WASHINGTON – Donald Trump has requested a series of amendments to a draft agreement negotiated between U.S. envoys and Iranian officials, delaying the finalization of a peace framework intended to end the Middle East war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
The request for changes, delivered during a Situation Room meeting on May 30, 2026, focuses on strengthening provisions regarding Iran’s nuclear material and the specific wording surrounding the reopening of the strategically critical maritime route.
The current memorandum of understanding establishes a 60-day negotiation window to address nuclear commitments and potential sanctions relief. While a commitment from Iran not to pursue a nuclear weapon is included, the White House has indicated that the president is seeking more granular details on the transfer of enriched uranium, including timing and the methods of acquisition. U.S. officials say the emerging framework is intended to sit alongside, rather than replace, existing non‑proliferation obligations under the Treaty on the Non‑Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which both countries cite in public justifications of their positions.
Nuclear Guarantees and Disputed Terms
In an interview broadcast May 31, 2026, Trump stated he had secured guarantees that Iran would not develop nuclear weapons, framing the pledge as the central test of any agreement he is prepared to sign.
“The one guarantee that I have to have is that there will be no nuclear weapons. They’ve agreed to that, and it was very interesting,” Trump said.
However, Tehran has cast doubt on these assertions and has avoided confirming any new written guarantees. Iranian media described previous comments regarding the destruction of enriched uranium as “baseless,” underscoring how far apart the two sides remain on what constitutes compliance and verification.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed on May 31 that message exchanges and talks with the U.S. are ongoing, but cautioned against premature assessments and public claims about a finished deal.
“We should not give importance to speculation and we can not judge the talks until we get to a clear result,” Araghchi said, noting that any text would also have to be scrutinized by Iran’s political and security institutions before being finalized.
Iranian Domestic Requirements
Within Iran, senior officials have signaled that any agreement must yield immediate and verifiable concessions that can be defended in front of parliament and the public. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the re-elected speaker of the parliament and top negotiator, stated that no deal will be accepted unless the “rights of the Iranian people are secured.”
“There is no trust in the enemy’s words and promises. Our only criterion is to achieve tangible results before we fulfil our commitments in return,” Ghalibaf said during a virtual parliamentary session.
Further demands from Tehran include:
- The release of $12 billion in frozen assets before substantive talks on the nuclear program proceed.
- The inclusion of Lebanon in any comprehensive end to the war, with guarantees that cease-fire arrangements extend to Iranian‑aligned groups.
- A cessation of Israeli airstrikes targeting Hezbollah.
Iranian negotiators have presented these steps as minimum conditions necessary to demonstrate that sanctions relief and de‑escalation are real, not theoretical. While Iranian state media claims a deal is close and would include the return of billions in frozen funds, White House officials have denied this claim and stress that any sanctions relief would be phased and conditioned on verified actions by Tehran.
Control of the Strait of Hormuz
A central pillar of the negotiations is the status of the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway that handles approximately 20% of global oil transit and is treated under international law as a key chokepoint for freedom of navigation. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy has maintained control of the strait since the outbreak of the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran in late February, asserting what it describes as wartime security measures.
Under current IRGC restrictions, foreign vessels must obtain permission from Iranian authorities for passage. On May 31, the IRGC Navy reported that 25 vessels, including oil tankers and container ships, transited the strait after receiving security coordination. Shipping companies and energy markets are closely watching whether any eventual agreement will restore the pre‑war regime of largely unimpeded transit consistent with the principles set out in the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
IRGC Deputy for Political Affairs Yadollah Javani argued that the U.S. has faced a “strategic miscalculation” and must now choose between accepting Iranian conditions or continuing the war, framing control of the strait as a core source of leverage.
Complementing this stance, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, Deputy Chief of the Iranian Army for Coordination, warned during a visit to Imam Khomeini Naval University that any aggression against Iranian territory would be met with a response “stronger than ever before,” signaling that military commanders expect to be consulted on – and prepared for – outcomes in which talks fail.
Diplomatic Leverage and Timeline
Ebrahim Rezaei, head of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, stated that while Iran prefers diplomacy, Washington is currently in a “weaker position” and must make concessions to reach an agreement. He linked that assessment to the costs of prolonged disruption in the Strait of Hormuz and to the domestic political risks Trump faces if the conflict widens.
Trump has indicated he is not operating under a strict deadline, stating, “I’m in no hurry. Slowly but surely we’re getting, I think, what we want and if we don’t get what we want, we’re going to end in a different way.” Advisors say that posture is intended to reassure his political base that he will not accept what critics in Washington might label a one‑sided deal.
White House officials expect a response from Iranian authorities within three days, with hopes for progress by early next week, though a final signing date remains uncertain. Both sides are signaling that, for now, the battlefield, the oil market and domestic politics in Washington and Tehran will continue to shape what is ultimately possible at the negotiating table.
