The proposed agreement could reopen the Strait of Hormuz and begin a wider peace process, yet conflicting statements from Washington and Tehran reveal that crucial diplomatic and nuclear questions remain unresolved.
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has declared that the United States and Iran are scheduled to sign an agreement on Sunday to end months of fighting, presenting the proposed accord as a major diplomatic breakthrough that would immediately reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping.
Iran, however, has challenged the American president’s timetable.
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said the agreement would not be signed on Sunday, although he did not rule out a ceremony in the following days. His intervention exposed a familiar divide between the confidence of Trump’s public announcements and the more cautious language emerging from Tehran.
The disagreement does not necessarily mean that negotiations have collapsed. Both sides have indicated that an initial settlement is closer than at any previous point in the conflict.
But it suggests that the text, timing or political approval process may not yet be fully settled.
The proposed arrangement, reportedly mediated with significant Pakistani involvement, is intended to extend the ceasefire, restore commercial navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and create a framework for further negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions and regional security.
It may therefore be better understood as the beginning of a diplomatic process rather than a comprehensive peace treaty.
Trump Promises an Immediate Opening of Hormuz
Trump said the Strait of Hormuz would be “open to all” as soon as the agreement was signed.
The waterway is one of the most strategically important trade routes in the world, carrying a substantial share of internationally traded oil and liquefied natural gas. Its disruption has driven energy prices higher, increased shipping and insurance costs and raised fears of a broader shock to the global economy.
Reopening it would provide immediate relief to energy-importing countries and international markets.
Under the emerging proposal, Iran would ease restrictions on passage through the strait, while the United States would lift or modify its naval blockade. Washington could also begin offering limited sanctions relief or access to some frozen Iranian assets, although the two sides continue to give sharply different accounts of what has been agreed.
Trump has rejected reports suggesting that Washington offered broad concessions. He has insisted that Iran would receive economic benefits only after meeting its commitments.
Iran, by contrast, is seeking credible guarantees that sanctions relief will be delivered and cannot be rapidly withdrawn.
This dispute reflects one of the central problems facing any agreement: neither side trusts the other to implement its obligations fully.
Nuclear Questions Deferred, Not Resolved
The most difficult issue remains Iran’s nuclear programme.
The United States wants an agreement that prevents Tehran from developing, purchasing or otherwise acquiring a nuclear weapon. Iran continues to deny that it is seeking one and maintains that it has a right to peaceful nuclear technology.
Negotiators have yet to settle what should happen to Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
Washington reportedly favours its removal or destruction. Tehran may instead seek to retain the material in diluted form under international supervision.
Rather than resolving that dispute immediately, the preliminary agreement is expected to open a limited period of technical negotiations. That approach could allow both sides to end active hostilities without requiring either government to concede its core nuclear position at the outset.
It also creates considerable risk.
A temporary ceasefire could unravel if the subsequent nuclear talks fail, particularly if inspectors are denied access, sanctions relief is delayed or either side accuses the other of preparing renewed military action.
The International Atomic Energy Agency would probably play an important role in verifying any nuclear commitments, but the scope of its access has not been publicly defined.
Tehran’s Caution Reflects Political Reality
Iran’s refusal to confirm Trump’s Sunday deadline may be partly procedural.
Major foreign-policy decisions require consultation among several powerful institutions within the Iranian system. Even where negotiators agree on a draft, political and security authorities may demand revisions before formal approval.
The caution may also be strategic.
By resisting an American timetable, Tehran can demonstrate that it is not simply accepting terms dictated by Washington. That matters domestically, where Iranian leaders are portraying the country as having resisted a more powerful adversary and forced the United States into negotiations.
Iranian officials have described the emerging agreement as evidence that the country survived the conflict without surrendering its sovereignty or nuclear rights.
Trump is promoting a very different interpretation. He has presented the negotiations as the product of American military and economic pressure, arguing that Iran accepted diplomacy only after recognising the cost of continued confrontation.
These competing narratives could help both governments defend the agreement at home. They could also complicate implementation if each side expects the final document to confirm its version of events.
Fighting Continues Around the Diplomacy
The negotiations are unfolding against a background of continuing military danger.
American forces reportedly intercepted Iranian attack drones near the Strait of Hormuz, underscoring the fragility of the ceasefire. Trump warned Tehran against further attacks, even as he described the peace agreement as imminent.
The contrast is striking: diplomacy and military escalation are proceeding simultaneously.
Local commanders, allied groups or political factions opposed to compromise could still derail the process. A single attack causing substantial casualties could create pressure for retaliation before an agreement takes effect.
Israel presents an additional complication.
The Israeli government is not a formal party to the proposed US-Iran memorandum and may not accept restrictions on its operations against Iran or Iranian-aligned groups in Lebanon. An agreement between Washington and Tehran would therefore not automatically end every connected conflict in the region.
The United States would need to persuade Israel and other partners that the settlement strengthens regional security rather than merely allowing Iran time to rebuild its military capabilities.
Iran, meanwhile, is expected to seek assurances covering attacks against its territory and its allies.
A Test of Trump’s Deal-Making Diplomacy
The announcement offers Trump an opportunity to claim one of the most significant foreign-policy achievements of his presidency.
He has repeatedly portrayed himself as uniquely capable of ending wars through personal pressure, threats and rapid negotiation. A successful settlement would reinforce that image and could stabilise global energy markets.
Yet Trump has declared an Iran agreement to be imminent several times since the conflict began.
That history has encouraged governments and investors to treat his latest deadline cautiously. Financial markets may respond positively to evidence of progress, but a failure to sign on Sunday could once again expose the gap between presidential rhetoric and the slower mechanics of diplomacy.
The key test will not be whether a ceremony occurs on the precise date Trump announced.
It will be whether the United States and Iran have genuinely agreed on enforceable commitments concerning the ceasefire, the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions and future nuclear negotiations.
A memorandum with vague language could temporarily reduce the fighting without addressing the causes of the war. A more detailed accord could establish the foundations for a durable settlement but would be harder for both governments to accept.
The First Step, Not the Final Peace
Even if the document is signed in the coming days, the agreement will not immediately normalise relations between Washington and Tehran.
Decades of hostility, sanctions and regional rivalry cannot be resolved through a single memorandum. The two governments remain divided over uranium enrichment, ballistic missiles, foreign military bases, armed groups and influence across the Middle East.
The proposed accord is nevertheless important because it could replace an unstable military confrontation with a structured negotiating process.
Its immediate achievements would be practical: reducing attacks, reopening a vital shipping route and creating space for further talks.
Its long-term value would depend on verification, political discipline and the willingness of both sides to accept compromises they have previously rejected.
For now, Trump is speaking as though the breakthrough has already been secured. Iran is signalling that the diplomatic work is not yet complete.
Between those two positions lies the reality of the negotiation: a potentially historic settlement that remains vulnerable until the signatures are on the page and its commitments are carried out.
