WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump will meet with his Cabinet on Wednesday to navigate a volatile diplomatic juncture as the United States attempts to finalize a settlement to end the war with Iran.
The meeting occurs as the administration attempts to stabilize negotiations that Trump previously described as “largely negotiated,” but which remain in a state of flux following a series of military escalations and internal political fractures.
The outcome of these talks carries significant implications for global energy security, the non-proliferation regime overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the stability of the Levant. At the center of the dispute is the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime chokepoint through which approximately one-fifth of the world’s total oil consumption passes.
The Nuclear Standoff and Sanctions Relief
A primary pillar of the emerging agreement focuses on Iran’s nuclear stockpile. Under the proposed terms, Tehran would surrender its stockpile of highly enriched uranium in exchange for phased sanctions relief tied to compliance benchmarks and verification by international inspectors.
According to the IAEA, Iran currently possesses 440.9 kilograms (972 pounds) of uranium enriched to 60% purity. While this is below weapons-grade levels-typically cited as 90%-it represents a narrow technical threshold that allows for rapid weaponization under the standards of the global non-proliferation regime established by the Treaty on the Non‑Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Details regarding the disposal of this material remain a point of contention. One regional official with direct knowledge of the talks indicated that the process would be subject to a 60-day window, with uranium either being diluted to lower levels or transferred to a third country under IAEA monitoring.
In a Truth Social post on Monday, President Trump indicated a shift from his previous demands that the U.S. take physical control of the stockpile, suggesting instead that the material be “destroyed in place or, at another acceptable location, with the Atomic Energy Commission, or its equivalent, being witness to this process and event.” U.S. officials have privately acknowledged that any such arrangement would need to align with existing IAEA safeguard procedures and avoid setting a precedent that could undermine global inspection norms.
Military Escalation and Diplomatic Friction
The diplomatic effort has been complicated by recent kinetic actions that underscore the fragility of the talks. On Monday, U.S. forces conducted strikes on mine-laying boats and missile launch sites in southern Iran. While the Pentagon characterized these as “defensive” strikes and claimed the U.S. acted with “restraint” during a weekslong ceasefire, Tehran condemned the operation as a sign of “bad faith and unreliability.”
This volatility has fueled skepticism among Trump’s Republican allies on Capitol Hill, some of whom are signaling that any eventual agreement could face scrutiny under the congressional review process for major international accords. Senators Roger Wicker, Lindsey Graham, and Ted Cruz have criticized the emerging terms, arguing that the deal too closely mirrors the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) brokered by the Obama administration, which Trump unilaterally exited in 2018.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated on Tuesday that the process of extending the ceasefire and reopening the Strait of Hormuz would take several more days, cautioning that “implementation will not be instantaneous” even if a framework is announced.
“He’s either going to make a good deal or no deal,” Rubio told reporters.
Trump has simultaneously pushed back against domestic critics and media coverage, grumbling on social media that even a complete Iranian surrender would be framed by the press as Iran scoring “a Masterful and Brilliant Victory.” Advisers say the president remains acutely aware that any perception of weakness on Iran could carry political costs at home.
The Lebanon Pivot and the ‘Axis of Resistance’
A critical unresolved variable is the status of Israel’s operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon, a front that Tehran publicly casts as part of its self-described “Axis of Resistance.” Iran has conditioned any ceasefire with the U.S. on the inclusion of a cessation of hostilities in Lebanon, arguing that an agreement limited to direct U.S.-Iranian forces would be politically untenable in Tehran.
The administration’s emerging memorandum of understanding suggests a ceasefire between the U.S. and its allies against Iran and its proxies, including Hezbollah, yet it explicitly preserves Israel’s right to act in self-defense against imminent threats, language that echoes long-standing U.S. security commitments to Israel.
This ambiguity has not deterred the Israeli government. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced Tuesday that the Israeli military is “deepening its operation” in Lebanon and would not “outsource Israel’s security” to any external agreement.
Jonathan Conricus, a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and former IDF spokesperson, warned that any sanctions relief provided to Tehran would likely be diverted to bolster proxy groups. “We’re not done fighting, because the Iranian regime isn’t done,” Conricus said, arguing that Western capitals should treat proxy funding as a core test of Iran’s compliance rather than a side issue.
Regional Normalization and the Abraham Accords
President Trump is attempting to leverage the Iran deal to expand the Abraham Accords, the normalization agreements established during his first term. He has called on Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Pakistan to join the framework as a condition of the broader peace, framing the prospective deal as a regional security realignment rather than a narrow nuclear bargain. Officials say the White House has floated a package that would pair sanctions relief for Iran with security assurances and economic incentives for Gulf partners.
However, this ambition faces significant diplomatic hurdles:
- Saudi Arabia: Riyadh continues to maintain that a guaranteed, time-bound path toward a Palestinian state is a prerequisite for normalization with Israel, a position vehemently opposed by the current Israeli government and likely to face resistance from parts of the Israeli governing coalition.
- Regional Trust: Gulf allies remain concerned that sanctions relief will restore Iran’s military capability and expand its ballistic missile and drone programs, potentially forcing them to deepen defense cooperation with Washington even as they hedge against a future U.S. retrenchment.
- Diplomatic Reception: Barbara Leaf, a retired U.S. ambassador to the UAE, reported that officials from Gulf countries described Trump’s recent pitch for the Accords as being greeted by “stunned silence,” reflecting skepticism that Washington can simultaneously guarantee Israel’s security, constrain Iran, and deliver on Palestinian aspirations.
Despite these frictions, Leaf noted that regional allies may feel compelled to support an end to the conflict due to the failures of the preceding military campaigns. “They see no other way out,” Leaf said, adding that leaders are increasingly focused on domestic economic agendas that depend on a predictable security environment.
The negotiations proceed as the U.S. enters a critical period leading up to the midterm elections, with Republicans concerned that rising fuel prices and inflation are impacting the electorate and Democrats wary of being portrayed as soft on Iran. Any formal agreement could trigger a new round of congressional debate over sanctions waivers and defense spending in the Gulf.
The U.S. administration continues to coordinate with the IAEA and regional partners to determine the verification mechanisms for the proposed uranium surrender, including potential snap inspections and long-term monitoring of Iranian facilities. Diplomats say the final shape of those provisions-and whether they can be enforced under the existing safeguards system of the IAEA-will help determine whether the deal is viewed internationally as a durable settlement or merely a temporary pause in a long-running confrontation.