France has accused Iranian security services of detaining two members of its embassy staff for several hours and physically assaulting one of them, in what Paris called a serious breach of diplomatic immunity that "cannot go without consequences."
Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said the two diplomats were stopped on Sunday evening, held without explanation and interrogated before being allowed to return to the French embassy.
"One of them was physically abused," Barrot said, describing the incident as an "extremely serious act of intimidation" and a "flagrant violation of diplomatic immunity." Both officials are now safe and are expected to return to France within hours, he added.
According to Barrot, the two officials oversaw French programs supporting Iranian civil society, particularly artists and scientists.
He said he had informed Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi that the incident was "serious and unacceptable" and "cannot go without consequences."
The incident comes amid sharply deteriorating relations between Paris and Tehran.
Last week, Barrot reiterated that France would oppose lifting sanctions on Iran unless Tehran abandoned its nuclear ambitions and what Paris describes as its destabilizing regional activities.
France has also pushed for a broader European role in negotiations over Iran's nuclear program and regional policies.
The two countries have also been locked in a long-running dispute over French nationals held in Iran.
France continues to demand the release of Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris, who have been imprisoned in Iran since 2022. Paris has described their detention as arbitrary and has accused Tehran of using foreign nationals as diplomatic leverage.
Earlier this year, France filed a case against Iran at the International Court of Justice over alleged violations of consular rights.
The detention of embassy staff marks a further escalation, extending tensions beyond disputes over detained citizens to diplomats protected under international law.
Iranian authorities had not publicly commented on the incident by Monday evening.
Qatar and Pakistan have launched a joint effort to revive Iran-US diplomacy as military exchanges entered their ninth day, while Tehran confirmed receiving new mediation proposals even as hardliners continued to oppose negotiations.
Pakistan and Qatar urged Tehran and Washington on Monday to halt hostilities and resume implementation of a previously signed memorandum of understanding.
Iranian Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni traveled to Islamabad on Monday carrying a message from President Masoud Pezeshkian as part of the mediation effort. Regional media reported he was also expected to meet Pakistan's army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir.
According to Israel's Channel 14, Qatar proposed that the United States suspend further military strikes while Iran reopens both the northern and southern shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz for a 10-day period. The proposal has not been independently verified.
Tehran confirms new proposals
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei confirmed during his weekly press briefing that Iran had received new proposals from mediators aimed at ending the confrontation, although he did not disclose their contents.
His remarks marked Tehran's first public acknowledgment that fresh diplomatic initiatives were under consideration following the latest escalation.
President Masoud Pezeshkian also defended both the memorandum of understanding and the prospect of diplomacy during remarks to the Supreme Judicial Council, rejecting accusations that Iran had compromised its national interests.
"Not only was no concession made against the country's interests, but Iran achieved major gains, and there is not a single provision that creates a one-sided benefit for the United States," he said.
"If economic pressure leads to growing social discontent, the tremendous social capital that people have created in support of the system could be damaged."
Political analyst Hossein Ghatib argued that diplomacy should remain an option despite the fighting, but warned against any temporary ceasefire that merely postponed another round of conflict.
"The next agreement should not be based on concessions before guarantees," he wrote on X. "Instead, it should rest on the principles of guarantees before concessions, verification before trust, and concrete action before the next step."
Fighting continues
The diplomatic activity unfolded against a widening military campaign across Iran and the Gulf.
Iran launched additional missile and drone attacks targeting Kuwait and Bahrain, while a Greek shipping company said two tankers under its management had been struck by unidentified projectiles while transiting Omani coastal waters.
Iranian media also reported attacks in East Azerbaijan, West Azerbaijan and Bushehr provinces, followed later in the day by a strike on the Shiraz Electronics Industries complex.
Iranian Army spokesman Mohammad Akraminia said "reason dictates that the war continue until it creates complete deterrence for Iran."
He also warned that "any country cooperating with the Americans will certainly face problems for its ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz."
Parliament Presidium member Rouhollah Motefakker-Azad similarly warned that if the conflict continued, "the Islamic Republic will respond even more aggressively, and then the Americans should think more seriously and more quickly about leaving the region."
‘Pointless domestic divide’
Iranian hardliners nevertheless continued to oppose any return to negotiations.
Conservative political analyst Majid Shakeri argued that Washington should first publicly recommit to the memorandum of understanding and fulfill its obligations under the agreement before any new talks could begin.
Commenters on the conservative Tabnak website likewise dismissed renewed diplomacy, with one describing the situation as a "vicious cycle of war, negotiations, war, negotiations."
The IRGC-affiliated Javan newspaper, however, argued that Iran should remain prepared for either outcome.
"Going to the negotiating table to consolidate the gains achieved in the war and secure lasting security, or continuing to fight for the same objective, should not create a pointless domestic divide."
On the US side, President Donald Trump reposted a Truth Social poll showing majority support among respondents for a peace agreement with Iran while insisting Washington had responded forcefully to the killing of American personnel.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio also reiterated that the United States remained committed to a diplomatic solution despite the ongoing fighting.
"They continue sending signals that they want talks and negotiations," Rubio said. "But we respond to their actions, and their actions are firing missiles and drones at ships."
Iran's chief negotiator, Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, and US Vice President JD Vance both defended diplomacy backed by military strength on Wednesday, making strikingly similar arguments as Iranian hardliners intensified demands to scrap Tehran's agreement with Washington.
Both men appeared to be making the same argument to critics within their own political camps: that diplomacy is most effective when backed by credible military force, not pursued instead of it.
The parallel messaging prompted analysts to suggest that, despite rising tensions, both sides may still view diplomacy as preferable to war.
International relations analyst Amir-Ali Abolfath wrote on X that Ghalibaf's statement, Vance's remarks and Iran's release of an Iranian-American prisoner together offered "a glimmer of hope" that both sides could return to managing tensions within the framework of an agreement "whose fate hangs by a thread."
Reform-leaning news website Rouydad24 likewise described the prisoner's release as evidence of "the opening of an important diplomatic channel amid an exchange of fire."
US President Donald Trump also welcomed the move, writing on Truth Social that "the United States appreciates this gesture of goodwill by Iran."
‘Talking is not compromise’
Ghalibaf issued a public statement on Wednesday defending what he described as the course pursued under Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei's guidance, arguing that negotiations with the United States remain compatible with military preparedness and resistance.
Rather than presenting diplomacy and military readiness as opposing choices, he argued they were complementary tools for safeguarding Iran's national interests.
"War and negotiation are two methods of protecting the national interest," he said, insisting that negotiations are "part of safeguarding national interests, not synonymous with compromise."
He warned that treating either military confrontation or diplomacy as the sole solution would amount to "a strategic mistake," adding that officials have a duty to prepare "for war, diplomacy, or both," depending on the course set by the Supreme Leader.
"We must stand firm on the achievements secured through the MoU until the nation's rights are fully realized," he wrote.
Hours later, Vance struck a remarkably similar tone in an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan, rejecting the idea of overthrowing Iran's government through US military force.
He argued that diplomacy, backed by military pressure, remained the preferred way to manage the crisis, and criticized "warmongers" pushing for conflict.
A well-funded covert campaign, Vance claimed, was seeking to derail negotiations and any agreement with Tehran.
Hardliners push back
The renewed defense of diplomacy triggered an immediate backlash from Iran's hardline camp, where many have argued since the recent military confrontation that the Tehran-Washington understanding should be formally declared dead.
Kamran Ghazanfari, a member of parliament, accused President Masoud Pezeshkian and Ghalibaf of lacking the courage to acknowledge that the agreement had collapsed.
"Whether they call it war or not, the third war has effectively begun," he said, arguing that the negotiating team should publicly admit that talks had reached a dead end.
Hardline journalist Davood Modarresian likewise criticized Ghalibaf's statement, saying it contained "no sign of change or apology" and faulting him for continuing to advocate negotiations despite what he described as Washington's abandonment of the agreement.
Hardline political activist Masoud Barati challenged Ghalibaf's description of negotiations as a form of struggle.
"Calling negotiations a form of struggle gives primacy to negotiations," Barati wrote. "If negotiations have failed to secure Iran's achievements, why insist on continuing this approach?"
Conservative rivalry deepens
The latest dispute reflects a long-running rivalry between Ghalibaf and former nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, both prominent figures within Iran's conservative establishment.
In recent months, lawmakers aligned with Jalili and members of the ultraconservative Paydari Front have intensified criticism of Ghalibaf, arguing that negotiations with Washington should be abandoned altogether.
Their influence, however, appears to have weakened after losing two key leadership positions on parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee.
Adding to signs of growing pressure on the hardline faction, lawmaker Majid Nasrpour told Khabar Online in comments published Thursday that "some hardline members of parliament have been summoned by the relevant authorities and seriously warned over their remarks."
Less than three weeks after Washington and Tehran began implementing a 60-day memorandum, the ceasefire is broken, commercial ships have again come under attack in the Strait of Hormuz, and US forces have struck Iran. Yet the two sides are still talking.
President Donald Trump declared the ceasefire over after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fired on three merchant vessels, but said negotiations would continue because Iran “wants to make a deal so badly.”
The contradiction suggests the memorandum may be doing something narrower than ending the conflict. It has failed to prevent renewed violence, but may still provide a structure through which Washington and Tehran can contain escalation, preserve communication and negotiate between military exchanges.
The latest crisis has already damaged one of the memorandum’s main objectives: restoring safe commercial passage through the Strait of Hormuz while the two sides pursued a broader agreement over Iran’s nuclear program and other disputes.
The question is no longer simply whether the ceasefire survived. It is whether the memorandum was ever a peace agreement, or a system for managing an unfinished war.
Experts who spoke to Iran International’s Eye for Iran podcast differed over whether the arrangement remains viable, but broadly agreed that both Washington and Tehran still have reasons to prevent the confrontation from returning to full-scale war.
Jonatan Sayeh, a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said Tehran may have calculated that it could test US limits, absorb a contained response and retain many of the economic benefits it secured under the agreement.
“That to them was a gamble that was kind of worth it,” Sayeh said.
From the IRGC’s perspective, the outcome may still fall short of its worst-case scenario. Iran was struck, but the broader maritime blockade has not been fully restored, Tehran can continue selling oil to China, and the confrontation did not immediately return to all-out war.
Sayeh also questioned claims that Iran’s civilian government had simply lost control of the Guards.
Tehran may instead be using a new version of its longstanding “good cop, bad cop” strategy, he said, with civilian officials seeking concessions while presenting the IRGC as an independent force they cannot fully restrain.
Historian and Atlantic contributing writer Arash Azizi said the attacks had not necessarily destroyed the broader framework.
“I certainly don’t think it was doomed to fail,” Azizi said. “And I don’t, in fact, think it has failed actually yet.”
Neither Washington nor Tehran appears eager to resume full-scale war, he said. That shared interest could preserve negotiations even after the immediate ceasefire collapsed.
Azizi said hardline pressure on President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi may also help explain the attacks. Factions opposed to the agreement could fear that 60 days of normal traffic through Hormuz would make it harder for Iran to reassert control of the waterway as a source of leverage.
Fatima Al-Asrar, a senior policy analyst at Ideology Machine, argued that the memorandum’s ambiguity may have benefited the IRGC from the outset.
She called it a “memorandum of undoing,” saying it postponed or weakened earlier US demands concerning Iran’s nuclear program, armed allies and regional conduct.
“The MoU gives you this kind of maybe false sense of progress, and I think it’s performative mostly,” Al-Asrar said. “It’s a truce, and that’s great, but it’s driven by short-term political wins.”
Rather than removing Iran’s capacity to threaten shipping, she said, the arrangement may have allowed Tehran to retain what amounts to a geopolitical switch.
Iran can reduce tensions when it seeks sanctions relief, oil revenue or diplomatic concessions, then disrupt the strait again when it wants greater leverage.
The consequences extend far beyond Washington and Tehran. Disruption in Hormuz raises shipping and energy costs and can affect fertilizer supplies and food prices across Asia and other import-dependent regions.
Itai Reuveni, director of communications at NGO Monitor, described the memorandum as a deliberately flexible answer to the immediate needs of all sides.
Iran wanted to stop US and Israeli strikes before they threatened the survival of the Islamic Republic. Washington wanted to avoid another prolonged Middle Eastern war. Israel had demonstrated its ability to strike Iran but also faced the costs and risks of a sustained campaign.
The agreement reduced the intensity of the war without settling the disputes that caused it.
“It seems to me that the line is always being pushed,” Reuveni said.
The United States, Israel and Iran may now be entering a prolonged cycle in which each side tests how far it can go without triggering another major war.
That may explain why military action and diplomacy are continuing at the same time.
The memorandum did not create a conventional peace process in which violence stopped before negotiations began. It created a framework in which strikes, threats, retaliation and mediation could unfold alongside one another.
The attacks in Hormuz have damaged that framework and increased the danger of miscalculation. Another round of fighting could be broader and more destructive.
But whether the memorandum is dead depends on what it was expected to achieve.
The ceasefire may be over. The managed confrontation it created may only be beginning.
Episode 111 of Eye for Iran is available on YouTube and all major podcast platforms.
A day after Ali Khamenei was buried, US President Donald Trump declared the ceasefire with Iran over while agreeing to continue negotiations and warning of overwhelming retaliation if Tehran targeted him, as Iranian officials and clerics intensified calls for revenge.
“We have agreed to Iran talks, but the United States has stated to them, in no uncertain terms, that the ceasefire is over,” Trump said Friday, after renewed military exchanges raised questions over the future of a temporary memorandum signed last month.
Trump also told the New York Post that he had left instructions for Iran to be bombed at unprecedented levels if Tehran succeeded in killing him. “I’ve left instructions — if anything happens, to just literally bomb them at levels that they’ve never seen before,” he said.
The warning came as calls to target Trump and avenge Khamenei spread across official and religious platforms in Iran. Ahmad Reza Hajati, the Friday prayer leader in Ahvaz, urged anyone with missiles or drones to kill the US president and “purge the earth” of his existence.
IRGC commander-in-chief Ahmad Vahidi said punishing those who carried out, ordered or supported the killings of Khamenei and several Iranian military commanders would remain a “certain, legitimate and unforgettable demand.” Other senior clerics and hardline politicians also called revenge a national, legal or religious right.
Diplomatic contacts nevertheless continued. Axios reported that a new round of US-Iran talks was expected next week, possibly in Switzerland, while Al Arabiya said technical teams from the two countries were due to meet in Pakistan on Sunday, July 12.
The Trump administration is also pressing Iran to issue a public statement acknowledging that the Strait of Hormuz is open and pledging to stop firing on commercial ships, Axios reported Friday citing US officials.
Iran publicly disputed the accounts. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said Tehran had not requested negotiations with Washington, but had accepted a regional mediator’s request to visit Iran and discuss recent developments. He said the meeting took place Friday in Mashhad and that Iran conveyed its positions to the Qatari side.
As regional diplomacy continued, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was due to travel to Oman on Saturday at the head of a diplomatic delegation for talks on regional developments, particularly the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, state-run IRNA reported. The report gave no details about his planned meetings.
A source close to Iran’s negotiating team separately denied that preparations for new talks had been finalized, IRGC-affiliated Fars News reported.
Qatar and Pakistan continued mediation efforts, seeking to de-escalate tensions, preserve the diplomatic track and address disputes over the Strait of Hormuz.
The military warnings also extended to Israel. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said on X Friday that the Israeli military was prepared “at all times for any scenario in attack and defense.” Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr warned that any attack on Iranian infrastructure would draw a reciprocal response and that Israel would not be spared.
Senior US officials said Washington had military options to ensure Iran’s nuclear sites remained inaccessible, Reuters reported Friday.
The day ended with both sides signaling readiness for talks while trading threats that left the prospect of renewed conflict firmly in view.
Iran’s attacks on vessels near the Strait of Hormuz and subsequent strikes on US bases in the region have exposed a widening battle inside Tehran between those trying to preserve diplomacy with Washington and those pushing for confrontation.
The escalation began Monday night with attacks on commercial navigation near Hormuz, continued Tuesday, and was followed Wednesday morning by strikes on US positions after CENTCOM forces hit more than 80 targets in southern Iran.
Tehran claimed it had struck 85 targets, all of them US interests.
Inside Iran, hardline media quickly framed the confrontation as proof that the June MoU with Washington had failed—or that it had only served to expose US intentions.
The Tehran municipal daily Hamshahri argued that the MoU was not a concession but proof Washington had recognized Iran’s missile capabilities and regional leverage.
It said the latest maritime confrontation showed any attempt by the US or its allies to impose terms during the 60-day implementation period would risk disruption of global energy routes.
Other hardline outlets, including Kayhan, went further.
Writing with vindicated fury, editor Hossein Shariatmadari declared that the “60-day diplomatic mirage” had vanished exactly as he predicted, calling the US strikes proof of “Washington’s innate treachery and structural inability to honor any MoU.”
More than a military confrontation, the attacks appear to reflect a growing divide among Iranian decision-makers: those seeking to advance an agreement with Washington and those who argue that only direct revenge against US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be sufficient.
Over the past month, radical hardliners in Tehran—who portrayed their own survival and the system’s survival as victory over the United States—have sharply criticized President Massoud Pezeshkian for signing the MoU with Washington.
They argued that before the agreement, Trump was under pressure from politicians and markets, and that Iran could have extracted better terms.
While the anger surrounding Khamenei’s funeral cannot be dismissed, the divide between Tehran’s hardliners and pragmatists appears to be a major factor behind the renewed confrontation that followed Trump’s conciliatory comments about allowing a peaceful funeral for the man he had ordered killed.
Whatever the precise trigger, the escalation has strengthened the hand of hardliners.
Social-media videos from the funeral in Tehran showed radicals throwing stones at Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and chanting slogans against Pezeshkian.
On Wednesday, ultraconservative MP Hamid Rasai called for a missile strike on Trump’s residence during his visit to Ankara for a NATO meeting, while fellow hardliner Mahmoud Nabavian said Muslims worldwide were expected to attack Trump the way Salman Rushdie was attacked.
Trump said he had always known he was a target for “nasty Iranians,” adding that if they had nuclear weapons, they would certainly use them.
On Wednesday, Hamshahri went further, arguing that strikes on US assets in Kuwait and Bahrain demonstrated that the cost of confrontation would not remain limited to Iranian territory.
The paper said Washington’s move to revoke Iran’s oil-export waivers amounted to total economic warfare and justified an equivalent response: closing the Strait of Hormuz.
“If Iran cannot openly sell its crude, no state in the region will be permitted to export energy,” it warned.
Kayhan urged the Pezeshkian administration to abandon the June framework, restrict maritime access and shift to what it called an unrestricted defensive doctrine under the guidance of the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei.
Meanwhile, figures including parliamentary National Security Committee spokesman Ebrahim Rezai and Mojtaba Khamenei’s military adviser Mohsen Rezai declared Iran’s readiness for combat.
Chief of staff of the armed forces Habibollah Sayyari also warned against any ground operation.
“If the enemy deploys forces to the Iranian shores, their troops will enter a hell that has no exit,” Sayyari said—a remark widely circulated online, with critics joking that it unintentionally described conditions inside the Islamic Republic itself.