President Trump announced an agreement with Iran that would immediately reopen the Strait of Hormuz and set a very different course from the Obama-era nuclear deal, promising a 60-day truce and technical talks aimed at dismantling Tehran’s enriched uranium stockpile.
President Trump used Truth Social to announce that a deal with Iran was scheduled for signing and that the Strait of Hormuz, which carries up to 25 percent of the world’s oil and gas, would be “OPEN TO ALL” once the agreement was finalized. He contrasted the new approach with the 2016 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, calling that deal a “smooth road to a Nuclear Weapon” and labeling it a “bad” deal. The messaging was deliberate: this administration says it will pair pressure with bargaining, not reward restraint with immediate relief.
Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif first signaled the agreement’s imminent signing on his X account, and Trump reposted the announcement on Truth Social. Reported terms go beyond a simple pause in violence: the deal would trigger a 60-day truce and launch technical negotiations aimed at destroying or removing Iran’s entire stockpile of enriched uranium. Those talks are said to target material believed to be buried beneath multiple nuclear sites hit during the recent military campaign.
Media reports in Tehran floated a headline number of £224 billion for reconstruction aid, a figure the president rejected outright, saying it had “nothing to do with the terms that we agreed.” The agreement was reportedly timed for signing on the president’s 80th birthday, ahead of a G7 summit in France, and discussions were expected to include de-mining the Strait of Hormuz with G7 partners and regional states. If true, the timing underscored how diplomacy and displays of strength are being synchronized in this administration’s playbook.
Almost immediately, Iranian officials introduced doubts. Foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei pushed back on the timeline and warned that finalizing a memorandum of understanding might take more days. That caution fits a pattern: Tehran frequently hedges, delays, and seeks to extract concessions while testing the resolve of its counterparts.
“Due to the other party’s instability, we must be cautious about any statements regarding this process.”
The military situation remained volatile even as diplomats circulated terms. US Central Command reported downing multiple Iranian drones after several nights of heavy exchanges, and an unknown projectile struck a vessel off Oman, raising questions about whether a truce would hold on the water. In this environment, a standstill on the ground or at sea can unravel any nascent agreement if parties read hesitation as weakness.
Comparing approaches matters to this administration. The 2016 deal eased sanctions and released frozen assets in exchange for time-limited enrichment limits, but critics say Tehran used the relief to expand proxy activity and continue enrichment toward a weapon threshold. President Trump withdrew the United States from that pact in his first term and reimposed sanctions, framing the current negotiations as being run from a posture of force rather than deference.
President Trump and his team point to a slate of actions that they say changed the balance: direct strikes, pressure on Iranian leadership, and a willingness to maintain a naval blockade while negotiating. The administration argues those measures have created leverage to demand complete removal of enriched uranium and a technical process to verify elimination. Whether Iran will follow through or stall remains the central test of that argument.
Trump framed the shift bluntly on Truth Social, reiterating the change in posture toward Tehran and Washington’s relationship. His exact words were preserved as a clear signal of intent and orientation toward future dealings with Iran and its regional activities.
“Our relationship with Iran is a much different and better one than previous Administrations have had.”
Lebanon emerged as a major sticking point in the talks, with Iran insisting on a ceasefire there as a condition of any deal while Israel refused to halt air strikes or withdraw from southern Lebanon in the near term. Iran’s use of proxies in Lebanon has long been both a bargaining chip and a strategic asset, and leaving that question unresolved could hollow out any memorandum that survives the initial signing. That unresolved theater illustrates how regional conflicts remain tied to the nuclear and maritime questions.
Key details still remain opaque: the named signatories, the ports covered by a potential blockade lift, which assets would be unfrozen, and the exact participants in technical uranium-removal talks have not been publicly disclosed. Tehran’s own inflation of reconstruction numbers before any ink dries is seen by some as a sign of who thinks they are negotiating from strength. In Washington, officials say the old model of pay first and hope for the best is over; this administration claims it will insist on verifiable results backed by the credible threat of force.
