There is suddenly new optimism that the Trump administration can reach a deal with Iran to extend the ceasefire and begin to end the war — and not just this time.
Even the Iranian Foreign Minister says a deal .
But it is important to note that even if there are reasons for this optimism, this would not, in itself, be a peace agreement. It would be the first step in a much longer process.
Getting here was probably the easiest part; What comes next will be even more difficult.
This would essentially imply that the two parties reach an understanding on some of the simplest points – such as the end of the Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and the US blockade in the area – while a 60-day deadline and an agenda would be defined to resolve the most difficult issues.
The Trump administration is also claiming that Iran, but the Iranian media is presenting a .
Friday morning reinforced the delicate nature of what is to come. After media outlets linked to the Iranian government released details of a potential agreement very favorable to Tehran, Trump criticized the Iranians, calling them “very dishonorable people to negotiate with” and saying that “there is no such thing as negotiating in good faith” with them.
Residents swim and play in the waters of the Strait of Hormuz as cargo ships and commercial vessels remain anchored in the distance, off Bandar Abbas, Iran, on June 10. (Razieh Poudat/ISNA/AP)
So, what is Trump trying to negotiate with interlocutors that he considers to be irredeemably dishonest?
Let’s look at some of the possible sticking points and why Trump may have difficulty presenting the final terms to the US public as a true achievement.
Halt Iran’s nuclear program
This is the most important aspect of any potential peace agreement – and it is extremely complex.
The Trump administration is conveying the idea that Iran is agreeing to dismantle its nuclear program and committing “indefinitely” not to build a nuclear weapon. But even if this is true, the details of how this would happen and how it would be overseen in the future are crucial – and have been a point of contention in the past. Just getting these points right may take weeks.
A senior administration official on Friday referred to a new “inspections regime,” but details remain scant.
For example: Would Iran completely give up its nuclear program, including components that could be used for civilian purposes? Or would it only limit uranium enrichment to a certain level, theoretically preventing access to military-grade uranium?
Everything indicates that it would be the second hypothesis, with the person responsible saying on Friday that “we have no problem with the idea of civil power plants in Iran”.
Iranian workers at a zirconium production factory during President Mohammad Khatami’s visit to the uranium conversion facility on the outskirts of the city of Isfahan, south of Tehran, Iran, March 30, 2005. (Vahid Salemi/AP/File)
And, crucially, how would inspectors ensure that Iran is actually complying with the agreement?
Trump has insisted that an Iranian commitment not to build a nuclear weapon would be a major victory. But in fact, Iran has maintained for many years that it is not doing so.
The real focal point will be how the Trump administration ensures compliance. To complicate matters further, the President will have to explain why this agreement would be better than the one negotiated by the Obama administration, which Trump has repeatedly criticized as too weak. That agreement included restrictions on uranium enrichment and oversight by the United Nations nuclear agency.
The big obstacle here: Many argue that Tehran simply cannot be trusted to fulfill any agreement. Trump’s comments on Friday about Iran’s unreliability only reinforce this problem.
Iran’s highly enriched uranium
Already highly enriched uranium creates problems of its own. The Trump administration has said Iran will have to hand it over, but that material is buried deep underground after US airstrikes a year ago.
Trump has repeatedly suggested that the U.S.
He even raised the hypothesis that the US military would simply seal the sites and monitor them. “It’s so deeply buried that it doesn’t worry me,” he said in April.
There is also talk of the possibility of uranium being, but remaining in Iran’s possession as fuel.
A senior administration official said on Friday that the interim agreement provides for the uranium to be “destroyed on site and then removed from the country”. But he acknowledged that “it will take some time to understand exactly” how this will be done.
It’s hard to imagine Trump selling this as a major victory without getting the enriched uranium that Iran already possesses.
Iran’s frozen assets
This is where Trump’s old rhetoric could come back to hurt him.
In 2016, he and other Republicans sharply criticized the Obama administration for handing over to Iran as part of an operation linked to the hostage release and the nuclear deal.
That money wasn’t exactly a gift. It was before an international court in The Hague related to a failed arms contract in 1979. But the public image was gone and Trump claimed that the money would be used to finance terrorism.
(The $400 million was actually the first installment of $1.7 billion intended for Iran.)
Now, Iran seems .
When this possibility was reported in April, Trump assured: “No money will be given in any way.”
But you could be playing with words, distinguishing between unfreezing assets and handing over money directly. That appears to be the line the administration could take, judging by one on Friday.
Vance reiterated that Iran would not receive “money,” but added that “no funds are being released just by signing an agreement or participating in a meeting.” This suggests that the funds could effectively be unlocked later.
But technically, also in 2016 the money was something that already belonged to Iran.
Based on Iranian public red lines, it seems inevitable that money will be involved in some way. And if that happens, Trump will be vulnerable to the same criticism he previously leveled.
Reopen the Strait of Hormuz
While many details may seem similar to Obama’s nuclear deal, the Strait of Hormuz introduces a new variable.
The war gave Iran an advantage: it demonstrated that it can effectively close the strait and affect the world economy as a form of pressure.
The big question is not so much whether Iran relinquishes that control for now – that would certainly be demanded by the US. The question is how the deal will deal with Iran’s future ability to re-block the strait.
If this issue goes unanswered and the rest of the deal looks too similar to Obama’s deal, it will be easy for Trump’s critics to argue that it is a worse deal.
Iran’s allied groups
At the start of the conflict, Trump and his allies said one of their main goals was to ensure that Iran – like Hamas and Hezbollah – spread instability in the region.
When Trump incorrectly claimed two months ago that Iran had accepted all of his demands, he said that included .
But then Trump and the administration pretty much .
A senior administration official told CNN that Iran is agreeing to stop funding terrorist groups. But again, even if this is true, it all depends on the details – namely what it means in practice and how it will be verified.
And if Trump fails to achieve solid guarantees on this front, it will mean that he has failed one of the four main objectives he defined at the beginning of the war.
