According to U.S. media reports, the U.S.-Iran ceasefire framework covers key issues such as navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, a post-war investment fund, and the postponement of nuclear negotiations. However, the two sides still hold divergent positions on specific terms...
Negotiations between the United States and Iran continue to advance around a preliminary arrangement that could pave the way for ending the conflict.
According to The New York Times, several officials involved in the talks revealed that a new draft memorandum has entered the discussion phase. Compared with earlier versions, it is closer to an acceptable range for both parties, though disagreements remain over specific wording, and U.S. President Trump has not yet signed off on it.
The document is viewed as an interim framework intended to pave the way for subsequent, more complex issues, including the final disposition of Iran’s nuclear program, adjustments to the U.S. sanctions regime against Iran, and the pathway toward formally ending the conflict.
While negotiations remain fluid, recent brief exchanges of fire between the two sides have further narrowed the space for mediation. Diplomats involved in the talks noted that if the stalemate persists, rising frustration and military friction could escalate simultaneously, thereby undermining broader diplomatic efforts.
Ceasefire Arrangements and Implementation Disputes
One core element of the draft calls for a cessation of hostile actions for a specified period. According to two diplomats familiar with the text, the initial proposal envisions a 60-day suspension of hostilities to allow for deeper negotiations, with the possibility of extending the period.
However, Iran’s formulation differs. Iranian officials and one diplomat stated that their version emphasizes “ending the conflict” across all fronts—including Lebanon—during the negotiation period. Two Iranian officials also noted that such provisions would only apply during negotiations aimed at reaching a broader and more durable agreement.
A mutual non-aggression pact has also been included in the discussions. Mediators indicated that the agreement is expected to contain regional components, including a requirement to halt fighting in Lebanon. Although a ceasefire arrangement already exists locally, violations occur frequently, and Israel has recently intensified its military strikes against Hezbollah, an Iran-backed group.
The negotiation mechanism itself introduces uncertainty. As consultations are primarily conducted through Pakistan and Qatar, it remains unclear whether the U.S. and Iran are working from the same text, and it is still ambiguous who within Iran holds ultimate decision-making authority.
Iranian Parliament Speaker Karroubi stated that Iran secures concessions not through dialogue, but through missiles. He said:
“In negotiations, we simply made the other side ‘understand the situation.’ He pointed out that we do not believe in any assurances or words; actions alone are the measure. We will not take any action until the other side acts. The winners of any agreement are those who are better prepared for war the day after the deal is reached.”
Strait of Hormuz and Shipping Arrangements
The issue of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz remains one of the key points of contention. This waterway carries approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas shipments and served as a critical energy corridor prior to the outbreak of conflict. Following U.S.-Israeli airstrikes in February, Iranian actions effectively blockaded the strait, triggering immediate global market turbulence; in response, the U.S. Navy imposed a maritime blockade on Iranian ports and energy facilities in the Persian Gulf.
According to an official’s explanation of the U.S. understanding, the draft envisions the immediate reopening of the strait, but the U.S. blockade would not be lifted simultaneously. Instead, it would be gradually eased based on Iran’s progress in restoring pre-conflict shipping levels, thereby incentivizing Iran to clear its laid mines as quickly as possible.
A diplomat familiar with the framework stated that Iran has agreed to restore maritime traffic to pre-war levels for a continuous period of 30 days during negotiations on a final agreement. However, the source also noted that mine clearance and full restoration of navigational channels could themselves take several weeks, and subsequent arrangements remain under dispute.
Iran’s account differs. Iranian officials claimed the U.S. maritime blockade would be lifted “within 30 days” and that the strait would remain open during negotiations; however, a U.S. official denied the existence of any explicit timeline. Mediators also mentioned that Iranian negotiators insist Iran and Oman—the two countries bordering the strait—should retain the right to determine whether to impose fees on vessels transiting the waterway in the future.
On Wednesday, Trump reiterated the U.S. position that the waterway should remain fully open “without any tolls or service fees.” Some U.S. negotiators have suggested deferring discussion of the strait’s long-term status to a second phase of talks.
Investment Fund and Economic Arrangements
A recently added provision in the draft concerns the establishment of an investment fund for Iran. Iranian officials and a diplomatic source stated the fund would amount to $300 billion, though other officials involved in mediation have not confirmed this figure.
Iran referred to it as a “reconstruction program,” indicating that funding would be made available upon the conclusion of a final agreement. Tehran had previously submitted claims for compensation for damages caused by airstrikes, with some Iranian officials estimating losses between $300 billion and $1 trillion.
According to The New York Times, two diplomats familiar with the draft described the arrangement as an international “investment fund,” noting that the United States would help facilitate its establishment once a final agreement is reached, with specific details to be further negotiated in subsequent talks. This proposal is believed to be linked to earlier ideas put forward by Trump’s Middle East envoys Witkoff and Kushner, which centered on promoting Iran’s economic reconstruction through investment projects and fund structures.
Iranian officials also stated that they had proposed to the U.S. side allowing American companies—including major oil and energy firms—to enter Iran to undertake investments and joint ventures.
Nuclear Issues and Sanctions Pathway
Regarding nuclear issues, the draft does not directly provide a final solution. Iranian officials and two diplomatic sources indicated that the text includes a commitment for both parties to address the final disposition of enriched uranium during the second phase of negotiations.
The scope of negotiations will cover approximately 970 pounds of uranium stockpiles that can be rapidly enriched to weapons-grade levels, as well as the handling of an additional roughly 10 metric tons of low-enriched nuclear material. Trump initially advocated transferring the relevant stockpiles to the United States, whereas Iran prefers diluting part of the material domestically under international verification and transferring another portion to a third country.
Trump stated this week on social media that dilution under international verification or transfer to a third country is “acceptable.”
According to Iran’s version of the proposal, Tehran would suspend its nuclear program during negotiations in exchange for a U.S. commitment not to further expand sanctions. Iranian officials stated that existing sanctions would be gradually lifted once a final agreement is reached.
Frozen Assets and Political Constraints
Financial issues also present a key challenge in the negotiations. Three officials familiar with the draft said the framework agreement is expected to outline a pathway for releasing some of Iran’s frozen funds, though the final written text may differ from the parties’ oral understandings.
Currently, approximately USD 24 billion of Iranian funds are frozen in overseas banks. Iran maintains that substantive progress in negotiations will be difficult without the release of these funds. Additionally, Iran seeks access to up to USD 20 billion in assets frozen in the Middle East.
This issue is highly politically sensitive within the United States. Trump previously criticized the Obama administration for paying Iran $1.7 billion in 2015 under the nuclear deal to secure the release of detained Americans, referring to it as the 'cash pallet' incident. Releasing a larger sum this time could provoke domestic opposition.
According to The New York Times, sources familiar with the matter said Trump has clearly instructed his aides that he will not sign any agreement that could be interpreted as the U.S. directly paying cash to Iran. Within this constraint, his team is exploring options involving third countries, including Qatar, to facilitate the release of funds.
Iranian officials and two diplomatic sources stated that the current draft text is expected to include provisions for the phased release of funds, though the specific implementation details remain subject to further negotiations.
Editor/melody