Executive Summary

The operational reporting period of July 11 through July 17, 2026, marks the functional collapse of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) ceasefire framework and a severe escalation in the Middle East conflict theater. The environment has transitioned from managed tactical friction into a sustained, multi-domain war of attrition. The strategic landscape is currently defined by a “dual-track” paradigm: Washington and Tehran are engaging in maximum military escalation—targeting critical civilian, economic, and military infrastructure—while simultaneously preserving isolated diplomatic backchannels to manage escalation thresholds and prevent total regional conflagration.

Diplomatically, the Bürgenstock architecture is unraveling. The “Lebanon deconfliction cell,” designed to isolate the Levant from the Persian Gulf theater, has stalled due to postponed technical negotiations regarding Israeli-Lebanese “pilot zones” south of the Litani River¹. Economically, the United States executed a rapid reversal of sanctions relief, with the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issuing General License X1 (GL X1), mandating a hard wind-down of all Iranian petroleum transactions by July 17².

Kinetically, the theater witnessed seven consecutive nights of U.S. airstrikes aimed at dismantling Iran’s Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) capabilities along the Strait of Hormuz, culminating in strikes on strategic bridges, airports, and the destruction of a maritime surveillance tower at Chabahar port⁴. The United States has formally reinstated its naval blockade on Iranian ports⁶. In retaliation, Iran executed a strategy of “shared vulnerability,” launching coordinated ballistic missile and drone strikes against U.S. military installations and critical civilian infrastructure in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Jordan, deliberately attempting to fracture the U.S.-GCC security alliance⁸. Concurrently, the regional proxy network activated, with the Houthi movement in Yemen breaking a four-year truce with Saudi Arabia and threatening to close the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, effectively linking the Red Sea and Persian Gulf chokepoints¹⁰.

Detailed Operational and Diplomatic Developments

Bilateral Interactions: The Fractured Islamabad Architecture and Bürgenstock

The diplomatic framework established to end the 2026 U.S.-Iran war, initiated following the February 28 US-Israeli strikes (codenamed Operation Epic Fury), has fundamentally fractured under the weight of structural flaws and renewed hostilities¹³. The 14-point Islamabad MoU, signed remotely by U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on June 17, 2026, mandated an immediate end to hostilities, the lifting of the U.S. naval blockade, the unfreezing of Iranian assets, and the establishment of a $300 billion reconstruction fund¹⁵. Mediated by Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir, alongside Qatari diplomats, the framework provided a 60-day window to negotiate a permanent settlement¹⁵.

However, the architecture contained critical sequencing flaws. The United States delivered relief on contact—lifting the blockade and issuing oil export waivers—while deferring the verification of Iranian compliance, particularly regarding Article 8’s mandate for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision of highly enriched uranium downblending¹⁸. By squandering coercive leverage upfront, Washington created an environment where renewed friction over maritime routing quickly scuttled the agreement¹⁹.

Following the MoU signing, high-level political talks convened at the Bürgenstock resort in Switzerland between June 21 and June 24, led by U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf²⁰. These negotiations moved beyond technical parameters to encompass the broader security architecture of the Middle East, including the establishment of technical working groups on nuclear stabilization, sanctions relief, and the creation of a High-Level Committee for political oversight²⁰.

The Stalled Lebanon Deconfliction Cell A primary diplomatic friction point revolves around the “Lebanon deconfliction cell,” which emerged from the Bürgenstock summit. Mediators Pakistan and Qatar announced the creation of this tripartite cell—involving the U.S., Iran, and Lebanon—to ensure adherence to the cessation of military operations in the Levant, effectively seeking to decouple the Hezbollah-Israel conflict from the Gulf theater²³. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi designated this cell as the “first real test” of the MoU²³.

The mechanism faces critical implementation failures due to ongoing combat operations. A U.S.-brokered framework agreement signed on June 26 proposed the creation of “pilot zones” in southern Lebanon where the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) would assume control, Hezbollah would disarm, and Israeli forces would withdraw south of the Litani River¹. However, a pivotal virtual meeting between Lebanese and Israeli military delegations scheduled for July 17 to finalize the technical parameters of these zones was postponed, likely until July 23¹. Lebanese security sources accused Israel of stalling the implementation of the pilot zones¹. The delay has provided Tehran with a diplomatic rationale to argue that Washington is failing to fulfill its MoU obligations regarding Lebanese sovereignty, prompting Iran to condition its adherence to the Gulf ceasefire on the cessation of Israeli military operations²⁷.

Amid the deterioration of the Bürgenstock framework, the United Nations has attempted to intervene. On July 13, Jean Arnault, the Officer-in-Charge of the UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon (UNSCOL), visited Tehran to confer with Foreign Minister Araghchi regarding the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701²⁹. Araghchi reiterated Iran’s position that Lebanese stability is inextricably linked to the broader U.S.-Iran negotiations and demanded the U.S. compel Israel to establish an unconditional withdrawal timetable³¹. Furthermore, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) faces existential challenges, as its mandate, heavily pressured by the U.S. and Israel, expires on December 31, 2026, with an expected withdrawal by 2027³².

The Dual-Track Paradigm: The Release of Dena Karari Despite the severe kinetic escalation, a parallel track of transactional diplomacy yielded a significant breakthrough. On July 15, President Trump announced the release of Dena Karari, a U.S.-Iranian dual national detained in Iran since December 2024 under a “coercive exit ban”³³. Karari, who operated the U.S.-registered Children of Mehr Foundation, had been interrogated by Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security on allegations of espionage and collaborating with a hostile state following the onset of the war³³. Her legal counsel, Jared Genser, confirmed she had suffered a heart attack in early July and noted that her exit ban had technically expired in April before she was finally allowed to leave³⁴. The strategic rationale behind Tehran authorizing this release precisely as U.S. bombs struck its coastal infrastructure suggests an Iranian attempt to signal a willingness to de-escalate on highly specific, compartmentalized issues. This gesture provided Washington with a domestic political victory while Iran maintained a hardened military posture in the Gulf³³.

Economic Statecraft: GL X1, the Hormuz Toll, and Global Energy Markets

The reporting period witnessed a highly aggressive application of economic statecraft by the United States, effectively weaponizing the global financial compliance apparatus to isolate Tehran in response to the collapsed ceasefire.

The Revocation of General License X (GL X) On June 22, the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General License X (GL X), implementing the “immediate” sanctions relief promised in the Islamabad MoU. GL X authorized all transactions ordinarily incident to the production, sale, and delivery of Iranian-origin crude oil and petrochemicals, notably allowing payments in U.S. dollars³⁸. This action temporarily relieved macroeconomic pressures on global energy markets, particularly benefiting major importers like India and China, and revived connectivity projects such as the Chabahar Port and the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC)¹⁷.

However, following the resumption of maritime friction in the Strait of Hormuz, OFAC abruptly revoked this authorization on July 7 by issuing General License X1 (GL X1)⁴¹. GL X1 initiated a draconian 10-day wind-down period that officially expired at 12:01 AM EDT on July 17, 2026¹⁵. The compliance parameters for this wind-down were exceptionally strict. No new Iranian oil transactions could be initiated after July 7. Entities were only permitted to engage in activities necessary to wind down previously authorized trades⁴³. Crucially, any payments owed to blocked Iranian persons during the wind-down could not be remitted directly but had to be deposited into interest-bearing blocked accounts within the United States⁴². The expiration of GL X1 returns the U.S. sanctions regime to a comprehensive ban, placing immense pressure on global shipping and energy markets.

The Resumed Naval Blockade and the Toll Proposal Complementing the OFAC sanctions, the U.S. military formally reinstated its naval blockade of Iranian ports on July 14 at 16:00 EDT⁷. In an unconventional policy maneuver on July 13, President Trump declared the United States the “Guardian of the Hormuz Strait” and proposed charging a 20% toll on eligible commercial cargo transiting the waterway to reimburse the U.S. for providing security⁴⁶.

The strategic rationale for the toll was to assert absolute sovereign-level control over the international waterway, directly challenging Iran’s claim of maritime dominion and its own attempts to charge transit fees via the newly created Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA)⁴⁸. However, the U.S. proposal risked violating the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) regarding transit passage and drew immediate international backlash⁴⁸. Facing intense pressure from GCC allies, Trump walked back the toll proposal on July 14, stating that Gulf “kings and emirs” had instead agreed to billions of dollars in direct U.S. investments to offset security costs⁴⁹. Despite the reversal on the toll, the physical blockade remains rigorously enforced by a flotilla of at least 19 U.S. warships in the Arabian Sea⁵⁰.

Macroeconomic and Multilateral Sanctions Impacts The convergence of the GL X1 expiration and the naval blockade drove significant volatility in financial markets. Brent crude prices surged, peaking near $85 a barrel, as maritime data firm Kpler noted that transits through the Strait of Hormuz had dropped from a pre-war average of 130 ships per day to just six on Sunday⁴⁸. The International Energy Agency warned of critical energy security risks if the situation did not improve within weeks⁵³.

Simultaneously, allied jurisdictions maintained their autonomous sanctions pressure. The European Union and the United Kingdom refused to alter their sanctions regimes during the brief MoU window. On July 8, the UK’s National Security Act 2026 received royal assent, paving the way for the formal designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a state threat body, criminalizing espionage or sabotage conducted on its behalf with life imprisonment⁴⁴.

Kinetic Escalation: Multi-Domain Strikes and Infrastructure Degradation

The military theater has escalated from proportional retaliation into a sustained campaign of infrastructure degradation. The U.S. military strategy has demonstrably shifted from strictly “counter-force” targeting (hitting missile launchers and radar installations) to “counter-value” targeting (destroying dual-use and civilian infrastructure critical to the Iranian economy).

U.S. Offensive Operations (July 11 – July 17) Over the seven-day reporting period, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) executed seven consecutive nights of airstrikes across the Islamic Republic⁵⁰.

• Initial Wave (July 13-14): Following the formal collapse of the ceasefire, CENTCOM launched heavy five-hour missions against coastal defense systems, missile sites, and drone facilities in Bushehr, Bandar Abbas, Chah Bahar, Jask, Konarak, and Abu Musa⁵⁵. Trump publicly threatened to escalate targeting to include power plants and “Pickaxe Mountain” (Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La), a heavily fortified nuclear facility in the Zagros mountains⁵⁵.
• Daylight Operations and Blockade Enforcement (July 15-16): U.S. operations expanded to daylight strikes, hitting Greater Tunb Island and military barracks in Sistan and Baluchestan province⁵⁹. Enforcing the blockade, a U.S. aircraft disabled the Curacao-flagged unladen oil tanker Belma by firing a Hellfire missile into its smokestack after the vessel ignored warnings while attempting to approach Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export terminal⁵⁹. Furthermore, CENTCOM redirected multiple commercial ships that attempted to breach the maritime perimeter⁷.
• Infrastructure Targeting (July 16-17): Escalation peaked as U.S. strikes targeted Iranian logistics arteries. Precision munitions destroyed the Bandar-e Khamir and Kehvarstan bridges in Hormozgan province, severing critical land routes to Bandar Abbas⁵. A strike completely collapsed a maritime surveillance tower at the Chah Bahar Shahid Kalantari Port, which CENTCOM stated was used by the IRGC to target commercial shipping¹⁶. U.S. Marines also physically boarded the M/T Wen Yao in the Gulf of Oman to verify blockade compliance⁸. Furthermore, Iran’s Energy Ministry reported attacks on the national power grid, forcing load shedding in southern provinces experiencing extreme heat⁵.

Iranian Retaliatory Operations and “Shared Vulnerability” Iran’s strategic rationale in response to the U.S. strikes is to exact an unsustainable cost from U.S. regional host nations. By employing a doctrine of “shared vulnerability,” Tehran aims to pressure GCC states into evicting U.S. forces to avoid internal destabilization.

• Kuwait: Iranian missiles and drones struck the Ali Al Salem Air Base, destroying Patriot air defense systems and fuel storage facilities⁹. Crucially, projectiles also hit a water desalination plant and a power station, causing significant damage⁸. Targeting desalination infrastructure is a severe escalation, directly threatening the survival parameters of the host state, which relies on these plants for over 90% of its potable water⁶⁰.
• Bahrain: Iran targeted command-and-control facilities associated with the U.S. Fifth Fleet, prompting air raid sirens in Manama⁵¹.
• Jordan and Qatar: Iranian drones and missiles targeted the U.S. presence at the Azraq air base in Jordan and the Al-Udeid air base in Qatar. Both nations reported successful interceptions by their respective air defense networks, though falling debris wounded a child in Qatar⁸.
• Maritime Friction: The IRGC Navy intercepted a Thai-flagged vessel in the Strait of Hormuz, and earlier in the week, targeted the UAE-associated tankers Mombasa and Al Bahiyah with cruise missiles, resulting in the death of one Indian mariner and injuring eight others⁶².

The convergence of the U.S. naval blockade’s reinstatement and the expiration of OFAC General License X1 synchronized with the escalating cross-Gulf military strikes, creating a unified timeline of economic and kinetic pressure against Tehran. Data indicates that the expiration of the OFAC wind-down window on July 17 corresponded precisely with the expansion of U.S. strikes from strictly military targets to dual-use civilian infrastructure, such as bridges and airports in Hormozgan province, demonstrating a coordinated maximum pressure campaign designed to completely sever Iranian logistical and financial arteries.

Proxy Group Activities: The Yemen Theater Reignites and Axis Consolidation

The reporting period witnessed a dramatic collapse of the informal 2022 truce between Saudi Arabia and the Houthi movement (Ansar Allah) in Yemen, directly linking the Red Sea theater to the broader U.S.-Iran conflict.

Yemen: The Airport Equation and the Bab al-Mandeb Threat The catalyst for the renewed Yemen conflict occurred on July 13, when Saudi Arabia bombed the runway at Sanaa International Airport. The Saudi strike was executed specifically to prevent an Iranian aircraft from landing, which was transporting a Houthi delegation returning from Tehran following the funeral of the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei¹². By bombing the runway, Riyadh forced the plane to divert to Hodeidah, enforcing its strict decade-long blockade against direct Iran-Sanaa flights, which the internationally recognized government of Yemen views as a conduit for weapons smuggling⁶⁵.

In immediate retaliation, Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Saree announced ballistic missile and drone strikes against Abha International Airport in southern Saudi Arabia, marking the first major cross-border attack since 2022¹¹. Houthi leader Abdulmalik al-Houthi subsequently delivered a speech establishing a new deterrence formula: “Sanaa Airport for Riyadh Airport, airports for airports, ports for ports, and a blockade for a Saudi blockade”¹⁰. The Houthis also warned commercial airlines to avoid Saudi airspace¹⁰.

Most critically for global security, intelligence reports indicate that Tehran has instructed the Houthis to prepare to close the Bab al-Mandeb Strait to commercial shipping if the U.S. military executes its threat to strike Iran’s national power grid¹⁰. The Houthis have reportedly pre-positioned drones and anti-ship missiles to execute this closure. If the Bab al-Mandeb and the Strait of Hormuz are simultaneously blockaded, the global energy market will face an unprecedented logistical paralysis, severing the primary alternative Red Sea routing utilized by Saudi Arabia via its east-west pipeline¹⁰. Domestically, the Houthis have also intensified attacks on Yemeni government positions in Hodeidah, demonstrating a shift in focus from the Gaza conflict back to territorial consolidation in Yemen¹¹.

Lebanon and Iraq: Axis Preparation In Lebanon, the failure of the U.S.-brokered pilot zones has prompted Tehran to issue directives to its proxies. According to the Lebanese Nidaa Al-Watan newspaper, Iranian leadership informed the “Axis of Resistance,” specifically Hezbollah, that the period of waiting is over and they must prepare for a broader, more severe conflict that will likely rope in Israel⁶⁴. Tehran views Hezbollah as its most critical regional asset, and the preservation of its military infrastructure—such as the underground “Imad 4” facility on the Ali al-Taher Ridge—remains a strategic imperative⁶⁹.

In Iraq, the pro-Iranian militias face increasing pressure from the Baghdad government to disarm in preparation for the scheduled September 2026 withdrawal of U.S. coalition forces²⁸. Concurrently, Iranian forces struck a camp belonging to the Kurdish Komala party near Sulaimaniyah, Iraqi Kurdistan, killing eight members, demonstrating Tehran’s willingness to violate Iraqi sovereignty to neutralize perceived internal security threats⁸.

Geopolitical Postures: Comparative Actor Analysis

The regional geopolitical landscape demonstrates a deep polarization, with actors struggling to balance alliance commitments against the threat of domestic infrastructural destruction. The war, which has cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $113.3 billion, continues to reshape global alliances¹³.

Chronological Timeline of Key Events (July 11 – July 17, 2026)

• July 11-12: The U.S.-Iran ceasefire visibly collapses as tit-for-tat maritime and aerial exchanges increase in the Persian Gulf. Iran shuts down the Strait of Hormuz to non-compliant shipping⁶².
• July 13: U.S. President Donald Trump announces the reinstatement of the naval blockade on Iran and proposes a 20% security toll on Hormuz shipping⁴⁶. Saudi Arabia strikes Sanaa International Airport in Yemen to prevent an Iranian flight from landing; the Houthi movement retaliates by striking Saudi Arabia’s Abha airport, ending the 2022 truce¹⁰. UN Envoy Jean Arnault visits Tehran to discuss Lebanese stability²⁹.
• July 14: Trump retracts the 20% toll proposal following GCC intervention, opting for direct investment agreements⁴⁹. The U.S. naval blockade officially resumes at 16:00 EDT⁷. U.S. forces strike targets in Bushehr, Bandar Abbas, and Chah Bahar⁵⁶.
• July 15: U.S. aircraft disable the unladen oil tanker Belma attempting to breach the blockade near Kharg Island⁵⁹. President Trump announces the release of detained U.S.-Iranian citizen Dena Karari, framing it as a goodwill gesture³³.
• July 16: A U.S. precision strike destroys an IRGC maritime surveillance tower at Chabahar port⁴. U.S. Marines board the M/T Wen Yao to verify blockade compliance⁸. Intelligence reveals Iran ordered the Houthis to prepare to close the Bab al-Mandeb Strait if U.S. strikes target the Iranian power grid¹⁰.
• July 17: OFAC General License X1 wind-down period expires at 12:01 AM EDT, strictly prohibiting any further Iranian petroleum transactions². The U.S. concludes its seventh consecutive night of strikes, expanding targets to hit bridges in Hormozgan and the Iranshahr airport⁵. Iran targets civilian infrastructure in the GCC, striking a water desalination plant in Kuwait⁸. A scheduled military meeting between Lebanon and Israel regarding southern “pilot zones” is postponed¹.

Please share the link on Facebook, Forums, with colleagues, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email us in**@*********ps.com. If you’d like to request a report or order a reprint, please click here for the corresponding page to open in new tab.

Sources Used

1. ‘The Israelis are stalling’: Postponed meeting leaves Lebanon peace plan in limbo, https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/mena/2026/07/17/the-israelis-are-stalling-postponed-meeting-leaves-lebanon-peace-plan-in-limbo/
2. OFAC’s Iran oil wind-down shuts on Friday | Ops Con Intelligence, https://theopscon.com/intelligence/ofac-iran-oil-wind-down-deadline-friday-2026-07-15
3. OFAC’s Iran oil relief ends Friday: the wind-down window shuts on 17 July – The Ops Con, https://theopscon.com/intelligence/ofac-iran-oil-sanctions-wind-down-17-july-2026-07-14
4. Iran strikes US allies, Brent crude oil prices continue to rise, https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/iran-war-trump-israel-hormuz-oil-july-17-2026
5. US and Iran escalate strikes across Mideast, https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-hormuz-strait-war-july-17-2026-2ad0cfe592eb258cb15a9eb04411d58a
6. Trump says US is ‘reinstating’ blockade on Iran in Strait of Hormuz | AP News, https://apnews.com/live/trump-administration-iran-updates-07-13-2026
7. U.S. blockades Iranian ports, launches dozens of strikes as Trump seeks control of Strait of Hormuz – CBS News, https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/us-iran-war-trump-ceasefire-attacks-strait-of-hormuz/
8. Iran War Update: July 17, 2026 | JINSA, https://jinsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Iran-War-Update-7.17.26.pdf
9. US, Iran trade attacks for seventh straight night as strikes spread across Middle East, https://www.arabnews.com/node/2651363/middle-east
10. Iran reportedly tells Houthis to close Bab al Mandeb Strait if US strikes power grid, https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2026/07/17/iran-reportedly-tells-houthis-to-close-bab-al-mandeb-strait-if-us-strikes-power-grid/
11. Houthis Fire Missiles at Saudi Arabia, Breaking Years of Calm, https://gvwire.com/2026/07/13/houthis-fire-missiles-at-saudi-arabia-breaking-years-of-calm/
12. Yemen’s Houthis fire missiles at Saudi Arabia, https://www.ft.com/content/cf774813-aed0-486d-be4e-c2c4174d8161?syn-25a6b1a6=1
13. 2026 Iran war – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_war
14. 2026 Iran war ceasefire – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_war_ceasefire
15. Islamabad Memorandum – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamabad_Memorandum
16. The US-Iran Interim Deal: A Fragile Ceasefire – Arab Center Washington DC, https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/the-us-iran-interim-deal-a-fragile-ceasefire/
17. US – Iran Sign Islamabad MoU and its Implications – Drishti IAS, https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/us-iran-sign-islamabad-mou-and-its-implications
18. The 60-Day Test: Fault Lines in the U.S.-Iran Deal – Middle East Council on Global Affairs, https://mecouncil.org/publication/the-60-day-test-fault-lines-in-the-u-s-iran-deal/
19. Ends Without Means: A Strategic Net Assessment of the US-Iran War, https://smallwarsjournal.com/2026/07/17/ends-without-means/
20. From War to Negotiations: Can the Bürgenstock Talks Transform US-Iran Relations?, https://rasanah-iiis.org/english/monitoring-and-translation/reports/from-war-to-negotiations-can-the-burgenstock-talks-transform-us-iran-relations/
21. Media Corner: Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Iran, https://www.eda.admin.ch/en/media-corner-memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-us-and-iran-on-the-burgenstock
22. Swiss Summit Concludes; “Deconfliction Cell” for Lebanon Announced – Davar, https://en.davar1.co.il/685145/
23. Lebanon discusses ‘deconfliction’ mechanism ahead of Israel talks | News – Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/22/lebanon-discusses-de-confliction-mechanism-ahead-of-israel-talks
24. Lebanon ‘deconfliction cell’ emerges after intense Switzerland talks | Iran International, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202606224686
25. Mediators announce a new de-conflicting mechanism aimed at containing violence in Lebanon | Arab News, https://www.arabnews.com/node/2648091/middle-east
26. Araghchi calls new Lebanon mechanism ‘first test’ of US-Iran understandings, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202606228189
27. The Israel-Lebanon Framework Agreement: Insights and Responses – Terrorism-info.org.il, https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/the-israel-lebanon-framework-agreement-insights-and-responses/
28. Spotlight on Iran and the Shiite Axis (July 8—15, 2026) – Terrorism-info.org.il, https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/spotlight-on-iran-and-the-shiite-axis-july-8-15-2026/
29. This Week in DPPA: 11 – 17 July 2026, https://dppa.un.org/en/news/this-week-in-dppa-11-17-july-2026
30. UN Special Representative for Lebanon meets Iranian Foreign Minister, https://en.mfa.ir/portal/newsview/791087/UN-Special-Representative-for-Lebanon-meets-Iranian-Foreign-Minister
31. OFAC Reverses US Sanctions Relaxation Related to US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding, https://sanctionsnews.bakermckenzie.com/ofac-reverses-us-sanctions-relaxation-related-to-us-iran-memorandum-of-understanding/
32. 2026 Lebanon war – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Lebanon_war
33. Trump Says Iran Has Freed U.S. Citizen – iHeart, https://www.iheart.com/content/2026-07-16-trump-says-iran-has-freed-us-citizen/
34. U.S. citizen departs Iran after being barred from leaving for over a year, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trapped-u-s-citizen-departs-iran/
35. Iran releases U.S. citizen in goodwill gesture, Trump says, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/07/16/iran-releases-us-citizen-goodwill-gesture-trump-says/
36. Who is Dena Karari? Why was the Iranian-American tech professional detained by Iran, https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/global-trends/who-is-dena-karari-why-was-the-iranian-american-tech-professional-detained-by-iran/articleshow/132431126.cms
37. Amid tensions, Trump praises Iran for releasing US citizen in detention since 2024, https://indianexpress.com/article/world/us-news/trump-praises-iran-who-is-dena-karari-us-citizen-detained-10788676/
38. New General License for Iranian-Origin Oil Exports Is First Step in Broader Sanctions Relief Described in Preliminary U.S.-Iran Deal, But Significant Risks Remain – Akin Gump, https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/alerts/new-general-license-for-iranian-origin-oil-exports-is-first-step-in-broader-sanctions-relief-described-in-preliminary-us-iran-deal-but-significant-risks-remain
39. OFAC Temporarily Lifts Certain Oil Sanctions Against Iran – SmarTrade | Thompson Hine, https://www.thompsonhinesmartrade.com/2026/06/ofac-temporarily-lifts-certain-oil-sanctions-against-iran/
40. China in the 2026 Iran war – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_in_the_2026_Iran_war
41. Issuance of Amended Iran-related General License – Office of Foreign Assets Control, https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20260707
42. OFAC revokes Iran General License X and gives firms ten days to wind down, https://fincrimeagent.com/news/issue-7/ofac-revokes-iran-general-license-x/
43. OFAC Rescinds Iranian Sanctions Relaxation Following Renewed Conflict | Foley & Lardner, https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2026/07/ofac-rescinds-iranian-sanctions-relaxation-following-renewed-conflict/
44. The evolving landscape of Iran-related sanctions: impacts of U.S. policy shifts on international business – A&O Shearman, https://www.aoshearman.com/en/insights/the-evolving-landscape-of-iran-related-sanctions
45. Dena Karari freed after detention in Iran, lawyer says, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202607154401
46. Trump says US will blockade Iran in the Strait of Hormuz and will charge ships for safe passage – OPB, https://www.opb.org/article/2026/07/13/trump-says-us-will-blockade-iran-in-the-strait-of-hormuz-and-will-charge-ships-for-safe-passage/
47. Trump says US will reinstate Strait of Hormuz blockade and impose 20% charge on cargo, https://en.armradio.am/2026/07/13/trump-says-us-will-reinstate-strait-of-hormuz-blockade-and-impose-20-charge-on-cargo/
48. FACT FOCUS: A look at US and Iranian claims of control over the Strait of Hormuz, https://apnews.com/article/trump-iran-strait-of-hormuz-8df557699c900b29fb33172e6da7f3e9
49. US reimposes its blockade on Iran after Tehran’s attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz, https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-hormuz-strait-war-july-14-2026-abd060c55feea216625689e57d8f76be
50. US strikes Iran for seventh night in a row, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense/4654326/us-strikes-iran-seventh-night-in-a-row/
51. Trump says US reinstating blockade on Iranian ports – as it happened, https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/jul/13/us-iran-strikes-middle-east-strait-of-hormuz-military-latest-news-updates
52. Oil prices leap and stocks fall as Trump reinstates Hormuz blockade on Iranian shipping, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jul/13/oil-prices-leap-stocks-fall-us-iran-strait-of-hormuz-brent-crude-markets
53. West Asia war updates: U.S. launches new strikes on Iran; explosions heard in south, https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/west-asia-war-iran-us-conflict-washington-tehran-air-strikes-strait-of-hormuz-live-updates-july-16-2026/article71228351.ece
54. Iran’s ‘eye-for-an-eye’ response to US strikes: What was targeted and why, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/irans-eye-for-an-eye-response-to-us-strikes-what-was-targeted-and-why/articleshow/132362297.cms
55. Trump says US ready to hit Iran ‘very hard’ as tensions escalate over Strait of Hormuz: report, https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/iran-war-trump-israel-hormuz-july-13
56. Trump withdraws Hormuz tolls threat but says US will continue to blockade Iran, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/14/us-strikes-iran-bahrain-jordan-uae-tankers
57. Trump orders resumption of Iran war with goal of taking over the Strait of Hormuz: ‘We gave them a chance’, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-on-defense/4647241/trump-orders-resumption-iran-war-take-over-strait-of-hormuz/
58. US launches third consecutive night of strikes against Iran, https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/us-launches-third-consecutive-night-of-strikes-against-iran-2947225-2026-07-14
59. US airstrikes hit northern Iran as it disables ship trying to run the blockade, https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-hormuz-strait-war-july-15-2026-b7c592f269d822407dd6b5641602bf25
60. US hits civilian infrastructure as it expands strikes against Iran, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/17/us-marines-board-ship-gulf-oman-expanded-airstrikes-iran
61. Iran-United States July War: Intelligence Briefing – SpecialEurasia, https://www.specialeurasia.com/2026/07/17/iran-united-states-july-war/
62. Middle East war: Trump weighs ‘devastating strikes’; Iran targets US bases in Middle East – key points, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/middle-east-war-trump-weighs-devastating-strikes-iran-targets-us-bases-in-middle-east-key-points/articleshow/132405709.cms
63. US attacks Iran and Tehran retaliates across the Middle East as both vie for control of strait, https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-hormuz-strait-war-july-13-2026-6c2c44cfdd089d6393d18fa5930ed620
64. Iran said to tell Hezbollah, allies to prepare for wider conflict, which could rope in Israel, https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-said-to-tell-hezbollah-allies-to-prepare-for-wider-conflict-which-could-rope-in-israel/
65. Riyadh Strikes Houthi-Controlled Airport To Block Flight From Iran – FDD, https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2026/07/15/riyadh-strikes-houthi-controlled-airport-to-block-flight-from-iran/
66. Yemen’s Airspace Crisis Threatens a Return to Full-Scale Civil War – New Lines Magazine, https://newlinesmag.com/running-notes/yemens-airspace-crisis-threatens-a-return-to-full-scale-civil-war/
67. Yemen’s Houthis strike Saudi Arabia’s Abha airport with missiles and drones in a sharp escalation, https://apnews.com/article/yemen-houthis-airport-saudi-strikes-7bddae3006304df8bf7f89e980006b33
68. Report: Iran tells regional allies, Hezbollah to prepare for broader conflict, https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/report-iran-tells-regional-allies-hezbollah-to-prepare-for-broader-conflict/
69. Spotlight on Terrorism: Hezbollah and Lebanon (July 6-13, 2026), https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/spotlight-on-terrorism-hezbollah-and-lebanon-july-6-13-2026/
70. China, Pakistan urge US, Iran to cease hostilities, resume dialogue – Anadolu Ajansı, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/china-pakistan-urge-us-iran-to-cease-hostilities-resume-dialogue/4001033
71. Aoun, Vance discuss Lebanon ceasefire, presidency says | Iran International, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202606228466
72. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia urge de-escalation as US-Iran tensions rise, https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/us-iran-tensions-pakistan-saudi-arabia-call-for-de-escalation-and-dialogue-ptag-2945898-2026-07-11
73. Pakistan urges US, Iran to resume talks as strikes threaten peace deal, https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/us-iran-tensions-pakistan-urges-restraint-revival-of-talks-under-islamabad-mou-ptag-2949064-2026-07-16
74. War With Iran – 2023-2026 – Israel Legal Advocacy Project, https://www.lawandisrael.org/library/historical/israels-wars/war-with-iran-2023-2024/

1. Executive Summary

During the period of June 21 to June 27, 2026, the geopolitical and security environment between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran experienced severe and rapid oscillation between major diplomatic breakthroughs and kinetic military escalation. Following the June 17 Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)—which aimed to end the recent 70-day bilateral conflict and reopen the heavily contested Strait of Hormuz—high-level diplomatic and technical negotiations officially commenced at the Bürgenstock resort in Switzerland.¹ Facilitated heavily by joint mediators Pakistan and Qatar, these intensive talks resulted in the formation of structured working groups covering nuclear issues, sanctions relief, and dispute resolution, alongside a highly scrutinized “Lebanon deconfliction cell” designed to isolate the Lebanese theater from the broader regional confrontation.¹ Concurrently, the United States Department of the Treasury issued General License X (GL X), offering a broad 60-day authorization for transactions involving Iranian petroleum and petrochemical products, signaling a deliberate strategic shift from Washington’s prior “maximum pressure” doctrine toward a model of conditional economic incentivization.⁴

However, this fragile diplomatic progress was actively undermined and severely tested by a resumption of violence in the vital maritime chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz. On June 25, an Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGC-N) one-way attack drone successfully struck the Singapore-flagged commercial container ship M/V Ever Lovely as it navigated a newly designated southern transit corridor off the Omani coast.⁶ The targeted attack exposed a fundamental and unresolved dispute over maritime sovereignty, with Tehran demanding strict adherence to transit routes governed by its unilaterally established Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) while aggressively rejecting the International Maritime Organization (IMO) framework.⁶ In direct kinetic retaliation for the attack on commercial shipping, US Central Command (CENTCOM) launched localized airstrikes on June 26, targeting Iranian coastal radar sites and missile storage facilities near the southern port of Sirik and on Qeshm Island.⁹

The resulting volatile security environment has forced regional and global actors into a delicate strategic balancing act. Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, convening in Manama, Bahrain, alongside US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, firmly rejected Iranian attempts to impose transit tolls in the Strait of Hormuz, while concurrently harboring deep, long-term anxieties regarding the reliability of US security guarantees in the region.⁵ Meanwhile, China has opportunistically capitalized on the diplomatic thaw to secure its energy import interests and project an image of a stabilizing global power, heavily endorsing Pakistan’s mediation efforts from the periphery.⁵ Ultimately, the verified events of the past seven days demonstrate a dual-track paradigm: a robust, mediator-driven diplomatic architecture is actively functioning in Europe, yet it remains highly vulnerable to localized military provocations, unresolved disputes over maritime sovereignty, and the persistent threat of proxy group escalation across the Middle East.

2. Detailed Operational and Diplomatic Developments

Direct Bilateral and Indirect Interactions: The Islamabad MoU and Bürgenstock Architecture

Historical Context and the Path to the Islamabad MoU To accurately contextualize the diplomatic maneuvers of the past week, it is necessary to acknowledge the deep historical friction between the United States and Iran, which stretches back to the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis.¹³ More recently, the regional security architecture was fundamentally destabilized by the June 2025 “Twelve-Day War,” initiated when Israel launched preemptive strikes against Iranian military and nuclear facilities, provoking widespread Iranian counter-strikes and drawing the US into direct kinetic engagements against Iranian nuclear sites.¹⁴ This period of instability culminated in early 2026 when US President Donald Trump authorized “Operation Epic Fury,” following intense lobbying and intelligence sharing by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, leading to a protracted 70-day conflict (frequently referred to in regional media as the 120-day war period when factoring in preceding proxy escalations).⁵

Following a failed ceasefire in April 2026—which collapsed within hours due to Israeli strikes on Beirut—and the imposition of a punishing US naval blockade on Iranian ports, Washington and Tehran agreed to new 60-day ceasefire conditions on June 12, 2026.¹ This breakthrough was formalized on June 17, 2026, when the presidents of the United States and Iran remotely signed the 14-point Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).¹ The core tenets of the MoU require Iran to explicitly reaffirm that it will not develop nuclear weapons, mandate the cessation of hostilities on all regional fronts (including Lebanon), and dictate that the Strait of Hormuz must be reopened toll-free, with Iran allocated a 30-day window to clear naval mines deployed during the conflict.¹ In exchange, the US agreed to conditional, phased sanctions relief and the unfreezing of specific Iranian state assets.¹ While Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei—who assumed the role following the death of his late father, the slain Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—ultimately approved the agreement, he publicly noted holding “a different view.” This signaled persistent hardline domestic resistance within Tehran, further evidenced by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s subsequent clarification that the nation’s ballistic missile program remains strictly outside the scope of the MoU.¹

The Bürgenstock Technical Negotiations With the MoU serving as a foundational framework, intensive technical negotiations officially commenced on June 21, 2026, at the Bürgenstock resort above Lake Lucerne in Switzerland.¹ The diplomatic gathering, colloquially dubbed the Lake Lucerne Summit, was organized rapidly, forcing the resort to cancel over a thousand reservations to accommodate the influx of diplomatic personnel.¹⁸ The United States delegation was led by Vice President J.D. Vance, while the Iranian delegation was headed by the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.²

The structural format of the negotiations relied heavily on the joint mediation of Pakistan and Qatar, who maintained a continuous, personalized channel of shuttling officials between the respective American and Iranian delegations.¹ Following an initial 18 hours of continuous, intensive discussions, the mediators announced that the sessions had concluded in a “positive and constructive atmosphere” marked by encouraging progress.¹ The primary architectural outcome of these initial meetings was the establishment of a robust oversight structure.

The negotiators successfully established a High-Level Committee tasked with broad political oversight, which oversees specialized working groups dedicated specifically to nuclear issues, sanctions mechanics, and ongoing dispute resolution.¹ Despite the procedural success, the tone of the Iranian delegation underscored a profound lack of trust. Mohammad Mokhber, a senior adviser and assistant to Iran’s Supreme Leader, explicitly warned that Tehran would not accept a mere “paper agreement,” asserting that “Americans understand the language of economics and cost-benefit better” and cautioning that regional energy flows would rapidly halt once again if the deal remained strictly textual without yielding tangible economic relief.¹ Reinforcing this economic imperative, Hamid Bovard, Iran’s Deputy Oil Minister and CEO of the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), actively participated in the Swiss talks, publicly stating that pursuing the lifting of oil-related sanctions and securing operational waivers was the primary focus of his delegation.¹

The Lebanon Deconfliction Cell A central point of contention during the Bürgenstock negotiations was the status of military operations in Lebanon. Iranian media reported early friction, alleging that Tehran briefly refused to return to four-way talks, arguing that substantive negotiations could not proceed while fighting continued in Lebanon, though US diplomats disputed accounts of any Iranian walkout.³ To bridge this critical gap, negotiators agreed on Sunday, June 21, to establish a tripartite “Lebanon deconfliction cell” involving the United States, Iran, and Lebanon, directly facilitated by the Qatari and Pakistani mediators.³

The explicit purpose of this cell is to ensure strict adherence to the cessation of military operations in Lebanon, fulfilling the MoU requirement to end hostilities on all fronts.³ Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi identified this mechanism on social media as the “1st real test” of the agreement’s implementation.²¹ Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian publicly hailed the creation of the cell as one of the most significant outcomes of the negotiations, portraying it as a major diplomatic success that compelled opposing forces to retreat from Lebanese territory.²² The geopolitical ramifications of this cell were immediately visible in Lebanon itself, where an internal political struggle over state sovereignty erupted. Following the ceasefire, billboards featuring Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei alongside his late father were erected on the main route to Beirut-Rafic Hariri International Airport bearing the slogan “Thank you to loyal Iran.” ⁵ The Lebanese government swiftly ordered the removal of these posters, attempting to assert that decisions regarding Lebanon’s territory and security belong strictly to the sovereign Lebanese state, rather than serving as leverage for Iran-backed Hezbollah.⁵

Economic Statecraft and Sanctions Relief: General License X (GL X)

In direct fulfillment of the economic incentives outlined in the Islamabad MoU, the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) executed a major policy shift on June 22, 2026, by issuing General License X (GL X).⁴ This authorization represents a temporary but profound reversal of the US “maximum pressure” doctrine, providing a critical 60-day window (expiring at 12:01 AM EDT on August 21, 2026) that permits a broad range of transactions in Iranian-origin crude oil, petroleum products, and petrochemicals.⁴

The scope of GL X is exhaustively comprehensive, effectively attempting to transition Iranian energy trade out of shadow networks and back into conventional, regulated global markets. The license explicitly authorizes transactions that would otherwise be severely penalized under multiple overlapping US sanctions frameworks, including the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (31 C.F.R. Part 560), the Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators Sanctions Regulations (31 C.F.R. Part 544), and the Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations (31 C.F.R. Part 594).⁴

Operationally, GL X extends legal protection to the entirety of the maritime value chain. It permits global entities to engage in contracting, payment processing, insurance and classification services, salvage operations, brokerage, surveying, shipping operations, piloting services, and environmental mitigation related to Iranian oil.⁴²⁴ Notably, the license authorizes payments for these purchases to be made directly to the Government of Iran in US dollar-denominated funds, and even authorizes the direct importation of Iranian oil into the United States—a mechanism fundamentally designed to flood the market, lower global oil prices, and stabilize the US economy ahead of domestic political pressures.⁴

For Tehran, the macroeconomic implications of GL X are substantial. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi indicated that the broad unfreezing of assets and resumption of petrochemical exports could eventually unlock tens of billions of dollars in revenue, alongside a proposed $300 billion reconstruction program funded by Persian Gulf partners and private investments.⁵ Iranian economists anticipate that this fresh influx of foreign currency will empower Iran’s Central Bank to combat severe domestic inflation, stabilize the rapidly weakening rial, and replenish critically low foreign exchange reserves.⁵ However, economists have simultaneously urged policymakers to implement deep structural reforms to avoid historical economic traps such as “Dutch disease”—where a sudden influx of resource revenue artificially inflates the currency and harms other export sectors.⁵

Conversely, Western defense analysts and geopolitical risk observers have highlighted severe security vulnerabilities embedded within the GL X framework. The most critical concern is the intentional omission of escrow mechanisms or strict reporting requirements within the license.⁵ Critics warn that this fungibility of capital means newly acquired funds could easily bypass civilian infrastructure projects and flow directly to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), allowing the paramilitary organization to rapidly rebuild military infrastructure, missile silos, and proxy supply lines that were systematically degraded by US and Israeli strikes during the 70-day war.⁵

Proxy Group Activities and Maritime Security Incidents: The Strait of Hormuz Chokepoint

Despite the diplomatic progress in Switzerland and the issuance of GL X, the physical security environment in the Middle East deteriorated sharply over the past week, driven by an uncompromising dispute over maritime sovereignty in the Strait of Hormuz. The core of this conflict lies in Iran’s attempt to unilaterally annex administrative control of the waterway. Following the outbreak of hostilities in February, Tehran established the Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) to strictly manage traffic and collect transit tolls from international shipping.⁶ The economic scale of this operation is massive; Iranian lawmaker Mohsen Zanganeh confirmed that Tehran is levying transit fees ranging from $1.5 million to $2 million per vessel, with Parliament Deputy Speaker Hamidreza Haji Babaei confirming that initial revenues have already been deposited into state accounts.⁸

In stark opposition to the PGSA, the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the Sultanate of Oman have actively promoted a new, mine-free southern transit route along the Omani territorial coastline, designed to allow commercial vessels to bypass Iranian extortion.⁶ Iran vehemently rejects this IMO-backed corridor. The PGSA issued a public decree warning that any vessel transiting outside of routes explicitly designated by Iran “will not be covered by the guarantee of safe passage,” and declared that any consequences arising from the use of unauthorized routes would be the sole responsibility of the vessel’s owner and commander.⁶

This rhetorical threat materialized into kinetic action on June 25, 2026. At approximately 14:10 UTC, the M/V Ever Lovely—a Singapore-flagged commercial containership operated by Taiwan’s Evergreen Marine Corporation—was exiting the Strait of Hormuz along the IMO-backed southern corridor, roughly 7.5 nautical miles southeast of Dahit, Oman.⁶ The vessel was targeted by a swarm of at least four one-way attack drones deployed by the IRGC Navy.⁶ While US forces operating in the area successfully intercepted and knocked down three of the incoming munitions, one drone penetrated the defensive screen and struck the starboard side of the Ever Lovely‘s upper bridge structure.²⁷ The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) center confirmed the strike under Warning 074-26, reporting structural damage to the bridge but no casualties or environmental contamination, allowing the vessel to eventually complete its transit.⁶⁶

The timing and location of the Ever Lovely attack were highly symbolic and strategically calculated. Occurring on June 25—the IMO’s internationally observed “Day of the Seafarer”—the strike was a deliberate affront to the UN agency.⁶ Furthermore, it occurred just two days after IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez had formally launched the agency’s Strait of Hormuz Evacuation Framework.⁶ The immediate consequence of the IRGC attack was a severe chilling effect on maritime confidence. The IMO was forced to temporarily suspend its evacuation operations to reconfirm that safety guarantees remained viable, while maritime data providers noted that the pace of shipping normalization immediately slowed, with at least two tankers reversing course away from the UN-backed route to avoid Iranian targeting.⁷⁸

Kinetic Escalation: US Retaliatory Strikes and Regional Military Posture

The Iranian drone attack on commercial shipping triggered an immediate and forceful kinetic response from the United States military, placing the fragile MoU in jeopardy. On June 26, US Central Command executed a series of targeted airstrikes against sovereign Iranian territory.¹⁰ Utilizing a strike package that included six US warplanes supported by a half dozen aerial refueling tankers and a US Navy P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, American forces targeted four specific coastal radar sites, as well as missile and drone storage locations.¹⁰²⁸ The strikes were heavily concentrated near the southern Iranian port city of Sirik—where local state media reported explosions near a commercial pier—and on the strategically vital Qeshm Island, located directly adjacent to the Strait of Hormuz.⁹

The US military operation was accompanied by sharp strategic messaging from the highest levels of the American government. President Donald Trump, speaking shortly before the strikes commenced, explicitly categorized the Iranian drone attack as a “foolish violation” of the ceasefire, noting his frustration that Iran “took a shot yesterday, actually four of them”.⁷ US Vice President J.D. Vance reinforced this posture on social media, advising Tehran to “pick up the phone” to utilize the newly established deconfliction channels in Doha if they harbored disagreements regarding MoU implementation, warning bluntly that “violence will be met with violence”.⁷ CENTCOM’s official statement characterized the retaliation as a “powerful response” to unwarranted aggression, asserting that Iran’s dangerous behavior undermined the freedom of navigation vital to the international trade corridor, and reaffirming that the US military remains vigilant to ensure all aspects of the MoU are obeyed.¹⁰

The Islamic Republic responded with both rhetorical condemnation and claims of military counter-escalation. Iran’s Foreign Ministry strongly condemned the US strikes, asserting that the targeting of coastal surveillance facilities on sovereign territory was a direct violation of Article 1 of the MoU and the UN Charter.⁹ Ebrahim Azizi, head of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, criticized the US for attacking amid ongoing negotiations, framing Iran’s initial action against the Ever Lovely not as an escalation, but as “ceasefire management” necessary to enforce Iran’s rightful governance over the Strait.⁷ Crucially, the IRGC Navy issued a statement claiming they had responded immediately to the US aggression by launching counter-attacks against US military deployment sites in the region.⁹ While independent OSINT entities have not verified any damage to US assets or personnel, the IRGC warned that “in the event of repeated aggression, our response will be more extensive than this”.⁹

The risk of a wider regional conflagration remains acute, particularly considering the secondary maritime theater in the Red Sea. While global attention has focused on the Strait of Hormuz, the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen continue to pose a severe threat to commercial shipping.³⁴ The Houthis have maintained a complete ban on Israeli-linked ships transiting the Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait since June 8.³⁵ Furthermore, Houthi leadership has explicitly warned that the group retains the military capability and readiness to resume broader, indiscriminate attacks on commercial shipping in support of Iran if the US continues hostilities against Tehran.³⁷ This dynamic presents the continuous risk of a dual-chokepoint crisis that could cripple global supply chains regardless of the diplomatic outcomes in Switzerland.

The Role and Reactions of Third-Party Countries and Actors

The signing of the MoU and the subsequent military clashes have forced a rapid strategic realignment among key regional and global actors, each attempting to navigate the shifting balance of power in the Middle East.

China: Strategic Beneficiary and Diplomatic Endorser The People’s Republic of China has emerged as one of the primary strategic beneficiaries of the current de-escalation framework.⁵ Beijing’s overriding geopolitical concern is the preservation of global macroeconomic stability, and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz directly serves its core interests by ensuring the uninterrupted flow of energy.⁵ Economically, China has already capitalized on the easing of the US blockade; sellers of Iranian crude have significantly slashed prices for Chinese refiners as millions of barrels of previously restricted oil are shipped out of Hormuz.¹⁷

Diplomatically, Beijing has maintained a posture of calculated opportunism—actively supporting the MoU without entangling the People’s Liberation Army in the region’s volatile security architecture. On June 24, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi held a strategic phone conversation with Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar, explicitly thanking Pakistan for its prompt briefings and praising Islamabad’s “key and unique role” in mediating the peace process.³⁸ Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun publicly stated that the US-Iran MoU sends a “positive signal” to the international community, urging both Washington and Tehran to “work in the same direction for positive results”.¹² By vocalizing support for Iran’s sovereignty while heavily endorsing Pakistan’s on-the-ground mediation, China successfully reinforces its preferred international image as a stabilizing, non-interventionist power that reaps the economic rewards of regional peace.⁵

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the GCC: Security Anxiety and Maritime Freedom The Arab states of the Persian Gulf find themselves in a precarious strategic position. Economically, the GCC states are profound winners of the MoU; the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz is essential for their oil and gas exports, mitigating the severe economic slowdowns and inflation triggered by the 70-day naval conflict.⁵ However, the speed and nature of the US-Iran agreements have simultaneously deepened existential doubts within Gulf capitals regarding Washington’s long-term reliability as a security guarantor.⁵

This tension was fully displayed on June 25, when a joint GCC-US Ministerial Meeting convened in Manama, Bahrain.¹¹ Co-chaired by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Bahraini Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani, the summit included foreign ministers from all GCC member states, including the UAE.¹¹ While the joint communique welcomed the interim truce, the Arab states drew an absolute red line regarding maritime sovereignty, forcefully rejecting “any tolls, fees, or attempts to assert control” by Iran over the Strait of Hormuz.⁵ Secretary Rubio attempted to reassure the allies, stating that any final deal must address the full spectrum of Iranian threats, including ballistic missiles and proxy support.⁵ Yet, skepticism remains high; Dr. Anwar Gargash, diplomatic adviser to the UAE President, publicly expressed concern that Iran may have “over-negotiated” its position, reflecting fears that Tehran extracted too many economic concessions from Washington without fundamentally altering its aggressive regional posture.⁴²

Pakistan: Ascendant Mediator Among regional actors, Pakistan has significantly elevated its diplomatic and geopolitical standing. Operating as a joint mediator alongside Qatar, Pakistan was the vital conduit that prevented the total collapse of talks during the preceding months of war.¹ The Pakistani military and civilian leadership, notably Army Chief Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, maintained continuous, personalized channels between Washington and Tehran.¹ Islamabad’s credibility as a mediator relies heavily on its unique status as the only nuclear-armed Muslim state, providing it with the necessary gravitas to discuss issues of sovereign enrichment with the Iranian leadership.¹ Beyond the prestige of international mediation, Pakistan’s aggressive pursuit of a ceasefire is driven by a critical defensive objective: preventing the severe economic instability, refugee flows, and kinetic violence of the US-Iran conflict from spilling over its shared western border.⁵

Israel and Russia: Diverging Peripheries Israel has emerged as the principal political loser of the current diplomatic trajectory.⁵ As the United States and the Arab states pivot their focus entirely toward securing a durable arrangement to contain Iran’s nuclear program and prevent a wider war, Israel has found itself increasingly isolated from the emerging regional diplomatic consensus.⁵ Prior US hopes to rapidly expand the Abraham Accords have been stalled, and the current Israeli government’s active attempts to undermine the MoU—and its resistance to the US-imposed ceasefire in Lebanon—have further alienated regional partners.³

Finally, the geopolitical impact on the Russian Federation remains mixed.⁵ The successful reopening of the Strait of Hormuz has reversed the spike in global oil prices, directly cutting into the inflated energy revenues that Moscow was utilizing to fund its own military operations.⁵ However, from a strategic perspective, the de-escalation of the Middle East conflict reduces the likelihood that Arab states will seek to deepen their military and air defense cooperation with Ukraine, an indirect outcome that the Kremlin views favorably.⁵

3. Chronological Timeline of Key Events

The following timeline details the most significant, verified geopolitical, diplomatic, and military developments between the United States, Iran, and relevant regional actors over the past seven days, presented in strict ascending chronological order.

• June 21, 2026: Technical negotiations aimed at implementing the 14-point Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) officially commence at the Bürgenstock resort above Lake Lucerne in Switzerland. The delegations are led by US Vice President J.D. Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, functioning under the joint mediation of Pakistan and Qatar.¹
• June 21, 2026: Following the first full day of talks, negotiators at the Lake Lucerne Summit formally agree to establish a structural oversight framework, including a High-Level Committee, technical working groups, and a dedicated tripartite “Lebanon deconfliction cell” to enforce regional ceasefire parameters.¹
• June 22, 2026: The US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issues General License X (GL X). The sweeping measure temporarily authorizes a broad range of transactions involving Iranian-origin petroleum and petrochemical products, effectively reversing the “maximum pressure” doctrine through August 21, 2026.⁴
• June 23, 2026: Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian delivers a public address hailing the creation of the Lebanon deconfliction cell as a major, hard-won diplomatic achievement that successfully halted opposing military operations in Lebanese territory.²²
• June 23, 2026: The International Maritime Organization (IMO), under Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez, officially launches the Strait of Hormuz Evacuation Framework, developed in close cooperation with Oman and the UAE to secure commercial shipping routes.⁶
• June 24, 2026: Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi holds a high-level phone conversation with Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar. Wang Yi explicitly praises Pakistan’s mediation efforts in the US-Iran talks and reaffirms China’s support for Iranian sovereignty and regional stability.³⁸
• June 25, 2026: A GCC-US Ministerial Meeting is held in Manama, Bahrain, co-chaired by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Bahraini Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani. The assembled delegation issues a joint communique firmly rejecting any Iranian attempts to impose transit tolls or assert unilateral control over the Strait of Hormuz.¹¹
• June 25, 2026 (14:10 UTC): In a direct challenge to maritime freedom, an Iranian IRGC-N one-way attack drone successfully strikes the starboard side of the Singapore-flagged container ship M/V Ever Lovely. The incident occurs as the vessel attempts to exit the Strait of Hormuz using the IMO-backed southern route, approximately 7.5 nautical miles southeast of Dahit, Oman.⁶
• June 26, 2026: Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) issues a public warning declaring that any commercial vessels transiting outside of its unilaterally designated routes in the Strait of Hormuz will not be guaranteed safe passage, aggressively asserting Iranian administrative control over the waterway.⁶
• June 26, 2026: In direct kinetic retaliation for the attack on the Ever Lovely, US CENTCOM aircraft conduct targeted airstrikes against sovereign Iranian territory. The strikes successfully destroy coastal radar sites and missile and drone storage locations near the southern port city of Sirik and on Qeshm Island.⁹
• June 27, 2026: Iran’s Foreign Ministry formally condemns the US airstrikes as a severe violation of the MoU and international law. Concurrently, the IRGC Navy issues a statement claiming to have launched immediate retaliatory strikes against US military deployment sites in the region, warning of broader escalation if provoked.⁹

Please share the link on Facebook, Forums, with colleagues, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email us in**@*********ps.com. If you’d like to request a report or order a reprint, please click here for the corresponding page to open in new tab.

Sources Used

1. Iran-US Relations: Assessing the Bürgenstock Negotiations, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.specialeurasia.com/2026/06/22/us-iran-burgenstock-negotiations/
2. Memorandum of Understanding between the USA and Iran, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.eda.admin.ch/en/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-usa-and-iran
3. Lebanon ‘deconfliction cell’ emerges after intense Switzerland talks | Iran International, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202606224686
4. OFAC Issues a General License Authorizing Transactions in Iranian Oil, Petrochemical Products, and Petroleum Products for 60 Days, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.blankrome.com/news-and-events/ofac-issues-a-general-license-authorizing-transactions-in-iranian-oil-petrochemical-products-and-petroleum-products-for-60-days/
5. How a US-Iran deal can reshape the Middle East, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202606268920
6. Drone Strike on Ever Lovely Exposes the Fiction of a Free Strait – gCaptain, accessed June 27, 2026, https://gcaptain.com/drone-strike-on-ever-lovely-exposes-the-fiction-of-a-free-strait/
7. US strikes Iran in response to attack on ship | AP News, accessed June 27, 2026, https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-israel-war-hormuz-strait-june-26-2026-8c1a77eb82d25f00de814958114c7296
8. Iran warns ships against using unauthorised routes in Strait of …, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260626-iran-warns-ships-against-using-unauthorised-routes-in-strait-of-hormuz/
9. Iran war day 120: Tehran condemns US strikes, says it violates MoU …, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/27/iran-war-day-120-tehran-condemns-us-strikes-says-its-violation-of-mou
10. U.S. Strikes Iran in Response to Attack on Commercial Vessel, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PUBLIC-RELEASES/Article/4528341/us-strikes-iran-in-response-to-attack-on-commercial-vessel/
11. News, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.gcc-sg.org/en/MediaCenter/News/Pages/default.aspx?&&p_SortBehavior=0&p_ArticleStartDate=20260502%2021%3A00%3A00&&PageFirstRow=1&&View={08D56BF8-101C-4F4A-AD8F-9009DFC936BD}
12. China urges US, Iran to work in ‘same direction for positive results’, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/china-urges-us-iran-to-work-in-same-direction-for-positive-results/3974148
13. 2026 Iran war | Deal, Explained, United States, Israel, Strait of Hormuz, Map, & Conflict, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.britannica.com/event/2026-Iran-war
14. 2026 Iran war – Wikipedia, accessed June 27, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_war
15. China says US-Iran MoU sends “positive signal”, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/china-says-us-iran-mou-sends-positive-signal20260624163508
16. A bad peace: the Arab Gulf states and the US–Iran memorandum of understanding, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2026/06/a-bad-peace-the-arab-gulf-states-and-the-usiran-memorandum-of-understanding/
17. China says Iran-US MOU can open new path in ties, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202606223134
18. High-level U.S.-Iran talks conclude with a road map for peace, mediators say, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/06/21/us-iranian-meet-switzerland-hash-out-peace-plan/
19. Bürgenstock Resort cancelled 1,200 bookings for US-Iran talks – SWI swissinfo.ch, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/foreign-affairs/b%C3%BCrgenstock-resort-had-to-cancel-1200-bookings/91639008
20. US-Iran set up Lebanon ‘deconfliction cell’. Can it deliver peace, accessed June 27, 2026, https://indianexpress.com/article/world/us-iran-switzerland-talks-lebanon-deconfliction-cell-israel-ceasefire-10752416/
21. Lebanon discusses ‘deconfliction’ mechanism ahead of Israel talks | News – Al Jazeera, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/22/lebanon-discusses-de-confliction-mechanism-ahead-of-israel-talks
22. Pezeshkian hails Lebanon deconfliction cell as major achievement, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.middleeasteye.net/live-blog/live-blog-update/pezeshkian-hails-lebanon-deconfliction-cell-major-achievement
23. Issuance of Iran-related General License | Office of Foreign Assets Control, accessed June 27, 2026, https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20260622_33
24. United States Issues Temporary Authorization for Transactions Involving Iranian-Origin Oil and Petrochemical Products | Thought Leadership | June 2026 | Baker Botts, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.bakerbotts.com/thought-leadership/publications/2026/june/united-states-issues-temporary-authorization-for-transactions-involving-iranian-origin-oil
25. New Iran Authorization Implements Memorandum of Understanding – WilmerHale, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/client-alerts/20260625-new-iran-authorization-implements-memorandum-of-understanding
26. US strikes Iran after Strait of Hormuz cargo ship attack as ceasefire tensions escalate, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/iran-drone-strait-of-hormuz-israel-lebanon-conflict-june-26-2026
27. US says it struck Iran targets after attack on cargo ship in the strait of Hormuz, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/26/us-says-it-struck-iran-targets-after-attack-on-cargo-ship-on-the-strait-of-hormuz
28. US Airstrikes Hit Iran After It Attacks Ship, Testing Deal, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.airandspaceforces.com/us-conducts-airstrikes-iran-ship-attack-ceasefire/
29. US releases Iran strike video after Tehran drone hits ship in Strait of Hormuz, accessed June 27, 2026, https://indianexpress.com/article/world/us-strikes-iran-mv-ever-lovely-strait-hormuz-ceasefire-june-2026-10759767/
30. Day of the Seafarer 2026: Carrying world trade. Carrying the risks., accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/pressbriefings/pages/day-of-the-seafarer-2026-carrying-global-trade-carrying-the-risks.aspx
31. US strikes Iran in response to drone strike on commercial ship, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/26/us-strikes-iran-in-response-to-drone-strike-on-commercial-ship
32. Iran Update Special Report, June 25, 2026 | ISW, accessed June 27, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-special-report-june-25-2026/
33. West Asia war LIVE: Iran accuses U.S. of ‘blatant violation’ of peace deal, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/west-asia-war-iran-us-conflict-washington-tehran-ceasefire-strait-of-hormuz-israel-lebanon-peace-deal-live-updates-june-27-2026/article71153161.ece
34. 2026-006-Red Sea, Bab el Mandeb Strait, Gulf of Aden, Arabian Sea, and Somali Basin-Houthi Attacks on Commercial Vessels | MARAD – Department of Transportation, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.maritime.dot.gov/msci/2026-006-red-sea-bab-el-mandeb-strait-gulf-aden-arabian-sea-and-somali-basin-houthi-attacks
35. Another Hormuz? The Red Sea’s Threat to the Global Economy, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.cfr.org/articles/another-hormuz-the-red-seas-threat-to-the-global-economy
36. The next Strait of Hormuz crisis could be even worse, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/06/next-strait-hormuz-crisis-could-be-even-worse
37. Yemen, June 2026 Monthly Forecast, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2026-06/yemen-89.php
38. Wang Yi Holds a Phone Conversation with Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar_Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/wjbzhd/202606/t20260626_11953013.html
39. China and Pakistan coordinate closely for peace – Friends of …, accessed June 27, 2026, https://socialistchina.org/2026/06/26/china-and-pakistan-coordinate-closely-for-peace/
40. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian’s Regular Press Conference on June 18, 2026, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.iranwatch.org/library/governments/china/ministry-foreign-affairs/foreign-ministry-spokesperson-lin-jians-regular-press-conference-june-18-2026
41. Morning Briefing: June 26, 2026, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/morning-briefing-june-26-2026/3978369
42. Iran war latest: US strikes Iran in response to attack on ship transiting Strait of Hormuz, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/mena/2026/06/26/live-us-iran-donald-trump-strait-of-hormuz/?arena_mid=b8h1NcDglJKkQv7U4K5Q&startAfter=1779455265599
43. Pakistan PM says US-Iran peace deal signing expected within 24 hours | The Times of Israel, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/pakistan-pm-says-us-iran-peace-deal-signing-expected-within-24-hours/
44. Iran-US talks in Switzerland ongoing, delegation expected to “work through the night”: Report, accessed June 27, 2026, https://www.aninews.in/news/world/europe/iran-us-talks-in-switzerland-ongoing-delegation-expected-to-work-through-the-night-report20260622064621
45. US strikes Iran in response to attack on cargo ship in Strait of Hormuz, accessed June 27, 2026, https://english.alarabiya.net/amp/News/middle-east/2026/06/27/us-strikes-iran-in-response-to-attack-on-cargo-ship-in-strait-of-hormuz

1. Executive Summary

During the reporting period of June 13 through June 20, 2026, the geopolitical, military, and diplomatic architecture of the Middle East underwent a fundamental reconfiguration, marking the formal cessation of the 15-week international conflict that commenced in late February 2026. The defining dynamic of this seven-day operational window was the finalization, remote signing, and immediate implementation phase of the “Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding” (MoU). This 14-point diplomatic framework, brokered primarily by the Government of Pakistan with further negotiation facilitation provided by the State of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt ¹, establishes an immediate and permanent termination of military operations across all fronts between the United States, Israel, and the Islamic Republic of Iran.¹ The agreement mandates a temporary 60-day ceasefire extension, which is explicitly designed to serve as a transitional negotiating window to forge a comprehensive, permanent settlement regarding sanctions relief, nuclear capabilities, and regional security architectures.¹

A vital component of the MoU’s immediate implementation is the targeted normalization of global maritime commerce. Following extreme supply chain disruptions and historic energy market volatility—which witnessed Brent crude peak at $126 per barrel earlier in the conflict and the stranding of approximately 2,000 commercial vessels in the region—the United States officially lifted its naval blockade on all Iranian coastal ports on June 18.¹ Concurrently, Iran committed to a 60-day toll-free reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, initiating localized mine clearance operations to allow the safe passage of commercial transit under the newly activated Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA).¹ However, the strategic environment remains highly fragile. Intelligence assessments indicate that while conventional military exchanges and aerial bombardments have halted, the underlying systemic disputes regarding Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities, its ballistic missile infrastructure, and its regional proxy network were intentionally deferred from the immediate MoU to secure the cessation of hostilities.¹ The sequencing of this agreement reverses traditional non-proliferation models by granting immediate economic relief while deferring verifiable nuclear constraints.⁵

Furthermore, this diplomatic resolution has significantly elevated and recalibrated the strategic profile of third-party actors. Pakistan has transitioned from a vulnerable border state to a central diplomatic broker and the potential primary beneficiary of redirected Iranian overland trade.⁶ Simultaneously, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has publicly endorsed the de-escalation, positioning itself to reap the economic benefits of stabilized global energy markets and normalized Iranian oil exports without having expended direct military or financial capital during the crisis.⁸ Meanwhile, regional states such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are cautiously re-engaging, balancing mandatory multibillion-dollar financial contributions to Iran’s post-war reconstruction with enduring security apprehensions stemming from their vulnerability to asymmetric warfare.¹ Consequently, the current operational environment is characterized by rapid maritime de-escalation juxtaposed against highly complex, unresolved diplomatic negotiations and regional realignments.

2. Detailed Operational and Diplomatic Developments

2.1 Direct Bilateral and Indirect Interactions Between the US and Iran

The bilateral dynamic between Washington and Tehran during this seven-day period transitioned abruptly from active naval blockades, stalled mediation, and localized skirmishes to the formal adoption of the Islamabad Memorandum. The structure, legality, and strategic sequencing of this agreement represent a highly complex diplomatic pivot that warrants extensive analysis.

The Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding: Structural Framework and Legal Nature Drafted on June 14—when an initial phase of the agreement was signed by US Vice President JD Vance and Iran’s chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf—and electronically signed in its final 14-point form on June 17 by US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, the Islamabad MoU functions as an interim peace mechanism rather than a ratified, permanent treaty. Analysts note that the document was intentionally structured as a “memorandum of understanding” resting on “good faith” to bypass the domestic necessity of US Senate advice and consent, which a formal treaty would require under United States law.¹⁰ In its opening clauses, the MoU establishes a permanent termination of the threat or use of force between the parties, thereby restoring the United Nations Charter’s prohibition on military aggression.¹⁰ Concurrently, it opens a strictly temporary 60-day window to resolve core systemic disputes, stipulating that the final deal will eventually be endorsed by a binding resolution of the UN Security Council.¹

The sequencing of the Islamabad MoU diverges fundamentally from previous diplomatic frameworks, most notably the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Under the JCPOA, verified nuclear constraints and IAEA inspections were established as accomplished facts before sanctions relief was delivered.⁵ Under the 2026 Islamabad MoU, this logic is entirely reversed.⁵ Immediate, unilateral economic and military concessions are placed in the present tense, while verifiable Iranian constraints are relegated to future conditional negotiations.⁵ The agreement serves primarily as a “circuit breaker” to halt uncontrolled escalation rather than a durable settlement based on mutual confidence.⁵

Immediate Economic Relief and Sanctions Waivers Upon the signing of the MoU, the United States executed immediate economic relief measures designed to stabilize the Iranian economy, secure the government’s compliance with the ceasefire, and ease the severely strained global energy market.

• Sanctions Waivers on Petroleum: The US Treasury immediately issued comprehensive waivers on sanctions targeting Iranian crude oil and petroleum exports, along with associated maritime and insurance services. This concession allows Tehran to instantaneously resume selling crude oil on the international market, generating immediate revenue.¹
• Release of Frozen Assets: The agreement initiated the immediate unfreezing and transfer of Iranian state assets held in foreign jurisdictions, providing critical, immediate liquidity to the Central Bank of Iran to manage the domestic economic crisis exacerbated by the war.¹
• The Reconstruction Fund Mechanism: The MoU establishes a binding commitment by the United States and aligned regional partners to develop a definitive financial plan featuring a minimum of $300 billion dedicated to the post-war reconstruction and economic development of Iran.¹ While the precise mechanisms and long-term sources of this funding remain vague, the United Arab Emirates has already transferred $3 billion as an initial tranche of an expected $10 billion national contribution.¹
• Schedule for Full Sanctions Termination: The United States undertook a binding commitment to schedule the permanent termination of all unilateral primary and secondary sanctions, as well as associated UN Security Council and IAEA Board of Governors resolutions. The exact timeline for this termination is designated as a mandatory deliverable for the final comprehensive deal to be negotiated within the 60-day window.¹

Nuclear Commitments, IAEA Supervision, and Strategic Hedging While Iran formally reaffirmed its commitment not to procure or develop nuclear weapons, the operational constraints placed on its nuclear infrastructure remain highly fluid and subject to the upcoming 60-day negotiations.¹

• On-Site Down-Blending: The MoU establishes that Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpiles will not be surrendered or exported to third-party nations. Instead, the baseline methodology agreed upon mandates the down-blending of weapons-grade material to reactor-grade levels strictly on-site within Iranian territory.¹
• Verification Gaps and Inspection Lapses: The text invokes supervision by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to oversee the down-blending process. However, non-proliferation analysts highlight a critical intelligence vulnerability: the IAEA has lacked verification access to Iranian facilities since the outbreak of the war on February 28, 2026.⁵ The MoU does not specify an explicit, immediate date for the unconditional restoration of inspector access, nor does it immediately clarify the current size, location, or composition of the accumulated enriched stockpile.⁵
• Retention of Technical Latency: By allowing both the nuclear material and the advanced centrifuge cascades to remain inside the country during the 60-day interim standstill, Iran retains both the physical infrastructure and the institutional engineering know-how. This allows Tehran to maintain a state of nuclear latency, positioning the state to rapidly reverse the down-blending process should the final negotiations collapse.⁵ Compounding these verification risks, the technical negotiations designed to address these nuclear issues, originally scheduled to commence in Geneva, Switzerland on June 19, were postponed. Washington announced late on June 18 that Vice President Vance would not travel due to logistical arrangements lacking predictability.

Strategic Omissions, Regional Exclusions, and Narrative Control The 14-point framework notably omits any constraints on Iran’s ballistic missile program, which was extensively utilized during the conflict to target US bases and Israeli infrastructure.¹ Furthermore, it completely bypasses the status, funding, and operational freedom of Iran’s regional proxy networks, known collectively as the Axis of Resistance.¹ Israel, which was not a direct signatory or party to the MoU negotiations, has publicly disputed the framework’s application to its northern front. Israeli officials reserve the operational autonomy to conduct retaliatory strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon, despite Clause 1 of the MoU explicitly demanding the protection of Lebanese territorial integrity and sovereignty ¹—an impasse that Qatar had to directly intervene in to prevent the deal from collapsing.⁶

Domestically, both the US and Iranian administrations immediately launched aggressive narrative control campaigns. The White House, via official press releases highlighting the roles of President Trump and Vice President JD Vance ¹¹, characterized the deal as “America First in action,” claiming the agreement ended the era of “endless wars” and successfully forced Iran to the negotiating table from a position of “decimated” military weakness.¹¹ Iranian state messaging, conversely, emphasized the extraction of massive financial concessions, the strategic survival of the regime, the successful reopening of the Strait on Iranian terms, and the retention of domestic nuclear infrastructure without surrendering sovereign rights.³

To further contextualize the scope of the Islamabad Memorandum, the following table outlines the disposition of the core negotiation parameters as established by the June 17 signing:

2.2 Proxy Group Activities, Maritime Security Incidents, and Regional Military Movements

The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz—the vital maritime chokepoint through which approximately 20% of the world’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) and 25% of global seaborne oil trade normally traverses—was the primary catalyst for the intense international pressure driving the ceasefire negotiations.¹ During the week of June 13 to June 20, the transition from active naval warfare and blockades to commercial maritime normalization was fraught with logistical bottlenecks, legal disputes, and secondary security hurdles.

The Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) Following the failure of the mid-April Islamabad talks, the US had imposed a total naval blockade on Iranian ports on April 13, heavily interdicting maritime traffic.¹ On June 18, following the signing of the MoU, US Central Command (CENTCOM) officially announced the complete lifting of the United States’ naval blockade on all maritime traffic entering and exiting Iranian coastal areas, though US naval assets will remain stationed in the general area as a deterrent force.¹ Concurrently, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Iranian Supreme National Security Council formally activated the newly established “Persian Gulf Strait Authority” (PGSA).⁴

• Demining and Navigational Normalization: The MoU mandates that Iran use its “best efforts” to demine the strait and remove technical and military obstacles within 30 days.¹ To facilitate immediate transit, the PGSA began issuing fast-tracked authorizations for stranded commercial ships. However, these authorizations require vessels to strictly adhere to highly specific, Iranian-dictated paths and timings to avoid residual sea mines and military zones.⁴
• The “Tolls” vs. “Fees” Legal Friction: A significant diplomatic divergence emerged regarding the long-term maritime administration of the waterway. While US officials insisted the MoU secured a “permanently toll-free” waterway, Iranian state media and officials immediately clarified that the 60-day toll-free window is strictly temporary.¹ Following this 60-day period, the PGSA asserts the sovereign right to charge mandatory “fees” for security, pilotage, and navigational services. This establishes a de facto sovereign tax on international shipping through the strategic chokepoint, effectively fulfilling a long-standing IRGC objective to control access to the Persian Gulf.¹
• Logistical Backlog and “Ghost Fleet” Movements: The normalization process faces severe physical constraints. During the height of the crisis in April, the International Maritime Organization reported that over 2,000 ships and 20,000 mariners were stranded in the Persian Gulf or anchored outside the strait to avoid the conflict zone.¹ While Iranian state media broadcasted that 11 Iranian merchant ships successfully broke through the strait immediately following the MoU signing on June 17, clearing the massive international backlog under strict IRGC drone surveillance remains a prolonged operational challenge.¹ Furthermore, intelligence satellites observed on June 13 that three Iran-flagged tankers, accompanied by one associated ghost fleet tanker ¹³, which had previously sought refuge approximately 20 kilometers off the coast of Galle, Sri Lanka, to evade the US blockade—were preparing to return to Gulf waters to resume operations.¹³

The Red Sea, Bab el-Mandab, and the Houthi Axis While the Strait of Hormuz demonstrated concrete signs of de-escalation, maritime security in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden remained highly volatile, exposing the localized limits of the Islamabad MoU and the autonomy of Iran’s proxy network.

• Houthi Escalations and Declarations: The Ansar Allah (Houthi) movement in Yemen, which acts with significant operational autonomy from Tehran despite its alignment with the Axis of Resistance, escalated its rhetoric and posture during the reporting window.¹⁴ On June 8, the Houthis declared a “complete and total ban” on Israeli maritime navigation in the Red Sea, effectively treating all perceived enemy movements as legitimate military targets.¹⁶ This declaration followed the firing of several missiles at Israel on the same day, breaking a pause in strikes that the Houthis had observed since the initial April ceasefire.¹⁵
• Operational Harassment: The rhetoric was followed by tactical action. On June 10, a small vessel operating off the coast of Yemen harassed a commercial ship near the Bab el-Mandab Strait, indicating an active intent by the Houthis to enforce their declared maritime ban despite the broader US-Iran de-escalation framework.¹⁷
• The “Security Belt” Doctrine: Intelligence reporting highlights a coordinated strategic vision recently outlined by Brigadier General Esmail Qaani, commander of the IRGC Quds Force. Qaani announced the objective of establishing a contiguous “security belt” stretching from the Strait of Hormuz to the Bab el-Mandab Strait.¹⁵ By linking these two vital chokepoints, the Axis of Resistance aims to possess the capability to simultaneously choke global supply chains at two distinct geographical nodes in the event of future hostilities, compounding the threat to global energy markets.¹⁴
• Proliferation and Al-Shabaab Links: Amplifying the Red Sea threat matrix, verified intelligence reports from early June suggest emerging logistical coordination between the Houthi insurgents in Yemen and Al-Shabaab militants in Somalia.¹⁸ Despite deep ideological differences, the reported exchange of military technology between the two groups threatens to expand the operational reach of anti-shipping capabilities further south along the Horn of Africa, further destabilizing the Red Sea basin.¹⁸

To summarize the operational status of the region’s primary maritime corridors as of June 20, 2026:

2.3 The Role, Reactions, and Involvement of Third-Party Countries

The resolution of the 2026 Iran War has permanently altered the regional diplomatic architecture. The conflict’s economic fallout and subsequent diplomatic resolution have elevated specific states to unprecedented levels of influence while exposing the critical vulnerabilities of traditional economic hubs. During the June 13-20 reporting period, the reactions of these third-party actors crystallized.

Pakistan: The Strategic Pivot and Economic Dividends The Government of Pakistan emerged as the indispensable mediator of the crisis, successfully brokering the initial April 8 ceasefire and hosting the historic, albeit initially failed, “Islamabad Talks” before ultimately securing the final MoU.¹ On June 18, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif officially signed the Islamabad MoU in his capacity as the formal mediator and guarantor of the agreement.²

• Security Imperatives: Islamabad’s intervention was driven by acute strategic self-preservation rather than altruism. Sharing a highly porous 900-kilometer border with Iran and relying heavily on Persian Gulf energy supplies, Pakistan faced catastrophic economic inflation, energy insecurity, and domestic border instability if a prolonged US-Iran regional war continued.⁶
• The “Look East” Trade Realignment: Following the wartime closure of traditional UAE financial routes to Iran, Tehran accelerated its “Look East” doctrine, seeking to permanently reroute its continental trade through Pakistani overland corridors and the deep-water port of Gwadar.⁶ Intelligence estimates suggest that fully activating an Iran-Pakistan-China land corridor—integrating Iran into the $62 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) framework—could yield Pakistan up to $45 billion in annual revenue from transit, logistics, and warehousing operations.⁷
• Implementation Friction: Despite the diplomatic triumph, systemic bureaucratic inefficiencies within Pakistan continue to hinder optimal commercial execution. Hundreds of Iranian vessels that sought safe harbor near Karachi during the US blockade remain stalled due to administrative delays, highlighting a significant gap between Islamabad’s strategic ambitions and its operational capacity.⁶ Furthermore, US intelligence previously suspected Pakistan of covertly harboring Iranian military aircraft (such as the RC-130) at Nur Khan airbase during the height of the conflict to shield them from American strikes, indicating complex, multi-layered alliances operating beneath the diplomatic surface.¹

The People’s Republic of China (PRC): The Strategic Beneficiary The PRC has positioned itself as the premier geopolitical beneficiary of the Islamabad MoU. Through calculated restraint, Beijing secured its primary strategic objectives—the stabilization of the Middle East and the unencumbered resumption of Iranian oil exports—without deploying its own military assets or depleting its financial reserves.⁸

• Diplomatic Messaging: On June 18, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian publicly welcomed the signing of the MoU, commending its positive significance for easing regional tensions and avoiding further catastrophic economic fallout.²³ However, Beijing subtly criticized the deferred nature of the agreement, urging both the United States and Iran to approach the impending “stage two negotiations” with a “rational and practical attitude” to ensure the fragile agreement holds.²³
• Regional Influence: Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi held direct consultations with his Iranian counterpart to validate the deal, reinforcing China’s status as the ultimate guarantor of Iran’s economic survival via its massive, sustained oil purchases.⁸ Analysts assess that the crisis validated the fragility of US security umbrellas in the eyes of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, thereby accelerating regional openness to Chinese multilateral engagement.⁹ This strategic positioning will be further solidified as Wang Yi attends the 16th Meeting of BRICS National Security Advisors in India immediately following this reporting period.²³

The United Arab Emirates (UAE): Caution and Recalibration Prior to the war, the UAE—specifically Dubai—served as the central commercial conduit for Iranian international trade and banking.⁶ The outbreak of hostilities forced the UAE to sever or severely restrict these ties to comply with US blockades and to protect its own infrastructure from potential IRGC retaliation.⁶

• Financial Leverage and Reconstruction: In compliance with the MoU’s reconstruction parameters, the UAE immediately transferred $3 billion as the first installment of a pledged $10 billion national contribution to the Iranian economic development fund.¹ This rapid disbursement indicates Abu Dhabi’s willingness to utilize financial leverage to secure Iranian goodwill and prevent future proxy attacks.
• Strategic Distancing: While Abu Dhabi is cautiously moving to restore select commercial channels, a profound strategic suspicion remains. The war demonstrated that the UAE possesses an unsustainably high vulnerability to asymmetric attacks on its critical energy, transport, and desalination infrastructure.²⁴ Consequently, commercial relations have not returned to their pre-war equilibrium. This persistent strategic distancing is directly contributing to Iran’s aggressive pivot toward Pakistan’s Gwadar port as a safer, alternative logistical hub.⁶

Other International Actors

• Germany and the European Union: Despite the signing of the MoU and the theoretical reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, European nations remain highly skeptical of the PGSA’s ability or willingness to ensure safe, unconditional transit. Reflecting this distrust, on June 18, the German Ministry of Defense announced the deployment of two naval vessels to the Red Sea in preparation for a potential independent military escort mission through the Hormuz chokepoint.⁴
• Qatar and Oman: Qatar stepped in during the final hours of the MoU negotiations to provide critical financial guarantees and implementation mechanisms necessary to overcome a near-collapse of the talks over the highly contentious issue of Lebanese sovereignty and Israeli strike autonomy.⁶ Oman, historically a neutral facilitator, is explicitly named in the MoU as the future co-administrator, alongside Iran, of maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz. This provision significantly elevates Muscat’s role in the future security architecture of the Persian Gulf.¹

3. Chronological Timeline of Key Events

The following timeline details the specific sequence of events, intelligence indicators, and diplomatic milestones that occurred during the strict 7-day reporting window of June 13 to June 20, 2026.

• June 13, 2026:
• Intelligence satellites observe three unladen Iran-flagged tankers and one associated “ghost fleet” tanker ¹³ anchored approximately 20 kilometers offshore from Galle, Sri Lanka. The vessels sought logistical support from local service providers while evading the ongoing US naval blockade, signaling preparations to return to the Gulf amid rumors of an impending deal.¹³
• June 14, 2026:
• The framework text for the “Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding” is officially drafted. An initial phase of the agreement is signed by US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, witnessed by President Trump, signaling an imminent diplomatic breakthrough after 15 weeks of high-intensity conflict.
• June 15, 2026:
• Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif publicly announces that the United States and Iran have reached a preliminary agreement, validating Pakistan’s role as the primary mediator.²
• Think tanks and policy analysts in Washington formally acknowledge the framework, noting the 60-day ceasefire parameters, the imminent reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and the reversal of JCPOA-era sequencing.³
• June 17, 2026:
• The Islamabad Memorandum is officially signed. US President Donald Trump remotely signs the document during a G7 summit dinner with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Palace of Versailles. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signs the document in Tehran.¹
• Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei issues a written statement endorsing the 14-point memorandum, despite expressing institutional misgivings regarding the US commitment.¹
• NYK Bulkship (Asia) concludes a time-charter contract with JERA for two low-carbon ammonia transport vessels, reflecting immediate corporate responses to the anticipated stabilization of maritime shipping routes.⁴
• June 18, 2026:
• US Central Command (CENTCOM) officially announces via social media that the United States military has completely lifted its naval blockade on maritime traffic entering and exiting Iranian ports.¹
• Iranian state media reports that 11 Iranian merchant ships successfully break through the Strait of Hormuz immediately following the MoU signing, marking the first commercial movements since the blockade began.¹
• Iran’s Supreme National Security Council formally tasks the “Persian Gulf Strait Authority” (PGSA) with issuing fast-tracked authorizations for ships passing through the Strait, establishing strict routing and timing mandates to avoid residual sea mines.⁴
• Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif officially countersigns the Islamabad MoU in his capacity as the state mediator, declaring the agreement has entered into force.²²
• Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian issues a formal statement welcoming the MoU, urging both parties to uphold the spirit of the contract in good faith during the upcoming “stage two” negotiations.²³
• The German Ministry of Defense announces the deployment of two naval vessels to the Red Sea, preparing for a potential independent military mission to secure the Strait of Hormuz despite the ceasefire.⁴
• Late in the day, Washington announces the postponement of technical talks on a final settlement scheduled for June 19 in Geneva, Switzerland, citing that logistics for Vice President JD Vance’s travel were not “simple or predictable.”
• June 19, 2026:
• The White House releases the official, unredacted 14-point text of the Islamabad Memorandum. President Trump issues statements claiming the agreement ensures Iran will never obtain a nuclear weapon and successfully restores global free navigation.⁵
• Independent defense analysts publish comprehensive critiques of the MoU text, highlighting the inherent strategic risks of granting immediate economic relief (oil waivers, asset releases) while deferring verifiable nuclear down-blending to future negotiations, noting the lack of IAEA access since February.⁵
• The planned technical negotiations in Geneva fail to commence following the US delegation’s cancellation of travel.
• June 20, 2026:
• Regional economic realignment accelerates. A high-level commercial business delegation from Mashhad, Iran, arrives in Pakistan to formalize new trade corridors and supply chains, capitalizing on the strategic shift away from UAE-based logistics toward the Gwadar port integration.⁶

Please share the link on Facebook, Forums, with colleagues, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email us in**@*********ps.com. If you’d like to request a report or order a reprint, please click here for the corresponding page to open in new tab.

Sources Used

1. 2026 Strait of Hormuz crisis – Wikipedia, accessed June 20, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Strait_of_Hormuz_crisis
2. Full Text of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding between …, accessed June 20, 2026, https://middleeastoutlook.com/2026/06/19/full-text-of-the-islamabad-memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-united-states-and-iran/
3. The United States and Iran Announce a Deal to End the War | State of Play – CSIS, accessed June 20, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/united-states-and-iran-announce-deal-end-war-state-play
4. Iran’s Strait Authority To Facilitate Passage Through – Marine Link, accessed June 20, 2026, https://www.marinelink.com/news/irans-strait-authority-facilitate-passage-540477
5. Trust, Then Verify Later – Small Wars Journal, accessed June 20, 2026, https://smallwarsjournal.com/2026/06/19/trust-then-verify-later/
6. Pakistan successfully brokered peace between the US and Iran …, accessed June 20, 2026, https://www.dawn.com/news/2009462/pakistan-successfully-brokered-peace-between-the-us-and-iran-can-it-now-reap-the-dividend
7. A Strategic Conundrum: Pakistan’s Transit Corridor to Iran as Lifeline or Liability, accessed June 20, 2026, https://mei.edu/publication/a-strategic-conundrum-pakistans-transit-corridor-to-iran-as-lifeline-or-liability/
8. What the US-Iran deal means for the rest of the Middle East (and beyond) – Atlantic Council, accessed June 20, 2026, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/what-the-us-iran-deal-means-for-the-rest-of-the-middle-east-and-beyond/
9. How Trump’s Iran war boosted Beijing – ThinkChina.sg, accessed June 20, 2026, https://www.thinkchina.sg/politics/how-trumps-iran-war-boosted-beijing
10. The US–Iran memorandum of understanding nods to international …, accessed June 20, 2026, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/06/us-iran-memorandum-understanding-nods-international-law-can-be-taken-seriously
11. President Trump’s Iran Agreement Is America First in Action, accessed June 20, 2026, https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/06/president-trumps-iran-agreement-is-america-first-in-action/
12. Trump’s Iran Deal: What We Know So Far – Council on Foreign Relations, accessed June 20, 2026, https://www.cfr.org/articles/is-a-u-s-iran-deal-within-reach-six-key-issues-that-could-shape-a-ceasefire
13. Iran War Shipping Update – June 15, 2026 | UANI, accessed June 20, 2026, https://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/blog/iran-war-shipping-update-june-15-2026
14. Iran and the new Persian Gulf equilibrium | Chatham House, accessed June 20, 2026, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/06/iran-and-new-persian-gulf-equilibrium
15. Yemen: Briefing and Consultations : What’s In Blue, accessed June 20, 2026, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2026/06/yemen-briefing-and-consultations-45.php
16. Yemen’s Houthis declare ‘total ban’ on Israeli ships in Red Sea – Al Arabiya, accessed June 20, 2026, https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2026/06/08/yemen-s-houthis-declare-ban-on-israeli-shipping-in-red-sea-statement
17. The next Strait of Hormuz crisis could be even worse – Chatham House, accessed June 20, 2026, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/06/next-strait-hormuz-crisis-could-be-even-worse
18. Houthis and Al-Shabaab conspiring to choke Red Sea routes – Asia Times, accessed June 20, 2026, https://asiatimes.com/2026/06/houthis-and-al-shabaab-conspiring-to-choke-red-sea-routes/
19. Red Sea crisis – Wikipedia, accessed June 20, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Sea_crisis
20. Red Sea Uncertainty: A 2026 Forecast for the Houthis Actions – Global Security Review, accessed June 20, 2026, https://globalsecurityreview.com/red-sea-uncertainty-a-2026-forecast-for-the-houthis-actions/
21. 2026 Iran war ceasefire – Wikipedia, accessed June 20, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_war_ceasefire
22. Pakistani premier signs Islamabad MoU as mediator between US, Iran, accessed June 20, 2026, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/pakistani-premier-signs-islamabad-mou-as-mediator-between-us-iran/3970578
23. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian’s Regular Press Conference on June 18, 2026, accessed June 20, 2026, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xw/fyrbt/202606/t20260618_11948720.html
24. How the Iran war will change the Middle East | Brookings, accessed June 20, 2026, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-the-iran-war-will-change-the-middle-east/