A fragile memorandum replaces regime-change rhetoric with conditional diplomacy.
TEHRAN, IRAN — June 2026. Iran’s political establishment is presenting the emerging framework agreement with the United States as evidence that the Islamic Republic resisted military and economic pressure without surrendering its governing structure. The narrative promoted by hardline sectors portrays the memorandum as a strategic victory over Washington, even as serious divisions persist inside Iran over whether the document protects all the country’s declared red lines.
The agreement represents a dramatic shift from earlier expectations that sustained pressure could weaken or even remove the Iranian government. Washington is now focused primarily on limiting Iran’s nuclear program and securing commitments capable of preventing another military escalation. United States Vice President JD Vance said the Trump administration had never promised to install exiled opposition figure Reza Pahlavi as Iran’s new leader, emphasizing that the objective was to end Tehran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.
President Donald Trump has also attempted to limit expectations surrounding the agreement. He has described the document as a memorandum of understanding rather than a definitive peace settlement and stressed that it must be followed by 60 days of negotiations. Trump warned that American military operations could resume if Iran failed to comply with the conditions eventually established by both sides.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are expected to play a decisive role in determining whether the diplomatic process survives. The organization controls major elements of the country’s military infrastructure, regional networks and strategic maritime operations. Its leaders have used Iran’s influence over the Strait of Hormuz and other shipping routes to strengthen their position inside the political system and shape the terms accepted by Tehran.
Esmail Qaani, commander of the Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force, made his first public appearance in months to discuss the agreement. During an interview with Iranian state television, he highlighted the influence retained by Tehran’s regional partners near the Bab al-Mandab Strait. His comments were interpreted as a reminder that Iran can continue applying pressure to another vital maritime corridor even as restrictions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz are relaxed.
Bab al-Mandab connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and is essential to international shipping between Europe and Asia. The Quds Force has helped construct the network known as the Axis of Resistance, which includes Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, armed groups in Iraq and other organizations supported by Tehran. Iran’s ability to influence these groups remains one of its principal sources of strategic leverage in negotiations with the United States and regional governments.
The agreement has also exposed competition between Iran’s political authorities and the Revolutionary Guards. Civilian leaders reportedly favored reaching a rapid settlement that could end the conflict, reopen maritime routes and provide economic relief. Senior commanders resisted concessions and used their control over military operations in the Strait of Hormuz to influence Tehran’s negotiating position.
Hardline officials are expected to emphasize that the memorandum contains no requirements for regime change, political reform or modifications to Iran’s internal system of government. They will also focus on language requiring the United States and Iran to respect each other’s sovereignty. This framing allows the government to claim that it survived military confrontation and forced Washington to negotiate without abandoning the institutions of the Islamic Republic.
The economic provisions offer Tehran additional material for that narrative. Sanctions relief, resumed oil exports, access to frozen assets and the reopening of maritime traffic could provide urgently needed revenue to Iran’s weakened economy. Iranian state media reported that three tankers carrying a combined five million barrels of oil crossed the Strait of Hormuz after Trump announced the lifting of the American naval blockade.
Support for the agreement is not universal, even among conservative political figures. Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, described the memorandum as unbalanced and said some of Iran’s red lines had not been respected. He argued that the country remains involved in a large-scale hybrid war and should use the temporary opening to strengthen itself.
The debate is unfolding as Iran prepares official funeral ceremonies for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed during the American and Israeli airstrikes that began the war on February 28. His death created an important political and symbolic transition for the Islamic Republic. The government must now present the agreement as a continuation of national resistance rather than an admission that military pressure forced Tehran to retreat.
Distrust of Washington remains widespread within the Iranian establishment. Hossein Shariatmadari, director of the ultraconservative newspaper Kayhan, criticized Iranian negotiators for failing to publish the memorandum themselves. He argued that citizens should not have been forced to learn its contents through American media and demanded parliamentary scrutiny before the process advances.
The agreement has also complicated the position of Iranian opposition leaders in exile. Reza Pahlavi rejected the framework and warned that any arrangement with the Islamic Republic would eventually fail. He argued that Tehran would continue using nuclear development, regional armed groups and political repression to pressure both the international community and Iran’s population.
Trump, meanwhile, denied reports that the memorandum includes a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran. He insisted that the United States would not finance the country’s recovery and repeated that the agreement remains conditional. His comments highlighted the uncertainty surrounding a document that Tehran is presenting as a victory while Washington continues to threaten renewed military action.
Israel has criticized the speed with which the framework was reached and warned that sanctions relief could strengthen Iran’s government and military institutions. Israeli objections are likely to influence the negotiations during the 60-day window established for producing a definitive agreement. The survival of the memorandum will depend on nuclear inspections, regional security guarantees, sanctions implementation and the ability of both governments to control factions opposed to compromise.
For Tehran, the immediate objective is to transform survival into political legitimacy and economic recovery. For Washington, the priority is to prevent Iran from rebuilding a nuclear weapons capability while avoiding another prolonged conflict. The agreement may have shifted the debate from regime change to negotiation with the regime, but the military threats, internal divisions and regional rivalries surrounding it remain unresolved.
At Phoenix24, global power is measured by actions, not declarations.