US Lifts Naval Blockade on Iranian Ports as Israel Kills 18 in Lebanon, Testing New Peace Framework
The United States formally lifted its naval blockade on Iranian ports and coastal areas on Thursday, July 3, fulfilling one of the first concrete commitments of the memorandum of understanding signed at the Palace of Versailles on June 17, as Iran pledged to facilitate commercial passage through the Strait of Hormuz — while Israeli airstrikes killed at least 18 people in southern Lebanon overnight into Friday, directly challenging the ceasefire provisions of the same agreement. Planned follow-up negotiations between US and Iranian delegations at Switzerland’s Burgenstock resort on Friday were cancelled, the Swiss foreign ministry said in a separate statement.
US Central Command announced the removal of the blockade on Thursday, confirming that US naval forces would no longer prevent ships from entering or exiting Iranian ports and coastal areas — a constraint imposed on April 13 after the breakdown of earlier ceasefire talks. Iran, in turn, committed to allowing commercial vessels to transit the Strait of Hormuz with no charge for a 60-day period, after which the future administration of the waterway would be determined in consultation with Oman and other parties.
“We imposed that blockade. They stopped selling oil, and now we’ve lifted the blockade in order to promote the free flow of energy across the world,” US Vice President JD Vance said, framing the move as a product of American leverage rather than concession.
What the June 17 MOU Contains
The 14-point memorandum of understanding, signed by President Donald Trump at Versailles and separately by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, commits both sides to an immediate and permanent end to hostilities across all fronts, including Lebanon. The US committed to terminating all sanctions on Iran, making frozen assets fully available, and lifting the naval blockade within 30 days. Iran reaffirmed it will not procure or develop nuclear weapons and agreed to a yet-to-be-determined mechanism for handling its stockpile of enriched material. An executive mechanism will monitor implementation, and a binding UN Security Council resolution is expected to endorse the final agreement.
The MOU opens a 60-day negotiating window for a comprehensive final deal, with the thorniest issues — the precise mechanism for Iran’s enriched uranium, the scope and timeline of sanctions relief, and a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran — deferred to that period. Pezeshkian held up a signed copy of the document, calling it “a historic document and a message from a strong Iran: peace will be achieved in the shadow of mutual respect.”
The Lebanon Problem
The MOU’s provision extending the ceasefire to Lebanon, requiring a halt to Israeli-Hezbollah fighting, has become the framework’s most immediate vulnerability. Israeli airstrikes struck multiple populated towns in southern Lebanon and the Beqaa Valley overnight into Friday, killing at least 18 people and wounding more than 33, Lebanon’s health ministry confirmed. The hardest-hit location was Nabatieh, which Lebanon’s National News Agency described as having “experienced one of the most difficult nights of the recent aggression.”
Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Yechiel Leiter, attempted to square the attacks with the ceasefire commitment, writing on X that Israel “remains committed to the ceasefire agreement” but retained “its right to respond to attacks against it and to thwart threats to its territory, citizens and soldiers.” He added: “If Hezbollah does not violate the agreement, it will be kept.” The Lebanese health ministry separately noted that Israel has killed nearly 4,000 people and wounded over 11,800 in Lebanon since it began its operations in the country in early March, with more than 1.2 million displaced.
Vance made his sharpest public criticism of Israel to date in a Thursday press briefing, saying Israeli cabinet members needed to understand the consequences of their conduct. “The Israelis, like everybody else, have to respect this peace process,” Vance said. “That is fundamentally good for them and good for the entire region.” He added: “If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world.”
French President Emmanuel Macron separately called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “show a sense of responsibility,” telling broadcaster France 2 that Israel’s military strategy in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank “runs contrary to Israel’s own interests” in the long run. “I think that today Prime Minister Netanyahu does not have a policy,” Macron said.
Iran’s parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf warned that Teheran would respond to any breach of the deal. “In the event of bad faith, breach of contract, and excessive demands by the opposing side, we have no hesitation in delivering a crushing response to the enemy,” he wrote on X. An Iranian official said separately that any breach “will receive an even harder slap.”
France Signals It Will Not Rubber-Stamp the Final Deal
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot delivered a significant complication for the deal’s path to UN endorsement on Friday, stating explicitly that France would not approve the lifting of UN sanctions on Iran unless it was satisfied by the terms of a final accord and had a meaningful role in shaping it. “There will be no stability in the region unless US talks with Iran also dealt with Iran’s ballistic missile programme and support for proxies,” Barrot said.
Reminding reporters that France is a permanent, veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council, Barrot stressed that French approval was legally required to lift the UN sanctions framework. “Our objective is to get major concessions from the Iranian regime, a radical change in posture. And we will have our word to say, because as a member of the UNSC it will be necessarily linked to the resolution of this crisis,” he said. France, Britain, and Germany — the E3 — have all sought a role in the upcoming 60-day negotiations after being largely sidelined in the bilateral US-Iran diplomatic track that produced the MOU.
How Washington Views the Deal
The MOU has drawn mixed assessments even within the United States. Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator for both Republican and Democratic administrations, offered a blunt verdict. “The US deployed its power foolishly and recklessly,” he told Middle East Eye. “We have lost, vis-a-vis Iran, a lot of power and influence. Deterrence is gone. Iran has survived the largest deployment of American air, naval and missile assets since the Second Iraq War.” Former US officials cited by Middle East Eye said the MOU achieves none of Trump’s stated war aims — neither the overthrow of the Islamic Republic, nor the verified destruction of Iran’s missile programme, nor Iran’s unconditional surrender — and leaves Washington in a weaker position at the negotiating table than it held before the February strikes.
Vance pushed back on that framing, insisting the US holds “all the cards” at the current moment. He said Iran would not receive significant sanctions relief until Washington could “verify for us that they are changing their behavior.”
Regional and Global Impact
The lifting of the naval blockade and Iran’s commitment to Hormuz passage without tolls for 60 days represents the most concrete near-term benefit of the MOU for global energy markets, which have been severely disrupted since the Strait’s closure in February. Oil flows through the strait have been recovering gradually, with US officials saying Hormuz flows were reaching half of pre-war levels by mid-June. The formal removal of the US naval blockade removes one of the two major legal obstacles to full restoration of pre-war shipping volumes — the other being Iran’s own ongoing restrictions and the unresolved mine-clearance issue in the strait.
Israel’s continued strikes in Lebanon represent the MOU’s most acute near-term test. The agreement explicitly provides for a ceasefire extending to Lebanon, but Israel is not a party to the document and has not acknowledged being bound by it. Iran’s willingness to absorb Israeli provocations without closing the strait again — as it did in June following Israeli strikes that Tehran characterised as a ceasefire violation — will be the critical variable determining whether the 60-day negotiating window holds long enough to produce a final agreement.
Background
The US and Israel launched military strikes against Iran on February 28, 2026, targeting nuclear and ballistic missile infrastructure. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was killed in the opening strikes; his son Mojtaba was elected his successor on March 8. Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, triggering a global energy crisis. A first ceasefire in April collapsed, followed by a US naval blockade of Iranian ports imposed on April 13. The MOU signed at Versailles on June 17 constitutes the first formally signed agreement between Washington and Tehran, with a 60-day window to reach a comprehensive final deal on Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions, and the strait’s permanent administration.
What Happens Next
The cancellation of Friday’s Burgenstock talks leaves the 60-day negotiating process without a confirmed resumption date as of Saturday morning, though both sides remain formally committed to the MOU framework. The Egypt-hosted quadrilateral meeting of foreign ministers from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt on Sunday in el-Alamein is expected to produce coordinated messaging on the MOU’s implementation and the Lebanon ceasefire situation. France’s explicit warning about its role in UN sanctions removal will require Washington to engage the E3 before any final deal can achieve the binding Security Council endorsement the MOU envisions. Israel’s conduct in Lebanon over the coming days will be the most closely watched variable for whether the fragile ceasefire framework survives the 60-day window.
