A newly signed agreement between the United States and Iran aimed at reopening the Strait of Hormuz and restarting negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear programme is drawing sharply divided reactions from world leaders, political analysts, and lawmakers.
Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, who reportedly played a mediating role in the discussions, welcomed the breakthrough and described it as a peaceful resolution to tensions between Washington and Tehran. He also praised both governments for reaching an understanding that would immediately pave the way for the reopening of the strategically important waterway.
The memorandum of understanding (MOU), which sets the framework for 60 days of negotiations between the two countries, outlines a deal under which Iran will reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for waivers on certain US sanctions affecting crude oil exports, petroleum products, and related banking services. The parties are also expected to begin talks on Iran’s nuclear programme and its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
Leaders of the G7 nations welcomed the development, describing it as a significant opportunity to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. European governments, which have largely remained outside the negotiations, expressed relief at the prospect of renewed oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz. French President Emmanuel Macron said the agreement could help stabilize global markets and reduce economic uncertainty linked to the disruption of energy supplies.
The response in Israel, however, has been far less enthusiastic. Several political figures and security analysts questioned whether Iran would genuinely engage in meaningful negotiations now that economic and military pressure from the United States has been eased.
Former senior adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Mark Regev, argued that the agreement risks giving Iran breathing space without securing firm commitments on its nuclear activities. According to him, the reopening of oil exports could provide Tehran with increased financial resources before any concrete progress is achieved in negotiations.
Criticism has also emerged from Israel’s opposition. Opposition leader Yair Lapid accused the government of failing to secure the outcome it had promised, while some commentators warned that the deal could weaken Israel’s strategic position. Reports suggest Netanyahu’s Likud party may be reassessing plans to emphasize the prime minister’s close relationship with former US President Donald Trump ahead of upcoming elections.
Not all Israeli voices opposed the agreement. Danny Citrinowicz, a former head of the Iran branch of Israeli military intelligence, argued that the deal reflects a more realistic approach to managing tensions with Iran. He suggested that Washington had stepped back from more ambitious objectives in favor of a practical strategy aimed at preventing further escalation.
The agreement has also triggered debate in the United States. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, after discussions with US envoy Steve Witkoff, said reopening the Strait of Hormuz and reducing hostilities represented a positive development. However, other lawmakers remained skeptical. Senators Bill Cassidy and Ted Cruz questioned whether the arrangement adequately addressed Iran’s nuclear ambitions, while Democratic figures including Adam Schiff and former national security adviser Susan Rice criticized the deal, arguing that Iran received substantial concessions without offering sufficient guarantees in return.
Despite the differing views, both sides are portraying the agreement as a victory. Donald Trump described it as a major success for the United States, while Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Ghalibaf, characterized it as evidence of American failure. With negotiations now set to continue over the coming weeks, the long-term impact of the agreement on regional security, global energy markets, and Iran’s nuclear programme remains uncertain.
