15JUN

Ghalibaf pre-refuses any Iran deal text

3 min read

11:40UTC

Majlis speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf told Tasnim on Monday that Iran's parliament will ratify no memorandum until Iranian rights are upheld, rejecting a deal text it has not yet seen.

← Back to Trump declares Iran war over Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictDeveloping

Key takeaway

Ghalibaf's pre-refusal hands Iran's Revolutionary Guard a domestic veto over any text the foreign minister negotiates.

Majlis speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf told Tasnim on Monday 1 June that no Memorandum of Understanding will be ratified "until we are certain the rights of the Iranian people have been upheld" ¹. The Majlis is Iran's 290-seat parliament; Ghalibaf, a former Revolutionary Guard commander, leads the bloc that voted 221-0 to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations nuclear watchdog. His statement pre-commits the chamber to refusing a deal whose text it has not yet seen.

The refusal lands the same week Trump returned a revised text demanding Iran's enriched-uranium stockpile be destroyed, a draft Iran's own security council has framed as a 10-point victory that recognises its enrichment . Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is negotiating that document, and a public pre-refusal from the speaker hands the Guard a domestic veto over whatever Araghchi brings home.

Much of that veto reads as theatre. Iran's war posture and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) budget run through The Supreme Leader's office, not the parliament, so a chamber that never controlled the instrument cannot bind the war by refusing to ratify it. What the refusal does change is the negotiating floor: every public condition Ghalibaf sets in advance becomes a line Araghchi cannot trade away without being seen to sell out the rights the speaker invoked.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Iran has a parliament called the Majlis. To be legally binding, a peace deal with the United States would need the Majlis to approve it , similar to how the US Senate ratifies international treaties. The speaker of the Majlis, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, publicly said on 1 June that the Majlis will not approve any agreement unless it fully protects Iran's rights. The catch: the Majlis voted 221-0 just weeks ago to cut off the United Nations nuclear inspectors from Iran, which is one of America's main demands in the deal. So the body that must ratify any agreement has already voted against one of the deal's key requirements. This creates a situation where Iran's chief diplomat could agree to a deal, but Iran's parliament refuses to confirm it.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

Ghalibaf's statement reflects the structural split between Iran's two overlapping power centres. The elected civilian government , Pezeshkian's presidency and Araghchi's Foreign Ministry , holds the negotiating mandate but not the ratification authority. The Majlis, controlled by a principlist-IRGC bloc, holds ratification power but was not involved in the negotiating rounds.

This separation was not accidental. Mojtaba Khamenei's appointment as Supreme Leader was engineered by IRGC networks that distrust civilian deal-making. Ghalibaf, a career IRGC officer, sat on the 221-0 IAEA suspension vote as a political signal to Tehran's negotiators that any deal must clear the IRGC institutional bloc before it clears the Majlis. The pre-refusal is the Majlis's institutional mechanism for asserting that the deal's terms must satisfy the IRGC before ratification proceeds.

Escalation

Direction: escalatory on the diplomatic track. A parliamentary veto of any text, regardless of its contents, removes the ratification pathway that would give an MOU legal standing inside Iran. This raises the probability that any deal is executive-only , a handshake between Trump and Khamenei without institutional anchoring on either side.

What could happen next?

Risk
Ghalibaf's public pre-commitment narrows Iran's internal space for a face-saving ratification; the Supreme Leader would need to explicitly override the Majlis speaker to secure parliamentary approval, requiring a public humiliation of a senior IRGC ally.
Short term · Assessed
Consequence
Any MOU that lacks Majlis ratification will lack the legal standing required for OFAC sanctions relief, since US Treasury requires treaty-level instruments for broad sanctions suspension , leaving any 'deal' as a verbal executive arrangement with no enforcement on either side.
Medium term · Reported
Precedent
The JCPOA 2015 precedent shows Majlis pre-refusals can dissolve under Supreme Leader pressure, but that required a different Supreme Leader with stronger theological legitimacy than Mojtaba Khamenei currently holds.
Medium term · Reported

Source Landscape

This story draws on centre-left-leaning sources from Qatar

Qatar

Primary parallel: The 2015 JCPOA ratification precedent. Iran's Majlis passed a bill in October 2015 that approved the JCPOA while simultaneously adding conditions , including a ban on snap inspections of military sites , that technically violated the deal's Additional Protocol requirements.

The Majlis pre-committed to rejection, then passed a modified approval. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei accepted the outcome by framing ratification as a conditional endorsement, not a capitulation. The structural mechanism: a Supreme Leader can redefine the terms of institutional compliance when the national interest calculus changes.

Counter-parallel: Iran's 1988 ceasefire with Iraq. Khomeini accepted UN Resolution 598 after publicly swearing never to do so, describing it as 'drinking a cup of poison'. The Majlis never voted on the ceasefire at all , The Supreme Leader's constitutional authority to determine national interest simply superseded parliamentary procedure. If Mojtaba Khamenei decides to accept a deal, Ghalibaf's pre-refusal may simply not matter.

Consensus view: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace analyst Karim Sadjadpour and RUSI Iran researcher Kasra Aarabi assess Ghalibaf's statement as structurally predetermined rather than a negotiating position.

Ghalibaf voted with the 221-0 bloc that suspended IAEA cooperation; a speaker who publicly leads that bloc cannot ratify a deal that restores it. The pre-refusal is not obstruction , it is the Majlis signalling that Araghchi's diplomatic track and the hardliner institutional bloc are operating on incompatible mandates.

Counter-view: The International Crisis Group's Iran team and Tehran University's Department of International Relations read the statement differently: Ghalibaf's 'rights of the Iranian people' formulation is the same language Iran used in the 2015 JCPOA ratification debates, where the Majlis eventually approved a deal it had publicly pre-refused.

Parliamentary pre-refusals in Iranian constitutional practice function as face-saving frameworks for later compliance, not hard vetos. The 221-0 IAEA vote was unanimous precisely because hardliners allowed reformists to join; it does not prove caucus discipline on a future deal.

Key tension: Whether Ghalibaf's public statement locks the Majlis institutionally, or whether The Supreme Leader's authority to frame a deal as a 'national interest' victory under Article 110 of the Iranian constitution overrides the Majlis pre-commitment.

Sources:Al Jazeera

Mentions:Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf →Majlis →Tasnim →IAEA →Abbas Araghchi →US Senate →Iraq →International Crisis Group →Ali Khamenei →Karim Sadjadpour →Iran →Tehran →Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) →RUSI →United States →Mojtaba Khamenei →Carnegie Endowment for International Peace →United Nations →

First Reported In

Update #114 · Two parliaments, one war neither can govern

Al Jazeera· 1 Jun 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

This Event

Ghalibaf pre-refuses any Iran deal text

Iran's parliament has committed in advance to rejecting any negotiated text, narrowing the deal space for the foreign minister even though the body it speaks for never controlled the war.

Led to

Iran walks out of talks at 09:56

Ghalibaf's 1 June pre-refusal of MOU ratification accompanied Iran's formal suspension of all mediated talks the same morning.

Occurred 1 Jun 2026

Read story →

Different Perspectives

G7 Leaders (ex-US)

Kananaskis ended without a joint communique for the first time in the body's history; Macron credited G7 pressure with speeding the ceasefire while Trump publicly denied the summit played any role. The split between US and European G7 partners over what the memorandum means for sanctions relief was the direct cause of the text failure.

Protection-and-Indemnity insurers

London-based P&I mutual clubs declined to underwrite Hormuz crossings while the IRGC Strait Authority remained operational, making the passage commercially impassable regardless of the memorandum's terms. Shipping operators said they would wait weeks for on-water conditions to change before routing tankers through.

IRGC Persian Gulf Strait Authority

P&I mutual insurers declined to underwrite Hormuz crossings on 15-16 June while the IRGC's Strait Authority remained in operation, reducing actual transits to two vessels against a pre-war daily rate of 94. The corps' revenue-generating toll mechanism, created 5 May and collecting $1.5-2 million per VLCC in crypto, has not been stood down and cannot be dissolved by Ghalibaf's signature.

Israeli Cabinet

Netanyahu admitted he had not seen the memorandum's text but confirmed IDF forces would stay in southern Lebanon; Finance Minister Smotrich called for ten Beirut buildings destroyed per Hezbollah drone and National Security Minister Ben-Gvir said the agreement 'does not bind us in any way'. Israel signed nothing in Islamabad and is the central unresolved variable in the Lebanon clause.

Iranian Majlis hardliners

Around 60 MPs signed a letter demanding Ghalibaf explain the memorandum; Paydari faction MP Sabeti said the deal violates the Supreme Leader's red lines, and MP Aboutorabi argued the document carries binding obligations 'that cannot be resolved by simply changing the name'. President Pezeshkian defended the negotiators against accusations of betrayal, confirming the fracture inside Iran's political class.

US Vice President JD Vance

Vance signed on 15 June and said the memorandum was 'not conditioned on Israel withdrawing from Lebanon' while also saying it 'envisioned a ceasefire that covers both Iran and Lebanon'. The two formulations are incompatible and hand Iran's foreign minister a ready-made violation claim before Geneva.