US and Iran agree ceasefire framework – but Trump will decide | US | News
The Express understands that the US and Iran have agreed in principle to extend the ceasefire and start formal talks on Tehran’s nuclear programme, a US official told UK media.
But the proposed framework would still require final approval from Donald Trump, and that process could take several days, officials say.
If signed, the agreement would include the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and an obligation for Iran to clear mines from the main shipping route within 30 days.
This would also include a limited easing of US sanctions that would allow Iran to continue oil exports in exchange for a written commitment from Tehran that it would not continue developing nuclear weapons.
What progress was made in the talks?
US Vice President JD Vance said negotiators were making “good progress” but confirmed the agreement was not yet ready for presidential approval.
“We’ve been going back and forth on a few language issues. We’ve made a lot of progress here,” he told reporters.
“Hopefully we continue to make progress and the president will be in a position to approve the agreement, but obviously that’s still unknown (to be determined).”
While Washington signaled optimism, Iran’s messages remained more cautious.
Tasnim news agency reported that Tehran has not yet officially confirmed that any text has been finalized through its Pakistani mediator.
An Iranian source said, “Iran has not yet informed the Pakistani mediator about the final version of the text. If the text really becomes final, Iran will explain the issue to the Pakistani mediator and the public.”
What will the framework include?
According to the Telegraph, under the emerging structure, decisions regarding Iran’s highly enriched uranium stock will be postponed until later negotiations.
The US will also discuss the possibility of sanctions relief, as well as the release of around $24bn (£18bn) of frozen Iranian assets.
Iranian lawmaker Fedahossein Maleki said negotiations have progressed significantly, but unresolved issues remain.
“The negotiation process was accompanied by significant progress. A significant part of the proposals of the Islamic Republic of Iran were accepted,” he said.
“Quantitatively, very good progress has been made, and qualitatively there has been some progress, but Iran still has some issues that the American side needs to address.”
What happened next to the diplomatic breakthrough?
The diplomatic move came just hours after tensions rose sharply between the two sides.
The United States accused Iran of “grave ceasefire violations” after a ballistic missile was fired at American forces in Kuwait.
US Central Command (Centcom) said that Iranian forces launched five unmanned aerial vehicles towards the Strait of Hormuz, all of them were stopped, and the sixth one was prevented from being launched from Bandar Abbas.
Iranian state broadcaster IRIB responded by warning that US military bases in the region did not ensure security.
“Contrary to what some Arab countries believe, the presence of US military bases does not bring security to your country, on the contrary, it creates insecurity for you,” the statement said.
His remarks echoed comments by Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of Iran’s supreme leader, who warned earlier this week that there would be no “safe haven” for US forces in the Middle East.
“This egregious ceasefire violation by the Iranian regime occurred hours after Iranian forces launched five unidirectional attack drones,” Centcom said.
Iran also accused the United States of violating the ceasefire and warned that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps would give a “harsh response.”
Following the rise, oil prices rose to $93 per barrel.
Is Iran divided internally?
Separate comments by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei pointed to internal discord within the Iranian leadership.
He called for national unity, recognizing that the divisions were the result of external pressures.
Khamenei described these as an “enemy strategy” to weaken Iran, without addressing specific policy disagreements.
