OPEN LETTER: To the Iranian Regime — the June 17 MOU Does Not Absolve Your Proxies

Introduction: Why Write This Open Letter Now

In the aftermath of an agreement that changes the game — but not everything

On June 17, 2026, Iran and the United States signed a memorandum of understanding that ended military operations between the two countries and reopened the Strait of Hormuz. This is a real diplomatic event, and I will not deny its significance. But there is a conversation that no one seems willing to have publicly — the one about Iranian proxies: Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Shia militias in Iraq and Syria. These organizations are not signatories to the MOU, yet the MOU requires their de facto disarmament.

I am writing to you, leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, to ask a direct and unambiguous question: are you genuinely prepared to neutralize your regional proxies in exchange for $300 billion in reconstruction funding and sanctions relief? And if so, why did Iran, on June 20 — barely three days after the MOU was signed — briefly close the Strait of Hormuz in response to alleged Israeli strikes in Lebanon? That act is not the gesture of a partner ready to honor its commitments.

What the MOU says about military operations — and what that means for your proxies

The text of the MOU you signed is explicit: it requires the immediate and permanent cessation of all military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. The wording is unambiguous. All operations, all fronts. That includes Hezbollah, which conducts regular military operations from Lebanon against Israel. It includes the Houthis, who have targeted international shipping in the Red Sea. It includes every militia you fund, arm, and direct across the Middle East.

Either you control your proxies and can impose this cessation — which means you must impose it to honor your signature. Or you do not fully control them — which means you have signed a commitment you are not in a position to keep. In both cases, the question deserves an honest public answer, not statements calibrated differently depending on the audience.

The Reality of Proxies: Who Really Decides What Hezbollah and the Houthis Do?

The command architecture of Iran's resistance forces

To understand why the proxy question is central, one must understand the command architecture of Iran's resistance forces. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and more specifically its Quds Force, coordinates, funds, and equips Iranian proxy organizations across the Middle East. This command structure is documented by dozens of intelligence analyses and reports.

Lebanese Hezbollah is funded by hundreds of millions of dollars annually from Iran. Its arsenals — tens of thousands of rockets and missiles — were delivered by Iran via Syria. The Houthis of Yemen received Iranian ballistic missile technologies and drone systems that enabled them to target vessels in the Red Sea. These facts are documented and incontestable.

The doctrine of strategic distance: can Tehran really say no?

The delicate question is this: do Iranian proxies actually obey Tehran when Tehran gives them an order that contradicts their own interests? The honest answer is: probably yes for major strategic orders, but not necessarily for day-to-day tactical operations. Hezbollah has its own leadership, its own Lebanese support base, its own internal political calculations. It is not a puppet that mechanically obeys every instruction from Tehran.

But Iran's doctrine of strategic distance — maintaining plausible deniability regarding proxy actions — is one thing. Signing an international agreement that requires the cessation of their operations is quite another. You cannot simultaneously claim not to control Hezbollah and sign an agreement that commits Iran to halting its operations. These two positions are mutually incompatible.

The Lebanon Question: What the June 20 Closure Reveals

Three days after the MOU, Iran closes the Strait — why?

On June 20, 2026, just three days after the MOU was signed, Iranbriefly closed the Strait of Hormuz in response to what Tehran presented as alleged Israeli strikes in Lebanon. This unilateral decision to close the Strait — which directly transgresses the MOU's terms on the cessation of military operations — demands a serious answer.

If Israeli strikes in Lebanon justify closing the Strait, then the MOU is worthless. It becomes a conditional document: Iran will respect it as long as Israel does not strike its proxies. But Israel is not a signatory to the MOU. It has its own right of self-defense against Hezbollah's operations. If every Israeli strike against Hezbollah authorizes Iran to violate the MOU, then this agreement is doomed from birth.

The direct question on Hezbollah

Here is the direct question I put to you, leaders of Tehran: are you prepared to require Hezbollah to cease its military operations against Israel, as the MOU demands? Not in six months, not gradually, not with conditions. Now. Because that is what you signed. The agreement says immediate and permanent cessation. Those two words — immediate and permanent — leave very little room for creative interpretation.

If the answer is no — if you are not prepared to impose a halt to Hezbollah's operations — then be honest about it. Tell Washington that the MOU implicitly excludes the Lebanese theater. Say so publicly. Because signing an agreement while knowing you cannot or will not honor one of its central clauses is diplomatic bad faith that weakens not only this agreement, but every future agreement you enter into.

The Houthis in Yemen: Another Grey Zone of the MOU

The Red Sea, commercial shipping, and the promise of cessation

If Hezbollah is Iran's primary proxy force in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen are Iran's primary threat to international shipping. Since late 2023, the Houthis have targeted dozens of commercial vessels in the Red Sea, disrupting global trade routes and forcing costly diversions around the Cape of Good Hope. These attacks were made possible by missile and drone technologies supplied by Iran.

The June 17 MOU requires the cessation of all military operations on all fronts. This theoretically includes Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping. But since the MOU was signed, no public announcement has been made about an Iranian instruction to the Houthis to cease their maritime operations. That silence is itself a message — and it is a troubling one for the durability of the agreement.

Frozen funds as leverage for proxies: Tehran's logic

There is a logic in Iran's position on proxies that I want to acknowledge honestly. Iranian frozen funds and sanctions relief are contingent on a final agreement. As long as that final agreement has not been signed, Tehran keeps its proxies as an insurance policy — if negotiations fail, it can resume regional pressure. This is an understandable negotiating logic, even if it is morally unacceptable to the civilian populations who pay the price of proxy operations.

I ask you to publicly acknowledge this logic and to propose an alternative. If you want Washington to trust you, show that you can honor your commitments before receiving the full set of concessions. A unilateral goodwill gesture — a public instruction to Hezbollah to suspend its operations for the 60 days of negotiation — would be the most powerful demonstration of your seriousness.

What the $300 Billion in Reconstruction Really Means for Your People

Iran's economic reality in June 2026

I now turn to the question that is most central to the Iranian people: sanctions have caused real and documented suffering. Inflation, medicine shortages, the collapse of the Iranian rial, restricted access to medical technologies — these are realities that millions of Iranians live with every day. The promise of $300 billion in reconstruction funding is a transformative economic prospect for a country that desperately needs it.

But that promise remains contingent on a final nuclear agreement. And the primary obstacle to that final agreement, today, is your regional proxies and your apparent refusal to fully respect the all-fronts cessation clause. By maintaining this obstruction, you are denying your people a real economic prospect. It is not Washington that is blocking Iranian reconstruction — it is your own proxy policy.

The standoff between the Iranian people and the clerical regime over priorities

Here is what is documented: the popular uprisings in Iran since 2019, and in particular since the 2022–2023 protests following the death of Mahsa Amini, showed that millions of Iranians want freedom, prosperity, and normalcy — not permanent regional war. Broad popular Iranian support for funding Hezbollah and the Houthis is far from guaranteed. Many of your citizens would prefer those billions of dollars to go toward their health, education, and infrastructure.

By refusing to honor the MOU's terms on proxies, you are choosing authoritarian regional politics over the economic and social will of your people. That is your sovereign right, however regrettable. But do not claim that this choice serves the interests of the Iranian people — it serves the interests of the Revolutionary Guards apparatus.

North Korea and Russia Are Watching: The Global Implications

A dangerous precedent if proxies are not controlled

North Korea and Russia are carefully watching the terms granted to Tehran in the MOU. If Iran manages to obtain sanctions relief and $300 billion in reconstruction while keeping its proxies active and refusing to dismantle its nuclear enrichment program, it sends a catastrophic message to every actor in the global authoritarian axis: escalation pays, confrontation works, and Western democracies yield under pressure.

Pyongyang will draw the lesson that nuclearization is the best guarantee of its survival and the most effective instrument of negotiation with Washington. Moscow will take note that sustaining military pressure in Ukraine can eventually force an advantageous settlement. And Beijing will calculate that firmness pays better than cooperation. That is the world you are creating if you do not honor the MOU's terms.

The West's credibility at stake

The West also bears responsibilities in this equation. If Washington offers Iran major concessions — sanctions relief, $300 billion — without obtaining serious guarantees on proxies and nuclear issues, then the credibility of the entire Western sanctions policy is undermined. Allies who have maintained difficult positions on Iran will find their trust betrayed. And future arms control agreements with other actors will become even harder to negotiate.

The credibility of international commitments is a common good built over decades and destroyed by a handful of bad decisions. An Iran-USA agreement that fails to respect its own terms on proxies will be worse than no agreement at all — it will create the illusion of a solution while providing none of the substance.

What the MOU Concretely Requires — and Why It Is Achievable

The 60 days as a window for visible behavioral change

I will close this open letter not with condemnation but with an invitation. The 60 days following the signing of the MOU are a real window to demonstrate your seriousness. A public instruction to Hezbollah to suspend its operations for 60 days would be a powerful signal. A formal Iranian commitment not to interfere with Red Sea navigation during negotiations would be another. These gestures cost nothing on the nuclear front — they do not prejudge the outcome of enrichment negotiations.

What they would purchase, on the other hand, is considerable: the credibility you currently lack in the eyes of Washington, Brussels, and Jerusalem. The trust that conditions the release of frozen Iranian assets. And the demonstration to your own people that you are choosing reconstruction over confrontation. These gestures are within your reach. The question is whether you have the political will to make them.

The alternative: a stillborn agreement and a return to confrontation

The alternative is clear. If you keep your proxies active, if you continue to interpret the MOU in ways that exclude your obligations on the Lebanese and Yemeni fronts, if you close the Strait at every perceived provocation from Israel — the MOU will die its own death within 60 days. Washington will have no choice but to reinstate enhanced sanctions. Your $300 billion will evaporate. And Iran will return to isolation — more mistrustful, more armed, and with fewer diplomatic options than today.

That is not the future your people desire. It is not the future I wish for you either. But it is the future your current proxy policy is actively preparing.

Iran's International Credibility: What Is at Stake Beyond the Middle East

The international community's view of Tehran in June 2026

There is something irreversible in the way Iran's international reputation has been built since 2020. Every Houthi attack in the Red Sea, every Hezbollah operation in Lebanon, every threatening closure of the Strait of Hormuz has added another layer of mistrust in Western chancelleries. This is not a matter of ideology — it is a matter of strategic calculation. European, American, even moderate Arab diplomats all ask the same question: can Iran be a reliable partner? The answer today is a resounding no in most meeting rooms I know.

The MOU signed on June 17, 2026 opened a crack in that wall of distrust. A narrow crack, provisional, conditional — but a crack nonetheless. The $300 billion in reconstruction funding discussed during negotiations is not a blank check: it is contingent on behavior. The reopened Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of global oil supplies flow, became in a single day the symbol of what Iran could be if it chose cooperation over confrontation. But one day does not make a doctrine. And that is where the central challenge of rebuilding your credibility lies.

What Iran's allies really think about the MOU

It would be naive to believe that Russia, China, and North Korea see the MOU as good news for their interests. Moscow needs an Iran committed to confrontation with the West to maintain the geopolitical pressure that dilutes Russian-Ukrainian sanctions. Beijing calculates coldly: a normalized Iran is potentially an Iran less dependent on Chinese trade routes. Pyongyang watches because any agreement that legitimizes American pressure on rogue states undermines its own model of resistance. These three capitals will not encourage Tehran to honor the MOU. They will do the opposite: they will feed the Iranian factions that see the agreement as capitulation.

That is why, in this letter, I ask you to listen not to Moscow or Beijing, but to your own people. The Iranians queuing for gasoline, watching their currency collapse, reading the figures on inflation driven by war costs and sanctions — they are the ones paying the price of your regional policy. Proxies are expensive. Hezbollah is expensive. The Houthis are expensive. And while those billions fund foreign arsenals, Iranian cities wait for investments that never come.

The real price of proxy ambiguity for future negotiations

One final thought, before the conclusion, on the nuclear negotiations that must follow the MOU. The 60-day interim agreement is only a first step. For a permanent agreement to emerge — one that definitively lifts sanctions, integrates Iran into international financial circuits, and enables the $300 billion in reconstruction investment — Washington and its allies will need to trust Iran's word. That trust cannot be decreed. It must be demonstrated, month after month, through consistent behavior. The silence of your proxies for 60 days would be the most powerful demonstration you could offer at the negotiating table.

Conversely, if Hezbollah fires a single rocket at Israel during the MOU period, if the Houthis resume their Red Sea attacks, if the Strait is threatened again — the entire agreement collapses. Not just the energy component. Everything. The 20% of global oil that flows through Hormuz will return to threat. Sanctions will resume. And Iran will find itself in an even more fragile position than before June 17. This is not a theoretical hypothesis: it is the scenario actively being prepared by those in Washington and Tel Aviv who want to see the MOU fail.

Conclusion: The MOU, an Opportunity You Can Seize or Let Slip Away

A call to honor the commitments made

I call on you, leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, to honor the commitments you signed on June 17, 2026. The cessation of all military operations on all fronts — not only when it suits you, not only in theaters where you have no committed ally. On all fronts. That is what you signed. That is what the world is watching you do, or fail to do.

What I hope — and what I fear

I hope that the 60 days will produce a real agreement — on nuclear issues, proxies, and reconstruction. I hope the Iranian people will see the first real economic improvements from this diplomatic turning point. But I fear that the regime's logic will prevail over the people's interests. And if that is the case, the responsibility for the failure of this agreement will be yours — and you will have to live with its consequences, just as your people will have to live with the renewed sanctions that will follow.

Signed Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency box

This open letter is a journalistic genre that blends facts with declared editorial positions. All factual claims cited — the June 17 MOU, the cessation clause covering all fronts, the Strait closure on June 20, the conditional $300 billion in reconstruction funding, the 60-day negotiation window, the dependency of frozen assets on a final agreement — are drawn from the sources listed below. The editorial position of Maxime Marquette is pro-Ukraine, pro-democracy, and supportive of an Iran-USA agreement that genuinely delivers on its promises.

Sources

Primary sources

Holland & Knight: US-Iran Interim MOU analysis — all-fronts cessation — June 18, 2026

BBC: Iran closes Strait of Hormuz over Lebanon — June 20, 2026

19FortyFive: Iran deal — Russia, China and North Korea are watching — June 19, 2026

Secondary sources

Claw Street Journal: Iran ceasefire and NATO realignment — June 21, 2026

Automatic Earth: MOU Iran details and proxies — June 19, 2026

The National: Russia oil and Iran deal sanctions context — June 19, 2026