Today’s article on the ongoing conflict involving Iran will be updated shortly after its initial scheduled time. Please check back at 8:00 AM EDT or refresh your browser for the complete information.
With the extended holiday weekend in the US and the UK, new developments regarding the Iran deal have been relatively scarce. Notably, Trump has shifted the timelines for achieving an agreement, suggesting that a later signing could still be acceptable. Meanwhile, both official and unofficial Iranian sources are actively disputing claims regarding the supposed memorandum of understanding (MOU), particularly assertions that Iran would relent on control of the vital Strait of Hormuz or on its enriched uranium stockpile. Once again, we maintain that a deal is unlikely given these fundamental disagreements—there simply isn’t a compromise in sight.
Moreover, we’ll briefly explore why Iran should remain skeptical about proposed incentives, including the unfreezing of its assets and sanctions alleviation. Beyond general distrust, Iran insists on some of the frozen assets being released as a non-negotiable condition before signing any MOU.
A recent tweet from Trump appears to be a response to rising discontent among loyal Republicans regarding the leaked negotiations, which are still perceived as skewed in favor of the US—more on that later.
This situation is reminiscent of a historical document from the South Sea Bubble that claimed to offer “an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody knows what it is.” Unlike that parody, however, Donald Trump seems earnest in his communications.
Unfortunately, financial media is perpetuating a sense of misplaced optimism regarding the Administration’s strategy. For example, take a look at the current lead headline from Bloomberg:
Meanwhile, the Financial Times acknowledges concerns, with its lead headline highlighting Secretary of State Rubio’s acknowledgment that the negotiations may not succeed, along with the Administration’s fluctuating stance on the purported imminent deal:
Speaking in New Delhi, Rubio stated that the United States is “going to give diplomacy every chance to succeed before we explore alternatives.” He further remarked, “We’re either going to have a good agreement or we’ll have to consider a different approach.”
Optimism about a potential deal increased over the weekend when President Trump announced that the “final aspects and details” of an agreement concerning the Strait of Hormuz were “currently being discussed” and would “be announced shortly.”
However, he later cautioned US negotiators “not to rush into a deal” with Iran regarding the Strait of Hormuz, adding that “both sides must take their time to ensure it is right.”
Such remarks from Rubio underscore the likelihood that no agreement will materialize. Iran is unlikely to comply with the US’s interpretation of “reopening” the Strait of Hormuz, which entails relinquishing control and waiving fees. Instead, Iran’s focus appears to be on restoring transit levels to pre-war status. The nation is also reportedly in discussions with Oman regarding a permanent toll system, though no official Omani confirmation has emerged. It’s essential to note that Oman is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which would prevent it from jointly operating a tolling system with Iran.
Oman may also reconsider its position to avoid straining relations with neighboring Gulf States:
Gulf States Tell Ships Not to Use Iran’s Strait of Hormuz Route
Five Middle Eastern nations have formally opposed Iran’s establishment of the Persian Gulf Strait Authority to govern transit through the Strait of Hormuz.
In a letter to a global shipping regulatory body, Bahrain,…
— Tracy Shuchart (𝒞𝒽𝒾 ) (@chigrl) May 23, 2026
Experts are expressing skepticism about the ceasefire, suggesting it serves merely as a tactic to buy time for Trump. For instance:
One might question why Trump seeks more delays, particularly as analysts, including this writer, have pointed out that time is running out. In a recent must-see interview, Brandon Weichert, an Iran expert and former Congressional staff member, voiced a perspective that aligns with our earlier thoughts: the negotiations seem more of a ruse to placate financial markets during the Hajj (ending May 30) and to enable another round of military strikes afterward.
From a lightly edited machine transcript:
Weichert: It’s vital to comprehend the current situation in the Middle East; the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca is happening now and will last for about a week. Additionally, the Muslim holiday of Eid is approaching.
From my perspective, the so-called deal appears to be a joint action by the Saudi government and their partners in Pakistan to encourage the Americans to step back during this sacred period so people can visit Mecca without interruption from conflict. Trump, given his close ties to the Saudi government, may have acquiesced to their pressure to at least present an illusion of an agreement.
In my view, the deal lacks authenticity. I have maintained this stance since it was first proposed.
The American side does not seem to have secured anything substantial from the Iranians that they weren’t already willing to concede. The Iranians have not confirmed most of the deal’s details shared by Trump.
This morning, I learned that Trump was advising his team to slow-walk the agreement’s finalization because he believes he has ample time, even though the truth is he doesn’t. As we’ve discussed in previous weeks, the Western economy appears on the verge of a major downturn.
There are additional reasons to doubt the feasibility of a 30 to 60-day ceasefire or negotiation period. Why would Iran halt its toll operation before a deal is in place? The uncertain status of fees and control raises rather than mitigates uncertainty for shippers. If Iran were to normalize its operations, the risks associated with moving ships into the Gulf for new cargoes, only to potentially become embroiled in conflict again, would likely seem lower than the risks of remaining stagnant.
Official Iranian sources and various commentators have made it clear that Iran is not aligned with the terms suggested by Team Trump:
BREAKING: Iran warns the US-Iran agreement “will be completely cancelled” due to ongoing US obstruction on clauses including the release of Iran’s $100 billion in frozen assets, with the US attempting to link them to nuclear concessions Iran rejects, according to Tasnim.
The White…
— The Hormuz Letter (@HormuzLetter) May 24, 2026
It appears the US has also been acting in bad faith by walking back some promises:
Just 24 hours after positivity arose around a potential Iran-US memorandum, negative signs are already emerging.
An informed Iranian source reports visible signs of U.S. backtracking on two fundamental issues: the process for unfreezing Iranian assets and the scope of a…— Ali Hashem علي هاشم (@Alihashem) May 24, 2026
The complete text of that tweet:
Just 24 hours after optimism emerged regarding a potential Iran-US memorandum, signs of discontent are surfacing.
A reputable Iranian source indicates that the U.S. is retreating on two central issues: the procedure for releasing Iranian assets and the framework of a ceasefire in Lebanon.The memorandum reportedly includes a framework for a ceasefire in Lebanon, but Israel is uncomfortable with it and pressing Washington to add clauses allowing military operations in Lebanon under the pretext of addressing “any threat.” Iran is opposed to this formulation and demands a sustainable and enduring ceasefire.
Tehran has communicated to all mediators, including Pakistan, that they will not endorse the memorandum unless all clauses are fully agreed upon and guaranteed. Pakistan has suggested moving forward with mutually agreed points while deferring contentious issues, but Iran insists the disputed clauses are fundamental and non-negotiable.The broader picture indicates that Tehran increasingly perceives Washington as retreating from previously established understandings reached through mediation.
Yesterday, I expressed doubts regarding the US’s ability to unfreeze all of Iran’s frozen assets:
Most of these funds cannot be released without Congressional approval reversing prior legislation:
Congressional action has been instrumental in imposing and enhancing U.S. sanctions on Iran. Sanctions targeting Iran’s proliferation activities began in 1992, and in 1996, landmark legislation mandated the first secondary sanctions for foreign firms involved in Iran’s oil sector (Iran possesses the world’s third-largest proven oil reserves). Following the Iranian government’s violent response to protests over its contested 2009 presidential election, Congress authorized sanctions on responsible officials for human rights violations. As concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program grew, Congress expanded sanctions in 2010, targeting Iran’s oil exports and various economic sectors to restrict the Iranian government’s financial resources and compel policy changes. Mandating that any sanctions waiver requires presidential certification of Iran meeting specific conditions—including ceasing support for international terrorism and proliferation activities—was part of these legislative actions.
According to this source, it is likely that only the $25 billion Iran has requested from the estimated $100 billion can be unblocked without Trump issuing specific certifications, which he cannot do while Iran maintains its alliances with Hezbollah, Ansar Allah, and the Iraqi militias, nor while it continues its nuclear enrichment activities.
There remains a legal question about who could challenge an arguably improper release in court, and while a lawsuit could face scrutiny over standing, it might be substantial enough to warrant consideration rather than dismissal. Iran would undoubtedly be opposed to having its assets tied up in seemingly fruitless litigation.
In addition, another incentive proposed by the US—sanctions relief—also appears tenuous. The mechanism would entail a sanctions waiver rather than the repeal of the sanctions themselves, presenting even less legal validity than the JCPOA, which Trump previously voided.
Larry Johnson offers an extensive analysis of the backlash against Trump’s negotiating strategy, highlighting significant dissent lodged by critics within Trump’s own camp as they argue that key objectives of the war are being compromised:
The most notable backlash is stemming from Trump’s right flank, where critics have contended that the war’s goals are being abandoned:
If the outcome is an Iranian regime—still controlled by Islamists who chant, “death to America”—receiving billions of dollars, gaining the ability to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, while effectively controlling the Strait of Hormuz, that would be an enormous blunder.
Trump’s former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, also expressed severe criticism:
Paying the IRGC to establish a WMD program and threaten the world is anything but America First. It’s quite clear: Open the damned strait. Cut off Iran’s access to funds. Neutralize enough Iranian capabilities that they cannot threaten us again….
In a notable social media occurrence, even Fox News audiences began to voice their disapproval. Following Fox’s reposting of Trump’s post about the deal, viewers responded with skepticism, one commenter quipping: “‘No one knows what it is, and it isn’t fully negotiated yet,’ but trust him, it’s better than Obama’s deal. What a pitch!” Another echoed, “He should heed the critics before signing off on something foolish.” A third commented, “The critics aren’t asking what the deal is, but why there’s a deal in the first place.”
Johnson also highlights a critical point in a discussion with Nawfal, suggesting that a recent attack by a radical Baluchi independence group may have been incited by Israel to dissuade Pakistan from facilitating a negotiated agreement:
Returning to Weichert’s argument, one might ask why it would be advantageous for Trump to postpone an attack on Iran, considering that this could worsen his already precarious position by depleting limited weapon stocks and risk destabilization of the global economy through potential destruction of Gulf energy sources and desalination infrastructure. Back to the transcript:
Weichert: The entire situation seems to stem from Trump’s belief that he could enact regime change cheaply within 96 hours, with the expectation that the Iranian people would rise up following Khamenei’s death to create a democratic state. Clearly, this hasn’t occurred, and he’s left to manage a complex situation with limited options, leading him to escalate instead. I still believe we are on a trajectory toward escalation, possibly at the behest of Israeli influence.
The depletion of U.S. military resources is evident. I would assert that if another round of hostilities occurs, our capabilities will be virtually spent. Yet, that hasn’t deterred the president from making reckless decisions. The Joint Chiefs warned him on February 27th that if he moved forward with military action, it would lead to the depletion of essential systems needed for future conflicts, particularly regarding China—these systems would not be replenishable in a reasonable timeframe.
Trump did not heed this advice. While I acknowledge the crisis regarding military stockpiles, it hasn’t prevented the president’s reckless behavior.
Recent news indicates that Iran is expressing resistance:
BREAKING: Iran’s Foreign Ministry states that despite US assertions of progress, there are ongoing negotiations without assurance that President Trump will fulfill his commitments.
🔴 Follow https://t.co/hGzrK2N8WC for more pic.twitter.com/SMBJ8rupEl
— Al Jazeera Breaking News (@AJENews) May 25, 2026
BREAKING: The Iranian Foreign Ministry has now officially confirmed that no Iranian nuclear commitments or uranium transfers exist or will exist in any draft agreement with the US, labeling all contrary reports as “absolute fabrications,” rendering further talks futile given the US’s…
— The Hormuz Letter (@HormuzLetter) May 25, 2026
If Iran seeks to intensify its stance further, perhaps the Foreign Ministry could announce a halt to negotiations until the US acknowledges the realities on the ground and refrains from retracting prior commitments. Most crucially, such an announcement could occur just before U.S. markets open on Tuesday.
That’s all for now! We’ll see you tomorrow!
