# Iran says it will no longer implement the Islamabad Memorandum
Iran says the United States violated the terms of the Islamabad Memorandum and that Tehran is no longer carrying out its commitments under the agreement. The warning, attributed by the supplied AP report to deputy foreign minister Kazem Gharibabadi, is another sign that the fragile diplomatic framework around the conflict is breaking down.
The statement matters because it links military escalation to diplomatic collapse. According to the report, the memorandum was an interim deal signed about a month earlier with the aim of permanently ending the fighting. If Iran is now saying it is no longer implementing it, that suggests the agreement has lost much of its practical value, even if the language of the deal itself has not been formally annulled.
Gharibabadi’s accusation was direct: the United States had violated the deal, and Iran was therefore no longer bound by its commitments. That is a familiar escalation pattern in wartime diplomacy. One side declares the other in breach, then uses that breach to justify pulling back from restraint. The supplied evidence does not say whether other signatories accepted Iran’s view, only that Tehran’s deputy foreign minister made the claim publicly.
The AP report also places the statement in a larger military context. It says the U.S. had violated its commitments under the deal and that the renewed war continued to focus on the Strait of Hormuz. That helps explain why the memorandum is under pressure. A deal meant to freeze the fighting becomes harder to maintain once attacks intensify around strategic waterways and infrastructure.
The source further notes that Iran’s declarations came amid fresh strikes and regional insecurity. It says the conflict has already affected shipping, military targets and infrastructure. In that setting, a diplomatic deal is not just a paper agreement; it is a mechanism for reducing immediate risk. Iran’s announcement suggests that mechanism is no longer functioning.
Because the supplied evidence is limited to one AP report, caution is warranted. It does not provide the text of the memorandum, the negotiating parties’ full positions, or any independent verification beyond Gharibabadi’s statement. Still, the core news is clear: Iran’s foreign ministry is publicly asserting that the United States breached the deal first, and Tehran is responding by stepping away from implementation.
The practical consequence is uncertainty. If a ceasefire or interim framework is no longer being followed, shipping, diplomacy and military operations all become more volatile. The statement is therefore important not only for what it says about legal obligations, but for what it signals about the risk of further escalation.
Source map: Gharibabadi’s statement that the US violated the memorandum, Iran is no longer implementing it, and the broader context of the interim deal all come from source 14706.
That uncertainty matters because interim wartime deals often rely less on perfect trust than on mutual calculations about the cost of continuing. If Iran believes the United States has already breached the arrangement, then the entire structure depends on whether other actors can restore incentives for compliance. The source does not say whether any new talks are scheduled, only that Tehran is publicly signaling a break from the agreement’s terms.
