Progress had been made. But this did not mean a final agreement was anywhere near done.
Somewhere between war and peace, Iran and the United States are navigating the difficult terrain of negotiation — a space where progress and agreement are not the same thing. Tehran's foreign ministry has confirmed movement on most issues discussed in talks mediated by Pakistan, but cautions that American inconsistency and unresolved disagreements keep a final accord out of reach. The Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world's oil flows, looms over the proceedings as both a practical and symbolic threshold — a passage whose fate reflects the larger question of whether two adversaries can find stable ground after recent military escalation.
- A February military exchange between American, Israeli, and Iranian forces left both sides searching for a ceasefire — and by April, Pakistan had stepped in to mediate something more lasting.
- Iran's foreign ministry is signaling that Washington's negotiating positions have been shifting and contradictory, turning American unpredictability itself into an obstacle.
- Trump declared over the weekend that most terms were essentially settled and details would follow soon — a claim Tehran's measured tone quietly but clearly disputes.
- Axios reports the emerging deal could reopen the Strait of Hormuz to Iranian shipping, restore oil exports, and revive nuclear talks — but whether Tehran shares that optimistic reading remains an open question.
- Iran is simultaneously pursuing separate multilateral security arrangements for the strait, suggesting it is hedging its bets rather than waiting on Washington to deliver.
On Tuesday in Tehran, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei offered a carefully calibrated assessment of the ongoing talks with the United States: progress had been made on most issues, but a final agreement was nowhere near complete. The distinction, he made clear, was not a minor one.
Baghaei pointed to a troubling pattern in the American delegation — shifting positions, internal contradictions — and suggested this unpredictability was itself becoming a barrier to resolution. Several key disagreements remained unresolved, and the gap between momentum and conclusion was still substantial.
The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of global oil passes, hovered over the talks as a central concern. Baghaei clarified that its formal status was not on the bilateral table — that question belonged to the nations bordering it — but Iran was separately pursuing multilateral security arrangements to keep the passage stable and open.
The context was recent and consequential. American and Israeli forces had struck Iranian territory in late February; Iran had responded. A ceasefire followed in early April, and Pakistan stepped in as mediator. The current negotiations are the product of that fragile opening.
President Trump claimed over the weekend that most terms had been resolved and an announcement was imminent. Baghaei's tone suggested otherwise. Axios, citing unnamed Washington officials, reported that a deal could include restored Iranian oil exports, reopened strait access, and renewed nuclear discussions — but whether Tehran's expectations aligned with that picture remained uncertain. The Iranian government was not ready to declare progress a victory. The road ahead, while perhaps visible, remained long.
Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei stood before reporters in Tehran on Tuesday and offered a carefully measured assessment of the talks underway with the United States. Progress had been made, he said. Most of the issues on the table had moved toward some kind of understanding. But he was careful to add a qualifier: this did not mean a final agreement was anywhere near done.
The distinction mattered. Baghaei pointed to a pattern he had observed in the American delegation—their positions shifted, sometimes contradicted themselves, and this unpredictability was itself becoming an obstacle to forward movement. The two sides still disagreed on several key points that would need to be resolved before any accord could be signed. He did not specify which ones, but the implication was clear: the gap between "progress" and "agreement" remained substantial.
One of those sticking points involved the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman through which roughly a fifth of the world's oil passes. Baghaei clarified that the current negotiations with Washington were not directly addressing the strait's status or control. That question, he said, belonged primarily to the countries whose coastlines bordered it. Yet Iran was simultaneously engaged in separate talks with multiple nations to establish some kind of security arrangement for the passage—a mechanism to keep shipping safe and commerce flowing through those contested waters.
The backdrop to all this was recent and raw. In late February, American and Israeli forces had struck Iranian territory. Iran had responded. By early April, both sides had agreed to a temporary ceasefire. Pakistan had since stepped in as mediator, trying to broker something more permanent. The current negotiations were the result of that effort.
Trump had said over the weekend that talks on most of the agreement's terms had essentially wrapped up. Details would be announced soon, he claimed. But Baghaei's tone suggested the American president might be getting ahead of himself. The Iranian government was not ready to declare victory. Too many questions remained open. Too many American statements had proven unreliable.
According to reporting from the American news outlet Axios, citing unnamed officials in Washington, the two countries were close to a deal that would include reopening the strait to Iranian shipping, allowing Iran to resume its oil exports, and restarting discussions about Iran's nuclear program. Whether that matched what Tehran actually believed was possible remained unclear. Baghaei's remarks suggested a wider gulf between the two sides' expectations than the American officials quoted by Axios seemed to acknowledge.
The talks would continue. Pakistan would keep mediating. But the Iranian government was signaling that the path to a final agreement, while perhaps visible on the horizon, was still long and uncertain.
Citações Notáveis
Most issues on the table had moved toward some kind of understanding, but this did not mean a final agreement was near— Esmail Baghaei, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman
American positions shift frequently and sometimes contradict themselves, creating obstacles to forward movement— Esmail Baghaei, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does Baghaei keep emphasizing that progress isn't the same as agreement?
Because Washington keeps changing its position. If you announce a breakthrough too early, you give the other side room to back away and claim you misunderstood.
But Trump said the terms are basically done.
Trump says a lot of things. Baghaei is speaking for a government that has been burned before by American promises. He's protecting Iran's credibility at home.
What's the real sticking point here?
The Strait of Hormuz. It's not just about shipping—it's about who controls access to Iran's oil. If the strait opens and Iran can export again, that changes the entire regional balance.
So why did Baghaei say the strait isn't part of the negotiations?
Because officially it isn't. But Iran is working with other countries on a separate security arrangement. It's a way of solving the problem without admitting the US forced them to.
Is a deal actually close?
Closer than it was in February. But "close" in diplomacy can mean months away. Baghaei's caution suggests there are still real gaps—not just details to iron out.