US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the emerging deal framework with Iran as "a pretty solid thing on the table" that could be finalized as early as Monday, citing support from seven or eight regional governments [2][3][17]. The characterization marked a shift from the previous stage of negotiations, in which Tehran was still reviewing a US proposal and President Donald Trump had set a days-long deadline. Oil prices dropped and stock markets rallied on the news, with Brent crude falling below $100 a barrel [13].
The reported framework envisions a phased approach: first, a 60-day ceasefire extension and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, including Iranian mine clearance; then, time-limited negotiations over the disposition of Iran's nuclear program [3][20][17]. A senior Trump administration official said the logic was to "take that economic pressure out of the world economy, and then you negotiate the mechanism by which they will give up various parts of the nuclear programme" [17]. An anonymous senior US official separately told media that Iran had accepted "in principle" the disposal of its highly enriched uranium, though the modalities remained under negotiation [1]. US officials described the agreement framework as 95 percent complete [13].
Trump himself tempered the optimism. Writing on Truth Social, he said he had instructed negotiators "not to rush into a deal in that time is on our side" and confirmed the US naval blockade would remain until an agreement was signed [12][17]. Rubio echoed the caution from New Delhi: "No puedes cerrar en 72 horas en una servilleta un acuerdo nuclear" (You can't close a nuclear deal in 72 hours on a napkin) [6].
The framework drew immediate fire from Republican senators in Washington. Ted Cruz called the reported terms "a disastrous mistake" if Iran "remains led by Islamists who chant 'death to America' — now receiving billions of dollars, being able to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the strait of Hormuz" [18][20]. Roger Wicker, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said a 60-day ceasefire would mean "everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!" [3][4]. Lindsey Graham questioned "why the war started to begin with" if the reported terms were accurate, warning the deal would leave Iran perceived as a dominant regional force [5][18]. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo compared the framework to the Obama-era JCPOA, calling it "straight out of the Wendy Sherman-Robert Malley-Ben Rhodes playbook: pay the IRGC to build a WMD programme and terrorise the world" [18]. White House communications director Steven Cheung responded that Pompeo "has no idea what the fuck he's talking about" [18].
Democratic lawmakers offered a different critique. Senator Chris Van Hollen said the deal's reported outlines amounted to little more than "the prewar status quo" and called the war "a blunder" [4][9][12]. Former Obama-era foreign policy adviser Ben Rhodes stated that "nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury except putting the IRGC in charge of Iran and the strait of Hormuz" [21]. Ali Vaez of the Crisis Group argued that hawks in Washington "got two wars, nearly every conceivable sanction designation, a blockade" and would still demand more pressure [21]. Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute said Trump had merely negotiated his way back to the position that existed before his blockade decision [21].
Tehran's response revealed its own internal tensions. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told state television that Iran was ready "to assure the world that we are not after a nuclear weapon," but added: "Wir sind weiterhin gesprächsbereit, aber die Erfahrungen aus vergangenen Verhandlungen mit den USA zwingen uns zu äußerster Vorsicht" (We remain open to talks, but past negotiation experiences with the US force us to exercise extreme caution) [3][20][17]. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi rejected US media reports that Iran had agreed to send enriched uranium abroad or accept a 10-year enrichment cap, stating Iran was only willing to discuss these issues within the 60-day timeframe [21]. An Iranian military spokesperson asserted that the Strait of Hormuz would remain "unter voller iranischer Verwaltung und Souveränität" (under full Iranian administration and sovereignty) [15]. Euronews Persian reported, citing Reuters sources, that Mojtaba Khamenei — the influential son of the supreme leader — had ordered that Iran's high-enriched uranium stockpile must remain inside the country [24]. Iranian parliament spokesperson Ebrahim Rezaei struck a defiant tone: "During the military war, our tactic was an eye for an eye; in the diplomatic war, it is action against action" [9]. The discrepancy between US and Iranian descriptions extended even to the ceasefire duration, with Iran's foreign ministry describing a "30- bis 60-tägigen Zeitraum" (30- to 60-day period) rather than the 60 days cited by Washington [20].
Israel set its own conditions. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he and Trump "agreed that any final agreement with Iran must eliminate the nuclear danger," meaning the dismantlement of nuclear facilities and removal of all enriched uranium [4][10][17]. An unnamed Israeli official stated that Trump "will not sign a final agreement absent these conditions" [17]. Rubio affirmed that Israel retains the right to self-defense, including against Hezbollah in Lebanon, regardless of any US-Iran agreement [14][16]. Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem expressed hope that the deal would encompass a full cessation of hostilities that includes his organization [9].
European and allied governments welcomed the diplomatic momentum but attached firm conditions. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the deal must ensure the strait is reopened, Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon, and Iran ends "destabilizing actions" [4]. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer called for "unconditional and unrestricted freedom of navigation" [4]. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan offered Ankara's support for implementation [4], while Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar praised "meaningful progress" [4] and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said Islamabad hoped to host another round of talks [17].
Beyond the negotiating table, the economic stakes of the Strait of Hormuz closure continued to ripple across regions. Rising war-risk insurance premiums and tanker diversions sharply increased freight costs [32]. African economies split between winners and losers, with Nigeria benefiting from surging crude prices while Kenya faced diesel shortages [33]. ASEAN leaders issued a joint statement urging the strait's reopening and proposed a regional power grid to bolster energy security [34]. A Russian state-affiliated outlet noted that Moscow was objectively uninterested in a quick deal, since reopening the strait would pressure global oil prices and reduce Russian revenue [31]. An independent Turkish analysis warned that the crisis threatened Iran's gas flows to Turkey via the Tabriz-Ankara pipeline [37].
Rubio said the US would either reach "a good agreement" with Iran or deal with the country "another way," adding that diplomacy would be given every chance before alternatives were explored [8]. Iranian officials said the supreme leader and national security council still needed to approve the deal, with one or two clauses requiring clarification before the memorandum could be sent for ratification [18].