Ghalibaf: No Progress on Remaining MoU Clauses Until Initial Five Are Finalized
WANA (Jul 01) – Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf stated during a televised address on Tuesday night that Iran would not proceed to the next phase of implementing the remaining clauses of the memorandum of understanding (MoU) until its initial five clauses were fully stabilized and finalized.
The Parliament Speaker added that the first clause of the memorandum explicitly stated that Lebanon’s territorial sovereignty, based on the country’s official and recognized geographical map, must remain the foundational status. He explained that this meant the war must end, no further military operations should occur, and displaced citizens must be able to return to their homes.
According to the agreement, he noted, the enemy—which had occupied parts of Lebanese territory and effectively prolonged the war under the guise of a ceasefire—must withdraw.
Ghalibaf continued that the intensity of the clashes had suddenly spiked on Thursday and Friday.
He observed that certain enemies, fully aware that they were compelled to evacuate their territories, attempted to inflict serious damage by targeting sensitive locations in an effort to disrupt the implementation of the memorandum. However, he emphasized that this intense fighting ultimately forced the United States to fulfill its commitments, noting that both Iran and the U.S. serve as guarantors for the implementation of these clauses regarding Lebanon.
He explained that this situation led them to accelerate the process and travel to Switzerland on Sunday.
He further added that during those talks, their top priority was the issue of Lebanon, pointing out that following continuous follow-ups, the conditions had become significantly different from the past.
He stated that it had currently been agreed upon that Iran, the U.S., and Lebanon would establish a joint committee to monitor the termination of the war and restore national sovereignty to Lebanon, adding that they were currently in the phase of pursuing the implementation of this committee.
Ghalibaf noted that he had spoken with Lebanon’s Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri just the day before, mentioning that Iran had designated its ambassador as its representative on the committee, while the American side had also appointed its individual. He remarked that Lebanon, naturally, must designate its own representative to make the process operational there.
He stressed that they had prioritized the Lebanese issue and were now witnessing the establishment of calm. He observed that because occupying forces and the local population were currently in close proximity, alongside the presence of resistance forces in the region, the occurrence of minor and scattered clashes was natural.
The head of the Iranian negotiating team continued that television channels sometimes over-emphasize these small clashes, which he found acceptable, but he noted it was also necessary to reflect on the difficult conditions the war in Lebanon had undergone.
He recalled days when, even during a single day of ceasefire, enemy attacks resulted in around 1,000 wounded and nearly 300 “martyrs”.
He mentioned there were also days with scattered clashes limited to machine guns or drones. He acknowledged that the full stabilization of conditions would certainly take time, but stressed that these efforts reflected their serious follow-ups, which is why they maintain that talks are ongoing.
He reiterated that until these five clauses, one of which concerns Lebanon, are fully stabilized and finalized, they would not proceed to the next phase of implementing the remaining clauses.
‘Negotiation is a Method of Struggle’
Ghalibaf described negotiation as a method of struggle, stating that this approach perfectly aligns with the strategy of revolutionary rationality. From this perspective, he explained that negotiation does not mean compromise, but rather shifting the field of conflict from a costly arena to a sphere of tension management—namely diplomacy—without weakening the country’s military deterrence.
He added that negotiating with an enemy that has a history of breaking promises requires keeping a strong hand on the table at all times, noting that military power serves as the legal backing for diplomacy.
The Parliament Speaker emphasized that the experience from previous Lebanese ceasefires showed that within the lexicon of the resistance, a ceasefire is not an absolute halt but rather a managed situation. He stated that if the Israeli regime violated it, a proportionate response remained the legal and operational right of the resistance.
He characterized this as coercive diplomacy, meaning an agreement is signed not out of weakness, but to achieve strategic objectives under conditions where reaching a sustainable peace is impossible.
He stated that if diplomacy could prevent the martyrdom of forces and improve the living conditions of the people at the lowest cost, its deployment became a rational necessity.
He argued that this perspective does not contradict struggle but rather complements it, by preserving the lives of human assets for battle at a more critical time.
Ghalibaf recalled that Hezbollah, at this level of activism, always pursues a duality: maintaining its defensive power while simultaneously utilizing political potentials to stabilize achievements on the ground.
He mentioned that Sheikh Naim Qassem, as a figure who has always emphasized the line of resistance, accepts any understanding strictly within the framework of preserving Lebanon’s dignity and deterrence.
From Hormuz to Lebanon: Ghalibaf Details Swiss Talks Results
WANA (Jun 23) – Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, head of Iran’s negotiating team, has provided the first detailed account of the recent four-party talks held in Switzerland, announcing a series of understandings reached between Iran, the United States, and regional mediators. He said the management of the Strait of Hormuz would not return to pre-war conditions. […]
Field and Diplomacy as Two Edges of the Same Scissors
He emphasized that the field and diplomacy are two edges of the same scissors, asserting that if either is removed, the country’s bargaining power would suffer. He added that the main challenge along this path is domestic persuasion—specifically, how to demonstrate that this reduction in clashes does not mean a retreat, but rather intelligent management to sustain the struggle.
Ghalibaf stated that the implementation of the memorandum of understanding was contingent upon the end of the war in Iran and Lebanon, lifting the blockade, reopening the strait, exporting oil, and releasing frozen assets. He explained that according to Clause 13 of the memorandum, following its signing, its initiation depended on the implementation of Clauses 1, 4, 5, 10, and 11.
He specified that this commencement included ending the war in Iran and Lebanon, lifting the blockade, gradually reopening the Strait of Hormuz, exporting oil and its derivatives, and releasing frozen funds.
He added that their memorandum sought the independence of Lebanon, whereas the Washington agreement aimed at normalizing Lebanon’s relations with the Israeli regime.
The Parliament Speaker emphasized that when the Lebanese people looked at the memorandum and saw the U.S. intervening, they also observed what the Zionist regime was doing in parallel. He noted that alongside this, a 14-article conclusion had been reached in Washington, but emphasized that the Lebanese people did not accept that conclusion.
Ghalibaf stated that such an agreement violated the Lebanese constitution, as it effectively allowed Israel to officially return to Lebanon and placed the Lebanese army at the service of the Israeli regime to secure its safety.
He clarified that they were in a battle with the Israeli regime and that this division also existed within the U.S. itself. He pointed out that Senator Rubio and Vice President Vance were pursuing different paths, questioning the actions Rubio took on Thursday along the Persian Gulf and in Bahrain. He noted that all of Rubio’s actions were aimed against the memorandum, intending to incite the Persian Gulf countries against the strait.
The head of the Iranian negotiating team stated that Iran possessed a memorandum and stood firmly by it. He added that Rubio was pursuing the Washington agreement to push forward the “Abraham Accords” and normalize Lebanon’s ties with the Israeli regime, but HTTP emphasized that Iran’s memorandum precisely preserved Lebanon’s independence.
Naval Blockade Lifted on Night of MoU Signing
Stating that the American naval blockade had completely ended, Ghalibaf said that when they finalized the negotiations, they stipulated in Clause 1 of the agreement that no war or operations should henceforth be initiated against Lebanon, that parties must refrain from threats or force against one another, and that Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty must be guaranteed.
He continued that Clause 4 outlined that immediately upon signing the memorandum of understanding, the United States must begin lifting the naval blockade, refrain from any harassment or obstruction against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and completely terminate the naval blockade within 30 days.
The Parliament Speaker recalled that when the initial signing of the memorandum took place, they secured a promise from the opposing side that Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, acting as a mediator for the end of the war, and Donald Trump would announce the end of the naval blockade that very night.
He emphasized that it did not even take 30 days, which he called a sign of the power of both the field and diplomacy.
Over 40 Million Barrels of Oil Exported Since Lifting Blockade
Ghalibaf stated that from the day they lifted the blockade until then, they had exported more than 40 million barrels of oil.
He noted that this occurred in less than 10 to 12 days, whereas for nearly 50-odd days prior, they had not been able to export a single barrel of oil because they were preoccupied with resolving this very issue to make it possible.
Nuclear Enrichment an Inalienable Right; Missile Power Non-Negotiable
Ghalibaf stated that they must definitely pursue the talks and this memorandum, which he described as their document of pride, with utmost seriousness.
The head of the Iranian negotiating team added that Clause 14 of the memorandum specified that its provisions must be approved by the UN Security Council, but questioned what guarantee actually existed. He brought up that Trump had torn up and ignored a UN resolution in 2017, adding that in the face of such clear aggression, the United Nations failed to issue even a single statement of condemnation.
Ghalibaf emphasized that domestic strength and a powerful field were the only real guarantees for the country, declaring that offensive capabilities and missile power were absolutely non-negotiable.
He pointed to the enthusiastic, round-the-clock presence of people from all walks of life and political leanings on the streets as proof of this steadfastness, noting that people had been taking to the streets for 120 nights.
He continued that regarding the axis of resistance and its cells, they would not hold any negotiations with any party. He added that the enemies once sought to overthrow and deny the existence of the resistance front.
Ghalibaf clarified that in the nuclear domain, while remaining committed to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regulations and their membership in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), they emphasized that enrichment was their inalienable right.
Advancing Work via Revelation-Linked Revolutionary Rationality
Ghalibaf emphasized that if the other side committed any violation regarding the cessation of war under Clause 1, Iran would take reciprocal action. He pointed to the events taking place in the Strait of Hormuz and Hezbollah’s responses in Lebanon, noting that it had even been necessary for Iran to launch missiles at the Israeli regime on two occasions due to its actions in Lebanon, which fell under the context of ending the war.
He stated that they responded accordingly, affirming that they engage in talks to achieve results, but wherever the language of logic and agreement fails, the language of force takes over.
He emphasized that the logic of the Islamic Republic, its diplomacy, and its overall power was based on reason, expressing hope that the opposing party would also pursue matters logically.
However, he noted that due to the arrogant nature of the Americans, their logic was power, and where power is their logic, Iran would respond with power. Speaking as a former combatant, he remarked that the more prepared they are for war, the easier negotiation becomes.
He added that they understand the difference between war and its end, the calm brought by the war’s conclusion, and its impact on national progress and the economy, concluding that they must advance their work guided by a revolutionary rationality linked to divine revelation.
Iranian Oil Sold at International Brent Rates
Ghalibaf emphasized that the late Imam Khomeini, in response to American claims of having interests in the region, had explicitly stated that they had no business claiming interests there, as the region’s interests belonged entirely to its own people.
He emphasized that the restrictions they impose are directed at the United States, the Israeli regime, and anyone seeking to maintain a military presence in the region.
The head of the Iranian negotiating team stated that their stance was to see traffic through the strait increase daily and its significance better recognized. He asserted that through their management, they would demonstrate to the world that the Strait of Hormuz was safer than ever, assuring other nations they could continue their transits regardless of American propaganda.
He added that they establish security in the region to even reduce ship insurance costs, noting that massive sums had previously been extorted from vessels through collusive practices.
He mentioned that they aimed to facilitate and streamline maritime navigation services, reiterating that what they would definitely prevent is U.S. intervention, while fully complying with international law in all other matters.
He recalled that the sanctions against Iran had begun with oil, the Central Bank, and petrochemicals, and that the country had faced these sanctions for nearly 15 to 20 years.
Ghalibaf continued that although the opposing side’s breaches of promise could not be ignored, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (OFAC) had officially uploaded waivers—or so-called licenses—for exporting oil, petroleum products, and reopening Central Bank channels on its website precisely the previous Sunday when they arrived at the negotiation venue.
He explained that this meant all necessary processes for selling oil, petrochemicals, and their derivatives—including banking operations, Central Bank transactions, insurance affairs, and shipping—had been unblocked.
He added that they were previously forced to sell their oil at a discount due to sanctions, taking the opportunity to thank China as Iran’s most important oil customer, though sales were not limited to China. He stated that today, Iranian oil is sold at Brent prices and international rates.
‘Impossible for Iran to Back Down on the Strait of Hormuz’
Ghalibaf emphasized that regarding the collection of fees for services in the Strait of Hormuz, they had agreed to provide them free of charge for only 60 days. He explained that this decision was made due to the insistence of Persian Gulf littoral states, as some ships had been stranded in the region following the outbreak of the war and the closure of the strait.
The Parliament Speaker continued that they were committed to restoring technical conditions in the Strait of Hormuz, such as safety measures and mines, to pre-war standards within 30 days, and would refrain from charging fees for up to 60 days.
He recalled that in Clause 5 of the agreement, it was stated that the Islamic Republic of Iran would work with the Sultanate of Oman to determine the future management and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in accordance with international law and the sovereign rights of the strait’s littoral states, meaning that sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz belongs to Iran and Oman.
The Parliament Speaker emphasized that it was impossible under any circumstances for them to back down on this issue, asserting that these were Iran’s territorial waters and they would not allow the U.S. to create a controversy or make sophistries claiming Iran had militarized the Strait of Hormuz.
‘We Must Not Turn the Strait of Hormuz Against Itself’
Ghalibaf emphasized that they would fight where necessary and pursue the memorandum through dialogue where possible.
He underscored that just as Lebanon is their red line, their management and sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz are absolute and definite, promising that they would establish security there in the best possible manner.
He said that during the 60-day period agreed upon, they would maintain services, having coordinated all legal and technical matters with Oman. He added that they would finalize these service sectors and legal discussions within the next 30 days in cooperation with Oman.
Ghalibaf called on the nation to note that those individuals who choose to believe the wicked Trump rather than their own side should trust their religious brother for once. He asked why those who have political disagreements with him personally should trouble the nation, describing such behavior as unfair.
He questioned whether they were not present in the field trying to secure the nation’s rights, and criticized them for bringing personal and political disputes into the matter and undermining the rights of the people, calling it completely devoid of fairness.
The Parliament Speaker recalled his belief that these five clauses were being executed, noting that he had stated at the very beginning of the war that the Strait of Hormuz was a divine gift granted to them, serving as their greatest instrument of power.
He added that they would properly safeguard this blessing and emphasized that they must not turn the strait against itself, as its value lies in seeing its traffic increase daily rather than decrease.
Ghalibaf stated that they had anticipated a 60-day duration for negotiating the 14 clauses, which could be extended by mutual agreement.
He explained that if the talks continued, the arrangement would be renewed every 60 days until the negotiations reached a final conclusion. He emphasized that unless all primary and secondary sanctions—including those imposed by the IAEA Board of Governors, the UN Security Council, and unilateral US sanctions via Congress or presidential executive orders—were fully lifted, this timeline must be extended every 60 days.
The Parliament Speaker concluded that no one would benefit from oil if Iran was barred from exporting it from the Persian Gulf due to American bullying. He asserted that they would not allow the U.S. and its proxies to profit, stating firmly that if Iran does not benefit, no one will.
