Peace and Justice Post

Washington warned Tehran that Israel could target Araghchi as Ghalibaf’s plane made emergency landing

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi aboard a flight to Zurich ahead of negotiations on 21 June 2026 (AFP)

MEE staff

Published date: 3 July 2026

Israeli fighter jets entered Iranian airspace as Tehran’s top negotiators were engaged in diplomatic efforts with the United States, according to a New York Times report that says American officials feared Israel was plotting to kill two senior Iranian officials involved in peace negotiations.

US officials became increasingly concerned that Israel could target Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, on their return to Iran after peace negotiations between Washington and Tehran in Pakistan, the report published on Wednesday said. 

According to the New York Times, Washington was concerned that an Israeli assassination attempt could derail the talks and it asked regional countries to warn Iran about the potential threat.

“Any attempt to kill the Iranian leaders would end the talks and reignite the fighting,” American officials told the newspaper.

While Washington increasingly focused on securing a ceasefire and a diplomatic framework, Israel remained sceptical of negotiations that fell short of its broader war aims. 

New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch

Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters

The New York Times reported that concerns peaked during negotiations that began in earnest in April, when Araghchi and Ghalibaf emerged as key interlocutors in talks aimed at securing a ceasefire and laying the groundwork for a longer-term agreement.

A US official and a Middle East official told the newspaper that the Trump administration learned that Ghalibaf was on an Israeli targeting list and asked Israel to refrain from any action against him.

Iranian officials quoted by the newspaper said Tehran also sought assurances from Washington, through Pakistani and Qatari intermediaries, that Israel would not target members of the Iranian negotiating team.

The concerns were deepened during an April trip to Islamabad, where Ghalibaf was scheduled to meet US Vice President JD Vance.

According to the report, Pakistani fighter jets escorted the Iranian delegation’s aircraft to and from Islamabad because of fears that Israel could attempt to assassinate senior Iranian officials. 

On the return journey, Iranian security services informed the aircraft carrying Ghalibaf that intelligence indicated Israel was preparing an attack and that two Israeli fighter jets had entered Iranian airspace from the western border near Iraq, the newspaper reported, citing Iranian officials.

Mahdi Mohammadi, a senior adviser to Ghalibaf who accompanied the delegation, confirmed the account on social media.  

Iran turns to Pakistan land corridor as US naval pressure disrupts Gulf trade

Read More »

The aircraft subsequently made an emergency landing in Mashhad, and members of the delegation completed the journey to Tehran by land, travelling for approximately eight hours, the newspaper said.

“Today Mr. Ghalibaf and Mr. Araghchi, and other members of the negotiating team, have put their lives on the line knowing the grave security risks and this is called a real sacrifice, not political manoeuvring,” Iranian lawmaker Mohsen Zanganeh told local media in April. 

The newspaper reported that while the United States pursued negotiations that ultimately led to a framework agreement in June, Israeli officials viewed the emerging deal as insufficient because it did not achieve objectives such as regime change in Iran, dismantling Tehran’s regional allies and significantly degrading its missile capabilities.

A spokeswoman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington declined to comment to the newspaper on the allegations.

Asked about the reported warnings to Iran, a US official told the New York Times that President Donald Trump wanted the peace process “to play out” and noted that talks between American and Iranian delegations were continuing.

Despite the reported threats, Araghchi and Ghalibaf continued travelling for negotiations, including meetings in Qatar and a subsequent round of talks in Switzerland in June with Vance and other members of the US delegation, according to the report.

The Iranian delegation led by Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian Parliament, arrives to meet with the Pakistani delegation led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on June 21, 2026 in Obbuergen, Switzerland.

(Photo by Hamed Malekpour/Getty Images)

Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s top diplomat, specifically welcomed the announcement of a “deconfliction cell” aimed at “ensuring the termination of military operations in Lebanon.”

Jake Johnson, Common Dreams, Jun 22, 2026

Iran’s top diplomat said late Sunday that peace negotiations in Switzerland have produced “major progress” despite US President Donald Trump’s belligerent military threats and Israel’s continued assault on Lebanon, both of which have risked derailing the high-stakes talks.

Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, credited “tireless Pakistani and Qatari mediation” with securing commitments to establish a “deconfliction cell” to ensure “the termination of military operations in Lebanon,” as required under the recently signed memorandum of understanding (MOU).

RECOMMENDED…

Warning of US Unreliability and Israeli ‘Sabotage,’ Iran Refutes Trump Claim of Peace Deal

‘Welcome News’: Despite Netanyahu Sabotage Efforts, US and Iran Reach Interim Deal to End War

Araghchi added that negotiators agreed to an end to the US blockade on Iran, the release of some of Iran’s frozen assets, and a “major reconstruction and development plan” for Iran, whose delegation reportedly left the Swiss negotiating venue on Sunday in response to Trump’s threat to assassinate Iranian diplomats and “take over” the Middle East country. The threats violated the terms of the MOU, which requires parties to “refrain from the threat or use of force against each other.”

In a joint statement late Sunday, the governments of Pakistan and Qatar said that negotiators agreed on “a roadmap towards reaching a final deal within 60 days, laying the foundation for the immediate commencement of further technical talks.

“In addition, a communication line between the parties has been formed… to avoid incidents and miscommunication with the aim of safe passage for commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz,” the statement continued. “The mediating parties will continue to do their utmost to ensure that the negotiations continue to be conducted in a constructive atmosphere with the aim of reaching a final deal.”

No paywall. No ads. No billionaire owner. Just you.

Common Dreams is funded exclusively by readers tired of news beholden to corporate interests. Our monthly supporters are the backbone of what makes that possible. Help us reach our Mid-Year Campaign goal of 450 new monthly supporters by July 1.

about:blank

🔊PR No: 1️⃣5️⃣1️⃣/2️⃣0️⃣2️⃣6️⃣

Joint Statement by the State of Qatar and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan Regarding the Conclusion of Lake Lucerne Summit, First High-Level Committee Meeting with Participation of the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran pic.twitter.com/2G3PAf7LVY
— Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Pakistan (@ForeignOfficePk) June 22, 2026

The optimistic comments from Iran’s foreign minister and mediators came after the first round of formal talks in Switzerland got off to a shaky start, with Iran’s delegation postponing its arrival due to a deadly barrage of Israeli airstrikes in southern Lebanon late last week.

Israel’s leadership, which is not a party to the peace negotiations, has refused to end its occupation of Lebanon, a major obstacle in the way of a final deal to end the war on Iran that the US and Israel launched in late February. Iran has said the Trump administration must force the Israeli government to end its assault on Lebanon.

In a social media post on Sunday amid the negotiations in Switzerland, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz declared that “Israel has no intention of withdrawing from the Beaufort, which is an integral part of the security zone in Lebanon and essential for the defense of the Galilee settlements and IDF forces.”

“As Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and I have clarified—Israel will not withdraw from the security zone in Lebanon,” Katz added.

MEM, June 19, 2026

U.S. and Iran flags frame a symbolic diplomatic handshake. [Photo/AA]

Iran postponed the technical-level talks with the US, which were slated for Friday in Switzerland, in protest against “continued” Israeli ceasefire violations, mainly in southern Lebanon, Pakistani government sources told Anadolu Agency.

The sources said that Tehran’s chief negotiator Bagher Qalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi were “all set” to leave for Switzerland to hold direct talks with Washington, but they pulled out of their scheduled trip at the last minute following “directives” from the “top Iranian leadership.”

They did not specify whether the directives came directly from Supreme Leader Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei, who has already said he has a “different view” on the US-Iran deal to end the war.

No new date or venue for the talks has been decided, the sources added.

“Pakistan is in touch with both sides to set a new date for the technical-level talks to reach a final agreement,” a source close to mediation said.

The signing of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (Islamabad MoU) by US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian had set the stage for direct talks between Washington and Tehran in Switzerland on Friday.

The source said that US Vice President JD Vance canceled his trip to Switzerland after Islamabad conveyed Tehran’s decision to Washington.

READ: Netanyahu: Israel will not withdraw from southern Lebanon

“The logistics of these negotiations have never been simple or predictable. As of now, the Vice President is not departing tonight,” a White House spokesperson said.

“We look forward to beginning technical talks as soon as possible.”

The Swiss Foreign Ministry, in a statement, said that the Friday talks on implementing the agreement to end the war will not take place.

The Islamabad MoU gives officials and experts from the two sides the next 60 days to chalk out a final agreement, which is particularly focused on the Iranian nuclear program, as Trump declared that Tehran cannot have a nuclear weapon.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif declared that the Islamabad MoU was effective immediately after signing and said Iran and the US would take measures to open the Strait of Hormuz for full international passage.

Sharif also signed the pact as “mediator.”

The pact calls for immediate and permanent cessation of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, with commitments not to resort to force and to guarantee Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Soon after the US and Israel initiated war on Feb. 28, Iran closed the Hormuz and later, on April 13, American forces imposed their blockade on Iranian ports – making passage of commercial ships nearly impossible through the critical waterway.

Israel has also waged attacks on Lebanon, killing nearly 3800, including civilians and soldiers, since the war began.

Over 3,300 people, including civilians and soldiers, have been killed in Iran, while the US has confirmed the death of 14 personnel, in addition to the loss of armed weaponry and aircraft.

After securing a ceasefire on April 08, Pakistan hosted the highest-level direct talks between the two nations on April 12 and 13 since they severed diplomatic ties in 1979.

Andre Damon@Andre__Damon, WSWS, 19 June 2026

There are moments that expose the fundamental character of the political system in the United States, that notwithstanding the daily infighting between the Democrats and Republicans, when it comes to the basic interests of American imperialism, the two parties of American capitalism are united.

The publication Thursday of the terms of the memorandum of understanding between the Trump administration and Iran is such a moment. It has triggered an outpouring of criticism from both the Democratic and Republican parties on the grounds that the war US President Donald Trump launched against Iran in February failed to secure American imperialism’s objectives in dominating the Middle East.

Republican former Vice President Mike Pence called the deal “appeasement” this week and demanded that, short of a harsher settlement, “we should let our Armed Forces finish the job on our terms.”

The Democrats joined the Republican condemnation of the agreement, criticizing it in much the same language. Senator Adam Schiff of California called it “a thorough capitulation,” writing that “Iran gets sanctions relief… and a $300 billion reconstruction fund.” Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut called it “essentially a surrender to Iran.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries declared that “Iran is stronger and America is less safe” as a result of the agreement.

The New York Times, in an editorial headlined “President Trump Lost This War,” called the agreement “a humiliating comedown” and named Iran “the strategic winner of the four-month war.”

Jacobin magazine, the semi-official publication of the Democratic Socialists of America, criticized Trump’s deal with Iran in language indistinguishable from that of the Republicans and the Democratic leadership.

Jacobin’s article, titled “Donald Trump Has Nothing to Show for His War With Iran,” took the form of an interview with Andreas Krieg, a professor of “defense studies” at King’s College London. The article states that Trump “has ended up in a weaker strategic position than when he started.”

Krieg told the magazine the war had produced “tactical degradation but strategic regression.” Iran, he noted, had not surrendered its enrichment program, its government had not collapsed and “its ability to close Hormuz has been proven rather than deterred.” It offers neither a word of condemnation of the war itself nor any call to oppose it.

The Trump administration waged an illegal war of aggression against Iran, in violation of international law. The war opened with a series of assassinations, including Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and much of the country’s military and political leadership. This act of murder and perfidy under cover of negotiations met with approval from both parties. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said at the time, “I will not shed a tear for Ali Khamenei,” while Jeffries called Iran “a bad actor” that “must be aggressively confronted.”

Throughout the war, the Democrats sought to stifle broad popular opposition to it through a series of meaningless procedural votes, intended to fail. In the massive demonstrations of millions of people under the banner of “No Kings,” Democratic Party organizers worked to deliberately exclude any reference to the war.

But now that the war has failed to achieve Trump’s objectives, the Democrats have found their voice, condemning his “capitulation” to Iran. This is the same party that spent the last year and a half presenting Trump as a colossus whose social and economic policies could not be opposed because he had a “mandate” from the electorate.

In reality, the Democrats, who speak for the same ruling class as Trump, agree with broad sections of Trump’s domestic agenda. Whatever their rhetoric, they believe, together with Trump, that fundamental social programs must be slashed to fund the expansion of the military and the enrichment of the financial oligarchy.

It is in defense of the interests of American imperialism that they are intractable. During his first term, the Democrats chose to impeach Trump not over his assault on democratic rights, but, in 2019, for his insufficient commitment to war with Russia and his withholding of military aid to Ukraine. 

Trump’s deal has settled nothing. It is a temporary retreat, and the war could erupt again at any moment. The logic of the Democrats’ position is that were Trump to resume bombing Iran, they would support it.

The Democratic response to the agreement makes clear that their claim to represent any sort of “progressive” opposition to the fascist Trump is a lie. They are ferocious defenders of American imperialism, and should they come to power, there would be no fundamental change in foreign policy.

A world separates the working class from these parties. From the first day of the war, the World Socialist Web Site, the organ of the International Committee of the Fourth International, defined the war by its social character, calling it “a criminal war of aggression by an imperialist power against an oppressed former colony, aimed at plundering its oil wealth and establishing control of the Persian Gulf.” The Socialist Equality Party declared in a statement that it “condemns this war unconditionally and calls on the working class of every country to oppose it,” insisting that “the main enemy is at home” and that American workers “have no interest in a war against the people of Iran.”

The war against Iran is the product of the crisis of American imperialism, which sees no escape from its impasse except war. Every American war since 1991—against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Iran—has ended in failure, and each defeat has prepared the ground for the next. There is every reason to believe that the debacle in Iran, which has only deepened that crisis, will propel new wars.

But the war has also detonated a social crisis at home. It drove inflation to 4.2 percent in May, the highest in three years, gutting real wages and setting off a rebellion across American industry. Thousands of auto parts workers at Nexteer, Dana and Bridgewater have rejected one concession contract after another—the Dana local in Paris, Tennessee, voting one down by 288 to one—while 1,000 American Axle workers walked out on June 1 in their first strike in 18 years, 1,700 railroad workers across 11 states tore up a nine-year contract and nurses from Boston to Chicago voted to strike.

The movement is not confined to the United States. In Spain, 78,000 teachers in Valencia walked out this spring; Italy and Portugal have each been stopped by a nationwide general strike.

It is this growing eruption of social struggle, centered in the working class that has been made to pay for the war, that is the means to oppose the global offensive of American imperialism. The development of this movement requires a break with both capitalist parties and the building of the Socialist Equality Party, the United States section of the International Committee of the Fourth International.

Andre Damon@Andre__Damon, WSWS, 16 June 2026

Elevenlabs AudioNative Player

On Sunday, the United States and Iran announced a ceasefire agreement in the war that the Trump administration launched on February 28. Despite killing more than 3,000 Iranians and triggering a global food and energy crisis, the United States has failed to achieve the objectives for which it went to war.

A “memorandum of understanding” was digitally signed on Sunday, and a formal signing ceremony is scheduled for Friday in Switzerland. The 60-day framework reportedly provides for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the removal of the US naval blockade and the immediate suspension of military operations, including in Lebanon. It commits both sides to subsequent negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions and regional security. 

Whether the agreement actually holds remains uncertain. The actual text has not been released. Iran has claimed that some $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets have been unfrozen, which the US has disputed. Trump has reiterated that “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon” and warned that the United States “could attack Iran again if negotiations fail.” Israel, not a party to the agreement, has rejected it and continued strikes on Lebanon the same day.

Regardless, the outcome represents an unqualified debacle for American imperialism. It is a case of a schoolyard bully picking a fight and winding up with a black eye. The Iranian government remains in power. Its nuclear program is intact. The most concrete deliverable is the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a reversion to the prewar status quo.

There is a staggering chasm between the braggadocio with which the war was launched and the reality of its outcome. Trump promised the war would end with Iran’s “unconditional surrender.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared on March 2 that the United States was waging “the most lethal … air power campaign in history” with “no stupid rules of engagement.” Days later he promised reporters “death and destruction from the sky, all day long.”

Having spent the year trying to bring the Iranian government down and calling on Iranians in February to “take over your government,” Trump told the Wall Street Journal on Sunday: “I never cared about regime change.”

The media is filled with commentary about the defeat of American imperialism. The Wall Street Journal has called it “a strategic retreat short of achieving his war aims.” It is the operational demonstration, before the world, that the period of unchallenged American dominance that began with the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 has come to an end.

The political character of the American ruling class’s response is captured in the editorial published by the New York Times, speaking for the Democratic Party, under the headline “President Trump Lost This War.” The Times’ concern is not that the war was waged through mass murder and assassination, but that it failed. 

“Mr. Trump made a terrible mistake starting this war,” the editorial declares. “He prosecuted it recklessly and in open defiance of the law. The United States is emerging weaker—militarily, diplomatically and economically—and will pay strategic costs for years to come.” The Times bemoans the fact that “On balance, Iran emerges the strategic winner of the four-month war.” The American military “has shown itself unable to quash a much smaller opponent even as it burned through many of its long-range precision missiles and interceptors. The outcome damages this country’s ability to deter other potential adversaries.”

The editorial’s prescription boils down to the statement: “The Pentagon will also need to modernize and prepare for the wars of the future.”

The wars of the future. The Times takes for granted the framework of permanent imperial confrontation, above all, with China and Russia, for which the Pentagon must “modernize and prepare.” What is in question is only the competence with which the framework is administered. 

The Democratic congressional response operates within the same framework. Senator Chris Murphy called the deal “essentially surrender to Iran.” Representative Seth Moulton called it “basically a surrender document from Donald Trump to the supreme leader of Iran.” Senator Jack Reed complained that the United States was getting “less than what we had under the JCPOA,” the Obama-era nuclear deal. The Democrats endorsed the war when it was launched. They complain about it now only because it ended without Iran being destroyed. 

There was enormous popular opposition to the war, but this found absolutely no expression within the framework of official politics. 

The end of this stage of the war does not mean the end of the war. American imperialism will prepare new wars to recover its position. The 2015 JCPOA framework established under Obama was ended by Trump in 2018 and paved the way for the 2026 war. The 2026 ceasefire framework will pave the way for the war that follows. 

The most significant consequences of the debacle, however, will be the consequences within the United States. 

The war was launched, in part, in an attempt to stop the structural decline of American capitalism. The European Central Bank reported this month that gold has overtaken the euro to become the world’s second-largest reserve asset, at 27 percent of global reserves, up from 20 percent a year earlier. The federal debt crossed 100 percent of GDP in March for the first time since 1946. The failure of the war has accelerated the dollar’s decline and deepened the structural crisis the war was meant to resolve.

The war was launched against the backdrop of escalating social conflict. In the weeks before the war began, mass demonstrations against ICE intensified after the murder of Renée Nicole Good, a 37-year-old poet, and Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old nurse, by federal agents in Minneapolis. The Trump administration’s launching of the war was, among other things, an attempt to deflect this mounting opposition into the channels of patriotic war fever.

Social opposition will now escalate, and it will be increasingly centered in the working class. Auto parts workers at American Axle struck this month. Railroaders, meatpackers, teachers and nurses have walked out. Wall Street rose on news of the deal Sunday, but fuel and food prices remain far above their prewar levels. PCE (Personal Consumption Expenditures) inflation has hit 3.8 percent, the fastest pace since 2021. Consumer sentiment is at all-time lows, worse than during the Great Recession or the pandemic. 

Workers have absorbed the costs of the war through rising prices while the corporations profited. The economic impact will provide fuel for class conflict for years to come, in the United States and internationally. The same crisis that produces the war is producing a global movement of the working class against it.

The Trump administration will respond to deepening social opposition with the methods it has demonstrated: ICE raids, mass detention infrastructure, the deployment of the National Guard against domestic protest, the criminalization of political opposition and the consolidation of authoritarian state power. The defeat in Iran will not moderate this trajectory. It will intensify it. The American ruling class, confronted with the failure of its imperialist offensive abroad, will turn with renewed savagery against the working class at home.

The task is the construction of an independent political movement of the working class that is international in scope, socialist in program and politically conscious in its objectives.