By Elsie Kamsiyochi
As hopes rise for an end to the devastating Gulf conflict, a growing controversy has emerged over the contents of a proposed agreement between the United States and Iran. Reports outlining the terms of a draft memorandum aimed at ending the war have sparked fierce debate, with U.S. President Donald Trump angrily dismissing leaked details that appear to grant major concessions to Tehran.
Sources from Western governments, Iran, and mediator Pakistan provided accounts of the proposed agreement, while Iranian media published similar details. Although officials involved in the negotiations stressed that the document remains unfinished, the reported terms have already triggered political backlash because they appear to closely resemble conditions Iran originally proposed months ago—conditions Washington had repeatedly rejected at the start of negotiations.
According to multiple accounts, the draft agreement would require Iran to end its blockade of the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which a significant portion of the world’s oil and energy supplies pass. In return, the United States would immediately release billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets and ease sanctions on Iranian oil exports, allowing Tehran to regain access to global energy markets.
One of the most controversial aspects of the reported framework is that many of the toughest U.S. demands regarding Iran’s nuclear activities would be postponed. Rather than forcing immediate concessions from Tehran, the agreement would launch a 60-day period of negotiations aimed at reaching a broader settlement. During that period, discussions would continue over the future of Iran’s nuclear program, while Iran would simply reaffirm its longstanding commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The draft reportedly omits several key demands that Washington had previously described as essential. There is no immediate requirement for Iran to surrender its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, nor are there provisions addressing restrictions on Iran’s missile program. Sources familiar with the negotiations said these issues were intentionally excluded from the initial memorandum in order to secure a rapid ceasefire and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Further controversy surrounds reports that future discussions could include compensation for war-related damages suffered by Iran. Such provisions would likely face intense opposition from critics in Washington, particularly among lawmakers who supported military action against Tehran and expected tougher terms.
Trump responded forcefully to reports describing the deal. Taking to social media, he accused Iran of leaking inaccurate information and insisted that the terms being reported bore no resemblance to the agreement negotiated behind closed doors.
“The terms that Iran leaked out to the Fake News have NOTHING to do with the terms that were agreed to, in writing,” Trump wrote, while also criticizing Iranian negotiators.
Despite Trump’s denial, several diplomatic sources suggested that negotiators are close to finalizing the memorandum. A Western official indicated that, if remaining disputes can be resolved, the agreement could be signed as early as Sunday. The most likely location for the signing ceremony is Geneva, with U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf expected to represent their respective countries.
One of the final sticking points involves Lebanon. Iran reportedly wants language in the agreement requiring Israel to halt military operations against Hezbollah, Tehran’s key regional ally. Negotiators continue to debate how this issue should be addressed, and several sources described it as the main obstacle preventing an immediate breakthrough.
The negotiations have also exposed growing divisions between Washington and Israel. Although Israel fought alongside the United States during the conflict, Prime Minister has been excluded from the current talks and has publicly stated that Israel will not be bound by the proposed memorandum. Netanyahu and Trump have reportedly clashed in recent weeks over U.S. efforts to limit Israeli military operations in Lebanon as part of broader diplomatic efforts with Iran.
The potential agreement follows one of the most dangerous weeks in the region since the war began. Israel and Iran exchanged fire despite an earlier ceasefire, while the United States carried out additional strikes against Iranian targets. Iran responded with attacks on American military facilities in the region, raising fears of a wider regional war.
On Thursday, however, Trump announced that he had halted plans for a larger military campaign because negotiations had reached a critical stage. Speaking at the White House, he declared that a settlement was within reach and suggested that the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz could happen very soon.
Financial markets reacted positively to the possibility of peace. Global stock markets advanced, while oil prices fell sharply as traders anticipated the restoration of normal shipping through the Gulf. Brent crude dropped more than 3%, reaching its lowest level in nearly two months as concerns over supply disruptions eased.
Yet significant uncertainty remains. Military tensions continue around the Strait of Hormuz, where U.S. forces reportedly intercepted Iranian attack drones after attempted strikes against commercial shipping. Iranian state media also reported military activity and explosions near the waterway, underscoring how fragile the situation remains despite diplomatic progress.
The political stakes are also high for Trump. Rising fuel prices during the conflict have weighed on public opinion, and some Republicans fear the war’s unpopularity could hurt the party in upcoming congressional elections. At the same time, many conservative figures who have long advocated a hardline stance against Iran may struggle to support an agreement that appears to offer substantial concessions to Tehran.
For Iran, the negotiations represent an opportunity to regain access to international markets and secure relief from years of economic sanctions. Iranian leaders continue to maintain that their nuclear program is strictly peaceful, while arguing that previous U.S. policies—including Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement during his first presidency—contributed to the current crisis.
As diplomats race to finalize the memorandum, the world is watching closely. A successful agreement could reopen one of the globe’s most important energy corridors, ease fears of a broader Middle East conflict, and mark a dramatic diplomatic breakthrough after months of war.
However, disagreements over the final language and competing political pressures on all sides mean that a deal, while closer than ever, is not yet guaranteed.
Source Reuters
Original article
Comments