President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that a peace deal with Iran is "scheduled to get signed tomorrow" — Sunday, June 15 — and that "immediately after it is signed, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN TO ALL" [3][5][11]. Hours earlier, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei stated the opposite: "We will have to wait and see about the exact time of signing the memorandum; although it will not be tomorrow, the possibility of this happening in the coming days cannot be ruled out" [2][5][8]. The discrepancy over a specific date narrows a gap that has persisted since Trump first declared the war over and Iran denied any final decision had been made.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, whose government has hosted the negotiations, posted on X that "we are closer to a peace deal than ever before" and that Pakistan was "preparing for the electronic signing of the peace deal immediately after" finalization, which he expected within 24 hours [2][3][19]. Pakistani Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar and Qatar's Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani both signaled readiness for a signing ceremony [4][6]. Despite Trump's public schedule for Sunday containing no reference to a signing event [23], a senior US administration official said, "We believe we have reached a fantastic and very strong agreement with Iran," adding that the lifting of the American blockade would coincide with the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and that Iran would not impose transit fees [14].

The two sides describe the document itself in different terms. Trump called the agreement "a WALL TO NO NUCLEAR WEAPON," said no money would change hands, and stated that "at an appropriate time" the United States would "retrieve and destroy" Iran's enriched uranium [5][9][17]. Baghaei characterized the text as "not a final agreement" but a framework that opens a 60-day window for negotiations on the nuclear program, sanctions, and frozen assets [4][8]. Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi outlined two phases: the first covering the release of blocked Iranian assets, the lifting of restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz, and an end to hostilities on all fronts including Lebanon; the second addressing the nuclear issue [8][16][18]. Trump's insistence that Iran will receive no funds and Araghchi's description of asset releases as part of the first phase remain unreconciled [11][18].

Araghchi also told Iranian state television that "Iran is the winner of the war with the US" [11], while Iran's leader Mojtaba Khamenei called for national unity, stating: "Milli birlik, büyük şeytan karşısındaki galibiyetin en önemli unsurlarından birisidir" (National unity is one of the most important elements of victory against the great Satan) [12]. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said the nation had "proved that, beyond any taste or perspective, whenever our dear Iran is at stake, we are one nation, one clenched fist" [6]. Baghaei separately asserted that the Strait of Hormuz falls within Iranian and Omani territorial waters under international law and that Iran has the right to receive costs for services rendered there [2].

Not all voices inside Iran endorsed the framework. Conservative parliamentarian Mahmud Nabavian asked: "Acaba bu metin ulusal çıkarları sağlıyor mu? Gerektiğinde bombalıyoruz ve füzeleri karşılıyoruz, bize ihtiyaç duyulmadığında ise müzakere süreci hakkında bilgi verilmiyor." (Does this text serve national interests?), citing uncertainties over sanctions relief, frozen-asset release, and access to a $300 billion fund [12]. Speaker of Parliament Bagher Ghalibaf stressed that enforceable commitments must accompany any understanding [6]. Hardline protesters in Tehran chanted against Foreign Minister Araghchi [13].

Israel, which was not a party to the Islamabad talks, reacted with alarm. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office listed four preconditions: removal of enriched nuclear materials, complete dismantlement of enrichment infrastructure, limits on Iran's missile program, and an end to Tehran's support for regional proxies [12]. Defense Minister Israel Katz said Israel would continue to act independently and would not withdraw from southern Lebanon, Syria, or Gaza [5]. Tel Aviv University Vice Rector Eyal Zisser asked: "Biz paralı asker miyiz? Gerektiğinde bombalıyoruz ve füzeleri karşılıyoruz, bize ihtiyaç duyulmadığında ise müzakere süreci hakkında bilgi verilmiyor." (Are we mercenaries? When needed we bomb and intercept missiles, but when we are not needed we are not informed about the negotiation process.), arguing Israel bore costs in the conflict but was excluded from the negotiation process [12]. Israeli military spokesperson Avichay Adraee ordered residents of southern Lebanese towns to evacuate — 24 towns according to src-016, and 20 towns according to src-024 and src-027 — warning that the army would "act with full force" [16][24][27].

Western analysts cautioned against treating the memorandum as a breakthrough. Former US State Department advisor Aaron David Miller said: "What you've done is buy yourself a ticket, on both sides, to a negotiation that is going to be long and tedious" [5]. Jonathan Panikoff of the Atlantic Council described the text as "a rough outline and high-level explanation of the concepts a deal is supposed to be about" [20]. French researcher Bernard Hourcade argued the text's importance lay in its lack of excessive precision: "Le texte sera important s'il n'est pas trop précis" (The text will be important if it is not too precise) [15]. Brookings Institution analysts noted that access to maritime routes was becoming more politically conditioned and that sustaining the US role as guarantor of free navigation would require new operational concepts and greater burden-sharing [20].

Regional and Western governments signaled support for the process. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer welcomed the progress and said Britain was ready to support implementation [5][27]. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan and Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis both expressed hope the talks would contribute to lasting peace [5][6]. Saudi Arabia's foreign ministry issued a formal statement welcoming the ceasefire agreement [31]. France and the UK indicated willingness to participate in mine-clearance operations in the Strait of Hormuz [9][42].

Energy markets are watching the timeline. Fitch Ratings forecast that the Hormuz price shock is temporary, with Brent crude averaging about $87 per barrel in 2026 once the strait reopens and the market returns to oversupply [43]. A South Korean analysis noted that over 70 percent of Korea's crude imports pass through the strait and that the blockade caused a 40 percent spike in JKM LNG prices [34]. European gas prices had already dropped 20 percent on ceasefire expectations, though analysts cited persistent geopolitical uncertainties [40].

Military operations continued alongside the diplomacy. US Central Command reported shooting down multiple Iranian one-way attack drones targeting commercial ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz, stating that "the international trade corridor remains open for transit" [5][6]. El País noted that Trump's Sunday announcement was at least the 39th time he had said a deal was imminent [9]. Whether the memorandum is signed on Sunday, in the coming days, or not at all remains, as of Saturday evening, unresolved.