Ashraf AboArafe writes
IN recent hours, the Iranian-American agreement has entered a highly critical and decisive phase, marked by intensive logistical preparations for the anticipated signing in Geneva and a sharp divergence in political interpretations between Tehran and Washington. Amid this rapid momentum, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced that a final text for the memorandum of understanding had been reached and was expected to be signed under the auspices of U.S. Vice President JD Vance.
However, the celebratory atmosphere that Washington sought to project quickly collided with realities on the ground. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stepped forward to firmly confirm that the draft consists of 14 fundamental provisions, focusing in its initial stage on ending the war as the cornerstone of a critical 60-day testing period. This position clearly demonstrates that Tehran is not negotiating from a position of weakness, but rather presenting its terms on the basis of military realities shaped by its strategic capabilities.
The Diplomatic Confrontation: Illusions of Moral Victory versus Battlefield Resilience
In contrast, the American response reflected a state of shock and confusion regarding the firmness of the Iranian position. U.S. President Donald Trump took to his Truth Social platform to launch a sharp attack and categorical denial, describing the leaked Iranian proposals as “false claims that have nothing to do with what was agreed upon in writing,” while asserting that Iranians “have no concept of negotiating in good faith.”
This heated exchange was not merely a disagreement over the interpretation of provisions. Rather, it exposed what the article characterizes as a desperate attempt by Trump and Netanyahu to claim a hollow moral victory in order to obscure their operational setbacks. It also highlighted efforts to promote terms drafted from a unilateral and coercive perspective aimed at pressuring Iran—an approach that Tehran rejected outright.
According to this perspective, the agreement fails to acknowledge what is viewed as Iran’s military advantage and the strikes carried out by Tehran’s missile forces against targets deep inside Israel and against strategic U.S. assets in the region. Unless both leaders abandon what the article describes as illusions of supremacy and recognize the emerging balance of power, no diplomatic track is likely to achieve lasting success.
Red Lines: Tehran’s Conditions for a New Regional Order
Iran’s steadfast position amid the American backlash revolves around sovereign principles that it considers non-negotiable and that, in its view, international mediators must fully understand:
- Sovereignty and Withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): The unrestricted continuation of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, coupled with the rejection of what Tehran regards as politically motivated interference by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the possibility of pursuing a complete withdrawal from the NPT.
- Comprehensive Sanctions Relief and Compensation: Rejecting partial or temporary sanctions waivers and insisting on the immediate removal of all sanctions, while seeking full material and moral compensation for the economic damage imposed on the Iranian people over years of sanctions and isolation.
- Full Sovereignty over Strategic Waterways: Reaffirming Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz and other vital maritime routes, rejecting foreign military presence, and maintaining what Tehran describes as a policy of deterrence against external military pressure.
The Defining Choice: Popular Support and the Responsibility of Mediators
Against this backdrop of political turbulence, Iran’s leadership faces what it considers a historic responsibility. From this perspective, any retreat in the face of demands associated with Netanyahu and supported by the Trump administration would risk eroding Iran’s popular support base, diminishing its symbolic standing, and weakening the deterrent capabilities that it believes have been built through years of sacrifice.
Consequently, the message directed at international and regional mediators is unequivocal: Iran views itself as a major power whose influence is rooted in military, political, and diplomatic realities on the ground. Any attempt to bypass these realities through diplomatic pressure alone is seen as a losing strategy. In this view, the emerging regional landscape is being shaped by deterrence and power balances rather than by the dictates of traditional rivals.
