The timeline for announcing a temporary agreement between Washington and Tehran remains unclear, despite optimistic statements about an imminent accord. The presumed 60-day truce would include reopening the Strait of Hormuz, allowing Iran to export oil, and opening a negotiation track on the nuclear program. However, US President Donald Trump emphasized on his social network Truth Social that the blockade of Iranian ports and ships in the strait remains fully in place until the agreement is officially signed. Analysts note that inflated expectations on both sides complicate finalizing the deal’s details.
Experts name long-standing mutual distrust and disagreements over what the agreement should include as the main obstacles. Contentious issues concern Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz: Tehran insists on the right to regulate passage without charging fees, which Washington rejects. In addition, the US ties sanction relief and the unfreezing of Iranian assets to progress in nuclear talks. The volume of frozen funds and the mechanism for their return also remain serious procedural hurdles.
The nuclear dossier provokes the sharpest disagreements. Iran might agree to transfer enriched uranium to a third party with the condition of its return if the deal collapses, whereas the US demands a direct handover and possibly the destruction of stocks, especially uranium enriched to 60%. It is also unresolved which sanctions would be lifted — only those related to the nuclear program or also restrictions tied to human rights and terrorism. Tehran insists on legal guarantees protecting against a future US administration withdrawing from the deal, as happened in 2018.
Israel exerts significant influence, viewing any nuclear concessions as an existential threat. Through lobbying groups, Israel pressures the US Congress and administration to scuttle or toughen the terms of the deal. Criticism also comes from within the Republican Party: some believe Washington has made concessions and given a “gift” to Tehran. This forced Trump to link approval of the agreement to expanded normalization with Israel, although Saudi Arabia denied the possibility of normalization without real progress on the Palestinian issue.
Analysts propose several compromise solutions. For example, transferring enriched uranium to storage by a third party (as in 2015 with Russia) with the right to return it if the deal fails. A step-by-step approach instead of an all-encompassing package is also being discussed. A compromise on enrichment could include a moratorium of 15–20 years. Regional issues are proposed to be separated from nuclear ones through initial technical agreements. It is also important to lower inflated expectations and show more goodwill to conclude the negotiations.
The announcement timing remains uncertain: it could be “in the coming days” or by the end of the week, but the situation is complicated by regional events, including Israeli escalation in Lebanon. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the agreement could be reached “within days,” while Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Bakaei noted that “they have reached an agreement, but it would be wrong to claim that signing will occur at the appointed time.”
According to leaks, preliminary points include: keeping the strait open without charging fees, easing restrictions for Iranian ports, exemptions for oil exports, Iran’s obligation not to develop nuclear weapons, and the start of talks to suspend uranium enrichment. However, details of implementation and guarantees remain subjects of bargaining, which is delaying the official announcement.
Comments on the News
Why is enriching uranium to 60% a critical threshold for international negotiations, and what technical capabilities does it give Iran? - Enrichment to 60% is considered critical because it significantly shortens the time required to reach weapons-grade (90%). For international negotiations, it signals that Iran is approaching the threshold for producing a nuclear weapon, prompting harsh sanctions and pressure. Technically, this level allows Iran to produce medical isotopes and fuel for research reactors, but it also gives the capability to transition quickly to military-grade enrichment if a political decision is made.
How exactly did Russia participate in the transfer of Iranian uranium under the 2015 agreement, and why is that model seen as a possible compromise? - Under the JCPOA (2015), Russia participated in removing enriched uranium from Iran in exchange for deliveries of natural uranium and fuel for the Bushehr reactor. This model is seen as a compromise because it reduced Iran’s stock of low-enriched uranium while preserving its rights to a civilian nuclear program. Russia acted as a neutral intermediary, which makes it possible to propose a similar scheme again to de-escalate tensions and return to diplomacy.
Why does Saudi Arabia link normalization with Israel to progress on the Palestinian issue, and how does this affect the US negotiating position? - Saudi Arabia ties these issues to preserve legitimacy in the eyes of the Arab and Islamic world, where the Palestinian question remains central. This creates pressure on the US to secure concessions from Israel on the Palestinians (for example, on a two-state solution). The effect on the US negotiating position is that Washington must balance obligations to Israel with the need to meet Saudi demands for a broader regional agreement.
Full version: لماذا تأخر الإعلان عن الوصول لاتفاق بين واشنطن وطهران؟.. خبراء يجيبون