By Nana Karikari, Senior Global Affairs Correspondent
United States President Donald Trump announced Saturday that a peace agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran has been “largely negotiated,” signaling a potential end to a devastating, months-long Middle East war that has killed thousands, choked global energy markets, and triggered the worst global energy crisis in decades.
The potential breakthrough follows a tense, nearly two-month ceasefire. In a Saturday afternoon post on Truth Social, the president wrote that “final aspects and details of the Deal are currently being discussed, and will be announced shortly.” He noted that negotiations remain “subject to finalization between the United States of America, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the various other Countries, as listed.”
Trump added that he held a “very good call” to review the agreement with leaders from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates. He also noted a separate phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that “went very well.” Two regional diplomats confirmed that Vice President JD Vance and U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff participated in the multi-nation call, describing the discussions as positive with good progress being made. Any formal announcement from the Trump administration may face delays, however, after gunshots were heard very near the White House, prompting an immediate security lockdown.
Despite the optimism, deep skepticism and conflicting narratives from Washington and Tehran highlight the immense fragility of the diplomatic effort. On a visit to India on Sunday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio urged caution, telling reporters that negotiators had achieved “significant progress, although not final progress.” Rubio stated that recent talks provided an outline that could lead to the reopening of the vital maritime corridor. However, he emphasized that the deal will “require full Iranian acceptance, and then compliance, and it will require some future work on negotiating the details.”
The Battle Over the Strait of Hormuz
The primary economic objective of the preliminary framework is the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. The strategic channel is a critical oil chokepoint through which one-fifth of daily global crude production and approximately 20% of global liquefied natural gas trade pass. The waterway has been effectively closed since February 28, following joint U.S.-Israeli airstrikes on Iran. The subsequent U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports saw more than 100 commercial ships redirected by U.S. Central Command forces. The closure choked off 10 million to 12 million barrels of crude per day from global markets, driving U.S. inflation to its highest level in years and raising expectations of federal interest rate hikes. Iranian state media reported Sunday that a deal could see the lifting of oil sanctions and a U.S. blockade of its ports, with a return to “pre-war levels” of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days.
A profound rift remains over who will control the strategic waterway. In his public statement, Trump declared: “In addition to many other elements of the Agreement, the Strait of Hormuz will be opened.”
Iranian state media outlets moved rapidly to dispute the American characterization of the maritime arrangement. Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency reported that “Trump’s claim about the Strait of Hormuz returning to its previous status is not true.” Citing the latest exchanged text, the agency reported that the channel would remain firmly under Iranian jurisdiction. “Based on the latest exchanged draft text, if a potential agreement is reached, the Strait of Hormuz will still remain under Iran’s management,” Fars stated. “Although Iran has agreed to allow the number of passing ships to return to pre-war levels, this in no way means a return to ‘free passage’ under pre-war conditions.”
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei reinforced this stance, stating that any maritime mechanism must be settled exclusively among regional neighbors. Baghaei told state media that any arrangement regarding the channel should be agreed between “Iran, Oman and the countries bordering the waterway,” asserting that the United States “has nothing to do” with it.
Conversely, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer welcomed the diplomatic progress but insisted on strict international maritime standards, stating that any final accord must guarantee “unrestricted freedom of navigation” through the channel.
The Nuclear Sticking Point
The status of Iran’s nuclear program represents another major point of contention. According to a person familiar with the matter, the preliminary framework includes commitments by Iran to not pursue a nuclear weapon, a pause on new enrichment, and an agreement to enter negotiations regarding its highly enriched uranium stockpile. A senior Iranian source told US media that the pact would unfold in two distinct phases, with the complex nuclear issue deferred to a secondary 30-to-60-day negotiation period. Initial steps would require that part of the Iranian assets frozen overseas must be released in the first step of any agreement.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian sought to reassure the international community on Sunday. “We are ready to assure the world,” Pezeshkian said, according to state media, “that we are not seeking nuclear weapons.” He added: “We are not seeking unrest in the region,” while firmly declaring that “under no circumstances will we or the negotiating team compromise on the country’s dignity and pride.”
Tehran maintains that it has not made immediate concessions on its current stockpile. Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency reported Sunday that the Islamic Republic “has not agreed to any new measures related to its nuclear program as part of talks to end the war.” Reuters also quoted a senior Iranian source who affirmed that Tehran has not agreed to surrender its highly enriched uranium. Trump has previously demanded Iran dismantle the Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan nuclear sites, which the U.S. bombed after joining Israel’s war against Iran last June.
An Israeli official told reporters that Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly conditioned his support on absolute disarmament during his Saturday evening call with Trump. According to the official, Trump promised he would “stand firm in negotiations on his consistent demand for the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program and the removal of all enriched uranium from its territory,” assuring Netanyahu that he would not sign a final pact “without these conditions being met.” The official added that Trump supports Israel’s desire to “maintain freedom of action against threats on all fronts, including Lebanon.”
Domestic Backlash and Shifting Rhetoric
The potential deal faces immediate, intense domestic opposition from key congressional Republicans who argue it concedes too much to Tehran. Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, strongly criticized the diplomacy on X. “The rumored 60-day ceasefire — with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith — would be a disaster. Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!” Wicker wrote.
Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, expressed similar concerns, stating on X that he was “deeply concerned about what we are hearing,” and calling the survival of an emboldened Iranian regime a “disastrous mistake.” Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also questioned the agreement, warning it could cause a “major shift of the balance of power in the region.” Graham added: “It makes one wonder why the war started to begin with if these perceptions are accurate.”
In India, Secretary Rubio dismissed congressional criticism, calling it “absurd” to suggest that the administration would accept an insufficient agreement. “The idea that somehow this president, given everything he’s already proven he’s willing to do, is going to somehow agree to a deal that ultimately winds up putting Iran in a stronger position when it comes to nuclear ambitions is absurd,” Rubio said. He added that the president’s commitment to stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon “shouldn’t be questioned by anybody.”
The diplomatic breakthrough follows a week of highly volatile, shifting rhetoric from the Oval Office, characterized by alternating military threats and peaceful overtures.
On Sunday, May 17, Trump issued a sharp ultimatum via social media, declaring that “the clock is ticking” and warning Iranian leaders that they “better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them.” By Monday, the president reversed course, announcing he would “hold off” on a scheduled military strike out of respect for the leaders of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, who expressed optimism regarding a diplomatic solution.
By Tuesday, Trump defended the necessity of the military campaign regardless of its popularity, stating: “I have to do it, because I’m not going to let the world be blown up on my watch.” On Wednesday, he warned that the situation remained “right on the borderline, believe me. If we don’t get the right answers, it goes very quickly. We’re all ready to go,” even as he simultaneously noted that talks had entered a “final phase.”
By Thursday, Trump doubled down on his demands for Iran’s enriched material, telling reporters: “No, no, we get the highly enriched, we will get it.” The heightened tension culminated on Friday when Trump announced he would skip his son’s wedding to remain in Washington due to “circumstances pertaining to the Government, and my love for the United States of America.”
Even while teetering on the edge of an agreement, Trump resumed his aggressive stance during a Saturday phone call with Axios. Assessing the likelihood of a successful diplomatic outcome, Trump rated the prospects as a “50/50” chance of making a “good” deal or “blow[ing] them to kingdom come.”
Regional Stakes and the Shadow of History
The conflict, which began in late February with joint U.S.-Israeli strikes, has exacted a devastating human and financial toll. According to Pentagon estimates provided to lawmakers last month, the war has cost U.S. taxpayers over $25 billion and resulted in the deaths of 13 U.S. service members. Thousands of people have been killed across the Middle East, including more than 3,000 casualties inside Iran. Earlier in the conflict,Trump underscored the existential scale of the theater, stating in April that “a whole civilization will die tonight.”
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen praised the diplomatic progress but called on Tehran to end its “destabilising actions in the region, directly or through proxies, as well as its unjustified and repeated attacks on its neighbours.” Following the high-level diplomatic calls, regional leaders expressed varied levels of commitment. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif congratulated Trump on holding “a very useful and productive” call with regional leaders, adding in a post on X: “The discussions provided a useful opportunity to exchange views on the current regional situation and how to move the ongoing peace efforts forward to bring lasting peace in the region.” Simultaneously, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s office said his country “stands ready to provide every kind of support during the implementation phase of a potential agreement with Iran”.
Any final agreement faces rigorous constitutional hurdles within Iran. President Pezeshkian emphasized that no binding decision will be executed without the explicit authorization of Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, or outside the formal framework of the Supreme National Security Council. Meanwhile, the Iranian military remains defiant. Iran’s top negotiator expressed deep distrust of the U.S. to regional counterparts, noting that Iran would not compromise its “legitimate rights.” Iran’s Parliament Speaker and key negotiator, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, stated that Iran’s armed forces have successfully rebuilt the capabilities damaged since the start of the conflict.
The climax of these intense negotiations coincides with a highly symbolic national milestone for Iran: the anniversary of the 1982 liberation of Khorramshahr during the Iran-Iraq War. Iranian leaders used the historic anniversary to project national strength and resilience to the West.
“No tyrant has the power to stand against Iran’s devoted and faithful soldiers,” Qalibaf wrote, praising the “unmatched bravery” of Iranian forces. “These fighters taught the world that honor and dignity belong to a nation that combines faith, determination, patriotism, and courage with expertise and hard work — and such a nation will never taste the billing of defeat,” he stated.
President Pezeshkian explicitly connected the historical defense of Iranian soil to the modern maritime standoff over the Strait of Hormuz. “Khorramshahr today is Iran, the Persian Gulf, and the Strait of Hormuz,” Pezeshkian declared on X. “Resistance, self-sacrifice, and repelling aggression are rooted in the culture of this land.”
The Continental Ripple Effect
Across Africa, where fuel prices serve as a primary anchor for inflation and public stability, news of a potential diplomatic resolution is reverberating with immediate urgency. In Accra, Nairobi, and Johannesburg, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has turned global energy disruption into a localized cost-of-living crisis. While the oil price surge briefly padded the treasuries of crude exporters like Nigeria and Angola, it severely squeezed non-producing African states reliant on imported refined petroleum. The impact is visible in South Africa, where the Institute of International Finance downgraded the country’s economic growth outlook to 1.3% due to sustained energy shocks.
The consequences extend beyond the fuel pump to the agricultural foundations of the continent. United Nations data warns that disruptions to Gulf liquid natural gas severely choked regional output of ammonia and urea. This bottleneck triggered a critical fertilizer supply crisis during sub-Saharan Africa’s essential March-to-May planting season, threatening long-term food security. In response to mounting public pressure over soaring transport costs, governments across the continent have been forced into fiscal defensive maneuvers, exemplified by Zambia’s recent decision to pause fuel taxes. Additionally, the disruption has endangered approximately $28 billion in annual remittance flows from African workers based in the Persian Gulf, adding structural weight to the diplomatic stakes.
The upcoming 60-day negotiation window establishes a critical proving ground for both nations, balancing the severe economic strains of an energy-starved global market against deeply embedded security redlines. Whether this preliminary framework can survive domestic political opposition in Washington and systemic distrust in Tehran remains entirely dependent on the execution of its earliest phases. Highlighting the razor-thin margin between a historic regional realignment and a return to open hostilities, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei observed that the two nations remain simultaneously “very far from and very close to an agreement.” He concluded that while the adversarial positions “have become closer,” they have not yet yielded a final pact, but rather reached a critical junction “where a solution may be possible.”
