Iran’s “more rational” and “far less radicalized ” chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who signed the MOU electronically, afterwards appeared on television where he vowed to avenge the supreme leader’s death with the “liberation of Jerusalem.” Pictured: Ghalibaf arrives for talks in Obburgen, Switzerland on June 21, 2026. (Photo by Urs Flueeler/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

Hardly has the ink on the 14-point Memorandum of Understanding that US President Donald J. Trump signed with Tehran had a chance to dry than it has become abundantly clear that Iran has no serious intention of abiding by the agreement’s demands — namely abandoning its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and re-establishing freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

At a press briefing on June 16 at the G7 summit in Evian, France, Trump gave an upbeat assessment of the current Iranian regime’s willingness to negotiate, saying they “are very rational people,” in contrast with Iran’s rulers before the outbreak of the war, saying they were “totally irrational people and those people are now gone,” following February’s assassinations of many key regime figures, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Ali Khamenei has subsequently been replaced by his son Mojtaba Khamenei, who was evidently wounded injured in the attack that killed his father, and has not been seen in public since replacing his father. Even so, Trump said on June 17 that he believed Iran’s newly-appointed Supreme Leader was “younger. I think more rational,” while praising the new regime, declaring:

“I think they’re very smart, I think they’re far less radicalized, I think they’re very good.”

Iran’s “more rational” and “far less radicalized ” chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who signed the MOU electronically, afterwards appeared on television where he vowed to avenge the supreme leader’s death with the “liberation of Jerusalem”:

“[J]ustice for our Imam lies in the liberation of Jerusalem. A hundred Netanyahus are not worth the shoelace of our leader. We must stand with this sense of honor, this perspective, and this ideal, and carry out this mission.”

Despite these positive remarks about Iran’s interlocutors, Trump also accepted that there were no guarantees that the Iranians would act in good faith during the negotiations that are due to take place while the new 60-day ceasefire is in place, when key issues such as the future of Iran’s nuclear programme and the future status of the Strait of Hormuz are supposed to be finalised.

The president insists that any backsliding on the part of Iran during the negotiations could result in the US resuming its military offensive against the mullahs.

“It’s a memorandum of understanding,” Trump said. “If it doesn’t get done in 60 days, that’s all right, we go back to bombing.”

He promised that if Iran misbehaved he would “go back to dropping bombs right smack in the middle of their head”.

The prospects of the Trump administration completing a lasting agreement with Iran within the 60-day framework certainly do not bode well after the first round of talks between US and Iranian officials that were due to take place in Switzerland on Friday were cancelled.

While the continued fighting between Israel and Hezbollah terrorists in southern Lebanon was given as one explanation for the cancellation, it is now clear that senior members of the Trump administration have raised serious concerns about whether Iran has any genuine interest in negotiating a final peace deal.

Concerns that the Iranian regime, in particular, is not serious about negotiating an end to its nuclear activities intensified following reports that CIA Director John Ratcliffe told Trump and other senior officials, prior to the signing of the memorandum, that evidence gathered by US intelligence agencies raised serious doubts about Iran’s willingness to make the nuclear concessions the White House is seeking in any final deal.

According to the Axios news website, the warnings were issued during a series of meetings held between Trump and senior advisers when they discussed intelligence gathered by several intelligence agencies that revealed internal discussions taking place within the Iranian regime about a potential peace deal were inconsistent with their public declarations on the issue.

Ratcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were both said to have expressed reservations that Tehran could be persuaded to take the necessary steps required by the White House to end hostilities, especially on the nuclear issue.

A senior source with knowledge of the discussions told Axios, “The intelligence reflects that the Iranian intentions are not in line with their commitments under the deal,” a source said.

The report is entirely consistent with Iran’s previous approach to nuclear negotiations during the past two decades when, at the same time as regime negotiators have indicated a willingness to make concessions on key nuclear issues such as uranium enrichment, hardliners within the regime have maintained their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.

Trump’s experience of making peace in Gaza should also serve as a warning about Iran’s willingness to comply with his peace demands. One of the central requirements of Trump’s plan to end the Gaza conflict was that Hamas terrorists completely disarm and hand over administration of the territory to an international peacekeeping force.

Despite progress being made on a number of other issues, such as having secured the release of the remaining Israeli hostages, Hamas, which receives military support from Iran, has refused to comply with demands to disarm.

During the latest negotiations in Cairo on the issue, Hamas’s latest response to mediators was interpreted as “an effective rejection” of the demand.

As with Iran’s approach to peace negotiations with the Trump administration on its nuclear programme, Hamas is trying to give the impression in public that it is being cooperative while behind the scenes it is making no effort to comply with the disarmament demands.

A source familiar with the Cairo talks told the Times of Israel that Hamas is attempting through media reports to present its response as more cooperative, while “in practice it looks much closer to a no.” The source added that the response cannot yet be categorized as “a formal rejection because the final proposal is not public… Hamas is still trying to avoid the core requirement, which is clear disarmament.”

Despite mounting concerns about Trump’s peace initiatives for both Gaza and Iran and the failure to achieve their objectives, the White House said that the American president remained committed to standing firm on his ultimate red line for Iran, namely that the mullahs would never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.

White House officials insisted the memorandum met all the red lines that Trump set out at the start of the Iran war, such as “ensuring that Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon, they cannot keep their highly enriched uranium, and they cannot hold the world’s energy supply hostage.”

Who is supposed to stop them after Trump is no longer president? The Gulf Arab states have become used to importing labor for jobs they prefer not to do; being shot at might be added to that list.

Whether the Trump administration can achieve what Trump would like remains to be seen, not least because, as has happened on countless occasions in the past, the leaders of the Islamic Republic simply cannot be trusted to keep their word.

Con Coughlin is the Telegraph‘s Defence and Foreign Affairs Editor and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.