President Donald Trump's national security team met to finalize a deal with Iran, but no decision was reached, leaving the diplomatic effort in uncertainty despite indications of a settled framework. The proposed agreement centers on extending a ceasefire for 30-60 days, during which the U.S. would lift its naval blockade and unfreeze Iranian assets, allowing for resumed oil exports, in exchange for Iran permanently renouncing nuclear ambitions, clearing mines, ensuring free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, and allowing the U.S. to acquire its enriched uranium stockpile; however, this plan postpones negotiations on Iran's long-term nuclear infrastructure, a point of contention for both Tehran, which rejects concessions on enriched uranium and shipping fees, and for influential groups including Iranian hardliners, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who fears the deal doesn't address Iran's broader threats, and Republican hawks in the U.S., who believe the proposed concessions are too significant without a full dismantling of Iran's nuclear program.

President Donald Trump's national security team met to finalize a deal with Iran, but no decision was reached, leaving the diplomatic effort in uncertainty despite indications of a settled framework. The proposed agreement centers on extending a ceasefire for 30-60 days, during which the U.S. would lift its naval blockade and unfreeze Iranian assets, allowing for resumed oil exports, in exchange for Iran permanently renouncing nuclear ambitions, clearing mines, ensuring free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, and allowing the U.S. to acquire its enriched uranium stockpile; however, this plan postpones negotiations on Iran's long-term nuclear infrastructure, a point of contention for both Tehran, which rejects concessions on enriched uranium and shipping fees, and for influential groups including Iranian hardliners, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who fears the deal doesn't address Iran's broader threats, and Republican hawks in the U.S., who believe the proposed concessions are too significant without a full dismantling of Iran's nuclear program.

President Donald Trump's national security team met to finalize a deal with Iran, but no decision was reached, leaving the diplomatic effort in uncertainty despite indications of a settled framework. The proposed agreement centers on extending a ceasefire for 30-60 days, during which the U.S. would lift its naval blockade and unfreeze Iranian assets, allowing for resumed oil exports, in exchange for Iran permanently renouncing nuclear ambitions, clearing mines, ensuring free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, and allowing the U.S. to acquire its enriched uranium stockpile; however, this plan postpones negotiations on Iran's long-term nuclear infrastructure, a point of contention for both Tehran, which rejects concessions on enriched uranium and shipping fees, and for influential groups including Iranian hardliners, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who fears the deal doesn't address Iran's broader threats, and Republican hawks in the U.S., who believe the proposed concessions are too significant without a full dismantling of Iran's nuclear program.

President Donald Trump’s meeting with his national security team in the White House Situation Room last night to consider the "final determination" on a deal with Iran ended without a decision. Despite indications that negotiators had largely settled the framework of a deal, Trump left the two-hour meeting without giving his approval, underscoring the uncertainty surrounding the diplomatic effort.

A senior administration official confirmed that no final decision had been taken, though the reasons for Trump's hesitation remain unclear. Before entering the meeting, Trump outlined his expectations in a post on Truth Social, signalling that the broad contours of an agreement were already in place and awaiting his sign-off.

At the heart of the proposed arrangement is an extension of the current ceasefire by between 30 and 60 days, creating space for further negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme. In return for maintaining the truce, the United States would lift its naval blockade of Iranian ports and unfreeze billions of dollars in Iranian assets. Such measures would allow Tehran to resume normal oil exports and provide a badly needed boost to its economy.

Washington, however, is seeking significant concessions. Trump has demanded that Iran permanently renounce any ambition to acquire a nuclear weapon, remove mines from regional waterways and guarantee unrestricted, toll-free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. He has also insisted that the United States be allowed to locate and destroy/acquire Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

The framework remains controversial because it postpones negotiations over the long-term dismantling of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Instead, those issues would be addressed in later talks. The current draft, described by officials as a memorandum of understanding, focuses primarily on extending the ceasefire while providing Iran with immediate economic relief.

That trade-off has already generated opposition in Tehran. Iranian officials have publicly rejected suggestions that they would surrender their enriched uranium stockpiles or abandon their right to levy shipping fees in the Strait of Hormuz. Foreign ministry spokespersons have also maintained that the negotiations are solely about ending the conflict and extending the ceasefire, not about the future of Iran's nuclear programme.

The result is a fragile diplomatic process in which both sides appear eager to avoid a return to war but remain deeply divided on fundamental issues. Trump's reluctance to endorse the agreement reflects those unresolved tensions.

Even if Washington and Tehran eventually reach an understanding, the deal faces resistance from three influential groups: Iranian hardliners, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Republican hawks in the United States.

In Iran, headline conservatives paint any compromise as betrayal, using media, rallies and political networks to oppose the negotiations. State television has portrayed the talks as a failure, while demonstrations in Tehran have featured chants calling for continued resistance and defiance.

Ali Bagheri Kani, a prominent conservative figure, reportedly wrote to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei complaining that Iran's negotiating team was making excessive concessions. When his concerns failed to gain traction, he allegedly shared details of the dispute with conservative lawmakers. Other hardline clerics have openly criticised the leadership's support for diplomacy. Lawmakers such as Ebrahim Azizi have rejected any proposal to transfer Iran's enriched uranium abroad, insisting that Tehran should dictate the terms of any settlement.

While Iranian conservatives fear excessive compromise, Netanyahu worries that the agreement does not go far enough. The Israeli prime minister has long argued that Iran's nuclear programme, ballistic missile arsenal and regional proxy networks represent an existential threat to Israel. His concern is that the proposed deal could leave those issues largely untouched while simultaneously lifting economic pressure on Tehran.

Israeli officials have warned that Washington may settle for an interim arrangement that fails to ensure the permanent removal of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile. Some have privately expressed frustration that Trump appears willing to end the conflict before achieving Israel's broader strategic objectives. One Israeli source described the approach as abandoning Israeli interests in favour of a quick diplomatic breakthrough.

Netanyahu faces a particularly difficult political dilemma. For years, he has built his reputation around confronting Iran and warning of its ambitions. An unsatisfactory deal that favours Tehran would be a serious blow to his image as a security hawk and would amount to a tacit admission that decades of pressure have failed to achieve their strategic objective.

At the same time, resistance is growing within Trump's own political camp. Several prominent Republican hawks view the proposed agreement as an unacceptable retreat after a costly military confrontation.

Figures such as Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and former secretary of state Mike Pompeo argue that the administration is abandoning the original goals of Operation Epic Fury. They contend that lifting sanctions, releasing frozen assets and ending the naval blockade without dismantling Iran's nuclear programme would leave Tehran stronger than before the conflict.

Pompeo has compared the emerging framework to the 2015 Obama-era nuclear agreement, accusing the administration of effectively financing the recovery of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Former national security adviser John Bolton has been even more scathing, dismissing the ceasefire as little more than an opportunity for Tehran to regroup and rebuild.

As negotiations continue, Trump finds himself caught between competing pressures. Iranian hardliners reject major concessions, Israel fears a strategic defeat and Republican hawks see the deal as a betrayal of the war's objectives.

TAGS