After months of U.S.-Israeli strikes aimed at curbing what Washington described as imminent threats from Tehran, parties are moving toward a short-term memorandum that many diplomats and regional analysts expect will pause fighting rather than deliver a lasting settlement.
The strikes, which began on February 28, were presented by the United States as targeting Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. U.S. leaders also urged Iranians to seize control of their country. As discussions continue, sources familiar with the talks say the emerging agreement would focus on reopening the Strait of Hormuz - the vital shipping lane for global oil flows - and providing Iran with measured financial relief through the release of frozen assets or the narrow easing of sanctions.
Under the contours described by people close to the negotiations, Tehran would lift its effective blockade of the strait and secure access to immediate funds. Iranian officials, according to those same sources, view such a narrow deal as a pragmatic way to buy time, relieve mounting domestic economic pressure and contain rising political risk at home without conceding on more contentious points.
Even if a memorandum is concluded shortly, diplomats and analysts warn it is more likely to serve as a temporary truce than a definitive resolution. Dennis Ross, a former senior U.S. diplomat, captured the outcome as heavily tactical: "There have been extraordinary tactical military successes and no fundamental strategic gains," he said. "There is no file that has been closed."
At the core of the emerging compromise are sharply limited overlaps in what Washington and Tehran are prepared to accept. The United States, mindful of domestic politics and the approach of congressional elections, seeks language enabling President Donald Trump to claim progress on Iran's nuclear programme - particularly on highly enriched uranium stocks that can be used to make a bomb. Iran, by contrast, is unlikely to abandon enrichment, and it insists on retaining the military and regional tools it sees as essential deterrence: its missile arsenal, regional proxy networks and the capacity to threaten Gulf energy routes.
"What Trump needs politically and what Iran is willing to give may look close - but the overlap is minimal," said Alan Eyre, a former U.S. diplomat and Iran expert. Eyre described the likely approach as securing a deal now while "kicking all the tough issues to a phase two" that may never materialize.
Officials and regional analysts who have followed the talks say the likely package will produce a short-term ceasefire, an ambiguously worded commitment on highly enriched uranium, and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz - though the practical control of the waterway is expected to remain effectively in Iranian hands. As one analyst put it, even if transit is allowed, "it is basically going to be under Iranian control, regardless of how any fees for passage are structured."
Washington has apparently deprioritized ensuring Iran's ballistic missiles are dismantled, a shift that has caused concern in Israel and among Gulf partners. Other obstacles in the negotiations include Iranian insistence that any deal be linked to a halt in Israeli operations against Hezbollah, and U.S. insistence on language that produces the right political optics on the nuclear issue.
Participants in the talks say President Trump has pressed Israel to limit strikes on Beirut and its southern suburbs, worried that escalation in Lebanon could upend efforts to lock in a deal related to the strait. Observers note that, despite public denials, the administration has effectively accepted a linkage between Lebanon and the strait to preserve the possibility of a ceasefire arrangement.
Financial relief is central to Tehran's calculus. Sources close to the negotiations say Iran sees the immediate release of roughly $12 billion in frozen assets as essential to moving forward. That demand poses political hazards for the U.S. administration; critics note that releasing significant funds to Tehran risks comparisons with the nuclear deal negotiated under the previous U.S. administration in 2015, an outcome President Trump has long rejected.
David Schenker of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy warned that the optics of releasing funds were difficult to avoid. "I’m not sure there’s any way around it," he said, underscoring the political trade-off facing U.S. policymakers.
The 2015 agreement, from which the United States withdrew in 2018, had linked curbs on Iran's nuclear work to sanctions relief. That history informs current bargaining positions: the U.S. seeks language it can present as a win on nuclear restraints, while Iran aims to preserve its enrichment capabilities and recover economically.
Analysts predict the interim nature of any settlement will have influential political and security consequences. The Revolutionary Guard, already a major power broker in Tehran, is likely to emerge from the conflict with its domestic standing strengthened. "Before they were the power behind the throne, and now they are the power," Schenker said.
For Israel, an interim deal is poised to be unsatisfying. Israeli leaders view the confrontation with Iran in existential terms and are unlikely to see an arrangement that leaves Iran's core deterrent capabilities intact as a resolution of the conflict. As Ross put it, "For Israel and Iran, this chapter of the war may have ended, but the conflict is not ending."
Summary: Negotiations are converging on a short-term memorandum that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and secure limited financial relief for Iran in exchange for Tehran lifting its blockade. The deal would likely blunt immediate market and energy disruptions but leave the central disputes over enrichment, missile capabilities and regional influence unresolved. Analysts caution that the Revolutionary Guard will likely be strengthened domestically, and key strategic questions will be deferred to a subsequent phase that may not occur.