Tentative US-Iran Agreement Reached for Ceasefire Extension and Nuclear Talks

Negotiators from the United States and Iran have reportedly reached a tentative agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and commence nuclear discussions. The White House confirmed this development on Thursday, though President Trump’s final approval of the plan is still pending.

Should the deal be approved, it would entail the US lifting its blockade on Iranian ports, in exchange for the resumption of “unrestricted” shipping through the vital Strait of Hormuz. Furthermore, the agreement would initiate a 60-day period for the US and Iran to begin negotiations concerning Tehran’s nuclear program, a long-standing point of contention.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, commenting on the emerging deal on Thursday, stated, “This administration — President Trump — has achieved something no other administration could: we have brought the Iranians to the table to discuss their nuclear program, and potentially commit to not having one. This has never happened before; it had been off the table.”

The proposed agreement aims to extend the existing ceasefire. This ceasefire, according to US Central Command, was reportedly violated by Iran on Thursday through firing towards a US military base in Kuwait. Despite this alleged violation, the US maintains its adherence to the ceasefire, restraining its forces from escalating to full-scale conflict, at least for the present.

As President Trump reviews the terms, Bessent emphasized, “It is a multifaceted agreement, and nothing is going to be on the table until we see the Strait of Hormuz open, and the Iranians agree that they have to turn over the highly enriched uranium, and that they can’t have a nuclear program.”

Bessent highlighted Iran’s apparent willingness to even discuss its nuclear program as a significant achievement for the Trump administration, noting Tehran’s previous refusal to broach the topic in earlier deal drafts. However, Iranian officials have consistently maintained their sovereign rights regarding their nuclear program and regional security.

“When you look at the results of the kinetic action, of our economic pressure, it has worked to bring them to the table and have a discussion on this,” Bessent added, underscoring the US strategy.

The agreement also proposes to prohibit Iran from imposing a toll on ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz and would require the de-mining of the waterway within 30 days, aiming to ensure freedom of navigation.

In return, the US would commit to discussing the lifting of sanctions and unfreezing Iranian funds during the talks. This would be contingent upon an Iranian pledge to discuss the destruction of its highly enriched uranium and addressing future enrichment activities.

News of the agreement led to a reversal of an early market spike that followed an earlier incident involving Iranian forces and US interests. Brent crude, which had surged, tumbled from approximately $94.50 a barrel to about $91.30 shortly after the news broke, before recovering to trade around $93.31.

Iranian sources informed The Post that this agreement is essentially similar to one previously leaked to Iranian media, which the White House’s Rapid Response 47 X account had dismissed as a “complete fabrication.”

Mohammad Marandi, an Iranian professor and regime insider, stated on Thursday, “Iran’s position hasn’t changed after Trump’s rant and retreat yesterday. Both sides still had differences, but Trump’s retreat and last night’s attack made the Iranians more skeptical.” This highlights Iran’s consistent stance and cautious approach to negotiations.

The previously leaked agreement reportedly stipulated that the US would withdraw all its forces from around Iran and lift its naval blockade of Iranian ports. In exchange, Tehran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and restore non-military traffic to pre-war levels within 30 days.

It further alleged that Washington had agreed to allow Iran and neighboring Oman to “manage” the strait after its reopening – a claim seemingly at odds with repeated US and global demands that the passage be considered an international waterway owned by no nation.

Critics of the proposal in the US argued against relinquishing what they consider its most significant leverage – the blockade of Iranian ports – before substantive negotiations commence.

Andrea Stricker, deputy director of the nonproliferation program at the Foundation for Defending Democracies, warned, “If we remove the naval blockade and economic pressure, then the likelihood of getting a strong nuclear deal falls to basically zero.”

Conservative commentator and Iran hawk Mark Levin questioned the rationale, asking why the US would remove both “the economic and military pressure with only the threat that either or both could resume.”

“Why not force concessions before lifting economic pressure?” he posted on X. “If they wouldn’t agree then how serious is the regime about making substantive and lasting concessions?”

He added, “I don’t blame the President for taking a few days to think about this, if this report is accurate. And enforcement, given the nature and history of this terrorist regime, whatever the final terms may be, will be impossible (certainly after the Trump presidency).”

However, these proposed terms also clashed with what Ebrahim Azizi, head of the Iranian parliament’s national security commission, declared on Thursday as Tehran’s “red lines” for any agreement.

Azizi asserted on X, “Iran will not be pushed back by Trump’s rhetoric from its red lines: the right to enrich uranium, possession of enriched uranium, authority over the Strait of Hormuz, and the removal of sanctions.” This firmly reiterates Iran’s non-negotiable principles.

He further commented, “It is obvious Trump, seeking a way out of this strategic deadlock, alternates between issuing threats and appealing for an agreement.”

Still, the US framework, if signed, might facilitate discussions on bridging these gaps. For instance, a regional source suggested the degradation of Tehran’s highly enriched uranium within Iran, rather than its total removal, could be a point of compromise.

“If I were in Trump’s position, I would want the enriched material degraded on Iranian soil in the presence of American/international experts with structured mechanisms and benchmarks put in place,” one person noted, emphasizing controlled solutions.

The person added, “Giving it to Russians, Chinese or Pakistanis doesn’t suit US interests,” referring to previously floated options for Iran’s uranium stockpile.

Yet, Stricker countered that allowing any amount of enriched uranium would create a dangerous pathway for future nuclear proliferation.

She cautioned, “If you’re leaving Iran with any enriched uranium — they have about 9,000 kilograms altogether enriched between two and 60% purity — they will essentially retain the capability to enrich it higher to weapons grade and break out of their commitments as soon as Trump leaves office.”

#IranUSNegotiations #NuclearTalks #StraitOfHormuz #CeasefireAgreement #IranianRedLines #Diplomacy #MiddleEastPeace #SanctionsRelief #UraniumEnrichment #RegionalSecurity