Donald Trump believes he is closing in on a framework to end nearly 10 weeks of war with Iran.
The President said the US had held “very good talks” with Iran over the past 24 hours and that it was “very possible that we’ll make a deal”, to end his increasingly problematic conflict.
“We’re in good shape,” he told reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday, warning that if an agreement was not reached, “we’ll have to go a big step further” while insisting that Iran’s leaders “want to make a deal”.
The White House is hopeful that its 14-point memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Iranians will set a framework for more detailed talks on issues including Tehran’s nuclear programme, according to the US news outlet Axios.
The US expects Iran‘s response to the document over the next 48 hours. This is the closest the parties have been to an agreement since the war began on 28 February, the outlet reported, citing two US officials and two other sources briefed on the issue.
However, some major sticking points are still to be ironed out before a deal can be reached.
1. An ‘American wish-list’
The one-page proposal is being negotiated by Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner, who are speaking with Iranian officials directly and through Pakistani mediators.
The document in its current form declares an end to the war in the region and the start of a 30-day window for further negotiations on key points of difference, according to US media.
These include reopening the crucial Strait of Hormuz – which Iran has effectively closed to global shipping during the war, restrictions on Iran’s nuclear programme and the lifting of US sanctions.
Donald Trump says progress towards a deal is being made, but Iran’s speaker warned that ‘Operation Trust Me Bro failed’ (Photo: Kent Nishimura / AFP via Getty Images)During that 30-day period, Iran’s control over the oil route as well as the US naval blockade of Iranian ports would be gradually lifted, according to a US official cited by Axios. Were talks to collapse, US forces could reimpose the blockade or resume military action against the country, the official added.
Under the deal, Iran would commit to a moratorium on nuclear enrichment, which could be around 12 to 15 years, a compromise between US demands for 20 years and Iran’s proposed five years. Highly enriched material would be handed over. In return, the US would agree to lift sanctions on Iran, which have played a role in the strangulation of the country’s economy, and release billions in frozen Iranian funds.
Despite Trump’s optimism, Iran has made it clear that the proposal as it stands is unacceptable, with state-aligned Fars news agency saying Axios‘s report contained “ambitious and unrealistic proposals”.
Iran’s parliament speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf appeared to mock reports that the two sides were close, writing that “Operation Trust Me Bro failed”, while Ebrahim Rezaei, a spokesman for parliament’s powerful foreign policy and national security committee, called the proposal “more of an American wish-list than a reality”.
2. Deal postpones trickiest issues
Even if the US and Iran agree to this proposal, it is still merely a framework that postpones difficult discussions on issues where both sides’ positions are still far apart. Many of the terms are contingent on a final agreement, leaving the possibility of renewed war or an extended period of limbo.
“The real problem is less substance than sequencing, timelines and thresholds,” according to Dr Andreas Krieg, senior lecturer at the School of Security Studies at King’s College London. “Who moves first? How quickly are sanctions eased? At what point does Iran loosen its pressure on shipping? What does the US need to see before it winds down military pressure? These are the practical questions where there is a stalemate at the moment. Hence, why the administration is favouring an MOU rather than a deal.”
However, he emphasised that both sides were motivated to find a way to avoid going back to a hot war. “Trump needs to be able to claim that pressure worked. Iran needs to be able to say that it resisted coercion and extracted concessions. That creates space for a limited deal, especially if it is framed as a phased process rather than a grand bargain,” he told The i Paper.
3. The US is back where it started – only weaker
Even if an initial agreement is reached, the reality is that the US is back exactly where it was on 27 February, only this time with less leverage.
Trump has not managed to bring the Iranian regime to heel after weeks of bombardment. Instead, Iran has asserted control over a vital waterway and is holding the global economy to ransom, prompting spiralling energy prices that could send economies into recession – and which are harming Trump’s popularity with American voters back in the US.
“This essentially brings us back to the type of negotiations that were taking place prior to this war, and prior to last June’s war, except now including the issue of Strait alongside the nuclear issue,” said Dr Julie Norman, associate professor in politics and international relations at University College London.
“Regarding the Strait, the idea is that both parties will gradually lift their respective restrictions — but Iran may still seek de facto control over the waterway, and has demonstrated that they can weaponise it at will.”
Trump has threatened renewed violence if Iran does not agree to the deal, warning on Truth Social: “The bombing starts, and it will be, sadly, at a much higher level and intensity than it was before”.
Trump’s threats “suggest that Trump himself needs an exit”, according to Dr Krieg. “Trump’s threats reveal urgency in Washington. Trump wants to end the war, but he wants to end it in a way that looks like victory. Iran knows this. Tehran will therefore try to maximise pressure until the last possible moment because it wants a deal that serves its own narrative: not capitulation under American bombing, but perseverance that forced Washington back to the table.”
Trump’s willingness to resume a hot war looks increasingly questionable, as Iran will have noticed. The President has already backed down on numerous threats to resume bombing, and has extended an initial two-week ceasefire.
“Both parties see themselves holding the advantage,” said Dr Norman. “Iran is prepared to endure a lot of economic pain and refuses to be seen as capitulating to the US. Trump on the other hand is eager for a quick deal to get out of an unpopular war that is driving up costs at home.”
Vali Nasr, a former senior US presidential adviser and now Majid Khadduri Professor of Middle East Studies at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, said it was “likely that the administration is claiming these maximal gains as political cover to end the war without achieving any of the objectives that it was after when the war started.
“Now its goal is to end the war and solve a problem that did not exist before the war: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. There could be an agreement to formally end the war and lift both blockades and then announcement of 30 days to negotiate which will be extended and extended. The war ends and then the nuclear issue could go on and on for a long time to come.”
4. Notable omissions
There are also crucial omissions from the proposal. Among key demands Washington has made previously are restrictions of Iran’s ballistic missile programme and an end to its support for proxy militias in the Middle East.
The United States military says it has imposed significant damage on Iran, destroying much of its navy and air force, its missile programme, and its defence industrial base.
Iran has consistently opposed any limitations on its missile programme or its proxies, which are a central weapon in how it projects power and influence across the region, particularly against Israel and notably through Hezbollah in Lebanon.
However, Trump earlier this week appeared to walk back on his previous stance regarding Iran’s missile programme and proxies in an interview with a conservative radio host.
Asked if it was a red line to cap Iran’s missile programme, Trump said, “Look, missiles are bad, but yeah, and they do have to cap it, but this is about they cannot have a nuclear weapon,” suggesting that Iran was entitled not to have fewer missiles than its Arab neighbours.
Pressed on the proxy issue, Trump dodged the question, claiming that Iran was currently unable to support them because of the damage inflicted by the war. Israel is reportedly concerned by lack of attention paid to the ballistic missile programme, according to Channel 12.
5. The nuclear problem
Trump has repeatedly said the main reason for launching his war was to force Iran into restricting its nuclear programme, claiming that the regime had been close to building a nuclear weapon.
As well as the enrichment moratorium, the US is also reportedly demanding the dismantling of nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, a ban on underground nuclear work, on-demand inspections with penalties for violations, attestation Iran does not seek a nuclear weapon.
Trump claimed on Wednesday that Iran had agreed not to have a nuclear weapon. “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and they won’t, and they’ve agreed to that, among other things.”
There is as yet no proof that Iran has agreed to any such thing. Iran has repeatedly said that it has the right to a nuclear programme.
Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 JCPOA deal on the nuclear programme spearheaded by Barack Obama, under which Iran agreed to limit uranium enrichment for 15 years and cap its stockpile. Trump repeatedly criticised that deal, claiming he can reach a better one – so he will need to be able to sell that to the US public and the world if he does secure a deal.
Analysts are sceptical of whether he can surpass the 2015 deal. “Regarding the nuclear element, at best we can expect to see something like the JCPOA — an agreement by Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and remove existing highly enriched uranium. Trump famously tore up that deal and is still pushing for more, but he’s unlikely to get it,” said Dr Norman.
The US also appears to be pressuring Iran to hand over its existing stockpile of more than 400kg of near-weapons-grade uranium. One source told Axios that one option could be moving the material to the US.
Reports suggest Iran is highly unlikely to agree to such a thing. The proposal contributed to the breakdown of Vice President JD Vance’s talks with the Iranians in Pakistan last month, a regional source, told CNN. One option could be sending it to a third country trusted by Iran.
According to Axios, the US also wants to insert a provision whereby any Iranian violation on enrichment would prolong the moratorium.
Dr Krieg, however, was more optimistic about the nuclear file, pointing out that much of the conceptual work had already been done. “The issues are difficult, but they are not new,” he said. “Enrichment limits, inspection mechanisms, stockpile management and time-bound restrictions have all been discussed before, including in February and earlier rounds. There is a roadmap to compromise if both sides want one. Even on missiles, sanctions relief and Iran’s regional networks, including the Axis of Resistance, there is more room for manoeuvre than the public rhetoric suggests. None of this is easy, but these are negotiable questions if the political decision has been made to de-escalate.”
Hence then, the article about five fatal flaws in trump s latest plan to end the war was published today ( ) and is available on inews ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Five fatal flaws in Trump’s latest plan to end the war )
Also on site :
- LSG vs RCB Dream11 Prediction Today Match, Dream11 Team Today, Fantasy Cricket Tips, Playing XI, Pitch Report, Injury Update- IPL 2026, Match 50
- McDonald’s is about to report earnings. Here’s what to expect
- Germany’s new militarization: Revival of the spirit or blatant revanchism? (by Dmitry Medvedev)