US President Donald Trump has declared that the confrontation with Iran has come to an end, claiming that Washington has secured a commitment from Tehran not to pursue nuclear weapons. His remarks came only hours after he announced plans to launch severe strikes against Iran on Thursday night before later cancelling them.
Trump argued that the anticipated agreement achieves the primary objective long pursued by the United States: preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. He described this provision as the central pillar of the understanding between the two sides.
Meanwhile, Axios revealed details of a memorandum of understanding that Trump claimed would be signed “soon”. Four US military transport aircraft reportedly travelled to Europe on Thursday carrying equipment believed to be linked to a possible signing ceremony in Geneva attended by Vice President JD Vance in the coming days.
A diplomat familiar with the final draft of the memorandum told Axios that “the United States and Iran have agreed on the text of the deal”, while noting that the agreement still requires final approval from both governments.
Two informed sources stated that the agreement had received approval from the Iranian leadership as of Thursday evening, though the final decision is believed to require authorisation from Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei. Trump has said he expects a signing ceremony to take place over the weekend.
What Are the Terms of the Agreement?
According to Axios, the United States and Iran have reached a memorandum of understanding that includes the immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz without transit fees and the restoration of pre-war shipping levels within 30 days. In return, Washington would gradually ease sanctions on Tehran.
Axios had previously reported, citing US officials, that once the strait is reopened Iran would receive temporary sanctions waivers lasting 60 days, allowing it to resume oil exports.
The outlet also reported, citing mediators and a US official, that the memorandum provides for a 60-day extension of the ceasefire, including in Lebanon. During this period, negotiations would take place regarding Iran’s nuclear programme.
The agreement also addresses Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium. However, according to informed sources, no practical measures relating to the nuclear programme would be implemented until a second, more detailed agreement is reached.
A US official confirmed that Trump had approved consideration of an option under which Iran would reduce its stockpile of highly enriched uranium domestically, provided the process remains under the supervision of United Nations inspectors.
The agreement further provides for sanctions relief contingent on what sources described as “good faith” conduct by Iran during subsequent negotiations. According to the diplomat, sanctions relief would not follow a fixed timetable but would instead depend on Tehran’s implementation of its commitments under the agreement.
Regarding Iranian funds frozen abroad, the Axios report stated that it remains unclear whether the memorandum contains specific provisions concerning the fate of billions of dollars held outside the country.
Iran, for its part, insists that it must gain access to a portion of those funds immediately upon signing any preliminary agreement. The United States, however, is pushing for the funds to be released in stages linked to Iran’s compliance with the agreement.
Axios reported that, if formally signed, the deal would be known as the “Islamabad Agreement”, reflecting the joint mediation efforts of Qatar and Pakistan.
A diplomat from one of the mediating countries said: “We are working with the relevant parties to finalise the agreement.”
Iran and the Negotiation Process
Earlier, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei dismissed reports suggesting that Tehran and Washington had already reached a final agreement, describing such claims as “speculation”.
Speaking to Iran’s official IRNA news agency, Baghaei said that Qatar and Pakistan continue to play a mediating role in the negotiations. However, he stressed that what he described as US actions and statements have negatively affected the diplomatic process.
He added that the negotiating track had been clear from the outset and that a substantial portion of the draft text had already been completed. Nevertheless, he argued that the United States repeatedly altered its positions during the negotiations, hindering efforts to reach a stable and final formula.
