WASHINGTON – Conflicting reports have emerged regarding a draft framework for a memorandum of understanding intended to end the ongoing conflict between Iran and the United States.
Iranian state television reports that it has obtained an unofficial draft of the agreement, though the White House has formally rejected these claims, describing the reports as “not true” and a “complete fabrication.”
The dispute centers on a potential diplomatic resolution to a war that began in February, following a sharp escalation between Tehran and Israel involving missile and drone attacks that disrupted Gulf shipping and triggered U.S. military intervention.
Proposed Terms of the Framework
According to the reports from Iranian state media, the draft framework outlines a reciprocal set of security and commercial concessions intended to be codified in a formal memorandum of understanding rather than a full peace treaty. Under the proposed terms:
- Iran would restore commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz to pre-war levels within 30 days.
- The United States would lift its naval blockade and withdraw military forces from the vicinity of Iran.
- Iran would manage ship traffic through the strait in cooperation with Oman, effectively re-establishing internationally recognized shipping lanes and pilotage procedures.
- The agreement would exclude military vessels from the shipping restoration terms, focusing instead on energy and commercial cargo traffic.
Iranian state TV indicated that the memorandum is not yet finalized and stated that Tehran would take no action without “tangible verification.” The reports further suggested that if a final agreement is reached within 60 days, the terms could be approved as a binding United Nations Security Council resolution, giving the deal the force of international law under [[1]].
The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway between Iran and Oman, serves as the world’s most critical oil transit chokepoint; a significant share of globally traded crude and liquefied natural gas passes through the strait, and any disruption there typically results in immediate volatility in global energy markets.
White House Rejection and Presidential Stance
The White House has dismissed the reported framework in its entirety and stressed that no formal proposal has been accepted by Washington. President Donald Trump further distanced the administration from the reported terms during an interview with PBS, stating he does not believe Iran would receive sanctions relief even if the country surrendered its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
On social media, the president argued that the media would characterize any end to the conflict as a “Masterful and Brilliant Victory” for Tehran, even in the event of a complete Iranian surrender, underscoring the domestic political sensitivity surrounding negotiations with Iran.
The tension between the two nations has remained high despite indirect talks mediated by Pakistan. Iran recently denounced U.S. military strikes in its southern region, describing the actions as a sign of “bad faith and unreliability” during the negotiation process and accusing Washington of undermining confidence-building steps.
Nuclear Stakes and IAEA Data
A central point of contention in the negotiations involves Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the future of its civilian nuclear program. According to reports citing regional officials and a senior Trump administration official, a potential deal would require Tehran to relinquish its stockpile of highly enriched uranium in exchange for phased sanctions relief and greater access to the global financial system.
Data from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) highlights the technical sensitivity of this demand:
- Current Stockpile: 440.9 kilograms of uranium.
- Enrichment Level: Up to 60 per cent purity.
- Weaponization Gap: 60 per cent purity is a short technical step from the 90 per cent level required for weapons-grade material.
While the U.S. has made the removal of this stockpile a key demand, Iran has not publicly committed to giving up the uranium or to expanding access for international inspectors beyond its existing safeguards obligations. The IAEA, which verifies compliance with the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, would likely be tasked with monitoring any new limits on enrichment under a future agreement.
Internal U.S. Political Opposition
The prospect of a deal has created friction within the U.S. government and exposed divisions within the president’s own party. Several of President Trump’s closest allies in the Senate have expressed skepticism, arguing that the proposals are too favorable to Tehran and could revive elements of the earlier nuclear accord.
Senators Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Ted Cruz of Texas have stated that the reported terms closely resemble the nuclear agreement reached under the administration of Barack Obama, which President Trump withdrew from during his first term. They have warned that any framework perceived as offering sanctions relief without permanently dismantling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would be unacceptable to a significant bloc of Republicans in Congress.
The senators have cautioned that a deal perceived as offering too many concessions could undermine the president’s domestic support and trigger efforts in Congress to review or constrain any future agreement, including through potential legislation or funding restrictions.
Diplomatic Mediation and Conflict Origins
The current diplomatic effort follows a period of intense regional instability. The war erupted in February after a series of exchanges between Iran and Israel, leading to drone and missile strikes that expanded into a wider conflict involving U.S. forces and disrupting commercial traffic across the Gulf.
Pakistan has played a central role as the mediator for the indirect talks between Washington and Tehran, shuttling messages and hosting technical-level discussions focused on maritime security and de-escalation. During a press conference with the ABC, an Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson was asked if Tehran intended to introduce tolls on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz following the war; the spokesperson denied any plans to charge fees, saying Iran would seek to restore “normal commercial conditions” in the waterway.
The current status of the negotiations remains contested, with the White House maintaining that no such framework exists while Iranian state media continues to reference the draft’s 60-day window for a potential UN Security Council resolution. Diplomats say that if talks advance, any formal cessation of hostilities at sea would likely be aligned with existing international maritime law under the [[2]], which sets out key rules for navigation through international straits.