The deal, which is between the U.S. and Iran, has not been made public, and officials have sometimes offered contradictory interpretations of what is in it. While Israel is not party to the agreement, it is part of the war: It joined the U.S. in launching strikes on Iran on Feb. 28, and has since fought the Iran-backed Hezbollah militant group in Lebanon and seized large swaths of that country.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Israel’s continued occupation of southern Lebanon would violate the deal.
“Without the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territories they occupied during this war, the war has not fully come to an end,” Araghchi said.
Pakistan, a key mediator, has said the deal called for an end to military operations, including in Lebanon, as Iran long insisted. But Araghchi’s call for a withdrawal adds a new wrinkle.
A U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss outlines of the agreement, has said the deal did not call for an Israeli withdrawal. And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday that Israel would remain in Lebanon “as long as necessary.”
The negotiations to end the war have been plagued by such disagreements before — leading to a prolonged but uneasy ceasefire that has failed to develop into a permanent end to hostilities and that has left the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial waterway for the world’s energy supplies, effectively shut.
Unresolved issues cast doubt on agreement's long-term prospects
The discrepancy underscored how much of the agreement remains apparently unresolved ahead of a planned ceremonial signing Friday in Geneva.
The unpublished agreement provides for the “immediate” opening of the Strait of Hormuz and lifting of the blockade, according to a senior U.S. official who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity to discuss outlines of the agreement on Monday.
