News
The region is dealing with extreme caution with an unfinished U.S.-Iranian draft understanding that aims to stop the escalation and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, while postponing any final settlement of Iran’s nuclear program to a later stage.
The draft, as its provisions are being discussed, looks on the surface like a way out of the war. But at its core, it has already opened an early battle of interpretations:
- Washington describes it as a temporary arrangement that keeps pressure on Tehran.
- Israel fears it could turn into a lifeline for the Iranian regime.
- Gulf states want oil and trade to resume without later paying the price for a broader Iranian role in the strait.
Details
• The draft, so far, does not speak of a final peace agreement. It refers instead to a memorandum of understanding that could extend the halt in fighting for at least 60 days and open the door to wider negotiations on the Strait of Hormuz and the nuclear file.
• The initial framework would end the war and lift the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports, in return for Iran temporarily reopening the strait and waiving transit fees during the negotiation period.
• Iran is demanding the release of part of its frozen assets, estimated at around $100 billion, along with some sanctions relief that would allow it to sell oil.
• The current draft does not include binding clauses on the nuclear program, according to mediators and Iranian media, but it refers to Iran’s readiness to pledge not to develop a nuclear weapon.
• In the next phase, Tehran may discuss a shorter suspension of uranium enrichment than the period demanded by Washington, with the possibility of diluting uranium enriched above 20% inside Iran under regional supervision.
• Washington, according to the U.S. position, insists on a comprehensive agreement that deals with Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, not just talk of reopening the strait and calming the markets.
• Hawks in Washington, including Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, oppose any deal that only reopens the strait while leaving Iran politically or economically stronger.
• In the Gulf, Arab capitals are pushing for a diplomatic off-ramp to avoid new attacks on energy facilities, but they fear the deal could leave Iran able to use the strait in the future as a bargaining weapon.
• Iran has not provided, according to Gulf officials, sufficient guarantees on its missile program or on ending threats against Gulf states, either directly or through affiliated proxies.
• In Israel, the main concern is that the initial agreement could ease pressure on Iran before its enrichment facilities are dismantled or its enriched nuclear material is removed from the country.
• Netanyahu says, after a call with Trump, that any final agreement must remove the nuclear threat, and that this means dismantling enrichment facilities and removing enriched material from Iran.
• Trump, meanwhile, stresses that the blockade will remain in place until an agreement is reached, certified, and signed. He says on Truth Social that time is on Washington’s side and there is no need to rush.
• What stands out is that the dispute is no longer only about the principle of negotiation, but about who gets to define the agreement:
- Is it a temporary ceasefire, the beginning of a settlement, or an Iranian opportunity to catch its breath and rebuild its pressure cards?
What’s Next?
The value of the draft will be decided by its details, not its headlines. If the Strait of Hormuz is reopened without clear and strict guarantees, markets may gain quick calm, while Iran gains precious time. But if Washington links any sanctions relief to verifiable nuclear steps, Trump can present the understanding as a successful act of pressure.
The next battle is a battle over wording, interpretation, and guarantees. Each side will try to sell the draft to its own audience as if it came out victorious.
