The final hours before the announcement of the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) were marked by high-stakes brinkmanship, with the Israeli strike on Beirut’s southern suburb (Dahiyeh) reportedly triggering a last-minute overhaul of key provisions—particularly those related to Lebanon, according to Iranian sources cited by a researcherز
The attack on Dahiyeh proved to be a decisive turning point, prompting Tehran to reopen the agreement and push for stronger, binding guarantees on Lebanon’s sovereignty, Fatima Al-Smadi, a Researcher at the Al Jazeera Centre for Studies.
Prior to the strike, the draft deal centered on a ceasefire across multiple fronts, including Lebanon, with commitments by both Washington and Tehran to restrain their allies, the analyst noted.
تتحدث مصادر من داخل إيران عن تفاصيل الساعات التي سبقت الإعلان عن الاتفاق :
— Fatima Alsmadi | فاطمة الصمادي (@AlsmadiFatima) June 15, 2026
شكّل الهجوم الإسرائيلي على الضاحية الجنوبية لبيروت نقطة تحوّل حاسمة في مسار التفاهم بين طهران وواشنطن، وأدى إلى تعديل جوهري في بنوده، خصوصاً ما يتعلق بلبنان.
الرد الإيراني كان وشيكاً: عقب الهجوم، اتجه…
“But in the immediate aftermath, Iran moved toward escalation, with preparations for a large-scale missile response against Israel. Intense regional and international mediation efforts followed, aiming to prevent a collapse of negotiations and a wider war.”
According to the sources, US attempts to contain the situation through economic and financial incentives, and even proposals related to lifting the naval blockade, were rejected by Tehran as insufficient. Instead, Iran insisted that any progress hinge on revising the Lebanon-related clauses.
Tehran consequently secured a key amendment affirming Lebanon’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and unity as part of the agreement’s core guarantees, Al-Smadi added. The change effectively shifted the deal’s nature beyond a ceasefire, linking any end to hostilities with a halt to violations of Lebanese sovereignty, and subsequently a condition related to Israeli withdrawal.
“A new punitive provision was also introduced, granting Iran the right to take retaliatory and deterrent measures if Israel breaches its commitments, including the option to reconsider or withdraw from the agreement.”
Despite the revised framework, Iranian sources stressed that Tehran’s right to respond to the Beirut attack remains intact, with the agreement instead establishing mechanisms to govern future escalation, according to the researcher.
She underlined that the negotiations also entrenched the principle of “interconnected fronts,” meaning any flare-up in one arena—particularly Lebanon—could trigger wider repercussions, while giving Iran broader political and legal latitude to act in response to future Israeli actions.
Source: Social media (translated and edited by Al-Manar)