3SEP

Tehran threatens to annul Iran deal

3 min read

16:40UTC

Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei told Lebanon's Al Akhbar on 18 June that continued Israeli presence in south Lebanon would mean annulment of the Islamabad memorandum, the first time Tehran has reached for that word.

← Back to Iran says it re-mined the cleared lanes Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictDeveloping

Key takeaway

Iran threatened to void the deal it signed over the conduct of a belligerent that never signed it.

Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei told Lebanon's Al Akhbar on 18 June that continued Israeli military presence in south Lebanon would mean "annulment" of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) ¹. He called the end of the Lebanon war "inseparable" from the deal, and said a second phase of negotiations toward a final agreement could succeed only if the memorandum was fully implemented, including a complete IDF withdrawal.

Baghaei speaks for Iran's civilian foreign ministry, the arm that negotiated and signed the MOU. Tehran had first reached for a "violation clause" on 15 June, after a Hezbollah exchange with Israeli forces . "Annulment" is a sharper word, and a newer one: it threatens to void the whole agreement rather than log a breach within it.

The legal awkwardness sits at the centre. Iran signed the MOU through Foreign Minister Araghchi and parliament speaker Ghalibaf ; the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) did not, and their refusal to leave south Lebanon is the conduct Baghaei now cites as grounds to collapse the deal. Hezbollah answers to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, not to Ghalibaf, so every day the IDF stays in the zone hands the corps a clause to invoke while the civilian government carries the signature. Baghaei's "inseparable" framing makes the Lebanon ceasefire a trigger the elected government cannot switch off.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

When two countries sign a deal, they usually use careful language. Iran's spokesperson used the word 'annulment', which is different from just saying the deal was broken. In legal terms, annulling an agreement treats it as if it never happened; invoking a violation triggers a dispute mechanism that leaves the agreement intact. Baghaei chose annulment: Iran would tear up the entire document, erasing both sides' commitments. The IDF declared its south Lebanon deployment unlimited on 14 June, before signing, and has not moved. Israel never signed the MOU, so no mechanism exists to compel it to leave.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

The MOU's fatal drafting error is the Article 1 'all fronts' clause applied to a party, the IDF, that rejected the agreement before ink was dry. Israeli Defence Minister Katz stated the IDF stay in Lebanon was 'unlimited' on 14 June, pre-empting the clause before the digital signatures were applied.

Iran signed an agreement whose most public domestic selling point, ending the Lebanon war, rests on Israeli compliance Iran cannot compel and Washington declined to guarantee. The IRGC-linked Gooya/Tasnim outlet explicitly noted the US had accepted 'Iran's text', meaning Tehran believes it negotiated the stronger position; Baghaei's annulment language is the mechanism for defending that position publicly.

Escalation

The escalation direction in the Lebanon track moved sharply upward on 18 June. Baghaei's annulment statement came within hours of the Filin killing, compressing a sequence that Iran's 15 June violation invocation had left open. The civilian foreign ministry and the IRGC are now publicly aligned on the Lebanon grievance, narrowing the diplomatic space available for Washington to absorb the IDF's continued presence without formal Iranian action.

What could happen next?

Risk
If Mojtaba Khamenei publicly endorses Baghaei's annulment framing before the 19 June ceremony, the Geneva meeting becomes a cancellation exercise rather than a formalisation.
Immediate · Reported
Consequence
The annulment threat gives Senate Republicans a new argument for conditioning the $300 billion reconstruction package: Iran is already signalling treaty non-compliance on Day Three.
Short term · Assessed
Meaning
Tehran has established that Lebanon is a veto condition on the entire MOU, not a side issue. Any US-Iran final agreement must resolve the IDF Lebanon presence, a bilateral Israeli matter Washington historically refuses to dictate.
Medium term · Assessed

Source Landscape

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

Qatar

Israel

Primary parallel: In April 1994 the Arafat-signed Oslo Accords faced a structural annulment threat when Hamas carried out the Afula bus bombing. Arafat chose not to invoke annulment and instead denounced Hamas, absorbing the political cost domestically.

Iran faces the same choice: denounce Hezbollah's attack (domestically untenable given the IRGC's Lebanon relationship) or invoke annulment (destroys the deal's economic relief). The structural constraint is the same: the signing party cannot both condemn and protect its proxy at the same time.

Counter-parallel: In September 1993 the PLO-Israeli Declaration of Principles survived multiple subsequent Palestinian Islamic Jihad attacks without formal annulment because both signatories had economic incentives to maintain the framework. The Islamabad MoU carries the same asymmetric incentive: Iran needs sanctions relief more than it needs Lebanon leverage, suggesting the annulment threat will not be acted upon as long as the OFAC waiver gap is open .

Consensus view: Baghaei moved from the 'violation' wording Iran used on 15 June to 'annulment' on 18 June, raising the legal stakes. Invoking a violation triggers a dispute-resolution mechanism that keeps the agreement intact; annulment voids the agreement as if it never existed. Baghaei chose annulment, a term that exposes the MOU's critical drafting weakness: Iran signed an agreement whose primary military non-compliance vector, the IDF, never signed it.

Counter-view: Iran International reported that hardline critics inside Iran framed the same IED attack as evidence of US bad faith rather than Iranian escalation, arguing Tehran's annulment language is directed at Washington as a demand for pressure on Israel, not a genuine withdrawal notice. On this reading Tehran aims the annulment word at Washington to force pressure on Israel rather than signalling intent to withdraw.

Key tension: Whether Baghaei's annulment threat carries institutional backing from Mojtaba Khamenei, who has not spoken publicly, or whether the civilian foreign ministry is overreaching in a direction the IRGC has not authorised.

Sources:Al Jazeera·Times of Israel

Mentions:Esmaeil Baqaei →Iran →Israel Defense Forces (IDF) →Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding →Mojtaba Khamenei →Islamabad →OFAC →Hamas →Iran International →Israel →Hezbollah →Washington →Tehran →Al Akhbar →Lebanon →

First Reported In

Update #131 · Iran deal's first death tests the text

Al Jazeera· 18 Jun 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

Hezbollah bomb kills an Israeli reservist

Filin's death prompted Baghaei to escalate from violation-clause language to annulment threat on 18 June.

Occurred 18 Jun 2026

Read story →

Hezbollah fired on Israel hours after signing

Baghaei's annulment threat built on his earlier violation-clause invocation after the 15 June exchange.

Occurred 15 Jun 2026

Read story →

This Event

Tehran threatens to annul Iran deal

Iran is threatening to void the deal it signed over the conduct of a belligerent, the IDF, that never signed it.

Led to

Israeli minister wants Lebanon to burn

Baghaei's annulment threat on 18 June (event 5) escalates his earlier threat (ID:4306) by hardening it with the specific IDF Lebanon-presence trigger.

Occurred 18 Jun 2026

Read story →

Different Perspectives

China's foreign ministry

Spokesman Lin Jian rejected Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's 25 August warning that Iranian oil buyers face an "economic D-Day", saying sanctions do not help and that Beijing would safeguard its own rights and interests. China's Iranian crude imports had already halved for unrelated reasons.

Iraq's government and Erbil authorities

Erbil authorities said 10 explosive-laden drones were shot down over the city on 1-2 September with no casualties. Iraq's government condemned the attacks without naming Iran as their source, and neither Washington nor Baghdad confirmed the IRGC's claim to have hit US bases there.

Bahrain Defence Force

The General Command said air defences intercepted several Iranian missiles and drones on 1-2 September and called the use of such weapons against civilians and private property a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law.

Kuwait's Fire Force and foreign ministry

KUNA reported a hostile Iranian drone struck a residential complex in Kuwait City on 2 September; Fire Force spokesman Brigadier General Mohammad Al-Gharib said losses were confined to property. Kuwait's foreign ministry called the attack a clear breach of its sovereignty.

Jordan's Armed Forces

Petra carried a statement that air defences intercepted eight missiles violating Jordanian airspace early on 31 August and 10 of 13 fired on 1 September. The statement named no target and did not address the IRGC's claim to have struck Camp Titin and killed US personnel.

CENTCOM

CENTCOM's 1 September target list named IRGC air defence, radar, maritime and mine-laying sites in Iran but no tanker, after Axios reported anonymous officials describing a Trump-approved "tanker for tanker" drone policy. A CENTCOM spokesman declined to confirm the policy and referred questions to policymakers.