Dto announce that “all agreements have been signed” and Iran, like President Trump he did today, it’s like shopping for a wedding dress after a great first date: It’s too soon.
The contract has finality and permanence. A nuclear deal with Iran, for example, would require specific obligations, agreements, and verification measures, such as inspections, to be agreed upon by all parties. What Iran and the United States are heading for, with a signing ceremony scheduled for Friday in Geneva, is an agreement that could set the conditions for a possible deal. Meanwhile, the shaky ceasefire would be extended by 60 days and commercial shipping would once again pass through the Strait of Hormuz unimpeded. (Neither side released the text of the agreement, although U.S. officials said today that Trump, Vice President Vance, and the speaker of Iran’s parliament have already digitally signed on the dotted line.)
If all goes to plan, both sides will use breathing room to address more difficult issues, such as how to manage Iran’s nuclear program, as they did before February 28, when Trump entered the war. Although the war has weakened Iran’s military, killed members of its leadership, and put pressure on Tehran, the accord is also an acknowledgment that the United States cannot solve Iran’s problem with war or economic pressure. Despite thousands of strikes, and the damage done to Iran’s economy from oil sales, the US has no choice but to try diplomacy again.
Another sign of how far the United States has deviated from its goals at the beginning of the conflict is the fate of the Strait of Hormuz. Its importance in the new deal may suggest that blocking Iran’s narrow path was the reason the US and Israel went to war in the first place. Not so. The door was open the day the war began. Iran closed, hitting the world’s energy supply chains, to gain leverage that is now employed at the negotiating table.
In contrast, none of Trump’s initial goals for the conflict have been achieved. The talks are designed to address the nuclear program, but it is unclear whether reducing Iran’s missile batteries and its proxy militias will be on the agenda for the 60-day talks, or additional talks that are sure to follow. “I’m worried about the outcome, and I’m worried about getting to a good place for the American people,” Vance told us in a brief interview. “Right now, we are on the way to a very good place for our country. I want to continue working towards that goal.”
Perhaps at the end of the cycle, the US and Iran will have an agreement worth calling for an agreement.
Tthe outcome of the war they have been so muddy that the hawks on all sides want to see a decisive victory and believe that such a result can still be achieved.
“The Islamic Republic is not a problem that can be solved,” said Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. he wrote on X yesterday. He suggested that the United States should support the Iranians in toppling the regime, something Trump indicated he favored at the beginning of the war but has since abandoned. “The only solution is a great help to the Iranian people,” Dubowitz continued. “Given the opportunities and support they need, they can cripple—and ultimately end—this terrorist regime.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Trump ally who strongly supported military action, suggested to X that the United States is committing too quickly just to ensure the reopening of the canal, even though its closure has caused energy prices to rise.
Graham, who rarely criticizes the president directly, he said that he was “pleased” that the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened but “had some concern that Iran’s views on the deal seem different from what the American negotiating team is demanding.” He did not provide specifics, and accounts differ on how and when the Strait of Hormuz will reopen. Graham also reminded Trump that any nuclear deal would need to be signed off by Congress, and he stepped up pressure on Vance, a presumptive 2028 presidential candidate, to make the case on Capitol Hill.
Other GOP Iran leaders were very quiet in the hours after Trump’s victory announcement yesterday. Instead of cheering the news, party leaders, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, celebrated the president’s 80th birthday with an Ultimate Fighting Championship event at the White House. Neither Johnson nor Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said anything official or substantive about Iran’s developments since then. About a dozen other Republican supporters of the Iran war either declined or did not respond to requests for interviews or to comment—not a strong testament to their president’s negotiating prowess.
Critics of Trump’s Iran policy on the right and the left were united in wanting to see the full text of the deal, seeing its secrecy as a sign that US negotiators have ignored it. “Trump must come clean, brief Congress immediately, and end this war for good,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. US officials, briefing reporters earlier today, said the documents would be released but did not say when.
Meanwhile, hard-line Iranians (some of whom came to power when other leaders were killed in the war), as well as members of the Iranian Parliament and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, argue that Iran was too quick to surrender the power Tehran gained by closing the strait. They want a guarantee of long-term economic relief, not a temporary understanding or an extension of an already fragile ceasefire, which Trump once described as “shooting in a more moderate way.”
The regime and the hawks in Iran “want to turn this strategic moment into a new reality in the region, while reaping economic benefits,” Vali Nasr, a professor of international affairs and Middle Eastern studies at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, told us. The difference between the hawks and the decision makers is that the decision makers “don’t want to go back to the hot war” and want to prioritize the life of the government.
U.S. officials told reporters that none of the frozen Iranian assets had yet been released and that any initial relief would include “small gestures” of mutual respect aimed at building trust. But Tehran has reasons to be optimistic. “What you’re seeing is that, you know, we’re willing to release the funds, and we’re willing to release the sanctions,” one of the US officials said. That could further anger the hawks in Washington.
Aall the time Trump said agreement had been reached, Israel launched an attack on Beirut, in retaliation against Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy.
Tehran had linked any agreement to a ceasefire in Lebanon. But US officials have said that the agreement did not include conditions for Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon and stressed that any ceasefire would not be unilateral, and would preserve Israel’s right to respond to Hezbollah attacks. The latest Israeli attacks are likely to reinforce Tehran’s belief that Washington cannot coerce Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is not ready for even an interim deal.
“We know almost all of Israel’s political spectrum is not happy with what’s going on,” HA Hellyer, senior partner at the Royal United Services International Institute, told us. “I think between now and Friday, publicly or privately, we’re going to be seeing a lot of tension between Washington and Tel Aviv about what this deal means for Lebanon in particular.” Hellyer suggested that Netanyahu would not be able to respond to rhetoric about the need for Israel to step down, which would require Washington to seek greater sources of leverage, such as blocking arms and aid sales. If the Trump administration is not ready to take that step, Tehran may question Trump’s commitment to curbing Iran’s nuclear development.
The key to the talks is implementation, US officials told reporters, where sanctions relief will not be tied to any action but to Iran’s behavior. The message is “everything is on the table” if Iran complies – and nothing if it doesn’t. US officials acknowledged that the ceasefire and the transition from conflict to peace are inherently messy, and warned that implementation challenges are likely and could include violations by extremist groups inside Iran. But officials held out hope that successful talks, with the support of other countries in the region such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, could encourage Tehran to become a more constructive regional actor.
The main test, of course, is whether signing the treaty can translate into lasting peace before domestic politics or regional instability lose its place. Trump may be less likely to restart the war—as he has threatened to do if talks don’t go well—especially given the proximity of the midterm elections. But don’t expect American troops to come home anytime soon. The US will maintain its current military posture in the region for now, US officials said. Any reduction in U.S. forces will depend on Iran following through on its commitments under an agreement that has yet to be reached—and that may not be for a while.
