Either a great deal emerges, or the fighting resumes—bigger and stronger than before.
In the long and fractured history of U.S.-Iran relations, a draft memorandum has emerged from weeks of quiet diplomacy — one that would pause the fighting, reopen a waterway vital to the world's energy supply, and draw a line against nuclear escalation. The agreement, if finalized, would mark a rare moment of restraint between two powers whose public postures have long favored confrontation over compromise. Yet the distance between a draft and a deal remains wide, measured not only in unresolved technical details but in the deeper question of whether either side believes the other capable of keeping its word.
- A draft U.S.-Iran peace memorandum proposes a 60-day ceasefire, full halt to military operations including in Lebanon, and Iran's formal renunciation of nuclear weapons development — but Iran has not yet agreed to all terms.
- The Trump administration had strike plans ready as recently as Friday before diplomatic channels kept them on hold, underscoring how close the situation remains to renewed military escalation.
- Iran's Foreign Ministry is pushing back on what it describes as a moving target — American officials sending contradictory signals that make serious negotiation difficult to sustain.
- Key technical questions, including how Iran's enriched uranium stockpile would be disposed of and independently verified, remain unsettled and could unravel the broader framework.
- Even if a deal is signed, reopening the Strait of Hormuz to safe commercial shipping within thirty days is considered an ambitious timeline given mines and debris left by ongoing conflict.
On a Monday morning in late May, President Trump announced publicly that talks with Iran were progressing — while making clear that failure would mean a return to war, larger than before. Behind that familiar ultimatum lay a draft agreement that, if completed, would fundamentally alter the shape of the Middle East conflict.
The proposed memorandum contained several significant commitments: a 60-day ceasefire extension, the immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a restoration of shipping to pre-war levels within a month, and a mutual declaration ending all military operations across every front — including Lebanon. Iran would reaffirm it would never develop nuclear weapons and agree to dispose of its enriched uranium stockpile, with sanctions relief and the release of frozen assets to follow upon compliance.
Iran had not yet agreed to everything. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei acknowledged unresolved issues, saying the current priority was ending the war itself, with nuclear specifics to be negotiated during a subsequent 60-day window. He also voiced a recurring frustration: U.S. positions kept shifting, making sustained diplomacy harder to conduct.
The administration had been preparing military strikes as recently as the prior Friday, but those plans were set aside as diplomatic channels remained active through the weekend. A senior U.S. official confirmed agreement in principle on the Strait of Hormuz and uranium disposal, but stopped short of confirming the broader ceasefire and military halt — a gap that revealed how much remained unsettled beneath the surface of progress.
Restoring the Strait to safe commercial use within thirty days was widely seen as optimistic, given the physical work of clearing mines and the confidence shipping companies would need before resuming normal operations. What remained unresolved above all else was the question of trust — whether either side genuinely believed the other would honor commitments made under pressure, and whether the distance between a draft on paper and a binding agreement could be crossed in the days ahead.
On a Monday morning in late May, President Trump posted to his social media platform that negotiations with Iran were moving forward nicely. The message carried a familiar ultimatum: either a great deal would emerge, or there would be no deal at all, and the fighting would resume—bigger and stronger than before. Behind that public statement lay weeks of intense diplomatic work, and a draft agreement that, if finalized, would reshape the conflict that had consumed the Middle East.
The proposed memorandum, according to two regional officials briefed on the talks, contained several core commitments. Iran would extend the current ceasefire for sixty days. It would immediately reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the vital waterway through which much of the world's oil passes, and work to restore shipping to pre-war levels within a month. Most significantly, both sides would declare an end to all military operations on every front—including Lebanon, where fighting had raged alongside the broader conflict—and commit to refraining from war or threats of force against each other going forward.
On the nuclear question, Iran would reaffirm that it would never develop nuclear weapons. It would also agree to dispose of its stockpile of enriched uranium, though the precise mechanism for how that disposal would happen, and how it would be verified, remained undecided. The two sides had agreed in principle that Iran would open the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for the United States lifting its blockade on Iranian ports and vessels. Frozen Iranian financial assets and sanctions relief would follow, contingent on Iran's compliance with the other terms.
But Iran had not yet signed on to everything. On Monday, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei acknowledged that some issues remained unresolved. He said the current focus was on ending the war itself, not on hammering out nuclear details. If the two sides reached a final memorandum of understanding, he explained, they would then have sixty days to negotiate the specifics of the nuclear arrangement. Baqaei also aired a frustration that would become familiar in the coming weeks: the U.S. position kept shifting. The contradictions were visible in the public statements of American officials, he said, and they made it harder to conduct serious diplomacy.
The Trump administration had been preparing for a different path just days earlier. On Friday, according to sources with direct knowledge of the planning, the White House had readied plans for a fresh round of military strikes. But as the weekend unfolded and diplomatic channels remained active, those strikes did not happen. Trump himself stayed in Washington instead of traveling, citing circumstances related to government business.
A senior U.S. official confirmed to CBS News that the two sides had agreed in principle on the Strait of Hormuz opening and the uranium disposal, though the official did not confirm the broader declaration about ending all military operations on every front, or the sixty-day ceasefire extension. The gap between what the regional officials were saying and what the American side was publicly acknowledging suggested that even as the talks progressed, significant disagreements persisted about what had actually been settled.
The Strait of Hormuz presented its own complications. Even if Iran ceased all military threats in the waterway, clearing it of mines and debris would take time. Companies would need confidence that the passage was genuinely safe before they resumed normal shipping. Restoring pre-war conditions in thirty days would be ambitious at best.
What hung over all of this was the question of whether either side truly believed the other would hold to such commitments. Trump's message—great deal or back to war, bigger and stronger than before—suggested he was prepared to walk away. Baqaei's complaints about shifting U.S. positions suggested Iran was skeptical of American reliability. The draft memorandum existed on paper. Whether it would become reality depended on whether both sides could move from principle to binding agreement, and whether trust, however fragile, could be built in the days ahead.
Citações Notáveis
Negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran are proceeding nicely. It will only be a Great Deal for all or, no Deal at all.— President Trump, on Truth Social
The frequent changes in positions and contradictions show what situation we are dealing with and under what conditions we must pursue a diplomatic process with such a counterpart.— Esmaeil Baqaei, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does the uranium disposal mechanism matter so much if both sides say they agree on it in principle?
Because "in principle" and "actually done" are different things. Iran has to let inspectors in, let them remove the material, transport it somewhere—all while trusting the U.S. won't use that moment of vulnerability to strike. The mechanism is where that trust gets tested.
The Strait of Hormuz is supposed to reopen in thirty days. That seems fast.
It is. Even if Iran stops actively blocking it, there are mines, debris, ships sunk in the channel. Companies won't send tankers through until they're certain it's clear. Thirty days is the diplomatic deadline, but the practical one is probably longer.
Why did Trump stay in Washington instead of traveling?
He cited government circumstances. But the timing matters—he stayed while strikes were being planned, then stayed while diplomacy continued instead. It signals he's personally invested in this moment.
The Iranian spokesman complained about U.S. officials contradicting each other. Is that a real problem or just negotiating theater?
Both. Every administration has internal disagreements that leak. But when you're trying to build a deal with someone who doesn't trust you, those contradictions become evidence that you're unreliable. It gives Iran an excuse to slow down or demand more.
What happens if they don't reach a final agreement?
Trump said it plainly—back to the battlefront, bigger and stronger than ever. That's not a threat he's making; it's what he's saying will happen if the deal falls apart. The question is whether both sides believe the other will actually walk away.