As the ongoing situation in Iran continues to evolve, it’s crucial to understand the latest developments concerning potential agreements and the conflicting narratives surrounding them. This article examines the current discourse, highlighting different perspectives and implications for international relations.
I would gladly welcome evidence to contradict the prevailing notion that a negotiated settlement is unachievable in the Iran conflict. However, President Trump’s unexpected concession was not something predicted by myself or escalation specialist Robert Pape. Initial reports, particularly from Al Jazeera and the New York Times, presented contrasting details. Furthermore, Iran’s Fars News agency has contested assertions made in Trump’s Truth Social announcement regarding the Strait of Hormuz. Trump claimed it would be fully reopened, while Iran insists it will remain under US oversight.
Will this tentative agreement endure beyond a brief spike in Tuesday morning US markets? Remember, Trump’s previous efforts to secure a peace deal with Ukraine faltered because Ukraine maintained its autonomy and refused to comply. According to the Times of Israel, Netanyahu was excluded from the discussions, with reports indicating that Israel views the emerging arrangement as “a significant problem.”
To start, we must address the apparent disconnect between the parties regarding the meaning of this agreement, as this alone could cause it to fail. This has previously occurred, notably when Trump initially accepted Iran’s ten-point proposal for negotiations but quickly retracted his approval upon realizing its content. Later, Trump announced a ceasefire with Iran, which the latter accepted, only for it to be undermined by the US blockade—an act tantamount to war.
While you were preoccupied with the latest developments in the Iran narrative, check out Simplicius’ report on Oreshnik Shocks Ukrainian Capital: Kiev on Fire After Largest Ballistic Attack of War.
Keep in mind that we are currently navigating through a fog of misinformation. Let’s turn to Trump’s announcement:
There’s already a significant issue at hand. Trump includes nations like Türkiye, Pakistan, and Jordan as signatories of the deal, which seems inaccurate. Additionally, multiparty agreements are notoriously complex and lengthy to finalize. Moreover, Israel is clearly not part of the deal. How could this even come to fruition? Iran has firmly maintained its demands for a cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon. Yet, Trump is not even attempting to claim Israel’s participation or consent.
The US struggled to persuade Ukraine to align with its objectives. Does Trump think he can steer the politically and media-savvy Israel in the same manner? It’s worth noting that some discussions suggest Israel possesses more missile capabilities in the region than the US. Moreover, Israel may resort to extrajudicial actions, potentially assassinating critical Iranian figures.
Even the New York Times acknowledges the conflicting narratives:
Notably, Iran disputes the sole significant detail in Trump’s claim that the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened. Al Jazeera’s live updates previously included a note indicating that Fars refuted those claims; intriguingly, that update has since disappeared. Google Translate struggles to accurately convey Fars’ messages, leaving us to rely on alternative reports such as:
BREAKING: Iran directly rejects Trump’s claim that Hormuz “will be opened” as part of a “largely negotiated” agreement he just posted on Truth Social, saying Trump’s claim is “far from the truth” and that Hormuz “will remain under Iranian management” with Iran retaining exclusive…
— The Hormuz Letter (@HormuzLetter) May 23, 2026
Similarly, Larry Johnson provides insights in Peace is at Hand? Don’t Hold Your Breath (emphasis his):
The Iranians, however, have a different take: Trump’s claim about the Strait of Hormuz returning to its previous state is not true. According to Fars, contrary to Trump’s recent claim on the social network Truth Social that the Strait of Hormuz has returned to its previous condition and preparations are underway to sign an agreement, Fars reporter’s follow-ups show that this claim is also far from reality.
According to the latest exchanged text, if a possible agreement is reached, the Strait of Hormuz will still be under Iran’s management. Although Iran has agreed to allow the number of passing ships to return to the pre-war level, this does not mean “free passage” to the pre-war situation in any way. Accordingly, the management of the strait, determining the route, time, manner of passage, and issuing permits will remain exclusively under the control and discretion of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Therefore, Trump’s claim in this regard is incomplete and inconsistent with reality.
It is also worth mentioning that Trump had previously announced negotiations about Iran’s nuclear program as one of the main and inseparable conditions of any agreement. However, no commitment has been made by Iran, and the nuclear issue has not been discussed at this stage.
Iran is also dismissing claims of agreements regarding its enriched uranium. This assertion aligns with Iran’s longstanding insistence on sequencing discussions—first addressing the hot war and Strait of Hormuz, then proceeding to nuclear issues. While I cannot locate the cited article on the English version of the Tasnim site, I assume it to be credible:
BREAKING: Iran rejects the new NYT/US officials claim that Iran “agreed” to hand over its highly enriched uranium and suspend enrichment above 3.6% for 10 years as part of Trump’s announced “largely negotiated agreement,” calling these reports “completely false,” and confirms…
— The Hormuz Letter (@HormuzLetter) May 24, 2026
Additionally, there are more instances of Iran’s denial:
BREAKING: Iran has rejected reports claiming Tehran agreed to transfer its highly enriched uranium abroad or suspend enrichment above 3.6% for a decade, with sources telling Tasnim that such claims are “completely false.”
According to the report, Iranian officials insist current…
— The Iranian Letter (@TheIranianzg3z) May 24, 2026
BREAKING: Iran says potential memorandum of understanding includes end of war on all fronts, reports Tasnim news agency
🔴 LIVE updates: https://t.co/YTIFRpJQEY pic.twitter.com/wuhiyuLWM6
— Al Jazeera Breaking News (@AJENews) May 24, 2026
It’s essential to note the phrase “potential memorandum of understanding” indicates that terms are far from agreed upon.
Moreover, the current Al Jazeera live feed outlines that any “deal” may be much less advanced than suggested by Trump:
A recap of recent developments
- United States President Donald Trump has mentioned that a Memorandum of Understanding in ceasefire negotiations aimed at ending the US-Israel conflict with Iran “has been largely negotiated.”
- Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, following a call with Trump and a group of other Middle Eastern leaders, stated that discussions between Iran and the US could happen “very soon.”
- Pakistan’s army chief, Asim Munir, concluded a brief but “highly productive” visit to Iran on Saturday, during which “encouraging progress” was made.
- Iran’s focus in negotiations is on concluding the war “on all fronts including Lebanon” and refuses to engage in discussions regarding its nuclear program, according to the Foreign Ministry.
- Israel continues conducting airstrikes on southern Lebanon, having killed at least 3,123 individuals since March 2, despite ongoing ceasefire negotiations.
US hawks are expressing outrage, even regarding the more favorable terms presented by Trump. From The Hill, GOP Senators Lindsey Graham and Roger Wicker have voiced strong objections to reports of a 60-day ceasefire deal with Iran, calling it disastrous for the United States, effectively undermining the war initiated by Trump nearly three months prior. Senator Wicker, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, emphasized the folly of trusting Iran’s good faith in such a deal.
Key Senate Republicans are raising concerns about a reported peace deal being negotiated with Iran, arguing it would be a disaster for the United States that would make meaningless the war launched by President Trump nearly three months ago.
“The rumored 60-day ceasefire — with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith — would be a disaster,” Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) wrote in a post on social platform X.
He stated that the implications of the joint military campaign between the US and Israel, named “Operation Epic Fury,” would “be for naught” should the deal move forward.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a long-time ally of Trump who has advocated for military action against Iran, cautioned that a premature arrangement could significantly shift the balance of power in the Middle East in Iran’s favor.
“If a deal is struck to end the Iranian conflict because it is believed that the Strait of Hormuz cannot be protected from Iranian terrorism and Iran still possesses the capability to destroy major Gulf oil infrastructure, then Iran will be perceived as being a dominant force requiring a diplomatic solution,” Graham noted in a post on X.
He warned that such a perception could lead to a long-term crisis for Israel, questioning the rationale behind the conflict entirely.
He also expressed skepticism that future access to the Strait would be denied due to Iran’s capability to threaten global oil supplies.
This tweet garnered 3 million views on a Saturday night during a holiday weekend:
The deal being floated with Iran seems straight out of the Wendy Sherman-Robert Malley-Ben Rhodes playbook: Pay the IRGC to build a WMD program and terrorize the world.
Not remotely America First. It’s straightforward: Open the damned strait. Deny Iran access to money. Take out…
— Mike Pompeo (@mikepompeo) May 23, 2026
Shipping expert Sal Mercogliano, alongside Mario Nawfal, noted that even if an agreement materializes soon, it may take a considerable amount of time before shipping operations can return to normal, particularly if Iran retains control over the Strait of Hormuz, as they insist.
Critical points from a simplified transcript highlight the nuances of the situation:
Mercogliano: Can they get the Strait open? But the caveat there is Iranian control of it. Obviously, the creation of the Persian Gulf Strait Authority grants them oversight, which Gulf states are particularly concerned about. They do not want Iran in that position. However, numerous tankers, especially large crude carriers, are currently stationed outside the Persian Gulf, indicating a hesitance to navigate through. If the US agrees to this, it would be shocking, as it would effectively provide Iran with de facto oversight over the Strait.
This gives Iran significant leverage over its neighbors, particularly Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar, especially if tolls are extracted. The prevailing fear is that, should this agreement be ratified, the shipping volume may never return to its pre-February levels.
There hasn’t been a significant reallocation of oil tankers. They remain largely stagnant while awaiting an opening. This uncertainty suggests that despite some vessels making attempts to approach the Strait, they often have to turn back. Everyone seeks reliability; they need to know their ships can travel without incident. The US won’t lift the blockade until they are assured the Strait is fully operational.
Nawfal adds: Some reports from shipping companies even suggest that even if the Strait of Hormuz does open and a deal is reached, it might only operate at about 40% capacity by the end of the year.
While it’s tempting to indulge in cynicism, one cannot overlook the potential for substantial profits from market rallies and oil price declines when trading resumes, which could also uplift bonds reacting to market volatility.
Larry Johnson pointed out that the Hajj begins on May 25 this year, and any US or Israeli attacks on Iran during this period could invoke widespread outrage across the Muslim world. The Hajj concludes on May 30, and with Iran already rejecting what might be considered prematurely announced terms, Trump could exploit this to vilify Iran further and possibly institute new attacks once the deal serves its purpose of stabilizing the market.
It would be preferable if my analysis were incorrect. Nevertheless, allies of Israel and proponents of war in the US are already characterizing the rumored terms as an unacceptable capitulation by the US, while Iran continues to dismiss these terms for being overly favorable to the US on critical issues like the Strait of Hormuz and its enriched uranium status.
This prospective “deal” appears increasingly precarious. I’m not alone in this assessment:
Iran shut down their airspace and Trump backed down from the assault. For now. But I just don’t see how the Iran war won’t restart.
If I’m reading the tea leaves correctly, war is inevitable. pic.twitter.com/NbTUAh2oSM
— Syrian Girl (@Partisangirl) May 23, 2026
Should Trump indeed capitulate to Iran, it remains uncertain whether he could survive such a political landscape. According to Larry Wilkerson, who has expressed significant concern, Trump has filled the military ranks with extremist factions. The potential for a politically crafted assassination could also indicate a significant shift in public perception, effectively portraying Trump as a moderate leader.
Ultimately, the US cannot indefinitely sustain a hot war due to resource limitations. Still, sources suggest Trump might desire a final, face-saving strike against Iran rather than a lasting solution. Iran will resist any attempts at containment and aims for a definitive conclusion to this conflict, making it increasingly unlikely to devise a deal that would allow for anything less than a clear US concession.
____
1 A recent incident at a White House checkpoint highlights the escalating tensions, although its proximity to the deal announcement may be coincidental.
