Trump: U.S.-Iran Deal Near, Yet Major Disputes Persist

The Current State of U.S.-Iran Negotiations

President Donald J. Trump said on May 24, 2026, that a deal to end the U.S.-Iran conflict was close to being finalized, with both sides reportedly near agreement on a framework to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and limit Iran’s uranium stockpile. However, major issues remain unresolved, including Iran’s demand to unfreeze U.S.-held funds and retain control over the strategic waterway. U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, said the agreement would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, though Iran hasn’t yet engaged in detailed talks on this matter.

Historical Context: The 2015 Nuclear Deal and Its Collapse

“a deal to end the U.S.-Iran conflict was close to being finalized”

The current talks mirror the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a nuclear deal between Iran and world powers that Donald J. Trump abandoned in 2018. Steven Simon‘s 2023 analysis in Survival notes how U.S. military pressure and regional alliances shaped Iran‘s strategic choices. The 2015 agreement, which imposed strict limits on Iran‘s nuclear program, collapsed under Trump‘s administration due to perceived Iranian noncompliance and U.S. sanctions. This history shows how fragile diplomatic efforts can be, as both sides remain distrustful of each other’s intentions. A 2018 Dealbreaker study by Sarah Ritter found Iran continued to meet the JCPOA‘s technical requirements, but the U.S. viewed this as insufficient, leading to the deal’s collapse.

Key Disputes: Five Central Points of Contention

The most contentious issues include uranium enrichment, control of the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions relief, Iran’s missile program, and compensation for past sanctions. U.S. officials want Iran to dismantle its highly enriched uranium stockpile, while Iran insists its program is for peaceful purposes and rejects external oversight. Albarasneh and Khatib‘s 2019 Global Affairs analysis shows U.S. policy toward Iran has swung between containment and engagement, with Trump‘s approach combining strategic patience and brinkmanship. The U.S. maintains naval blockades to ensure compliance with the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for global oil shipments, while Iran insists on retaining sovereignty over the waterway. This has been a major sticking point, with Iran warning it would reopen the waterway only if U.S. forces withdrew. Sanctions relief remains another issue, with Iran seeking full lifting while the U.S. wants phased relief tied to verifiable disarmament measures. This reflects deeper mistrust, as Iran sees sanctions as economic warfare, while the U.S. views them as leverage for compliance. Iran’s ballistic missile activities also remain a point of friction, with the U.S. seeking restrictions while Iran sees it as a sovereign right. WR Sherman‘s 2018 Foreign Affairs report noted U.S. officials saw the 2015 deal as treasonous, worsening tensions and undermining trust. Iran has also demanded compensation for past U.S. sanctions and insists on retaining its missile program, terms a senior Israeli official said reflect a focus on economic grievances rather than security concerns, raising doubts about the deal’s viability.

Regional Perspectives: Israel and the Gulf States

Israel, a key U.S. ally, has publicly opposed the deal, fearing it would leave Iran with unchecked nuclear capabilities. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to Israeli officials, has privately criticized the agreement as insufficient, demanding deeper restrictions on Iran‘s nuclear infrastructure. A senior Israeli official told NPR the deal was a bad deal that prioritized economic terms over security guarantees. This aligns with broader Israeli concerns that the agreement fails to address Iran‘s long-term nuclear ambitions. Gulf states, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have supported dialogue with Iran but remain wary of economic and security risks. A Qatar statement said dialogue was the way forward, reflecting regional worries about the war’s economic toll on oil prices and maritime trade. Saudi Arabia‘s position remains unclear, as it balances its U.S. alliance against its rivalry with Iran. The economic impact on Gulf states has been severe, with oil prices fluctuating due to disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz and increased regional instability.

The Risk of Temporary Ceasefires

A 12-day ceasefire announced earlier in the conflict, brokered by Trump, faced early violations, raising doubts about its durability. U.S. officials acknowledge that even if a deal is reached, enforcing compliance will be challenging. Analysts warn that without binding verification mechanisms, any agreement risks becoming another short-lived truce. The absence of a clear timeline and the involvement of multiple stakeholders suggests the path to resolution remains uncertain. Albarasneh and Khatib‘s 2019 Global Affairs study shows U.S. policy toward Iran has swung between containment and engagement, with Trump‘s approach reflecting a mix of strategic patience and brinkmanship. This pattern of shifting priorities highlights the difficulty of achieving lasting diplomatic progress.

“the deal was a bad deal that prioritized economic terms over security guarantees”

Broader Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy

The negotiations highlight the complexities of U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East, where economic interests, regional alliances, and security concerns intersect. The potential deal could reshape Iran‘s nuclear posture and global oil dynamics but faces significant hurdles. As Trump emphasized, ‘the blockade will remain in full force until an agreement is reached,’ signaling the U.S. commitment to leverage until terms are finalized. However, the absence of a clear timeline and the involvement of multiple stakeholders suggests the path to resolution remains uncertain. The deal’s success will depend on whether both sides can overcome deep-seated mistrust and agree on enforceable terms, a challenge that has defined U.S.-Iran relations for decades.

Uncertainties and Competing Interpretations

The lack of transparency in Iran‘s nuclear program remains a critical obstacle. While Iran claims its enrichment activities are for peaceful purposes, U.S. intelligence agencies have long suspected covert nuclear development. WR Sherman‘s 2018 Foreign Affairs report noted U.S. officials saw the 2015 deal as treasonous, exacerbating tensions and undermining trust. Additionally, the absence of a binding verification mechanism means enforcement will rely on mutual trust, which is lacking. This raises questions about the deal’s viability, as both sides have historically prioritized national interests over long-term cooperation.