WASHINGTON –
President Donald Trump has circulated a draft peace agreement among regional allies, including Israel, in a high-stakes effort to terminate the war with Iran and stabilize the volatile security environment in the Persian Gulf.
The move comes as both Washington and Tehran attempt to prevent fresh breaches of a fragile ceasefire from escalating into a full-scale regional conflict. The diplomacy is unfolding against a backdrop of direct military friction, with Tehran targeting a US airbase in Kuwait on Thursday following a US strike on an Iranian drone operation near the strait of Hormuz.
The current diplomatic push represents a critical attempt to secure the strait of Hormuz, the world’s most vital oil transit choke point through which approximately one-fifth of the world’s total oil consumption passes daily. Any prolonged closure or instability in the waterway threatens global energy markets and international shipping lanes, raising questions for governments and central banks already grappling with inflation and supply-chain disruption.
Terms of the Proposed Framework
The draft agreement shared by the US president aligns closely with documents that have circulated within Middle Eastern diplomatic circles for several days. The primary objective is the immediate restoration of commercial maritime traffic and a de-escalation of direct military engagements in and around the Gulf.
Under the proposed terms, the strait of Hormuz would be reopened to commercial shipping, and the United States would lift its blockade of Iranian ports. In exchange, Iran would be granted access to as much as $12 billion (£9 billion) in frozen assets held abroad, funds that Western officials say would be subject to strict monitoring and limited to humanitarian and civilian economic uses.
The timeline for implementation is aggressive and front-loaded, with key benchmarks intended to test both sides’ willingness to comply:
- Commercial shipping in the strait must return to pre-war levels within 30 days.
- Negotiations regarding the future of Iran’s nuclear programme would commence within 60 days.
The nuclear component of the deal would involve the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, providing supervision over Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium. Under the framework, Iran would accept expanded inspections and reporting requirements consistent with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, alongside a time-limited suspension of further enrichment and a formal renunciation by Iran of the use of nuclear weapons.
While the draft provides a roadmap for stability, it remains tentative and politically vulnerable in Washington. Following a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, Axios reported that President Trump stated he needed a few more days to consider the final details before giving his full approval, amid pushback from some advisers who argue that sanctions relief is being offered too quickly.
Regional Friction and the Israeli Veto
Despite the US push, the scope of the agreement is viewed as deeply unpalatable by the government in Israel. Jerusalem’s objections center on the fact that the deal defers firm nuclear commitments from Tehran and explicitly requires a permanent ceasefire that includes Lebanon, potentially constraining Israel’s freedom of action against Hezbollah.
The linkage between the Iranian nuclear file and the activities of Hezbollah in Lebanon remains a primary point of contention. Israel has historically argued that any deal with Tehran that does not address its regional proxies creates a security vacuum on Israel’s northern border and undermines deterrence, a view that resonates with hawks in the US Congress.
China has entered the diplomatic fray by pressing for the UN Security Council to ratify any eventual agreement, seeking to institutionalize the deal through a multilateral framework rather than a bilateral US-Iran arrangement. Diplomats say Beijing is pushing language that would tie future sanctions relief and any snapback mechanisms to formal Security Council resolutions, in an effort to lock in commitments beyond the current US administration.
The Oman Crisis and Maritime Control
Tensions have spiked over the administration of the strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway whose shipping lanes lie between Iranian and Omani territorial waters and are governed by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Iran has sought a separate agreement with Oman to manage the waterway, potentially including the imposition of fees for “navigational services” on commercial vessels.
The US has reacted with extreme hostility to the prospect of a toll system, viewing it as an attempt by Tehran to monetize a security crisis it helped create and to establish a precedent for charging passage through an international choke point. On Wednesday, President Trump threatened to
“blow up” Oman
if the sultanate attempted to reach a deal with Tehran that included the imposition of tolls, remarks that have alarmed Gulf diplomats already wary of miscalculation.
The US Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, reinforced this stance on Thursday, threatening secondary sanctions against Oman and any other nation involved in the implementation of a toll system. Washington has already imposed sanctions on Iran’s nascent Persian Gulf Strait Authority, the body created by Tehran to manage vessel passage, signaling that it is prepared to use financial tools to police maritime access.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) navy continues to assert absolute control over the waterway. In a recent statement, the IRGC noted that 26 commercial ships had been granted permission to pass in 24 hours, adding that “seeking permission is mandatory and passage through other routes will be considered as disruption.”
The IRGC reported intervening Wednesday night to stop four ships attempting to sail through the strait with their transponders deactivated; two were held in place and two were forced to turn back. Maritime insurers say such incidents, alongside threats of sanctions and tolls, are already feeding into higher premiums and risk calculations for global shippers.
Internal Pressures and Human Rights
Inside Iran, the prospect of negotiating with the Trump administration has created significant internal friction. Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has urged officials to avoid letting differences turn into divisions, while insisting that the parliament address the public’s mounting economic grievances, from currency weakness to fuel and food prices.
Khamenei framed the external pressure as a coordinated effort by the US and Israel to “bring the country to its knees,” claiming that “the enemy’s blind plan … is to create division and destruction in order to compensate for its military defeats.” State media have amplified that narrative, portraying the talks as a test of Iranian resilience rather than a capitulation to Western demands.
This political tension is accompanied by a severe domestic crackdown. Amnesty International reports that Iranian authorities have arrested more than 6,000 people since the US and Israeli offensive began on 28 February. The detainees include journalists, lawyers, human rights defenders, and members of ethnic and religious minorities, with rights groups warning that due process protections are being systematically eroded under the cover of wartime security measures.
As indirect contact continues via mediators in Pakistan and Qatar, the global economy remains sensitive to the outcome. Oil prices climbed 2% on Thursday morning, though they stayed below the $100 per barrel threshold, as traders weighed the prospect of a narrow technical deal against the risk of renewed strikes on energy infrastructure.
Pakistan’s foreign minister, Mohammad Ishaq Dar, is scheduled to fly to Washington on Friday for meetings with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to accelerate the negotiation process. Officials in Islamabad and Doha, accustomed to shuttle diplomacy between Tehran and Washington, say the coming days will test whether the draft can be converted into a binding agreement or will become another missed chance in a region where diplomacy and conflict often advance in tandem.
