# Iran Deal Backlash Exposes Deep Split in Tehran and Alarms Israel *Saturday, June 13, 2026 at 10:06 PM UTC — Hamer Intelligence Services Desk* **Published**: 2026-06-13T22:06:20.932Z (44h ago) **Category**: geopolitics | **Region**: Middle East **Importance**: 10/10 **Sources**: OSINT **Permalink**: https://hamerintel.com/data/articles/7306.md **Source**: https://hamerintel.com/summaries --- **Deck**: As Washington and Tehran move toward an electronic signature on a deal to end their war, hardline protesters are clashing with security forces in Iranian cities and senior clerics call the text a path to ‘colonial’ dependence. Israel, sidelined from the talks, is branding the accord a strategic catastrophe, warning its security is being traded away. The agreement that Washington and Tehran are expected to seal on Sunday is not even signed yet, and already it is shaking political foundations from Qom to Jerusalem. For Iran’s rulers, the deal offers a path out of open war with the United States; for conservative factions and Israel’s leadership, it looks like a strategic capitulation that leaves both the Islamic Republic’s ideology and Israel’s deterrence exposed. U.S. and Iranian officials are expected to "electronically" sign an accord on June 14 to end hostilities, according to multiple public statements and media reports on June 13. U.S. President Donald Trump has publicly said the agreement will be signed Sunday and that the Strait of Hormuz will be "open to all" immediately afterward. In Iran, a pro‑IRGC cleric, Hojjatoleslam Nabavian, claimed the text would effectively turn the country into an American colony and alleged that chief negotiator Abbas Araghchi accepted all U.S. proposals. At the same time, reports from Iranian cities including Tehran, Qom, and Mashhad describe clashes between opponents of the agreement and security forces, with demonstrators chanting against Araghchi, parliamentary speaker Mohammad Ghalibaf, and even invoking revenge for the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. On the Israeli side, a senior official quoted in Spanish‑language coverage called the memorandum a "catastrophe" for Israeli security, lamenting that Israel is "no longer in the circuit" and has little leverage over the outcome. For ordinary Iranians, the stakes are immediate and contradictory. Many hope an end to U.S. hostilities will ease economic pressure, stabilize the currency and reduce the risk of further strikes on Iranian soil. But footage and descriptions of protests suggest that conservative and hardline constituencies see the accord as a direct threat to the revolutionary identity that has defined their political lives. Security forces confronting demonstrators in bastions of clerical influence such as Qom and Mashhad indicate that dissent is not confined to Tehran’s political elite. Families weighing the prospect of sanctions relief must now balance it against the risk of a domestic crackdown and the possibility that a contested agreement could be reversed or destabilize the system from within. Beyond Iran’s borders, the strategic ramifications extend across the Middle East. Israel’s leadership, already strained by war on its northern and southern fronts, now faces the prospect of a U.S.–Iran de‑escalation in which it has limited say. If the Strait of Hormuz is indeed reopened to unrestricted traffic, Gulf energy exporters, global shippers, and insurers could see immediate commercial relief—but also a reshuffling of leverage, particularly for Arab states that have relied on U.S. pressure to contain Iran. Reports in Western media that Iran has recently hardened the physical security of its enriched uranium stockpiles by destroying internal tunnels and laying mines at facility entrances add another layer: Tehran appears determined to keep its nuclear assets insulated even as it negotiates on broader security questions, a combination that will worry regional rivals. What comes next depends on whether the deal survives its first political and security tests. The reported plan to negotiate over Iran’s civilian nuclear program within 60 days of the memorandum’s conclusion sets an early deadline that could reignite controversy inside Iran and among U.S. partners. Conservative figures like Nabavian have already framed the accord as total capitulation; if economic benefits are slow or uneven, their narrative may gain traction. In Israel, officials branding the deal a strategic failure may respond with unilateral steps—from covert cyber operations to intensified lobbying in Washington—that complicate implementation. A parallel question is how regional actors recalibrate. Gulf monarchies that have cultivated quiet ties with Israel while managing their own relationships with Tehran will watch whether an American–Iranian thaw reduces their vulnerability or leaves them exposed. If shipping through Hormuz normalizes, energy markets may adjust quickly, but investment decisions will still hinge on confidence that this truce is durable, not a pause before the next confrontation. ## Key Takeaways - U.S. and Iranian officials are expected to electronically sign an agreement ending their war on June 14, with Trump promising an immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. - Hardline Iranian figures are denouncing the text as capitulation, and protests with clashes against security forces have been reported in Tehran, Qom and Mashhad. - An Israeli senior official has labeled the expected accord a "strategic catastrophe" for Israel, saying the country has little influence over it. - Reports indicate Iran has recently reinforced physical protection for enriched uranium stockpiles, signaling it intends to preserve nuclear leverage even as it negotiates. - A follow‑on negotiation over Iran’s nuclear program is reportedly set for within 60 days, creating a near‑term test for the deal’s political survivability. ## Outlook & Way Forward If the accord is signed on Sunday as advertised, the first measurable impacts will be operational: reduced risk to U.S. and allied forces in and around Hormuz, and a likely easing of shipping restrictions that have rattled global energy flows. Markets and insurers will watch for concrete changes in military postures around the Strait as a signal of how quickly to price in reduced risk. The more volatile variables will be political. Inside Iran, the regime’s ability to contain conservative backlash without broadening unrest will determine how much negotiating space remains for the promised nuclear talks. In Israel and among U.S. partners, the deal could accelerate a shift toward more autonomous security planning if they view Washington as too eager to compromise. The question confronting policymakers over the coming weeks is whether this agreement becomes a foundation for a more stable Gulf security architecture—or a fragile truce that deepens mistrust between allies while leaving the core nuclear and regional rivalries unresolved.