Trump says U.S., Iran are ‘getting a lot closer,’ but questions remain about concessions
WASHINGTON— The United States and Iran have agreed on the basic terms of a deal that would end the two countries’ nearly three-month-long war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, President Trump said Saturday.
“A deal has been largely negotiated,” Trump wrote in a social media post. “The final aspects and details of the agreement are currently being discussed and will be announced shortly. The Strait of Hormuz will be opened, among many other elements of the agreement.”
Iranian state television quoted Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei as saying that the draft agreement would be a “framework agreement” that would postpone talks on limiting Iran’s nuclear program until later. Trump did not mention the nuclear issue in his statement.
If this is the form the deal takes, it would represent at least a short-term concession by the president, who initially demanded a definitive end to Iran’s nuclear program as the price of peace.
Trump also relaxed an earlier U.S. demand that Iran give up its right to enrich uranium and said he would be happy with an agreement to “suspend” enrichment for 20 years.
These signs of US flexibility alarmed Iran hawks, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. They say they fear Trump is so determined to restore the flow of oil from the Gulf that he might agree to a deal that falls far short of U.S. goals.
Mark Dubowitz, a leading critic of past deals with Iran, said he was concerned Trump might settle for a “stupid deal” to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
“I worry that the administration wants to undo the ‘Phase One’ agreement, which gave Iran major sanctions relief in exchange for an agreement to reopen the strait,” he said in an interview Friday. “I think this would be a stupid deal. Iran will get real money, but they can continue to close the strait whenever they want, just by threatening.”
Robert Kagan, a conservative foreign policy expert from the Brookings Institution, wrote that an agreement to reopen the strait by postponing the nuclear issue would mean the “surrender” of the United States.
“With the current course, Iran will emerge from the conflict many times stronger and more effective than before the war,” Kagan said. wrote in the Atlantic.
When the war began in February, Trump said he wanted not only to end Iran’s nuclear activities and destroy its ballistic missile program, but also to achieve regime change.
Instead, the nuclear talks focused on narrower, more achievable goals: the “suspension” of nuclear enrichment for 20 years or less and the removal or destruction of Iran’s highly enriched uranium, the key component of a nuclear weapon.
“It should not be impossible to reach a basic agreement,” said John W. Limbert, who worked on Iran policy for three decades at the State Department and was one of the American hostages kidnapped by Iranian militants in 1979. “The deal would involve some form of verifiable limitation on the nuclear program in exchange for economic relief.”
“The fact that we’re talking about an enrichment suspension and the question of whether that’s going to be five years, 20 years, or somewhere in between is important,” said Nate Swanson, an Iran expert who worked on the National Security Council under Presidents Biden and Trump. “This sounds like you actually have the basis to reach an agreement… But don’t fool yourself into thinking this will completely resolve the situation.”
Other issues, including Iran’s nuclear research and advanced ballistic missiles, were not addressed, Swanson said.
Despite signs of progress towards an agreement, differences between the two countries remain large.
Danny Citrinowicz, a former Iran analyst at Israel’s defense intelligence agency, said part of the problem is that both sides appear to believe they are winning the war.
Trump and other US officials frequently claim that the US has gained the upper hand by destroying Iran’s navy, air force and many missiles.
But Citrinowicz said the Iranians use a different scoring system.
“Iran does not measure success the way Washington often does,” he wrote in an email. “From Tehran’s perspective, standing firm despite American pressure could be seen as a win.”
“Tehran believes that times are working against Trump politically and strategically,” he added. “Iran is prepared for a protracted conflict; the United States is much less so.”
And even if a negotiated agreement is reached, the agreements currently being discussed will not resolve all conflicts between the two countries.
“A temporary agreement to gain time [is] probably where we’ll end up,” Swanson said. “Saving time isn’t a bad thing. Ending the war is not a bad thing. But this is not a comprehensive solution.”
