Washington’s drive for an end-of-war agreement with Tehran has entered a delicate phase after President Donald Trump said the proposed settlement was not “fully negotiated yet”, tempering expectations of an imminent breakthrough despite signals from both capitals that a framework was taking shape.
Trump’s intervention followed days of guarded optimism over a possible 60-day ceasefire extension, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and a pathway for further talks on Iran’s nuclear programme. The US leader said he had told negotiators not to rush, a shift in tone after weeks of public pressure on Tehran to make nuclear concessions or face further military action.
The emerging framework centres on a pause in hostilities, maritime access through one of the world’s most important energy corridors and limited economic relief for Iran if verifiable steps are taken. Yet the most sensitive issue remains unresolved: whether Tehran will dilute, transfer or otherwise neutralise its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
Iranian officials have resisted suggestions that the material could be sent abroad, treating the issue as a matter of sovereignty as well as strategic leverage. Tehran has maintained that its nuclear programme is civilian, while Washington and Israel have argued that any settlement must remove the risk of Iran moving closer to a weapons capability.
The dispute has complicated diplomacy at a moment when the war has already disrupted energy markets, shipping routes and regional security calculations. The Strait of Hormuz carries a large share of global seaborne oil and liquefied natural gas trade. Its closure and military risks around the Gulf have driven insurance costs higher, delayed shipments and forced energy buyers to consider alternative supply routes.
Oil prices eased after reports of progress in talks, slipping below the levels reached during the peak of the Hormuz disruption. Traders, however, remain wary because reopening the waterway would require more than a political announcement. Mines, naval patrols, stranded vessels and crew safety concerns would have to be addressed before commercial traffic returns at scale.
The draft under discussion is understood to include free passage for vessels, the easing of restrictions on Iranian oil sales and a phased approach to sanctions relief. Washington has also sought commitments that Iran will suspend high-level enrichment and accept stricter monitoring. Tehran’s negotiators are pressing for guarantees against further US or Israeli strikes and relief from measures that have restricted oil revenue and access to frozen assets.
Trump’s caution has also reflected pressure from within his own political camp. Republican hawks have warned that a limited agreement could leave Iran with too much nuclear infrastructure intact, while supporters of diplomacy argue that a halt in fighting and restored shipping access would give Washington time to secure deeper concessions.
Israel remains central to the calculations. Its government has insisted that any agreement must remove Iran’s nuclear threat, not merely postpone it. Israeli officials have also raised concern that sanctions relief could strengthen Tehran’s regional network, including armed groups in Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen. Those concerns are likely to shape any final US position, particularly on verification and enforcement.
The diplomatic track has involved regional intermediaries, with Gulf states and Pakistan playing roles in relaying messages and encouraging de-escalation. Gulf governments have a direct stake in the outcome because prolonged disruption in Hormuz threatens revenue, ports, industrial supply chains and investor confidence across the region.
Tehran is also balancing internal pressures. Hardliners have rejected any settlement that appears to reward US military pressure, while pragmatists see value in restoring exports and reducing the risk of further strikes. The leadership’s room for manoeuvre is narrowed by public anger over casualties, infrastructure damage and economic strain.
Washington’s challenge is to turn broad principles into a written accord that can survive scrutiny at home and abroad. A ceasefire without nuclear clarity could be attacked as weak, while a maximalist demand for surrender of uranium stocks could collapse the talks. Trump’s message that “time is on our side” was designed to signal patience, but it also underlined how far the sides remain from a signed agreement.
