Trump Says US-Iran Deal Near; Iran Disputes Strait Claim
Former US President Donald Trump announced on 23 May that a peace agreement with Iran has been “largely negotiated,” including the reopening of the strategic Strait of Hormuz, after months of devastating conflict and a crippling dual blockade. However, Iran swiftly pushed back, calling Trump’s characterization “incomplete” and insisting that the waterway would remain under full Iranian management under any potential deal.
The Announcement
Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that he had spoken with leaders from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Bahrain, as well as Pakistan’s Army Chief Asim Munir and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “An agreement has been largely negotiated, subject to finalization between the United States of America, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the various other Countries,” Trump wrote, according to Xinhua News. He added that the deal would include the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, with “final aspects and details” still being discussed and expected to be announced shortly.
Al Jazeera reported that Trump made the announcement after a week that began with him threatening Iran that time was running out for an agreement. He later told reporters he had been moments away from resuming attacks before putting them “on hold” at the behest of Gulf countries.
Iran’s Rebuttal
Early on 24 May, Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency, which is close to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), pushed back sharply against Trump’s framing. The agency reported that Trump’s claim that the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened was “incomplete and inconsistent with reality.” Under any potential agreement, the strait would remain under Iranian management, with Iran retaining monopoly control over route determination, timing and method of passage, and the issuance of permits. While Iran had agreed to allow the number of ships through the strait to return to pre-war levels, this did not mean a return to “free passage” as existed before the conflict.
This fundamental disagreement over who controls the waterway lies at the heart of the ongoing negotiations and underscores the significant gap between US and Iranian positions.
The Broader Context: A Crisis Three Months in the Making
The current crisis erupted on 28 February 2026, when the United States and Israel launched coordinated airstrikes against Iran under Operation Epic Fury, targeting military facilities, nuclear sites, and leadership — resulting in the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. In retaliation, Iran launched missile and drone attacks on Israel and US military bases in the Gulf.
On 4 March, Iran announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a 34-kilometer-wide maritime choke point through which approximately 20% of the world’s seaborne oil trade and 20% of global LNG transits. The IRGC issued warnings, boarded and attacked merchant ships, and laid sea mines. Shipping traffic dropped to near zero, with over 150 ships anchoring outside the strait and an estimated 20,000 mariners stranded in the Persian Gulf, according to the Wikipedia article on the crisis.
The economic impact was severe. Brent crude oil surpassed US$100 per barrel on 8 March, peaking at US$126 per barrel — the largest-ever monthly increase in oil prices. The closure became the largest disruption to world energy supply since the 1970s energy crisis.
Pakistan’s Mediation Role
Pakistan has emerged as a critical intermediary in the negotiations, leveraging its unique relationships with both the US — as a major non-NATO ally — and Iran as a neighboring Islamic republic. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif congratulated Trump on his peace efforts and stated that Pakistan hoped to host another round of talks between the US and Iran “very soon.” Army Chief Asim Munir, who holds significant influence over Pakistan’s foreign policy, has been a key mediator, holding meetings in Tehran with President Masoud Pezeshkian and Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.
Proposed Deal Terms
According to regional officials speaking to the Associated Press and senior Iranian officials cited by the New York Times, the potential deal includes several key components: an official declaration of the war’s end, two-month negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran, an end to the US naval blockade of Iranian ports, the release of US$25 billion in frozen Iranian assets overseas, a plan to compensate Iran for war damages, and a permanent end to fighting before any nuclear deal.
Domestic US Reactions
The emerging deal has exposed deep divisions within the US political establishment. Former CIA Director and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo denounced the agreement as too close to the 2015 JCPOA, calling it a “pay the IRGC to build a WMD program” approach. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung responded aggressively, stating Pompeo “has no idea what the fuck he’s talking about” and should “shut his stupid mouth.”
Former Obama officials offered more measured reactions. Ben Rhodes noted that “nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury except putting the IRGC in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz,” while Robert Malley said that if the deal ends “an unlawful, unjustifiable war” and its “cascading global economic fallout,” he would accept it over the alternative.
The Core Disagreement
The fundamental dispute centers on who controls the Strait of Hormuz after any agreement. Trump’s framing suggests a return to the pre-war status quo of free passage, while Iran insists on retaining sovereign control over the waterway — a position it has held since the war began. This represents a fundamental shift in the regional balance of power that Iran achieved through the conflict.
Iran’s response through Fars News suggests that the hardline security establishment is not fully aligned with the diplomatic track. The insistence on retaining monopoly control over the strait indicates that Iran views its newfound leverage over global energy trade as a permanent strategic asset, not a temporary bargaining chip.
What to Watch For
Several critical questions remain unanswered. Will a final deal be reached given the gap between Trump’s optimistic framing and Iran’s insistence on control? What is Israel’s position — Netanyahu’s call with Trump was described as “very well,” but Israel’s red lines on Iran’s nuclear program remain unclear. Can the IRGC be brought fully on board with any agreement? And perhaps most critically, the proposed 60-day negotiation window for nuclear issues is extremely ambitious given the complexity of Iran’s program.
As Pakistan prepares to potentially host the next round of talks, the world watches to see whether the diplomatic track can bridge the gap between Washington’s desire for a return to free passage and Tehran’s determination to retain the strategic leverage it has seized through three months of conflict.