehran for talks with Iranian officials on the latest diplomatic efforts. The meeting reportedly included a review of recent regional developments and the state of the negotiations.
As diplomacy continued, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz said Sunday that the Israel Defense Forces had struck Hezbollah targets in Beirut’s Dahieh district in response to Hezbollah fire toward Israel. The strike came a week after Israeli operations in Beirut helped trigger a rapid escalation between Iran and Israel.
In a joint statement, Netanyahu and Katz said the military operation targeted “terrorist targets” belonging to Hezbollah: “We will not tolerate fire into our territory.”
Iran warned that the Israeli strikes could damage the diplomatic process. Mohammad Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker and a chief negotiator, wrote on X that the attack “has once again shown that America either lacks the will to fulfill its commitments or the ability to do so.”
Israeli officials have voiced concern that the proposed memorandum of understanding could leave Israel exposed to future threats from Iran and groups it supports across the region. On Saturday night, Israeli officials told N12 that the emerging agreement could put Israel’s security at risk and restrict its ability to act against Iran-backed groups such as Hezbollah.
Although media reports suggest that President Trump has kept Netanyahu informed about the emerging memorandum of understanding with Iran, opposition leaders in Israel have sharply criticized the proposal.
Yair Lapid, a former prime minister and current opposition leader, said the emerging agreement achieves none of Israel’s war goals. He argued that the Iranian regime would survive, its missile program would remain intact, and Tehran could rebuild its nuclear program.
This is a complete failure by Netanyahu, and in the process, he is turning us into a client state that takes orders about its national security
In a post on X on Saturday, Lapid said: “This is a complete failure by Netanyahu, and in the process, he is turning us into a client state that takes orders about its national security.”
Dr. Azeem Khalid, a New York-based international relations expert, told The Media Line that “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is unlikely to view any US–Iran understanding through the same lens as President Donald Trump.”
Khalid said Israel could not block an agreement between Washington and Tehran, but it could influence the political and security environment around it. He said Israeli concerns over Iran’s nuclear program, missile capabilities, and regional network of armed groups would not disappear simply because a document was signed.
“If Israel concludes Tehran is using diplomacy to preserve strategic advantages, friction between Washington and Tel Aviv could emerge quickly. Israel’s political lobby in Washington could complicate or even disrupt the process,” he said.
Khalid said the peace framework was likely to remain fragile because of Israeli security concerns and domestic political pressure on Netanyahu.
This agreement should be seen as a test, not a victory
“This agreement should be seen as a test, not a victory,” he said. “If the next 60 days bring verifiable nuclear limits, IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] access, phased sanctions relief, restraint by regional proxies, and some regional support, including Israeli concerns, the agreement could reshape Middle East dynamics.”
If the process fails, Khalid warned, Israel could still affect developments despite not being a signatory, raising the risk of renewed escalation, higher oil prices, proxy tensions, and wider uncertainty.
He said diplomacy had opened the door, and the key question was whether President Trump, Iran’s leadership, Netanyahu, and other regional players would choose to move through it.
Natasha Matloob, an Islamabad-based analyst and researcher whose work focuses on politics, security, and human rights in South Asia and the Middle East, told The Media Line that “Israel will not openly reject this agreement, but it will not embrace it either.”
Matloob said Israel was likely to accept the agreement only reluctantly and would continue pressing for tougher follow-on nuclear negotiations.
“Israel will work behind the scenes to harden the follow-on nuclear negotiations,” she said, adding that “acceptance will be reluctant and conditional.”
“The deeper conflicts are there, Iran’s regional proxies, Lebanon, Yemen, still remain unresolved,” Matloob told The Media Line.
This is a pause, not a permanent peace. The next 60 days of nuclear talks are decisive and will determine whether this holds.
She added that “this is a pause, not a permanent peace. The next 60 days of nuclear talks are decisive and will determine whether this holds.”
Inside Iran, the political environment remains sensitive. Reports from Iranian and regional outlets indicate internal opposition to the proposed agreement, including demonstrations by hardline protesters in Tehran and Mashhad. The protests reflect widening divisions between those supporting diplomatic engagement for economic relief and factions strongly opposed to any compromise with Washington.
Speaking to Fars News Agency, Brig. Gen. Abolfazl Shekarchi, senior spokesman for Iran’s Armed Forces, accused President Trump of relying more on slogans, tweets, and media campaigns than action on the ground.
Shekarchi said President Trump was seeking a way out of the war and ongoing crises and trying to find an honorable exit strategy. He added that Iran had responded to its enemies on the battlefield and would continue to do so, saying slogans, tweets, and psychological warfare would not solve America’s problems.
A senior US administration official, speaking to journalists in a phone briefing, said the proposed agreement would have regional scope beyond Iran itself.
The official said that “it includes Lebanon, it includes Iran, it includes Gulf coastal states, and it includes Israel.”
The official added that Washington is “80 to 85%” confident that an agreement with Iran will be signed in the coming days.
He said the agreement would include “significant” sanctions relief and the unfreezing of Iranian assets, in exchange for Iran agreeing to dismantle its nuclear program and surrender its nuclear material.
Islamabad, which has played a central mediation role, had not issued a new public comment by Sunday afternoon.
Matloob said Pakistan had already achieved an important diplomatic milestone by helping facilitate engagement between Washington and Tehran after decades of hostility. She added that a successful agreement would further elevate Islamabad’s diplomatic standing, while even a failed effort would leave Pakistan with credit for attempting to reduce regional tensions.
She also noted that Pakistan’s geographic proximity to Iran, longstanding ties with Saudi Arabia, and constructive relations with China had strengthened its diplomatic credibility.
Washington says a deal is close, Pakistan and Qatar are trying to push it over the line, and Israel is warning against concessions that could leave Iran’s military and regional networks intact. Tehran, meanwhile, says it is still reviewing the terms—and until that review ends, the signing remains uncertain.
