Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
Iran Conflict 2026
16JUN

The IRGC has not signed the deal text

3 min read
10:20UTC

IRGC-aligned Tasnim said on 13 June the deal text still needs institutional review, the same day Araghchi raced to sign it digitally.

← Back to Iran deal signed, but no paper to showJump to analysis ↓
ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Iran's diplomats want to sign, but IRGC commander Vahidi, who froze talks on 1 June, has not assented.

Tasnim, the news agency aligned with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), said on 13 June the deal text "still requires review and finalisation by the relevant institutions in Iran". 1 It ran the same day Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was pushing to sign digitally. The Washington-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a think tank that publishes daily conflict assessments, said it was unclear whether Mojtaba Khamenei or IRGC commander Ahmad Vahidi had accepted the details. 2

The IRGC is Iran's parallel armed force, and its budget and command run through The Supreme Leader's office rather than parliament. That structure is why pro-deal Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the faction Araghchi belongs to, cannot bind Vahidi. The corps does not answer to the diplomats trying to sign over its head.

Vahidi proved the mechanism on 1 June, suspending negotiations after Trump amended the draft and freezing the entire track unilaterally while the Foreign Ministry stayed at the table. Nothing since has reversed that authority. Analysts had already placed day-to-day war authority with the IRGC while Khamenei stayed unseen and produced no MoU response . A single faction can halt the deal again, exactly as it did a fortnight ago.

Trump's claim of approval at the highest Iranian level becomes falsifiable the moment Tasnim or Vahidi contradicts it, which on 13 June they effectively did. Whichever faction signs the digital text decides which institution controls Iranian foreign policy this weekend. The diplomats are sprinting; the men who hold the guns have not said yes.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Iran has two sets of people who can speak for the government: the civilian side, led by Foreign Minister Araghchi, who was racing to sign a digital deal text on 13 June; and the military side, led by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a powerful army that reports directly to the Supreme Leader, not to the civilian government. Tasnim is the IRGC's unofficial newspaper. When Tasnim said on 13 June that the deal text "still requires review", it was the IRGC's way of publicly saying it had not yet signed off. The IRGC commander, Ahmad Vahidi, had already frozen talks once before on 1 June after Trump changed the draft. His endorsement, and probably the Supreme Leader's, are required before any deal can actually hold.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

The IRGC's institutional budget and command authority runs through the Supreme Leader's office, not through parliament or the presidency. Araghchi's Foreign Ministry cannot bind the corps to an MoU because the corps does not fall under Foreign Ministry command.

Vahidi suspended negotiations on 1 June after Trump amended the draft, which established a precedent: corps commanders can halt the civilian diplomatic track unilaterally. The 13 June Tasnim signal repeats that structural move without requiring Vahidi to use the word "suspended" again.

What could happen next?
  • Risk

    A digital signing by Araghchi without explicit IRGC and Supreme Leader endorsement would produce a document one corps commander could void, repeating the April ceasefire collapse pattern.

    Immediate · Assessed
  • Meaning

    Tasnim publishing the review-needed signal on the same day as the digital-signing sprint suggests the IRGC chose public contradiction over private veto, escalating the internal visibility of the split.

    Immediate · Assessed
  • Consequence

    Speaker Ghalibaf's pro-deal parliamentary faction loses leverage every day the IRGC's review posture holds; any deal text that reaches the Majlis without corps buy-in faces a 221-0 rejection precedent from the 4 June IAEA cooperation vote.

    Short term · Suggested
Sources:Tasnim News Agency
Mentions:Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) →Ahmad Vahidi →Mojtaba Khamenei →Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf →Tasnim →Institute for the Study of War →Abbas Araghchi →Iran →Ali Khamenei →Fars News →Washington →Tehran →
First Reported In

Update #126 · The weekend signing that never reached paper

Tasnim News Agency· 13 Jun 2026
Read original →
Causes and effects
This Event
The IRGC has not signed the deal text
Iran's diplomats want the deal; the military commanders who run the war have not assented. Which faction signs the digital text answers a domestic question: who controls Iranian foreign policy this weekend.
Led to
Iran's deal waits on a leader unseen since March
The IRGC's review-needed stance on 13 June deepens the analyst assessment that the corps holds day-to-day war authority and Khamenei produced no MoU response (ID:4123).
Occurred 11 Jun 2026
Read story →
Trump halts strikes, Iran denies deal
The IRGC's public non-endorsement of the text on 13 June is a domestic consequence of Trump's unsigned MoU claim that Iran's political factions are now visibly contesting.
Occurred 12 Jun 2026
Read story →
Iran hardliners revolt against the deal
IRGC-aligned Tasnim's 13 June statement that the deal still needed review anticipated the hardliner revolt that followed the announcement.
Occurred 15 Jun 2026
Read story →
Different Perspectives
G7 Leaders (ex-US)
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
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
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
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
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
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.