分类： politics

After months of indirect negotiations mediated by Pakistan, the United States and Iran have moved to the brink of signing a landmark memorandum of understanding (MOU) that could reshape geopolitics across the Middle East, though stark public disagreements over the agreement’s core terms have cast uncertainty over its final shape.

On Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi offered the clearest confirmation yet that a final deal is imminent, writing on social media that the so-called Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding is closer than ever. He urged media outlets to avoid unfounded speculation ahead of the text’s formal finalization. US President Donald Trump quickly shared Araghchi’s statement, but hours later launched a scathing rebuke of Iranian claims about the MOU’s content.

The dispute broke into public view after Iran’s Mehr News Agency reported the draft agreement would unlock $24 billion in Iranian assets frozen by international sanctions, codify Iran’s long-held control over the Strait of Hormuz, and include a full ceasefire across regional hotspots including Lebanon. A senior Iranian source later confirmed that account to Reuters, adding the deal would also lift restrictions on Iranian oil exports and require an end to hostilities on all regional fronts. Multiple Iranian officials have long maintained that any ceasefire agreement must include an end to Israel’s ongoing military campaign in southern Lebanon, where Israeli forces have expanded ground operations in recent weeks.

The Trump administration has pushed back forcefully against Iran’s version of events. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump dismissed Iranian leaks of the deal’s terms as entirely disconnected from the written agreement under negotiation. “Very dishonorable people to deal with,” he wrote. “They better get their act together, and FAST!”

A senior anonymous Trump administration official outlined a far different set of agreed terms to reporters, saying Tehran has committed to five core pillars, including the destruction and permanent removal of all its enriched nuclear material from Iranian territory. The official confirmed that some Iranian assets are tied to the agreement, but stressed no funds will be released until Tehran fully meets all its performance-based obligations. The administration’s version also states the MOU will require the Strait of Hormuz—a critical global energy chokepoint through which 25% of the world’s oil supplies pass—to be kept open to all international shipping, and bars Iran from providing military funding to regional proxies including Lebanon’s Hezbollah. US Vice President JD Vance echoed that pushback in a post on X, emphasizing that no Iranian funds will be released immediately upon signing the MOU, calling widespread reports to the contrary “fake information.”

Despite the conflicting public narratives from the two negotiating parties, Pakistan—the key third-party mediator facilitating the indirect talks—has confirmed that both sides have reached a final agreed text. “We can confirm that a final, agreed upon text of the peace deal has been reached,” Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif wrote on X Friday. “Pakistan is now working closely with both sides to finalize the next steps. Peace has never been this close as it is now.”

International markets reacted swiftly to the news of progress: global oil prices dropped sharply, while equity markets surged, as investors priced in the possibility of a broader breakthrough that could ease geopolitical tensions and open up new Iranian oil supplies to global markets. The possibility of a diplomatic breakthrough also gained further cred Friday when Switzerland’s foreign ministry confirmed it had been in contact with both parties and offered to host the signing ceremony if both sides agree to the venue.

Senior US officials have struck a cautiously optimistic tone, saying a formal signing could come as early as the next several days, with Trump floating the possibility of a ceremony in Europe. One senior US official told reporters on a background call that the likelihood of a final agreement had climbed throughout the day, from an estimated 75% that morning to between 80% and 85% by Friday afternoon, stopping short of declaring a done deal. It is not the first time Trump has announced a near-completed agreement with Iran; past announcements of impending deals have ultimately collapsed before reaching a final signing.

An investigation by independent outlet Middle East Eye has uncovered a contentious link between three sitting members of the UK House of Lords and a global consultancy firm that is registered to lobby senior UK officials on behalf of the United Arab Emirates, a Gulf state widely accused of enabling widespread human suffering in Sudan’s ongoing civil war.

The three peers in question are Thangam Debbonaire, a former Labour Member of Parliament and shadow culture secretary elevated to the House of Lords by Prime Minister Keir Starmer in 2024; Conservative peer Ruth Porter, a former deputy chief of staff to ex-prime minister Liz Truss who serves as a managing director at the firm FGS Global; and Andrew Cooper, an independent peer and former senior advisor to ex-prime minister David Cameron, who holds a partner role at the company.

Per filings with the UK’s Foreign Influence Registration Scheme, FGS Global has conducted active lobbying outreach to UK parliamentarians, senior civil servants, and other key stakeholders on behalf of the UAE since October 2025. The firm’s registered activities include organizing in-person meetings, telephone calls and email correspondence to boost awareness of the UAE-UK bilateral relationship, alongside providing strategic media guidance and content support to the UAE’s embassy in London.

The connection comes amid grave international allegations against the UAE: rights groups and United Nations Security Council investigators have repeatedly documented that the Gulf state has funneled weapons and logistical support to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a Sudanese paramilitary group that has carried out mass atrocities over three years of civil war. The conflict has displaced an estimated 13 million Sudanese people and left hundreds of thousands dead, with UN investigators confirming that an RSF attack on the besieged city of El Fasher in October 2024 bore clear “hallmarks of genocide” that killed at least 6,000 people in just three days. The UAE has consistently denied all allegations of providing support to the RSF.

FGS Global has stated that no wrongdoing has occurred, emphasizing that all of its staff adhere strictly to UK transparency, disclosure and advocacy rules. The firm also clarified that none of the three House of Lords members associated with the company have worked on the UAE client account. No evidence has been presented to suggest the peers have engaged in any improper activity related to the UAE contract.

Despite these denials, transparency and human rights campaigners have raised urgent alarms about the conflict of interest inherent in having senior parliamentarians hold paid roles at firms lobbying for foreign governments accused of mass human rights violations. Steve Goodrich, head of research and investigations at Transparency International UK, argued that the current regulatory framework fails to address clear risks to democratic accountability. “When members of the House of Lords hold senior roles at firms lobbying for foreign governments, it’s hard to know whose interests are being represented,” Goodrich told Middle East Eye. “Peers are in Parliament to serve the public, not to open doors for paying clients. The rules should require peers to choose: keep their seat in the Lords, or keep their interests in the lobbying industry.”

Kristyan Benedict, crisis response manager at Amnesty International UK, echoed these concerns, noting that all parliamentarians have a duty to scrutinize the entities they associate with, particularly when those entities work for governments accused of breaking international law. The case of Debbonaire, one of the three peers, has added layers of controversy: she has previously been a vocal critic of outside paid lobbying for lawmakers, calling for a ban on second jobs for House of Commons members during a 2021 parliamentary standards debate, where she declared that “MPs should not be for sale” and that lawmakers are elected to serve the public good rather than private interests. In 2024, she also publicly opposed a proposed UAE-led takeover of UK media outlets the Telegraph and the Spectator, arguing that a foreign power-backed acquisition should not be approved.

Further scrutiny of FGS Global’s ties to UK politics has emerged following the investigation: the firm donated more than £27,000 to the UK Labour Party in 2024, with a portion of the funds used to second an FGS staff member, Kamella Hudson, as an election campaign advisor to current Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves. Hudson was previously accused of arranging private meetings between UK ministers and Chinese fast-fashion giant Shein, another FGS client, in 2024. The donations also funded a high-profile drinks reception following Reeves’ keynote speech to the 2024 Labour Party conference, UK media reports confirm.

The controversy also overlaps with longstanding criticism of the UK government’s continued arms sales to the UAE. Despite a full UN arms embargo on Sudan imposed in 2024, and UN findings that UK-manufactured arms are being diverted to the RSF via the UAE, the UK government has approved multiple arms export licenses to the Gulf state in 2025, including components for military vehicles, drone parts and gun silencers. “The UAE has been a known hub for arms diversion for years and the UK government has long been aware of weapons being routed through the Emirates to conflict zones like Sudan and Libya,” Benedict said. “The UK government has committed to help end the conflict in Sudan and to work to prevent atrocities, but it still hasn’t suspended all arms sales to the UAE, which it must do immediately.”

FGS Global’s lobbying work for the UAE extends far beyond the UK: the firm is also registered as a foreign agent for the Gulf state in the United States, where it has additionally represented the breakaway Somali region of Somaliland. Per US disclosure filings, FGS was contracted by the UAE to shape US policy on bilateral trade, investment and geopolitical issues through outreach to policymakers, media outlets, think tanks and academic circles. The UAE’s expanded global lobbying push comes as the country navigates a major diplomatic rift with its former ally Saudi Arabia, driven by disagreement over the UAE’s backing of secessionist movements across Yemen, Libya and Somalia.

In addition to the UAE, FGS Global’s UK client roster includes US tech giant Oracle, a company co-founded by billionaire Larry Ellison with close ties to the second Trump administration. Oracle is a major funder of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, a think tank chaired by former UK prime minister Tony Blair that sparked widespread controversy in February 2025 after it was revealed that institute staff had drafted plans for a post-war Gaza dubbed the “Trump Riviera”, a proposal widely condemned for appearing to endorse the ethnic cleansing of the territory’s Palestinian population. Blair currently serves on US President Donald Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace”, a body tasked with overseeing the besieged enclave after a planned end to Israeli hostilities.

In an unprecedented decision that has sent shockwaves through Britain’s legal and activist communities, a British High Court judge has branded four Palestine Action protesters as terrorists and sentenced them to seven years in prison — an extraordinary move that comes even after a jury refused to convict the group on any terrorism-related charges.

The case stems from a August 2024 direct action protest at an Elbit Systems UK facility near Bristol, where the four activists — Leona Kamio, Samuel Corner, Fatema Rajwani, and Charlotte Head — were found guilty by jurors only of criminal damage linked to the raid. Two additional co-defendants, Jordan Devlin and Zoe Rogers, were cleared of all charges entirely. Elbit Systems UK is a local subsidiary of the Israeli arms manufacturing giant that produces drones and military weapons deployed by the Israeli military in its ongoing military campaign in Gaza.

Presiding Justice Jeremy Johnson formally added the controversial “terrorism connection” designation to the activists’ offenses during Friday’s sentencing hearing. The judge first flagged a potential terrorism link in a March 2025 preliminary ruling, arguing the protesters aimed to influence the Israeli government by disrupting arms supply chains. Crucially, this preliminary finding was never shared with the jury that ultimately convicted the group on non-terrorism charges.

This ruling marks the first time in United Kingdom legal history that the terrorism designation has been applied to non-violent direct action protesters who were never convicted of terrorism offenses or intentional harm to people. Johnson justified his decision in court, stating the designation was grounded in findings that the group caused “serious property damage”, intended to pressure both the UK and Israeli governments, and intimidated members of the public, while acting to advance a clear political and ideological cause.

A central point of contention in the sentencing phase has been the late submission of prosecution evidence used to quantify the damage from the raid. Prosecutors turned over a report from an independent forensic consultant just days before the hearing, which estimated total damage just over £1.2 million, covering harm to building infrastructure, IT systems, operational equipment and 40 separate military assets.

Chief defense counsel Rajiv Menon KC lambasted the timing of the submission, calling it a last-minute move that came 20 months after the protest, long after Elbit finalized its insurance claim in March 2025. Menon argued that the delayed filing gave the defense no meaningful opportunity to review or challenge the report, which he dismissed as full of hearsay and unsubstantiated opinion. He further noted that the report included damage claims for sections of the factory the four defendants never even entered during the protest.

Menon argued that relying on this unvetted evidence to increase the sentence and apply the terrorism designation would be a fundamental violation of the activists’ right to a fair trial. He criticized prosecutors for their inconsistent approach to evidence: “The Crown cannot have their cake and eat it. It can’t exclude evidence on the one hand and somehow bring it through the back door for sentencing.”

Outside the courtroom, the ruling sparked immediate mass protest: hundreds of demonstrators gathered to demonstrate support for the activists, and police reported that more than 100 people were arrested simply for displaying signs in solidarity with Palestine Action, which has been proscribed as a terrorist organization in the UK.