Iran’s lead negotiator warns allies Tehran could restart war if U.S. does not meet Islamabad memorandum commitments

Iran’s parliament speaker and lead negotiator in talks with the United States, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, told representatives from China and Belarus on Friday that Tehran is prepared to resume fighting if Washington does not fulfill its commitments under an Islamabad memorandum of understanding, according to The Washington Times.

Ghalibaf made the remarks in a message delivered to the allied delegations, warning that the agreement would not prevent renewed conflict if the United States fails to follow through, the paper reported. The statement ties Iran’s negotiating posture directly to whether U.S. actions match written obligations, framing a conditional path that could escalate rather than stabilize the talks.

The Washington Times said Ghalibaf’s message was delivered after diplomatic engagement involving the U.S. and Iran, with Iran presenting the memorandum as a basis for commitments from Washington that must be honored in full. The comments indicate that Iran is already weighing consequences of noncompliance, rather than treating the memorandum as a one-sided assurance or a purely political framework.

The July 3 warning comes amid broader international reporting on a separate U.S.-Iran agreement described in early reports as aiming to terminate the war between the two countries, with officials citing immediate and permanent cessation terms. CBS News and other outlets have reported that U.S. and Iranian negotiations were tied to a prospective end to fighting, though the exact implementation steps and compliance assessments were contested in follow-on coverage.

BBC analysis in recent weeks described competing claims of “victory” by both Washington and Tehran regarding the deal meant to end the conflict, highlighting that both sides were likely to face challenges sustaining compliance. TIME similarly reported that U.S. statements at senior international meetings included threats of renewed force if Iran did not comply, reflecting how each side’s political and security messaging has remained intertwined with verification and enforcement.

In the latest development, Ghalibaf’s warning shifts the focus back onto U.S. fulfillment, specifying that Iran’s next steps would depend on whether Washington meets its commitments under the Islamabad memorandum. The message to China and Belarus indicates that Iran is also working to shape the wider diplomatic environment around the talks, potentially encouraging those countries to press for U.S. implementation.

For officials in China and Belarus, the immediate diplomatic task is to determine how the memorandum’s commitments are being carried out and what specific steps would be considered sufficient to prevent escalation. For the U.S., the statement adds pressure to clarify what actions have been taken, what remains pending, and what verification mechanism is being used, because Iran has now publicly linked those points to the possibility of renewed hostilities. The next concrete move is expected to be further consultations and messaging around compliance, rather than a formal announcement tied to troop movements or immediate battlefield changes in the reporting so far.