ISLAMABAD – U.S. President Donald Trump announced Saturday that a deal to end the war with Iran, including the reopening of the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, has been “largely negotiated.”
The announcement follows a series of intensive diplomatic consultations between the White House, Israel, and a coalition of regional partners. The agreement, which Trump described as a “Memorandum of Understanding pertaining to PEACE,” arrives after weeks of heightened military tension and a fragile ceasefire that has left global energy markets on edge.
The resolution of this conflict carries immense weight for international security and the global economy. The Strait of Hormuz serves as the world’s most important oil chokepoint, with approximately one-fifth of the world’s total petroleum liquids consumption passing through the narrow waterway under the framework of international maritime law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Its closure has triggered significant economic pain and volatility in energy pricing since the escalation of hostilities.
“Final aspects and details of the Deal are currently being discussed, and will be announced shortly,” Trump said on social media. He noted that the framework was reached after speaking with leaders from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Bahrain, as well as separate discussions with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Terms of the De-escalation
While the White House has remained tight-lipped on the granular details, a regional official with direct knowledge of the Pakistan-led mediation efforts indicated that the deal focuses on an immediate cessation of hostilities and the restoration of maritime commerce through the Strait of Hormuz.
The proposed terms reportedly include:
- An official declaration marking the end of the war.
- The immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping.
- The termination of the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports.
- A designated window for future negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear program.
Diplomats caution that none of these provisions will take effect until a final text is signed and operational timelines are agreed by both Washington and Tehran. The aforementioned official stressed that implementation mechanisms, including verification of compliance at sea and clear rules of engagement for naval forces, are still under discussion.
However, the optimism is tempered by the volatility of the negotiations. The official warned that “last-minute disputes” could still jeopardize the effort, noting that similar “near-deals” have collapsed in recent weeks, often over sequencing of concessions and the language of mutual guarantees.
“Final aspects and details of the Deal are currently being discussed, and will be announced shortly,” Trump said.
Diverging Narratives on Nuclear and Sanctions Frameworks
Despite the U.S. portrayal of a nearly finished deal, Tehran is framing the current status as a preliminary step rather than a final settlement. Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmail Baghaei, described the draft as a “framework agreement,” suggesting that key questions on sanctions and nuclear policy remain unresolved.
“We want this to include the main issues required for ending the imposed war and other issues of essential importance to us,” Baghaei said. “Then, over a reasonable time span, between 30 to 60 days, details are discussed and ultimately a final agreement is reached.”
A significant point of contention remains the sequencing of nuclear talks and economic relief. While U.S. officials suggest nuclear issues will be addressed later, Baghaei told the official IRNA news agency that nuclear matters are not part of the current negotiations. He emphasized that the lifting of sanctions on Tehran “has explicitly been included in the text and remains our fixed position.”
Those sanctions, imposed through a mix of U.S. executive orders, congressional measures, and European Union regulations, have sharply restricted Iran’s access to global financial systems and energy markets since the collapse of the 2015 nuclear accord. Tehran is pressing for a clear, time-bound roadmap for relief before it accepts security guarantees or new inspection arrangements.
Baghaei further clarified that Iran’s immediate priority is a comprehensive cessation of violence: “Our focus at this stage is on ending the war on all fronts, including Lebanon.” Iranian officials have repeatedly insisted that any final agreement must address not only U.S.-Iranian military engagement but also Israeli operations in the region and the status of allied militias.
The Role of Pakistani Mediation
The diplomatic breakthrough has been largely facilitated by Pakistan, with Army Chief Field Marshal Gen. Asim Munir playing a central role as the primary interlocutor between Washington and Tehran. Munir has held multiple high-level meetings in Tehran with President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
This mediation effort has been supported by Qatar, which dispatched a senior official to Tehran to bolster Pakistan’s diplomacy. The involvement of Islamabad highlights Pakistan’s strategic effort to position itself as a neutral bridge between the U.S.-aligned Gulf monarchies and the Islamic Republic, leveraging its historic ties to both Washington and Riyadh as well as its shared border and trade links with Iran.
For Pakistan, the talks also carry urgent domestic stakes: the risk of spillover across its western frontier, pressure on its fragile economy from higher energy prices, and the challenge of balancing relationships with rival Gulf states. Diplomatic sources say the army-led initiative reflects a calculation in Islamabad that regional stability, especially along key sea lanes, is now a core national security interest.
The diplomacy follows a period of extreme volatility. On February 28, the U.S. and Israel launched coordinated attacks on Iran, resulting in the deaths of top Iranian officials, including the supreme leader. This sparked retaliatory Iranian strikes against Israel and neighboring countries hosting U.S. forces, shattering the perceived security of Gulf havens and raising fears of a prolonged regional war.
Regional Security and the ‘Axis of Resistance’
The broader conflict extends beyond the direct U.S.-Iran clash. A fragile, U.S.-brokered ceasefire currently exists in the Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon, which erupted two days after the initial Iran war began. Western and regional officials say any collapse of that ceasefire could quickly unravel the emerging framework with Tehran.
Tehran continues to signal that any peace deal will not come at the expense of its regional proxies. Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV reported that the group’s leader received a letter from Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi asserting that Tehran will not abandon its allies. Iranian officials describe these actors as part of an “axis of resistance” rather than bargaining chips, limiting the scope for concessions on disarmament or disengagement.
Simultaneously, Iran has signaled that its military capabilities remain intact. Parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, who led face-to-face talks in Islamabad last month, warned that Iran has rebuilt its military assets. He stated that if the U.S. resumed attacks, the result would be “more crushing and more bitter” than the initial stages of the conflict.
The current stalemate reveals that the primary stated objectives of the war remain unfulfilled. Iran continues to possess highly enriched uranium and is actively rebuilding its missile program, under the watch of international inspectors and in defiance of earlier political expectations that sustained strikes might compel rapid rollback. Furthermore, the Iranian government has remained stable despite predictions from the U.S. and Israel that the conflict would trigger a popular internal revolt.
The new Iranian supreme leader, the son of the previous leader and a close ally of the Revolutionary Guard, has yet to make a public appearance since the war began, fueling speculation in regional capitals about the balance of power within Tehran’s security establishment but offering few clues about his long-term approach to engagement with the West.
For global policymakers, the emerging memorandum is likely to be judged against previous efforts to manage Iran’s nuclear and regional activities, most notably the 2015 nuclear deal, whose implementation day and subsequent collapse reshaped the landscape of sanctions and verification. Unlike that agreement, the current initiative is first and foremost a war-ending instrument, with energy security and maritime passage as immediate priorities rather than comprehensive non-proliferation guarantees.
The memorandum currently awaits finalization by the United States, Iran, and the participating regional governments. Officials on all sides say that even if the document is signed, it will mark the start of a politically fraught implementation phase, in which compliance, monitoring and dispute-resolution mechanisms – including those overseen by bodies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency – will determine whether this latest pause in the U.S.-Iran confrontation can be translated into a durable shift in the region’s security architecture.
