According to diplomatic sources, the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran have achieved a breakthrough in talks and are preparing to sign a preliminary agreement aimed at ending hostilities and containing escalation. A key element of the agreement will be the immediate resumption of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz without fees, intended as a practical step toward de-escalation, while more complex issues—primarily Iran’s nuclear program—will be postponed to a second, more detailed phase of negotiations.
Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan played a mediating role in achieving this diplomatic breakthrough. It is reported that these countries held direct talks with President Trump and convinced him to abandon plans for strikes on Iranian targets. An American official confirmed that Trump acknowledged these countries’ influence on Tehran, and that reports of an imminent agreement were the decisive factor in his rejection of a military option to resolve the crisis.
Under the preliminary agreement, the ceasefire regime is expected to be extended for 60 days, including on the Lebanese front, which would open the way to negotiations on the nuclear program. According to the information, documents are expected to be signed in Geneva. The agreement provides for the restoration of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz to pre-crisis levels within 30 days in exchange for a gradual easing of sanctions, including temporary exemptions for the sale of Iranian oil. The extent of the relief would increase if Tehran demonstrates “goodwill.”
The nuclear issue remains the most difficult. The agreement records Iran’s commitments not to seek nuclear weapons, as well as the possibility of lowering the level of uranium enrichment under UN supervision. However, practical implementation of these steps is deferred until a more detailed agreement is concluded. American officials confirmed that one option under consideration is reducing the enrichment level inside Iran under the supervision of UN inspectors.
The issue of frozen Iranian assets remains acute. Tehran insists on immediate access to the funds, while Washington prefers phased unfreezing tied to compliance with conditions. As an interim solution, a mechanism is being discussed that would allow Iran to access part of the assets frozen in Qatar to purchase humanitarian goods. Official Tehran is keeping a restrained stance for now, stating that work on the final wording has not yet been completed.
The unexpected announcement of progress in the talks caught Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu off guard, who is reportedly feeling isolated from the process and has already contacted close circles within the Trump administration to clarify the situation. Any agreement is likely to face strong opposition from Israel, which demands that it include the removal of enriched uranium, dismantling of nuclear infrastructure and strict limits on Iran’s missile program. The situation remains fragile due to differing degrees of optimism in Washington and Tehran, as well as Israel’s firm position.
Commentary on the news
Why is the Strait of Hormuz considered strategically important for the world economy and how does its closure affect global energy prices? — The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s “oil artery”: about 20% of global oil production and nearly 30% of LNG passes through it. Any closure, even temporary, immediately blasts energy prices: in 2012 Iran’s threats led to a 30% rise in prices in a few days, and in 2019 attacks on tankers caused a 15% spike. The reason is that markets do not tolerate uncertainty, and the strait is the only maritime route for the Persian Gulf countries (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar), while alternative routes (for example, pipelines) are extremely limited.
How did Pakistan, which does not share a border with Iran, become one of the mediators in US–Iran talks? — Pakistan occupies a unique position: it maintains diplomatic relations with both sides (unlike many Arab countries). Islamabad has historically served as a “bridge” between Tehran and Washington thanks to its strategic position between conflicts (including influence over the Taliban in Afghanistan). In 2024–2025 Pakistan offered a venue for talks, using Iran’s trust (the Shiite–Sunni divide did not prevent economic cooperation in energy) and allied relations with the US (through its status as a “major non-NATO ally”). This allows Pakistan to act as an “honest broker” when direct contacts between Tehran and Washington reach an impasse.
What underlies Israel’s hardline stance demanding removal of enriched uranium and dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure? — Israel views Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat (direct threats to destroy the Jewish state from Iranian leaders). The demand for full dismantling and removal of uranium is based on the fact that even partial enrichment (60% and above) would allow Iran to rapidly create a nuclear weapon (a so-called “breakout” in 2–3 weeks). Israel does not trust international inspections by the IAEA, recalling hidden sites (Fordow) and past violations. Therefore it demands “zero risk”: that Iran retain not a gram of weapons-grade uranium and no centrifuges capable of producing it. This fundamentally differs from the softer approaches of the US and Europe, which allow “limited capacities” under supervision.
Full version: ما تفاصيل اتفاق إيران الذي أعلن ترمب استعدادا لتوقيعه؟