Shahid K Abbas
New Delhi, Jun 15 (UNI) A landmark diplomatic breakthrough between the United States and Iran has been welcomed across Europe and the Indo-Pacific as a potential turning point for stability in West Asia, but the agreement has already encountered resistance from Israel, where senior leaders insist that any deal brokered by US President Donald Trump will not constrain Israel’s freedom to act against perceived security threats.
The emerging divide highlights the complex geopolitical landscape facing efforts to end months of regional conflict. While governments from Europe to the Asia-Pacific have hailed the agreement as an opportunity to reduce tensions, reopen critical trade routes and revive negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, Israeli officials have made clear that Jerusalem reserves the right to pursue its own security objectives regardless of any understanding reached between Washington and Tehran.
The agreement, announced on Sunday following mediation efforts involving several regional and international actors, envisages the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a continuation of the ceasefire between the United States and Iran, and the launch of negotiations aimed at addressing longstanding disputes surrounding Tehran’s nuclear activities. The memorandum of understanding is expected to be formally signed in Geneva on June 19.
The breakthrough has generated widespread international support because of the Strait of Hormuz’s central role in global energy markets. Nearly a fifth of the world’s oil trade passes through the narrow waterway linking the Persian Gulf to international shipping lanes. Disruptions caused by the conflict had heightened fears of energy shortages, fuel price spikes and broader economic instability.
In a joint statement, the leaders of France, the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy described the agreement as a significant opportunity to restore regional stability and support the global economy. They stressed that the focus must now shift to implementation.
“Now it is essential that the detailed negotiations conclude and that this agreement be implemented swiftly and fully,” the statement said.
The four European powers also underscored the importance of restoring maritime security in the Gulf.
“The urgent reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, with unconditional and unrestricted freedom of navigation, is essential. We are committed to playing our part in achieving this—in accordance with our respective constitutional requirements—including through a strictly defensive and independent mission aimed at reassuring commercial traffic and conducting mine-clearing operations,” the leaders said.
At the same time, they reiterated their longstanding position that Iran must never acquire nuclear weapons and signalled readiness to support a negotiated solution. “We are ready to work with the United States, Iran, and the IAEA toward this end. We are prepared to lift relevant sanctions in response to clear and verifiable steps taken by Iran regarding its nuclear program,” the statement added.
Support for the agreement extended beyond Europe. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi described the memorandum on the cessation of hostilities as a major step toward resolving the crisis and expressed hope that it would lead to a comprehensive settlement.
“In the future, we strongly hope that this memorandum will be steadily implemented, that free and safe navigation in the Strait of Hormuz will be actually ensured, and that a final agreement on Iran’s nuclear issue and other matters will be realised at the earliest possible date,” she said in a post on X.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese likewise welcomed the agreement and called on all parties to seize the opportunity for sustained diplomacy.
“We are pleased the agreement between the US and Iran includes steps towards reopening the Strait of Hormuz and the restoration of freedom of navigation. While full recovery will take time, restoring this vital corridor is essential to easing pressure on energy prices and economies, including in our region,” Albanese said.
He added that “Iran must address longstanding concerns about its nuclear program and threat it poses to international security.”
New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon emphasised the economic implications for countries far beyond the Middle East, noting that the conflict had affected trade flows and fuel costs across the Pacific.
“Reopening the Strait of Hormuz will help restore stable trade routes, get fuel flowing, and keep our economy moving,” Luxon said.
The international endorsements reflect growing hopes that the agreement could evolve into a broader framework addressing regional security concerns, including Iran’s nuclear programme, proxy conflicts and maritime security. Financial markets and energy analysts have closely monitored developments, viewing any sustained reopening of Hormuz as critical to stabilising oil supplies and easing inflationary pressures worldwide.
Iran has signalled cautious support for the process while insisting on concrete US actions before entering final negotiations. Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs, Kazem Gharibabadi, confirmed that Tehran would proceed with a proposed 60-day negotiation period only after verifying that Washington had fulfilled commitments related to ending hostilities, lifting the blockade and releasing Iranian assets. According to Iranian media reports, the text of the memorandum will be released publicly following the signing ceremony.
Yet even as world leaders celebrated what many described as a rare diplomatic opening, Israel signalled that it does not regard the agreement as determinative of its own security posture.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir delivered the Israeli government’s first public response to the accord, declaring that any arrangement negotiated by Washington and Tehran would not limit Israel’s operational freedom.
“Trump’s agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subject to the United States, and we are an independent and sovereign nation!” Ben-Gvir wrote on X.
While expressing gratitude to Washington and the US president, he argued that Israel must retain complete freedom to act against threats from Hezbollah and other groups backed by Iran.
“We emphasize: We love the USA and are grateful to President Trump. And yet, the State of Israel is not a banana republic,” he said.
Ben-Gvir framed his opposition through the lens of Israel’s historical experience with international diplomacy, arguing that concessions made under foreign pressure had often produced adverse security consequences.
“Every time we succumbed to international pressure at the expense of Israel’s security, we paid a blood price with interest,” he said, citing the Oslo Accords, the 2006 Lebanon agreement and periods of restraint in Gaza.
His remarks underscore a longstanding tension in US-Israeli relations over negotiations involving Iran. Successive Israeli governments have viewed Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and regional influence as existential threats, often maintaining that military preparedness and independent deterrence must remain central pillars of Israeli security policy regardless of diplomatic initiatives pursued by allies.
The divergence also illustrates one of the key challenges facing implementation of the US-Iran agreement. While the accord has generated unusually broad international support because of its potential economic and security benefits, lasting success will depend not only on compliance by Washington and Tehran but also on whether regional actors most directly affected by the conflict choose to embrace the diplomatic process.
For now, the agreement has created a rare moment of optimism after months of escalating tensions. But Israel’s early rejection of any obligation to follow the deal serves as a reminder that the path from ceasefire to lasting peace in West Asia remains uncertain, with deep strategic mistrust continuing to shape the calculations of the region’s most influential players. UNI SKA AAB