Iran’s foreign ministry said Monday that Tehran and Washington have reached understandings on numerous issues in ongoing negotiations over a framework to end regional conflict, but cautioned that a comprehensive agreement remains far from certain. Foreign Ministry Spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei stated during a weekly briefing that while “it is correct to say that we have reached a conclusion on a large portion of the issues under discussion,” the path to signing an agreement is neither clear nor imminent. The statement underscores the fragility of diplomatic progress even as both sides publicly signal movement toward resolution.
The remarks arrive amid intensified negotiation cycles between Tehran and Washington, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggesting last week that a deal could materialise, while President Donald Trump instructed his negotiating team to avoid rushing the process. Iran has been finalising a 14-point framework focused on ending military operations across the region, including conflict in Lebanon. The backdrop to these negotiations involves months of regional tensions, proxy conflicts, and escalating military posturing that have destabilised the Middle East and drawn international concern over potential broader conflict.
Baqaei’s cautionary tone reflects underlying discord between negotiating positions. He explicitly accused Washington of “contradictions and shifting its positions,” a charge that suggests fundamental disagreements persist despite incremental progress on multiple fronts. This framing is significant: it indicates Iran views the US negotiating stance as unstable, a factor that could complicate final agreement regardless of how many individual issues have been resolved. The Iranian spokesman’s emphasis on procedural clarity—that progress on specific points does not guarantee an overall deal—may signal attempts to manage domestic expectations while maintaining negotiating leverage.
Key to Iran’s framework are provisions addressing the US naval blockade imposed on Iranian ports since April 13, as well as arrangements governing the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20 percent of global maritime trade passes. Baqaei confirmed these maritime security clauses are included in the proposed framework. Notably, the negotiations deliberately exclude detailed provisions on Iran’s nuclear programme, a historically contentious issue that Washington has prioritised in previous talks. Tehran’s insistence on separating nuclear matters from the war-ending framework represents either a strategic compartmentalisation—keeping the agreement narrower and more achievable—or a deliberate attempt to shield its atomic capabilities from immediate international scrutiny.
The exclusion of nuclear details carries significant implications for both regional and global actors. Israel, which views Iran’s nuclear advancement as an existential threat, has not publicly endorsed the framework and may view the separation of nuclear issues as inadequate safeguarding of its security interests. Gulf Cooperation Council members, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have stakes in any agreement that might affect regional military balance or their own security arrangements with Washington. Conversely, European powers and Russia have incentives in de-escalation, though their direct involvement in current negotiations remains limited.
For the Biden administration’s successor team under President Trump, the negotiations represent a complex calculation. Trump previously withdrew the United States from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) and imposed stringent sanctions, yet his current instructions to negotiators—essentially to pursue dialogue without desperation—suggest a pragmatic reassessment. The naval blockade itself, a Trump-era escalation, is now on the negotiating table, implying the current administration may be willing to reverse course on at least some previous measures as part of a broader conflict resolution.
The next critical juncture will likely occur when negotiators attempt to move from the 14-point framework to binding language. Baqaei’s statement that nuclear issues will be discussed “only after the two sides agree on the framework” suggests Iran is conditioning nuclear talks on successful resolution of the war-ending framework first. This sequencing could expedite the current round but delay resolution of the nuclear question indefinitely—a risk Washington may find unacceptable. Observers should monitor statements from both capitals over the coming weeks, particularly regarding the maritime blockade’s timeline for removal and any shifts in either side’s position on the nuclear sequencing issue. The gap between acknowledging progress and achieving a signed agreement has historically been where Iran-US negotiations stall; whether that pattern repeats will determine whether these talks yield concrete de-escalation or remain another episode in decades of fraught diplomatic engagement.
