Synopsis

Portugal's victory in the opening game of FIFA World Cup 2026 Group K was postponed by the Democratic Republic of Congo as they were forced to settle for a draw in Houston, USA. João Neves led the way for Portugal in the sixth minute but Yoane Wissa headed home in the first-half stoppage in a Congolese first World Cup goal. For DR Congo, it was their first World Cup match in 52 years. Without scoring a shot on target, the 41-year-old Cristiano Ronaldo came off the bench for the full 90 minutes.

Portuguese international Cristiano Ronaldo is set to return to the game on Wednesday in Houston Stadium as Portugal take on DR Congo in the FIFA World Cup 2026 Group K match at 7.30pm (PT).

There was a surprise for Houston. In the sixth minute, João Neves head in a cross from Pedro Neto to give Portugal the lead. Early, clean and promising a happy night. It did not.

After the first goal Portugal were left deep and allowed enough time to allow Congo to reorganise, rather than press for a second goal. Coach Roberto Martinez admitted that he made a mistake in his tactics. 

The goal had the exact opposite effect: It made our men want to play possession. We lost a lot of depth and that helped the Congos.

With Arthur Masuaku's added time cross, Wissa found the back of the net at the end of the first half. Inside the Houston Stadium, there was a small island of supporters whose emotions were blown out of control — and rightly so. The aim was a leveller, but, in a way, it was the first World Cup goal in the nation's history.

Ronaldo was the oldest outfield player to make his debut in a World Cup match, on which he made 20 passes without hitting a shot on target - a result that got him a lot of criticism, especially from those who had watched Lionel Messi land three goals in the previous evening's match. 

The old timer was well supported by Martinez. It doesn't make sense to have the best world scorer out when you need goals, the experience of Cristiano in the box is important, the way he attracts defenders is important, he said.

Ronaldo was a pithy speaker at the meeting place. We didn't suffer from anything. This is football, Portugal could have won but they could have lost too," he said before getting off the team bus.

Portugal will next take on Uzbekistan on Tuesday in Houston, and it's more urgent than ever. The next Group K clash featuring Congo DR is against Jordan.

Portugal's victory in the opening game of FIFA World Cup 2026 Group K was postponed by the Democratic Republic of Congo as they were forced to settle for a draw in Houston, USA. João Neves led the way for Portugal in the sixth minute but Yoane Wissa headed home in the first-half stoppage in a Congolese first World Cup goal. For DR Congo, it was their first World Cup match in 52 years. Without scoring a shot on target, the 41-year-old Cristiano Ronaldo came off the bench for the full 90 minutes.

Portuguese international Cristiano Ronaldo is set to return to the game on Wednesday in Houston Stadium as Portugal take on DR Congo in the FIFA World Cup 2026 Group K match at 7.30pm (PT).

There was a surprise for Houston. In the sixth minute, João Neves head in a cross from Pedro Neto to give Portugal the lead. Early, clean and promising a happy night. It did not.

After the first goal Portugal were left deep and allowed enough time to allow Congo to reorganise, rather than press for a second goal. Coach Roberto Martinez admitted that he made a mistake in his tactics. 

The goal had the exact opposite effect: It made our men want to play possession. We lost a lot of depth and that helped the Congos.

With Arthur Masuaku's added time cross, Wissa found the back of the net at the end of the first half. Inside the Houston Stadium, there was a small island of supporters whose emotions were blown out of control — and rightly so. The aim was a leveller, but, in a way, it was the first World Cup goal in the nation's history.

Ronaldo was the oldest outfield player to make his debut in a World Cup match, on which he made 20 passes without hitting a shot on target - a result that got him a lot of criticism, especially from those who had watched Lionel Messi land three goals in the previous evening's match. 

The old timer was well supported by Martinez. It doesn't make sense to have the best world scorer out when you need goals, the experience of Cristiano in the box is important, the way he attracts defenders is important, he said.

Ronaldo was a pithy speaker at the meeting place. We didn't suffer from anything. This is football, Portugal could have won but they could have lost too," he said before getting off the team bus.

Portugal will next take on Uzbekistan on Tuesday in Houston, and it's more urgent than ever. The next Group K clash featuring Congo DR is against Jordan.

DR Congo Stun Portugal to Earn Historic World Cup Point

Synopsis

Lionel Messi is off to a great start for Argentina in their bid to defend the FIFA World Cup, with his hat trick in their 3-0 win over Algeria in Kansas City. The targets were quite a contrast — one long-range screamer, one clinical tap-in and one effort into the bottom corner that was curled. On his 200th international goal, Messi tied Miroslav Klose for the top scorer at the World Cup.

Argentina are ahead 3-0 against Algeria | FIFA World Cup 2026, Group J | Kansas City Stadium | 

It was truly a man's night. The Argentinean international, who has now played in six World Cups, netted in the 17th, 60th and 76th minute, thus becoming the first player to record a hat trick in the World Cup. The targets brought him to 16 goals in World Cup history—even with Miroslav Klose's 17—and 24 goals at the World Cup, compared to Pelé's 21.

It was a moment for Algeria. They made seven shots with Riyad Mahrez threatening on the right flank late in the second half. Yet, the evening's numbers were not a foregone conclusion.

Algeria captain Aissa Mandi said in an honest assessment that there was a class difference. After the final whistle, he says that he tried to work him "as hard as possible," but it wasn't enough — he was "too damn good" for them there.

Messi, who is known for his modesty, put it in individual terms. All of it's just a blessing to me, I've had every single dream that I ever had come true, both professionally and personally. I'm just enjoying this, I'm a part of a wonderful group right now.

This hat trick was his 200th game with Argentina. It was a symmetry of sorts — a record broken, six World Cups and 200 caps — like a punctuation building, albeit a special one.

The next Group J match-up for Argentina is against Austria on 22 June. Jordan are replaced by Algeria.

Lionel Messi is off to a great start for Argentina in their bid to defend the FIFA World Cup, with his hat trick in their 3-0 win over Algeria in Kansas City. The targets were quite a contrast — one long-range screamer, one clinical tap-in and one effort into the bottom corner that was curled. On his 200th international goal, Messi tied Miroslav Klose for the top scorer at the World Cup.

Argentina are ahead 3-0 against Algeria | FIFA World Cup 2026, Group J | Kansas City Stadium | 

It was truly a man's night. The Argentinean international, who has now played in six World Cups, netted in the 17th, 60th and 76th minute, thus becoming the first player to record a hat trick in the World Cup. The targets brought him to 16 goals in World Cup history—even with Miroslav Klose's 17—and 24 goals at the World Cup, compared to Pelé's 21.

It was a moment for Algeria. They made seven shots with Riyad Mahrez threatening on the right flank late in the second half. Yet, the evening's numbers were not a foregone conclusion.

Algeria captain Aissa Mandi said in an honest assessment that there was a class difference. After the final whistle, he says that he tried to work him "as hard as possible," but it wasn't enough — he was "too damn good" for them there.

Messi, who is known for his modesty, put it in individual terms. All of it's just a blessing to me, I've had every single dream that I ever had come true, both professionally and personally. I'm just enjoying this, I'm a part of a wonderful group right now.

This hat trick was his 200th game with Argentina. It was a symmetry of sorts — a record broken, six World Cups and 200 caps — like a punctuation building, albeit a special one.

The next Group J match-up for Argentina is against Austria on 22 June. Jordan are replaced by Algeria.

Messi Equals Klose's Record With Hat-Trick in Kansas City

Synopsis

US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed an Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding on June 17, 2026 which goes well beyond a ceasefire. The deal's essence was Iran's reaffirmation that it will not pursue nuclear weapons and its agreement to reduce its quantity of highly enriched uranium to a lower level under the protection of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In exchange, Iran agrees to allow the lifting of decades of sanctions, unfreeze Iranian assets, and agree to a $300 billion reconstruction plan from the United States. But the final status of Iran's nuclear program is still open for negotiation in a 60-day period.

The question now is what is Iran surrendering: The Nuclear Question

The key non-proliferation provision of the MOU is for Iran to continue to hold back a stockpile of uranium enriched to 60 per cent — a level the IAEA has long considered to be close to weapons-grade.

By June of 2025, the time of the military strikes, Iran had produced 440.9 kilograms of uranium that was enriched to as high as 60 per cent of the fissile U-235, IAEA reports of verification and monitoring have revealed. 

The strategic importance of this figure is stark: the separative work needed to further enrich this stockpile to weapons grade – 90 per cent – is only about 1 per cent of the separative work already expended in producing the stockpile.

The figure, translated in real terms, means that Iran would be able to process its 60-per-cent enriched uranium stockpile to produce enough for nine weapons in about three weeks; it would take a single cascade of centrifuges at the Fordow facility about 25 days to produce fissile material for a nuclear weapon.

This is the stockpile which the MOU is directed at. Point eight of the signed agreement reads: "Iran reaffirms that it will not develop or procure nuclear weapons, the two sides agree to resolve the disposition of Iran's stockpiled enriched material through a mutually agreed mechanism, with on-site down-blending under IAEA supervision as the base case, and will discuss Iran's enrichment activities within a framework to be agreed in the final deal.

Down-blending — the process for diluting highly enriched uranium with lower grade U to make it less concentrated — does not destroy the uranium, but only makes it technically unusable for weapons use if re-enriched. 

The official told reporters at the G7 summit in Évian-les-Bains that the nuclear pledge was a "major, major win for the United States of America": "They're saying we will destroy the enriched stockpile, and this is how we're going to do it at a minimum. We will push for more than that.

In a March 2026 CBS interview, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi indicated Tehran's openness to this move. "I offered actually that we are ready to dilute those enriched materials, or down-blend them, as they say, into lower percentage. That was a huge concession, a huge offer, Araghchi said.

Iran's Unsigned Agreements

The MOU's critics have zeroed in on what is conspicuously unresolved. The agreement only ensures Tehran's continuing adherence to Iran's long-standing commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – a commitment made to it for five decades – and provides a mechanism for down-blending rather than dismantlement.

The MOU does not mandate Iran's removal of its enriched uranium from the country. The down-blending will take place on Iranian soil under the IAEA's supervision. Questions of Iran's future enrichment ceiling, the eventual development of the advanced centrifuge cascades and the shape and scope of its civilian nuclear programme are all explicitly deferred to the 60-day final negotiation.

As far as the final deal is concerned, there is Point nine of the agreement: "The Islamic Republic of Iran will keep the current status of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions, won't send more troops to the region.

Without complete access to inspect and a clear implementation, down-blending is nothing but a piece of paper, said independent analysts. Since the military strikes in June 2025, Iran has limited the access of IAEA inspectors to some of the most important facilities.

The Sanctions Ledger is an account of Iran's Economic Gains

In return, Iran receives a large, immediate and conditional economic package, given its nuclear and military give-ups.

The US Department of Treasury will issue waivers for exports of Iranian crude oil and related petroleum products, derivatives, and all related services, such as banking transactions, insurance, and transportation, "immediately upon the signing of this MOU and until the termination of sanctions," says point ten of the MOU.

It's a quick cash infusion for a nation whose oil industry has been choked since 2018 by sanctions. Point 11 also adds that the US "will make available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon implementation of this MOU," which could mean that the US will also allow around $100 billion in Iranian frozen assets to be used.

The commitment in the longer time horizon is even greater. Article six of the MOU pledges the US, along with its regional partners, to create a "definitive, mutually agreed reconstruction and economic development plan for Iran worth at least $300 billion," with a mechanism for its implementation to be determined in the 60-day period. 

Washington was careful to state that this would not be paid directly by the US, but would work by phasing out restrictions on sanctions that have kept third-country investment, especially from the Gulf countries, at bay. According to the officials, if the sanctions are lifted, "we will allow the UAE to construct a power plant in Iran.

There is clear conditionality in the UN Security Council resolutions, also in IAEA Board of Governors resolutions and unilateral US primary and secondary sanctions, in the sense that full sanctions termination will be contingent on the lifting of the restrictions.

In the signed text the US says it will lift all sanctions on Iran "schedules to be determined in the final deal" contingent on Iranian verifications.

The JCPOA Shadow: A Context the MOU cannot outrun

The MOU in Islamabad comes eight years after Trump ripped up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Obama-era deal that, at its heart, had placed limitations on Iran's uranium stockpile, its enrichment capacity to 3.67 per cent purity and overall uranium production. 

In those days of the JCPOA, Iran's estimated production time of enough uranium for one bomb was about a year. By the end of 2024, before the war had even started, that break out period for several bombs was already less than two weeks.

The Islamabad MOU does not bring back the JCPOA structure. It does not impose limits on enrichment levels, require a set number of centrifuges or impose ceilings on the size of the stockpile, all of which will be part of the final 60-day negotiation. 

The key Iranian nuclear negotiator and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who attended the signing, made a sharp statement, saying, "If the United States fails to fulfill its obligations, there is no way Iran will fulfill its obligations.

The next six weeks will tell if the Islamabad MOU will be seen as the beginning of a new, enduring non-proliferation settlement or as another famous MOU whose verification regime failed.

US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed an Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding on June 17, 2026 which goes well beyond a ceasefire. The deal's essence was Iran's reaffirmation that it will not pursue nuclear weapons and its agreement to reduce its quantity of highly enriched uranium to a lower level under the protection of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In exchange, Iran agrees to allow the lifting of decades of sanctions, unfreeze Iranian assets, and agree to a $300 billion reconstruction plan from the United States. But the final status of Iran's nuclear program is still open for negotiation in a 60-day period.

The question now is what is Iran surrendering: The Nuclear Question

The key non-proliferation provision of the MOU is for Iran to continue to hold back a stockpile of uranium enriched to 60 per cent — a level the IAEA has long considered to be close to weapons-grade.

By June of 2025, the time of the military strikes, Iran had produced 440.9 kilograms of uranium that was enriched to as high as 60 per cent of the fissile U-235, IAEA reports of verification and monitoring have revealed. 

The strategic importance of this figure is stark: the separative work needed to further enrich this stockpile to weapons grade – 90 per cent – is only about 1 per cent of the separative work already expended in producing the stockpile.

The figure, translated in real terms, means that Iran would be able to process its 60-per-cent enriched uranium stockpile to produce enough for nine weapons in about three weeks; it would take a single cascade of centrifuges at the Fordow facility about 25 days to produce fissile material for a nuclear weapon.

This is the stockpile which the MOU is directed at. Point eight of the signed agreement reads: "Iran reaffirms that it will not develop or procure nuclear weapons, the two sides agree to resolve the disposition of Iran's stockpiled enriched material through a mutually agreed mechanism, with on-site down-blending under IAEA supervision as the base case, and will discuss Iran's enrichment activities within a framework to be agreed in the final deal.

Down-blending — the process for diluting highly enriched uranium with lower grade U to make it less concentrated — does not destroy the uranium, but only makes it technically unusable for weapons use if re-enriched. 

The official told reporters at the G7 summit in Évian-les-Bains that the nuclear pledge was a "major, major win for the United States of America": "They're saying we will destroy the enriched stockpile, and this is how we're going to do it at a minimum. We will push for more than that.

In a March 2026 CBS interview, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi indicated Tehran's openness to this move. "I offered actually that we are ready to dilute those enriched materials, or down-blend them, as they say, into lower percentage. That was a huge concession, a huge offer, Araghchi said.

The MOU's critics have zeroed in on what is conspicuously unresolved. The agreement only ensures Tehran's continuing adherence to Iran's long-standing commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – a commitment made to it for five decades – and provides a mechanism for down-blending rather than dismantlement.

The MOU does not mandate Iran's removal of its enriched uranium from the country. The down-blending will take place on Iranian soil under the IAEA's supervision. Questions of Iran's future enrichment ceiling, the eventual development of the advanced centrifuge cascades and the shape and scope of its civilian nuclear programme are all explicitly deferred to the 60-day final negotiation.

As far as the final deal is concerned, there is Point nine of the agreement: "The Islamic Republic of Iran will keep the current status of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions, won't send more troops to the region.

Without complete access to inspect and a clear implementation, down-blending is nothing but a piece of paper, said independent analysts. Since the military strikes in June 2025, Iran has limited the access of IAEA inspectors to some of the most important facilities.

The Sanctions Ledger is an account of Iran's Economic Gains

In return, Iran receives a large, immediate and conditional economic package, given its nuclear and military give-ups.

The US Department of Treasury will issue waivers for exports of Iranian crude oil and related petroleum products, derivatives, and all related services, such as banking transactions, insurance, and transportation, "immediately upon the signing of this MOU and until the termination of sanctions," says point ten of the MOU.

It's a quick cash infusion for a nation whose oil industry has been choked since 2018 by sanctions. Point 11 also adds that the US "will make available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon implementation of this MOU," which could mean that the US will also allow around $100 billion in Iranian frozen assets to be used.

The commitment in the longer time horizon is even greater. Article six of the MOU pledges the US, along with its regional partners, to create a "definitive, mutually agreed reconstruction and economic development plan for Iran worth at least $300 billion," with a mechanism for its implementation to be determined in the 60-day period. 

Washington was careful to state that this would not be paid directly by the US, but would work by phasing out restrictions on sanctions that have kept third-country investment, especially from the Gulf countries, at bay. According to the officials, if the sanctions are lifted, "we will allow the UAE to construct a power plant in Iran.

There is clear conditionality in the UN Security Council resolutions, also in IAEA Board of Governors resolutions and unilateral US primary and secondary sanctions, in the sense that full sanctions termination will be contingent on the lifting of the restrictions.

In the signed text the US says it will lift all sanctions on Iran "schedules to be determined in the final deal" contingent on Iranian verifications.

The JCPOA Shadow: A Context the MOU cannot outrun

The MOU in Islamabad comes eight years after Trump ripped up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Obama-era deal that, at its heart, had placed limitations on Iran's uranium stockpile, its enrichment capacity to 3.67 per cent purity and overall uranium production. 

In those days of the JCPOA, Iran's estimated production time of enough uranium for one bomb was about a year. By the end of 2024, before the war had even started, that break out period for several bombs was already less than two weeks.

The Islamabad MOU does not bring back the JCPOA structure. It does not impose limits on enrichment levels, require a set number of centrifuges or impose ceilings on the size of the stockpile, all of which will be part of the final 60-day negotiation. 

The key Iranian nuclear negotiator and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who attended the signing, made a sharp statement, saying, "If the United States fails to fulfill its obligations, there is no way Iran will fulfill its obligations.

The next six weeks will tell if the Islamabad MOU will be seen as the beginning of a new, enduring non-proliferation settlement or as another famous MOU whose verification regime failed.

Iran Agrees to Dismantle Nuclear Stockpile; US Lifts Sanctions in Landmark MOU

Synopsis

The Congress party on June 18, 2026, issued a sharp criticism at the back of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the United States and Iran, regarding the foreign policy of the Modi government. Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh called MOU a ‘severe setback' to India's policy as Pakistan had played a ‘central role in mediation', which was written in the very name of the agreement. The remarks come at a time when China-Pakistan strategic relations are increasingly building up and India's profile has been seen as treading towards alignment with Israel in West Asia.

The Name Says It All, Congress Argues

The United States and Iran did not refer to the ceasefire accord as the Washington Accord or the Geneva Protocol. It was the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, which has pointed diplomatic meaning for Jairam Ramesh.

The Pakistan’s newfound regional stature and global influence is highlighted by the fact that it is named the Islamabad MOU, Ramesh said, adding that Pakistan is "more deeply entrenched in the geopolitical and security framework of west Asia with important implications for India.

Ramesh, Congress general secretary (communications), made the speech after the formal presentation of the text of the 14-point MOU on June 17. He termed the development "a bad news for both the content and the grand style of the foreign policy of Prime Minister Modi.

The criticism is directly aimed at the time line of Pakistan's diplomatic rehabilitation. After successfully isolating Pakistan from the region and the world after the Mumbai attacks, now it appears that Pakistan has a new influence in the region and beyond, Ramesh said. 

This, along with the fact that China has got a firm grip in Pakistan's strategic setup, is a serious geopolitical threat to India's foreign policy.

The isolation strategy was based on two decades of evidence

The Congress argument is based on a long trajectory of Indian foreign policy that began post November 29, 2008 attacks in Mumbai by terrorists allegedly affiliated to the Pakistan-based group Lashkar-e-Taiba who killed 166 people in coordinated strikes across various venues. 

The group had claimed to be linked with the Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency and both India and the United States blamed the attack on that group.

Various Indian governments, both Congress and the BJP, have poured money into creating an international narrative linking Pakistan to terrorist armed groups to limit the influence that Islamabad has on international bodies and key partners. 

Throughout the 2010s, analysts highlighted some negative consequences for Pakistan's reputation and investments.

It is now, at least in the party's view, that the hard work of that patient man has been lost with one diplomatic coup. Michael Kugelman, a senior fellow on South Asia at the Atlantic Council told Al Jazeera: India's policy of undercutting, and even, isolating Pakistan regionally and internationally, has obviously failed in spectacular fashion.

This is not the first time that Pakistan's Army Chief Asim Munir or Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif have been to see Trump at the White House in a year. Throughout the war, Islamabad acted as a main interlocutor between the US and Iran, and Trump has repeatedly called for the Pakistani leadership in this capacity.

Other commentators have had a different, richer interpretation. Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MPIDSA) evaluated Pakistan's mediation efforts in April 2026 as more of a policy of "geopolitical survival through diplomatic utility" as opposed to strategic weight due to the country's inherent economic vulnerabilities and geographical relevance.

Modi's Israel Alignment: A liability, Congress claims

Ramesh's criticism was not limited to Pakistan, but also included his belief that Prime Minister Modi was not critical about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The MOU was a "definite defeat," he said, for Netanyahu, who now finds himself "isolated internationally," even as Trump was "frustrated.

Ramesh said that only Modi showed "steadfastness" in supporting Netanyahu's operations in Lebanon, in Gaza and in the occupied West Bank, and that this "blind devotion" has been "costing our country dearly.

He also said the war in the Middle East had started mere two days after Modi's visit to Israel, and India's economy, which has been beset by a depreciating rupee, a widening dollar demand-supply imbalance and sluggish private investment, had been worsened by the conflict.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi had earlier in March 2026 made a similar claim: "India's mediation is a most damning indictment of the substance and the cowardice of Prime Minister Modi's diplomacy, which has been full of bombast.

The government's Response and the Way Forward for New Delhi

On the other hand, PM Modi welcomed the peace deal. These are "essential to regional stability and the global economy" and the agreement would help to restore "stability and freedom of navigation," he said. The government has not officially responded to the Congress criticism over the Islamabad nomenclature.

Ramesh said that the MOU, "if it is implemented in spirit as well as in letter, is a major step towards ensuring regional stability," but added it could also be a "Memorandum of Misunderstanding. Over the next 60 days, he said, would be a very critical time.

In India, the time is right for a diplomatic shift in the region of West Asia, as the two countries are also facing a larger strategic challenge, with China and Pakistan expanding their security relationship, Trump yet to visit New Delhi after visiting Beijing and committing to visit Islamabad, and Islamabad MOU with a name that has more of a strategic significance than India would like to recall.

The Congress party on June 18, 2026, issued a sharp criticism at the back of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the United States and Iran, regarding the foreign policy of the Modi government. Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh called MOU a ‘severe setback' to India's policy as Pakistan had played a ‘central role in mediation', which was written in the very name of the agreement. The remarks come at a time when China-Pakistan strategic relations are increasingly building up and India's profile has been seen as treading towards alignment with Israel in West Asia.

The United States and Iran did not refer to the ceasefire accord as the Washington Accord or the Geneva Protocol. It was the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, which has pointed diplomatic meaning for Jairam Ramesh.

The Pakistan’s newfound regional stature and global influence is highlighted by the fact that it is named the Islamabad MOU, Ramesh said, adding that Pakistan is "more deeply entrenched in the geopolitical and security framework of west Asia with important implications for India.

Ramesh, Congress general secretary (communications), made the speech after the formal presentation of the text of the 14-point MOU on June 17. He termed the development "a bad news for both the content and the grand style of the foreign policy of Prime Minister Modi.

The criticism is directly aimed at the time line of Pakistan's diplomatic rehabilitation. After successfully isolating Pakistan from the region and the world after the Mumbai attacks, now it appears that Pakistan has a new influence in the region and beyond, Ramesh said. 

This, along with the fact that China has got a firm grip in Pakistan's strategic setup, is a serious geopolitical threat to India's foreign policy.

The isolation strategy was based on two decades of evidence

The Congress argument is based on a long trajectory of Indian foreign policy that began post November 29, 2008 attacks in Mumbai by terrorists allegedly affiliated to the Pakistan-based group Lashkar-e-Taiba who killed 166 people in coordinated strikes across various venues. 

The group had claimed to be linked with the Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency and both India and the United States blamed the attack on that group.

Various Indian governments, both Congress and the BJP, have poured money into creating an international narrative linking Pakistan to terrorist armed groups to limit the influence that Islamabad has on international bodies and key partners. 

Throughout the 2010s, analysts highlighted some negative consequences for Pakistan's reputation and investments.

It is now, at least in the party's view, that the hard work of that patient man has been lost with one diplomatic coup. Michael Kugelman, a senior fellow on South Asia at the Atlantic Council told Al Jazeera: India's policy of undercutting, and even, isolating Pakistan regionally and internationally, has obviously failed in spectacular fashion.

This is not the first time that Pakistan's Army Chief Asim Munir or Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif have been to see Trump at the White House in a year. Throughout the war, Islamabad acted as a main interlocutor between the US and Iran, and Trump has repeatedly called for the Pakistani leadership in this capacity.

Other commentators have had a different, richer interpretation. Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MPIDSA) evaluated Pakistan's mediation efforts in April 2026 as more of a policy of "geopolitical survival through diplomatic utility" as opposed to strategic weight due to the country's inherent economic vulnerabilities and geographical relevance.

Modi's Israel Alignment: A liability, Congress claims

Ramesh's criticism was not limited to Pakistan, but also included his belief that Prime Minister Modi was not critical about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The MOU was a "definite defeat," he said, for Netanyahu, who now finds himself "isolated internationally," even as Trump was "frustrated.

Ramesh said that only Modi showed "steadfastness" in supporting Netanyahu's operations in Lebanon, in Gaza and in the occupied West Bank, and that this "blind devotion" has been "costing our country dearly.

He also said the war in the Middle East had started mere two days after Modi's visit to Israel, and India's economy, which has been beset by a depreciating rupee, a widening dollar demand-supply imbalance and sluggish private investment, had been worsened by the conflict.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi had earlier in March 2026 made a similar claim: "India's mediation is a most damning indictment of the substance and the cowardice of Prime Minister Modi's diplomacy, which has been full of bombast.

The government's Response and the Way Forward for New Delhi

On the other hand, PM Modi welcomed the peace deal. These are "essential to regional stability and the global economy" and the agreement would help to restore "stability and freedom of navigation," he said. The government has not officially responded to the Congress criticism over the Islamabad nomenclature.

Ramesh said that the MOU, "if it is implemented in spirit as well as in letter, is a major step towards ensuring regional stability," but added it could also be a "Memorandum of Misunderstanding. Over the next 60 days, he said, would be a very critical time.

In India, the time is right for a diplomatic shift in the region of West Asia, as the two countries are also facing a larger strategic challenge, with China and Pakistan expanding their security relationship, Trump yet to visit New Delhi after visiting Beijing and committing to visit Islamabad, and Islamabad MOU with a name that has more of a strategic significance than India would like to recall.

Congress: Islamabad MOU a Setback for Modi's Foreign Policy

Synopsis

On June 17, 2026, the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, a 14-point agreement to bring the U.S.-Israel war in Iran to an end, which started in late February. The deal, which was signed at the G7 summit in Versailles and digitally signed by Pezeshkian in Tehran, is supposed to call for an instant halt to hostilities and reopening the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days, as well as sanctions relief and a restatement of Iran's pledge under its nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Issues surrounding Iran's enriched uranium holdings have been postponed until a final stage of a treaty.

How a 4-month War was translated to a Signed Page

On February 28th, 2026, the United States and Israel launched the 2026 Iran war, changing the tides of the Middle East in just a few days. One of its first and most significant impacts was the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which used to routinely pass 20 per cent of global oil supplies before the war.

The war was terrible in its human toll. HRANA, a rights organisation based in the United States, reported over 3,600 deaths, including over 1,700 civilian, in Iran since the US and Israeli air raids started in late February. 

In Lebanon, over 3,700 people died, in the Gulf states 36 and in Israel 20. Thirteen Americans serving in the war were killed in action and two others died of non-combat causes.

Pakistan played a pivotal role as the key mediator all along. The United States and Iran have completed a memorandum of understanding, which will be signed on June 19 in Switzerland, Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced on June 14. Trump, within minutes, shared the news on Twitter that the United States naval blockade against ships in Iranian port had been lifted.

Then the pace picked up, mid-summit at Évian-les-Bains, France.

The Signing: Versailles, Tehran and a Digital Countersignature

The Islamabad MOU was signed by Trump in a hardcopy during a dinner on the evening of June 17 at the Palace of Versailles, at the sidelines of the G7 summit. Then this signed document was sent to Iran. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed the document digitally; Iranian state media IRNA released photos in which Pezeshkian is holding the Farsi-language document with both his and the other country's signatures.

Trump had been notorious for his indecision when it came to the form of the signing. In an interview with reporters at the summit earlier in the day, he asked if the MOU was "the kind of document that I should be signing," and said that Vice President JD Vance may go to Switzerland for a formal signing. "If it works out, I'm going to take the credit. 

I think if it's not going to work out, I'm blaming on JD," Trump told reporters, adding: "I think it's a good idea.

In fact, the two leaders signed an agreement prior to the end of the G7 summit. The "Islamabad MOU" was entered into immediately by Pakistan, it confirmed.

The 14 Point MOU actually contains:

According to the Islamabad MOU, the military operations cease immediately and permanently, even in Lebanon, where more than 3,700 people are dead and over one million have fled since the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah rolled back on March 2.

Regarding the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz, Iran promised to let commercial ships pass through the Strait safely without charging any fees for 60 days, at the end of which period negotiations with Oman will be the deciding factor in the management of the waterway. 

The U.S. will also end all forms of sanctions, release all Iranian funds and assets held in frozen accounts and start lifting its naval blockade of Iranian ports.

Iran is to develop a $300 billion reconstruction plan with regional partners in the period of 60 days for finalisation. Washington would not have to fund the relief, which would be in the form of sanctions being lifted to allow third-country investment, U.S. authorities said.

With regard to nuclear issue: Iran reiterated its commitment to not acquire or build nuclear weapons and a plan for the mutual agreement on the enriched material stockpile. 

A senior U.S. official, referring to the agreement to destroy its enriched stockpile, said it was "a major, major win for the United States of America" and that the easing of sanctions would be contingent on Iran doing what it has undertaken in the nuclear accord.

A mechanism for implementation of the agreement will be put in place at the executive level, and the MOU will be approved by a binding resolution of the UN Security Council.

Israel's Position: Sceptical and Unbound 

Israel is not a direct signatory to the Islamabad MOU, but is directly implicated by the MOU. The MOU expressly provides that Israel will end the war in Lebanon as a part of the overall ceasefire — Lebanon occurs three times in the first few paragraphs of the MOU.

A senior US official told reporters: "We made it very clear to Iran this will not be a one-sided ceasefire; they must put a collar on their dog in Hezbollah; and if Hezbollah attacks Israel, Israel will be able to retaliate. An Israeli official told reporters Prime Minister Netanyahu was looking to meet with Trump in Washington to discuss the deal's ramifications.

Iran's stance on Lebanon has also been unshakable. Under the accord, Israel is supposed to pull its troops from southern Lebanon, where almost 4,000 people have died since the conflict started last year and more than 1 million have been displaced. 

Israel has been saying publicly that it will defend itself but that it has not promised to pull all its troops out.

The demand for a Republican Dissension and International Endorsement

The deal wasn't universally popular at home. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana said that the deal was "the worst foreign policy blunder in decades" and that "former President Ronald Reagan was rolling in his grave. North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis pointed out the first time the U.S. attacked Iran it cost $100 billion.

Reception overseas was quite varied. During a meeting in France, leaders of the G7 countries have issued a declaration that described the agreement as a "historic opportunity to prevent Iran from acquiring any nuclear weapon" and that they are ready to play their part in its implementation. 

French President Emmanuel Macron said in a letter that the deal "paves the way for lasting peace" and "permits the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. China's top diplomat Wang Yi told his Iranian counterpart on the phone that the dawn of peace has arrived.

Oil markets reacted quickly, with the price of US crude dropping by over 4.5 per cent to $80 per barrel, its lowest level since the first week of March.

The most important issue that has yet to be resolved, Iran's nuclear programme, is now under a 60-day deadline for finalization. 

Whether the framework agreed upon at Versailles on June 17 will serve as a basis for lasting peace or simply the latest in a series of treaties rending to the breaking point, will depend in large part on what occurs during that period.

On June 17, 2026, the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, a 14-point agreement to bring the U.S.-Israel war in Iran to an end, which started in late February. The deal, which was signed at the G7 summit in Versailles and digitally signed by Pezeshkian in Tehran, is supposed to call for an instant halt to hostilities and reopening the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days, as well as sanctions relief and a restatement of Iran's pledge under its nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Issues surrounding Iran's enriched uranium holdings have been postponed until a final stage of a treaty.

How a 4-month War was translated to a Signed Page

On February 28th, 2026, the United States and Israel launched the 2026 Iran war, changing the tides of the Middle East in just a few days. One of its first and most significant impacts was the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which used to routinely pass 20 per cent of global oil supplies before the war.

The war was terrible in its human toll. HRANA, a rights organisation based in the United States, reported over 3,600 deaths, including over 1,700 civilian, in Iran since the US and Israeli air raids started in late February. 

In Lebanon, over 3,700 people died, in the Gulf states 36 and in Israel 20. Thirteen Americans serving in the war were killed in action and two others died of non-combat causes.

Pakistan played a pivotal role as the key mediator all along. The United States and Iran have completed a memorandum of understanding, which will be signed on June 19 in Switzerland, Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced on June 14. Trump, within minutes, shared the news on Twitter that the United States naval blockade against ships in Iranian port had been lifted.

Then the pace picked up, mid-summit at Évian-les-Bains, France.

The Signing: Versailles, Tehran and a Digital Countersignature

The Islamabad MOU was signed by Trump in a hardcopy during a dinner on the evening of June 17 at the Palace of Versailles, at the sidelines of the G7 summit. Then this signed document was sent to Iran. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed the document digitally; Iranian state media IRNA released photos in which Pezeshkian is holding the Farsi-language document with both his and the other country's signatures.

Trump had been notorious for his indecision when it came to the form of the signing. In an interview with reporters at the summit earlier in the day, he asked if the MOU was "the kind of document that I should be signing," and said that Vice President JD Vance may go to Switzerland for a formal signing. "If it works out, I'm going to take the credit. 

I think if it's not going to work out, I'm blaming on JD," Trump told reporters, adding: "I think it's a good idea.

In fact, the two leaders signed an agreement prior to the end of the G7 summit. The "Islamabad MOU" was entered into immediately by Pakistan, it confirmed.

According to the Islamabad MOU, the military operations cease immediately and permanently, even in Lebanon, where more than 3,700 people are dead and over one million have fled since the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah rolled back on March 2.

Regarding the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz, Iran promised to let commercial ships pass through the Strait safely without charging any fees for 60 days, at the end of which period negotiations with Oman will be the deciding factor in the management of the waterway. 

The U.S. will also end all forms of sanctions, release all Iranian funds and assets held in frozen accounts and start lifting its naval blockade of Iranian ports.

Iran is to develop a $300 billion reconstruction plan with regional partners in the period of 60 days for finalisation. Washington would not have to fund the relief, which would be in the form of sanctions being lifted to allow third-country investment, U.S. authorities said.

With regard to nuclear issue: Iran reiterated its commitment to not acquire or build nuclear weapons and a plan for the mutual agreement on the enriched material stockpile. 

A senior U.S. official, referring to the agreement to destroy its enriched stockpile, said it was "a major, major win for the United States of America" and that the easing of sanctions would be contingent on Iran doing what it has undertaken in the nuclear accord.

A mechanism for implementation of the agreement will be put in place at the executive level, and the MOU will be approved by a binding resolution of the UN Security Council.

Israel's Position: Sceptical and Unbound 

Israel is not a direct signatory to the Islamabad MOU, but is directly implicated by the MOU. The MOU expressly provides that Israel will end the war in Lebanon as a part of the overall ceasefire — Lebanon occurs three times in the first few paragraphs of the MOU.

A senior US official told reporters: "We made it very clear to Iran this will not be a one-sided ceasefire; they must put a collar on their dog in Hezbollah; and if Hezbollah attacks Israel, Israel will be able to retaliate. An Israeli official told reporters Prime Minister Netanyahu was looking to meet with Trump in Washington to discuss the deal's ramifications.

Iran's stance on Lebanon has also been unshakable. Under the accord, Israel is supposed to pull its troops from southern Lebanon, where almost 4,000 people have died since the conflict started last year and more than 1 million have been displaced. 

Israel has been saying publicly that it will defend itself but that it has not promised to pull all its troops out.

The demand for a Republican Dissension and International Endorsement

The deal wasn't universally popular at home. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana said that the deal was "the worst foreign policy blunder in decades" and that "former President Ronald Reagan was rolling in his grave. North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis pointed out the first time the U.S. attacked Iran it cost $100 billion.

Reception overseas was quite varied. During a meeting in France, leaders of the G7 countries have issued a declaration that described the agreement as a "historic opportunity to prevent Iran from acquiring any nuclear weapon" and that they are ready to play their part in its implementation. 

French President Emmanuel Macron said in a letter that the deal "paves the way for lasting peace" and "permits the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. China's top diplomat Wang Yi told his Iranian counterpart on the phone that the dawn of peace has arrived.

Oil markets reacted quickly, with the price of US crude dropping by over 4.5 per cent to $80 per barrel, its lowest level since the first week of March.

The most important issue that has yet to be resolved, Iran's nuclear programme, is now under a 60-day deadline for finalization. 

Whether the framework agreed upon at Versailles on June 17 will serve as a basis for lasting peace or simply the latest in a series of treaties rending to the breaking point, will depend in large part on what occurs during that period.

DR Congo Stun Portugal to Earn Historic World Cup Point

Synopsis

Latest News