The world reacted to the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding with a mix of skepticism and relief, with many allies viewing it as a U.S. defeat.
Reactions varied greatly by region — Asian leaders and media were largely welcoming and praiseful of the deal, the Gulf was a mix of positive and neutral, while European media were highly negative. Leaders were typically more diplomatic and reserved in their reception, while major media outlets let loose in criticism or praise.
One of the first reactions after the MOU was signed came from French President Emmanuel Macron, who was sitting next to President Donald Trump as the president signed the document in the Palace of Versailles. He gave a decidedly positive spin, saying, “This agreement paves the way for lasting peace and allows the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.”
He tapped into domestic concerns, saying the deal was “an important step in the right direction for our compatriots that will soon enable a decrease in energy prices.”
On Monday, when details of the MOU began emerging, Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz signed a joint statement praising the deal.
“We warmly welcome the announcement of the memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran. We congratulate the United States, the Iranian government and all those involved, including Pakistan, Qatar and all other mediators, on this diplomatic breakthrough,” they said, adding that they hoped it would restore peace and stability to the region.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose country was one of those most affected by the energy crisis, welcomed the deal.
“I welcome the understanding reached between the United States and Iran on ending the conflict in West Asia, which has caused serious economic disruption across the world and led to loss of life in many countries,” Modi said, adding that he hoped the agreement’s implementation would “help restore peace and stability” in the region.
Some of the most jubilant reactions came from Pakistan, which was eager to boast its newly acquired diplomatic credentials. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif gave the most praiseful statement of the MOU and Trump, saying its signing demonstrates “commitment of both sides to a diplomatic resolution of the conflict.”
“I offer my heartfelt congratulations and sincere appreciation to the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump whose steadfast commitment to diplomacy and preference for peaceful resolution have once again helped end a conflict that could have led to devastating consequences for the region and beyond,” he said, thanking Trump’s negotiating team as well.
If the Gulf countries had any reservations about the deal, none were publicly expressed, with Gulf leaders widely praising the deal.
Gulf Cooperation Council Secretary-General Jasem al Budaiwi praised the deal and said he hoped it would lead to a lasting agreement.
Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain all welcomed and praised the deal in their own statements as well. Each carried similar themes of hoping the MOU would lead to lasting peace and a return to regional stability.
Egypt and Lebanon, the latter of which has been battered by the war between Israel and Hezbollah that sprang out of the Iran conflict, welcomed the deal. Turkey, Jordan, and Iraq gave their own praise of the deal.
South and East Asia suffered some of the worst trickle-down effects of the war, with the Strait of Hormuz blockade causing a massive energy shortage. Likewise, both public statements from leadership and media coverage mainly focused on the energy implications, which were positive. Both were less critical of U.S. concessions or any perceived benefits toward Iran.
Some of the harshest criticism of the deal came from European papers of record, often communicating the elite consensus in each.
Le Monde, France’s newspaper of record, wrote a damning analysis of the deal in a Thursday editorial, concluding the war was a “disaster.” By its telling, Tehran has set the stage for further negotiations at a starting point “far more advantageous for Iran.”
The outlet went beyond viewing it as inferior to former President Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal, arguing the two couldn’t even be compared until, or “if,” further negotiations took place. It also concluded Trump’s threats were neutered by political constraints, given the midterm elections in November.
It was equally damning in a Monday editorial, condemning Trump’s “blindness” and saying the deal and war in general seemed to be a “fiasco.”
“Rather than toppling the Iranian regime or destroying its military capabilities, the US and Israeli attack instead highlighted Iran’s resilience. In addition to strikes against the Arab states on the Gulf’s western shore, Iran responded — entirely predictably — by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, thus transforming a regional conflict into a global systemic crisis,” it wrote.
The United Kingdom’s Guardian was equally damning, openly deriding the war and the deal that seeks to end it as an unmitigated failure.
“Donald Trump should not be allowed to call this a triumph. He has bought a pause after an illegal war of choice that failed to secure its declared aims, devastated Iran, destabilised Lebanon and sent shocks through energy and fertiliser markets, leaving many people poorer and hungrier. A campaign launched to display US military strength is likely instead to be remembered for demonstrating its limits,” it wrote in an editorial.
In more dramatic prose, the outlet declared, “This episode may belong in future histories of US decline because it exposes the gap between American military capability and American strategic control.”
A lead editorial from Der Spiegel was also highly critical, arguing the deal “left behind” the U.S.’s Arab allies and cratered its influence in the region while giving Iran leverage.
Perhaps the most critical of all, from a completely different angle, was Israel. Israeli officials were some of the few public figures to openly denounce the MOU in strong terms, viewing it as a capitulation, and some as a betrayal.
Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir went the furthest, lashing the deal repeatedly.
“Trump’s agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subject to the United States, and we are an independent and sovereign nation!” he posted on X.
“My position is clear: We are not partners to this agreement that does not ensure our security, and it does not bind us in any way. We must not compromise on anything less than the dismantling of Hezbollah,” Ben-Gvir added.
IRANIAN STATE MEDIA BRAG ABOUT KEY CONCESSIONS COUNTRY CLAIMED TO SECURE FROM US IN PEACE DEAL
After Vice President JD Vance hit back at his opposition, Ben-Gvir criticized the U.S.’s entire historical role, saying it was making a “deal with the Nazis of the 21st century, just as the United States dealt with the Nazis of the 20th century.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has remained mum on the deal publicly, resorting to statements maintaining that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and showcasing a meeting with the head of the Mossad. Privately, he has reportedly been fuming over the MOU.