WANA (Jul 08) – From the initial ceasefire declaration to the signing of the preliminary memorandum of understanding and subsequent negotiations, Iranian officials across all levels have consistently maintained a core principle: deep distrust of the United States.

 

Developments since the signing have validated this stance, with Washington repeatedly violating multiple clauses of the agreement in various ways.

 

These breaches include the continuation of Israeli attacks on Lebanon—and Tel Aviv’s subsequent unilateral deal with the Lebanese government—alongside direct U.S. military strikes on southern Iran.

 

Furthermore, Washington’s insistence on restricting the use of Iran’s unfrozen assets solely to purchasing American goods constitutes a blatant violation of the core tenets of the MOU.

 

Despite these infractions, Iran initially maintained the agreement because it secured tangible benefits, namely oil sales, the lifting of economic blockades, and a mechanism to alleviate military pressure on Lebanon. Over the past 48 hours, however, American actions have escalated to a level that effectively neutralizes even these remaining advantages.

 

This shift was cemented by U.S. President Donald Trump during his visit to Turkey, where he explicitly stated that the agreement with Iran is over. In his latest highly inflammatory and insulting remarks, Trump labeled Iranians as a bunch of garbage, a cancer, and “incompetent,” while boasting that the United States struck Iran overnight “twenty times harder than before.”

 

From a realist perspective on international relations, and given the necessity of delivering a proportional response to foreign treaty violations, Iran must now formally declare the termination of the initial MOU, the ongoing talks surrounding it, and any future negotiations.

 

Over the past year, the United States has routinely weaponized negotiations as a cover for military aggression. Given Trump’s track record of unilaterally withdrawing from the JCPOA, the experience of past administrations proves that remaining in a one-sided agreement—hoping to resolve issues through international law or continued dialogue—yields zero benefit for Iran.