President Donald Trump says the United States is on the verge of a landmark peace agreement with Iran, claiming that negotiators have “largely” finished work on a deal that could be signed as soon as this weekend at a ceremony in Europe and would formally end the war while reopening the Strait of Hormuz and freezing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Iranian officials, however, are publicly more cautious, describing the talks as advanced but warning that “no one can claim the signing of an agreement is imminent,” and leaving key questions over nuclear restrictions and enforcement unresolved.
“We just made a great settlement”: Trump’s announcement
Trump first signaled a major breakthrough in late May, telling reporters and social media followers that a peace agreement with Iran was “largely negotiated” and that only details remained before a formal announcement. On Thursday, speaking from the Oval Office and in subsequent television interviews, he sharpened that message, saying the war with Iran was “effectively over” and that he expected a signing ceremony “maybe this weekend” somewhere in Europe.
“We just made a great settlement of the war with Iran,” Trump told one interviewer, adding that the countries were “subject to finalization of documents which should get done over the next few days.” He said he envisioned a “big, very big” ceremony, possibly in a European capital, and suggested leaders from other Middle Eastern states could be present.
The president also said that planned U.S. strikes on Iran had been called off in light of progress at the negotiating table. “Less than 24 hours after threatening Iran with more strikes, Donald Trump is now claiming a peace deal is within reach,” France 24 noted in its coverage, pointing to a swift rhetorical pivot from escalation to settlement.
Asked whether Iran’s supreme leader had approved the agreement, Trump replied: “I understand the answer is yes,” asserting that Iran’s “more rational” new leadership had signed off on a no‑nuclear‑weapon pledge as part of the package.
What’s in the proposed deal: Hormuz, sanctions and nuclear limits
While neither side has published a text, U.S. and regional officials have sketched out the broad contours of what is being described as a memorandum of understanding rather than a fully fledged treaty.
According to reporting by The New York Times, BBC and CNN, the draft framework would:
Reopen the Strait of Hormuz, ending Iran’s effective blockade of one of the world’s most important oil and gas chokepoints and allowing commercial shipping to resume under international monitoring.
See the United States lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports and ease some sanctions, particularly on energy exports and banking channels tied to humanitarian trade.
Commit Iran to abandoning any pursuit of nuclear weapons, including a pledge not to produce weapons‑grade uranium and to engage in talks on disposing of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
Launch a 60‑day timeline for negotiating detailed arrangements on inspections, enrichment limits, prisoner exchanges and regional militia activity, with the possibility of converting the memorandum into a more permanent agreement.
One U.S. official told CNN the draft “allows the parties 60 days to finalize key deal points,” framing it as a framework to stop the fighting first and tackle the hardest issues next. The official said any accord would “ensure Iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon” and require the country to give up its highly enriched uranium, which Trump has repeatedly described as “nuclear dust.”
Notably, Iranian sources quoted by the Times and BBC say the initial framework does not yet include explicit caps on Iran’s overall nuclear program, focusing instead on weapons‑grade material and weapons design.
Tehran tempers expectations: “No one can claim” a deal is imminent
Iranian officials have confirmed that talks with the United States have advanced but pushed back strongly against Trump’s language about an imminent signing.
Esmail Baghaei, spokesperson for Iran’s foreign ministry, told reporters in Tehran that negotiators had “reached conclusions on a large part of the issues,” but added, “no one can claim the signing of an agreement is imminent.” He described the emerging accord as a preliminary framework that does not yet address the most contentious topics, including long‑term enrichment levels, missile programs and Iran’s relationships with regional proxy groups.
Iran’s state news agency IRNA, cited in international coverage, also pointedly noted that Trump has declared a deal “close” or “imminent” dozens of times in recent weeks, one Iranian report put the number at 38, only for deadlines to slip. “We do not perceive any compelling reason to believe that a deal is significantly closer to completion than it was a month ago,” analyst Tobin Marcus of Wolfe Research wrote in a note to investors, quoted by Yahoo Finance.
Officials in Tehran say they are weighing the offer against domestic politics and regional dynamics, with hard‑liners wary of giving too much ground on nuclear and security issues after the collapse of the original 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and what they see as U.S. violations of that deal.
Domestic and regional pressures on Trump
Trump’s push for a peace agreement comes after months of punishing mutual strikes between U.S. and Iranian forces and amid rising anxiety over shipping disruptions and oil prices tied to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. A memorandum that reopens the waterway and cools direct hostilities could offer a political win ahead of U.S. midterm elections later this year, easing pressure at the pump and allowing the president to claim he ended a war he once threatened to escalate dramatically.
At home, Trump faces pushback from hawkish Republicans who say the proposed framework risks repeating what they view as the flaws of the Obama‑era nuclear deal, by offering sanctions relief without ironclad, permanent restrictions on Iran’s program. In social‑media posts, the president has tried to reassure that “any deal I make with Iran will be a good and proper one,” adding that it will either be “great and meaningful or there will be no deal.”
In the region, allies such as Israel and Gulf monarchies are pressing for strict conditions, including verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear work, constraints on missile development and guarantees regarding support for groups in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Israel, in particular, has expressed concern that an agreement that stops short of dismantling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure could leave it closer to a “threshold” capability.
A decade after quitting JCPOA, a new kind of nuclear bargain
Trump’s claim that Iran has agreed to forgo nuclear weapons comes nearly a decade after his first administration withdrew the United States from the 2015 JCPOA, arguing that the deal was too lenient and failed to address missiles and regional behavior. In October 2025, key JCPOA provisions expired, and Iran announced it would no longer be bound by its terms, accelerating enrichment and sharply reducing cooperation with international inspectors.
The current negotiations, which resumed in February 2026 amid rising tensions, aim not at reviving JCPOA wholesale but at forging a narrower, security‑focused understanding that can de‑escalate the shooting war, reopen trade routes, and create space for more detailed nuclear talks.
Experts say that if Tehran truly commits to renouncing nuclear weapons and disposing of its highly enriched stockpile under intrusive monitoring, the memorandum could mark a meaningful, if limited, step toward non‑proliferation. But much will depend on verification mechanisms, timelines, and enforcement, all of which have scuttled previous attempts at compromise.
Between imminent and incomplete
For now, the gap between Trump’s rhetoric and Iran’s caution defines the moment.
On one side, the U.S. president is telling Americans that “the war has effectively ended,” that the supreme leader in Tehran has “signed off” on a no‑nuclear‑weapons deal, and that only paperwork stands between the two countries and a formal peace. On the other, Iranian spokesmen stress that while broad principles have been discussed, core disputes remain unresolved, and they bristle at the notion that Washington can declare an imminent agreement unilaterally.
Market analysts and diplomats alike note that Trump has repeatedly set informal deadlines — “two to three days,” “this weekend,” “very soon” — only to see them slip as negotiators grapple with technical annexes and political red lines. Whether this weekend brings a signing ceremony in Europe, another declaration that a deal is “very close,” or a new round of recriminations and threats may depend less on the broad strokes of peace than on the fine print of nuclear clauses, sanctions relief and who, exactly, gets to claim victory.