Iran’s chief negotiator has portrayed the preliminary agreement with Washington as a diplomatic triumph, arguing that Tehran secured through negotiations far more than it could have achieved on the battlefield.
Speaking at an economic gathering in Tehran on June 17, 2026, Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf said, “Everything we sought to achieve through military action, we obtained several times over through negotiation; it was not even comparable.”
The remarks are likely to further fuel criticism of President Donald Trump’s Iran deal in the United States. Rather than presenting the memorandum as a compromise reached under military and economic pressure, Ghalibaf portrayed it as a victory that delivered gains beyond those achievable through force. The comments reinforce a growing perception among critics that Tehran views the agreement less as a mutual settlement than as a diplomatic victory.
“Everything we sought to achieve through military action, we obtained several times over through negotiation; it was not even comparable.”
Ghalibaf also insisted that sanctions relief would not come at the price of surrender. “If the meaning of sanctions relief is capitulation, we will never accept it,” he said. He praised cooperation with China and suggested that Iran would occupy a central place in emerging geopolitical blocs. “Let me say this clearly: These blocs are certain to emerge, and in many ways, they are already taking shape. Whatever form they ultimately take, two countries will undoubtedly be at their core: China and Iran.”
Based on publicly reported terms, critics argue that Ghalibaf’s confidence is not propaganda but reflects the substance of the agreement itself. The memorandum reportedly focuses on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, lifting the U.S. naval blockade, restoring Iranian oil exports through sanctions waivers, granting access to at least some frozen assets, and launching a 60-day negotiating process on the nuclear issue.
However, the more contentious issues that Washington cited when the conflict began—including Iran’s ballistic missile program, regional proxy network, and the future structure of Iranian influence across the Middle East—appear to be either absent from the initial framework or deferred to future negotiations.
At the same time, several reported provisions would provide Tehran with immediate economic benefits while requiring only limited nuclear steps during the interim period. Critics across the political spectrum have therefore argued that the agreement risks exchanging hard-won military leverage for promises of future negotiations rather than concrete concessions. Some analysts have gone further, arguing that the United States is effectively paying to reopen a waterway that had been open before the war and rewarding Iran for pressure tactics that Washington originally set out to defeat.
A central issue is the future status of the Strait of Hormuz, which many critics view as the principal source of leverage Tehran used to bring Washington to the negotiating table.
Nour News, a media outlet closely aligned with Iran’s security establishment, offered a perspective on the future of the Strait of Hormuz in a June 18, 2026, commentary when it argued that the primary issue after the agreement will be to prevent a return to the conditions that allowed disruption in the first place.
Iranian officials appear determined to use the leverage created during the conflict to seek a lasting revision of the security framework governing one of the world’s most important energy corridors.
The outlet suggested that the coming months could see efforts to establish new political, legal, and security arrangements designed to preserve what it called the “new situation” in the Strait. The language indicates that Tehran does not view Hormuz as a closed chapter or a temporary wartime bargaining chip. Rather, Iranian officials appear determined to use the leverage created during the conflict to seek a lasting revision of the security framework governing one of the world’s most important energy corridors.
The Nour News commentary also sheds light on how Tehran views the post-agreement regional order. Rather than focusing solely on sanctions relief or nuclear restrictions, the outlet argued that Iran should use the 60-day negotiating period to reshape the region’s security architecture. It called for neighboring states to become “shareholders in security” and help prevent future confrontations, while linking regional stability to what it described as Iran’s “legitimate rights.” The message suggests that Tehran is seeking not only a deal with Washington but also a regional framework that makes future military pressure against Iran more costly and limits efforts to contain the Islamic Republic’s influence.
Some Iranian social media users noted Ghalibaf’s repeated use of “I” and “me” throughout the speech and the complete absence of any reference to the supreme leader. Several interpreted this as evidence of an evolving power structure following Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s death, with senior political and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps figures increasingly presenting themselves as decision-makers in their own right. While such conclusions remain speculative, the reaction highlights continuing uncertainty over where ultimate authority now resides within the Islamic Republic.
