Trump cools optimism: Iran deal may be closer — and further away — than it seems

Dubai: After signalling that a US-Iran agreement could be announced within hours, US President Donald Trump abruptly shifted to a more cautious tone Sunday, saying Washington would not “rush into a deal” and stressing that negotiations still required time and precision.

The sudden change in messaging highlighted the major unresolved gaps still hanging over the proposed framework — from Iran’s uranium stockpile and sanctions relief to the future of the Strait of Hormuz and whether Tehran’s hardline establishment would ultimately support the deal.

On Saturday, Trump declared that an agreement with Iran had been “largely negotiated” and suggested the Strait of Hormuz would reopen, fuelling expectations that a breakthrough announcement could come within hours.

But by Sunday morning, Trump was tempering expectations.

“The negotiations are proceeding in an orderly and constructive manner, and I have informed my representatives not to rush into a deal in that time is on our side,” Trump wrote on social media.

“Both sides must take their time and get it right. There can be no mistakes.”

The more cautious tone came as conflicting signals emerged from Washington and Tehran over what had actually been agreed.

According to The New York Times, three senior Iranian officials said Tehran had agreed to a memorandum of understanding that would halt fighting, reopen the Strait of Hormuz without tolls and lift the US naval blockade on Iran.

The officials also said the proposed framework would release $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets and launch negotiations over Tehran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile within 30 to 60 days.

At the same time, however, Iranian state-affiliated media publicly denied that Tehran had accepted new nuclear concessions at this stage.

Tasnim news agency said Iran had not agreed to any new measures related to its nuclear programme and insisted the Strait of Hormuz would not simply return to its pre-war status.

That contradiction appeared to expose the fragile nature of the proposed agreement.

While Washington sees the emerging framework as the beginning of a broader nuclear settlement, Tehran appears to be presenting it domestically as a temporary arrangement focused mainly on maritime access, sanctions relief and avoiding renewed war.

US officials also acknowledged that some of the most contentious issues — particularly how Iran would surrender or neutralise its stockpile of highly enriched uranium — had effectively been postponed to later negotiations.

According to the New York Times, Iran had initially resisted including any commitment on enriched uranium in the first phase of the agreement, forcing US negotiators to threaten renewed military action if Tehran refused.

The issue remains politically explosive on both sides.

Republican Senator Ted Cruz warned that any agreement allowing Iran to enrich uranium or maintain influence over Hormuz would be a “disastrous mistake”.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also publicly hardened his tone Sunday, insisting that “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon” and that any final agreement “must eliminate the nuclear danger”.

At the same time, analysts say Tehran’s internal politics may be complicating the negotiations.

Even as Iranian officials pursued diplomacy through regional mediators, hardline rhetoric continued inside the country.

Military commanders threatened Gulf infrastructure if the war resumed, state television aired images of armed volunteer fighters, and senior officials repeatedly stressed that Iran would not surrender strategic leverage.

The New York Times also reported that Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei had authorised powerful figures including parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf to make decisions regarding the talks — a sign that wartime decision-making may now be increasingly concentrated among military and security figures.

That raises one of the biggest unanswered questions surrounding the negotiations: Whether Iran’s hardline establishment, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), will ultimately support compromises on Hormuz and the nuclear issue.

For now, the proposed agreement appears less like a final peace settlement and more like an attempt to freeze a dangerous conflict before it spirals again into full-scale war.