![\"A](\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/GettyImages-2281606170-e1781972186770.jpg?fit=7200%2C3600\")
The White House<\/span> has been desperate to find a way out of the quagmire of its own making in Iran, leading to the remote signing on June 15 of a memorandum of understanding that promises extraordinary concessions to the Islamic Republic. Stipulations once deemed a \u201cnightmare for Israel<\/a>\u201d by American politicians and dismissed by President Donald Trump as \u201cnot acceptable<\/a>\u201d \u2014 such as total sanctions relief and the unfreezing of billions of dollars of funds held abroad \u2014 are now reality. Despite attempts by the Trump administration to spin this as an achievement<\/a> of all of America\u2019s goals and an \u201cunconditional surrender<\/a>\u201d by Iran, the deal has been met with skepticism, derision, anger, and mockery by Democrats and even some Republicans, pushing close Trump allies such as Fox News host Mark Levin and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz to admonish the president for doing the \u201cunthinkable<\/a>\u201d by capitulating to Iran.<\/p>\n In Israel, the deal has been seen far more uniformly across the political spectrum as an immense and almost incomprehensible betrayal by the United States, an unforeseen cruelty by Trump, and an incalculable failure by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Only 11 percent<\/a> of Israelis say that their country won the war against Iran, and a whopping 71 percent do not expect Trump to look out for Israeli interests in future negotiations. One Likud member of the Knesset expressed his frustration by filming<\/a> himself taking off his \u201cMake America Great Again\u201d hat and instead putting on a \u201cTotal Victory<\/a>\u201d hat, a phrase invoked by Netanyahu<\/a> to justify the wholesale destruction of the Gaza Strip.<\/p>\n In Iran, the atmosphere is still not entirely jubilant.<\/a> Much of Iran\u2019s media and many officials have indeed taken a triumphant attitude: The front page of Javan, an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-aligned newspaper, depicted a crowd of Iranians breaking through a wall of threats<\/a> made by the Trump administration, and Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran\u2019s chief negotiator, claimed<\/a> that \u201ceverything we wanted to achieve through military action, we achieved many times over through negotiation.\u201d But past betrayals are, after all, far too recent to forget.<\/p>\n It was only in April, for instance, when Israel unilaterally insisted it wasn\u2019t party to the ceasefire in Lebanon and continued its war there<\/a>. Previous negotiations with America only served as a cover for war preparations in June 2025 and February 2026. This has resulted in a national mood that is much more cautious than the elation that many felt after the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iran nuclear deal negotiated under Barack Obama and agreed to by the Rouhani administration, was adopted in 2015.<\/p>\n While an overwhelming majority of the country has backed the diplomatic track, criticism of the efforts of the team lead by Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has burned subtly in the background since early April. Supporters of the coalition known as the Front of Islamic Revolution Stability, representing the largest faction of the conservatives in the Iranian Parliament, have begun making their objections known, countering previous attempts<\/a> by those in power to present a united front and to dispense with hardliner-versus-reformist politicking amid the war.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Criticism of current diplomatic efforts on the Iranian state television program \u201cSoraya\u201d in late May led to the suspension<\/a> of the program days later. In response, its host, Mohsen Maqsoodi, held live conversations in Tehran\u2019s Valiasr Square, where political commentator Ali Abdi criticized<\/a> the state for not striking Israel as its army continues to bulldoze Lebanon, which led to that series\u2019 cancellation as well. Rumors<\/a> swirled online that the cancellation was owed to an intervention by an adviser to Ghalibaf.<\/p>\n After Araghchi gave an interview on state TV on June 12 saying that Iran would have to make concessions in its dealings, angry demonstrators who were attending nightly state-sponsored rallies demanded the diplomatic corps remember the \u201cblood of the Leader [Khamenei],\u201d with one speaker in Tehran\u2019s Enghelab Square leading marchers in chants<\/a> of \u201cDeath to the compromiser,\u201d against those who think \u201cAmerica has something to offer [Iran].\u201d<\/p>\n In Parliament, conservatives affiliated or allied with the Front have made their criticism<\/a> vocal, with members calling for Araghchi to be barred from contacting Trump administration negotiator Steve Witkoff and demanding Parliament see the deal before it is signed. One representative called the agreement worse than \u201cthe JCPOA and [the Treaty of] Turkmenchay,\u201d referring to the 1828 treaty that ceded swathes of Iranian territory to the Russian Empire.\u00a0<\/p>\n Tehran representative Mahmoud Nabavian has been arguably the most prominent member of Parliament criticizing<\/a> the government\u2019s diplomats, castigating Araghchi for leaving gaps in the memorandum of understanding that America could exploit, namely the immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz<\/a> erasing Iran\u2019s economic leverage<\/a>, and the lack of clarity in the document about timelines for the lifting of sanctions and the exit of American forces from the region.<\/p>\n The public criticism has less so outlined how exactly Iran could extract more concessions. But it appears such sentiment is now being expressed at the highest level of government: Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei. In a statement announcing his approval of the deal, Mojtaba raised the eyebrows of some analysts by saying that he \u201chad a different view<\/a>\u201d than what was agreed to by his negotiators, but nevertheless acceded to the wishes of President Masoud Pezeshkian on the condition that Iran rejects \u201cexcessive demands\u201d made by the United States, remarking that the nation \u201cawait[s] the realization of the aforementioned conditions.\u201d<\/p>\n This kind of\u00a0public and immediate skepticism of a deal agreed to by the elected government was not the type of messaging made by Mojtaba\u2019s father, Ali Khamenei, who reserved public criticism<\/a> of the red lines crossed in JCPOA negotiations until the deal had been torn up years later by the Trump administration<\/a>. Coverage in Axios<\/a> from an Israeli analyst speculated that Mojtaba means to place any failure of the deal firmly on the shoulders of the Iranian president.<\/p>\n While the deal has yielded extraordinary concessions for Iran, there are already dark clouds looming. Concerns<\/a> are emerging among other members of Parliament about the agreement requiring cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency<\/a>, which was suspended<\/a> last year by the elected legislature. More importantly, the first clause of the agreement \u2014 which requires an immediate and permanent end to the war in Lebanon \u2014 is already being shattered.\u00a0<\/p>\n Israel, as it did when the ceasefire was initially achieved in early April, has again argued that it must remain<\/a> in southern Lebanon<\/a> for as long as Israel\u2019s national security demands it. A ceasefire apparently brokered<\/a> between Hezbollah and Israel on Friday was broken within minutes as Israel continued to bombard the Lebanese south. An order has apparently come down on Saturday from Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz for the Israeli military to cease firing in Lebanon, but not withdraw from any of its positions and respond to any Hezbollah attack on its occupying forces. This leaves open the question of how Israeli military doctrine in southern Lebanon is actually supposed to change.<\/p>\n