US-Iran talks edge toward war-ending framework as Trump weighs deal or strikes
Negotiators working to end the 84-day conflict involving the United States and Iran signaled that a 60-day ceasefire extension and a broader framework may be close, even as President Donald Trump said the choice between an agreement and military action was “50-50” and US officials warned that alternatives remain on the table if diplomacy fails. The emerging outline includes provisions tied to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy chokepoint, though Iranian officials have cautioned that a final breakthrough is not imminent and that nuclear issues are not yet part of the initial framework.
Background and context: from battlefield to Qatar-mediated diplomacy
Multiple outlets reported a push by mediators—described in Italian wire coverage and Middle East regional reporting as involving Qatar and Pakistan—to consolidate a temporary halt in fighting into a longer pause. ANSA cited mediators pointing toward a 60-day ceasefire, while Middle East Eye reported that mediators believed the sides were close to extending the ceasefire and that revised proposals had been relayed via intermediaries, citing reporting attributed to Reuters and the Financial Times.
At the same time, public messaging has remained cautious. Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei spoke of “a trend towards rapprochement” but stressed that it “does not necessarily mean” an agreement will be reached, according to The Hindu. ANSA similarly quoted Iran saying that differences had narrowed (“divergenze ridotte”) but that no agreement had yet been reached.
Key developments: “largely negotiated,” but not final
Trump said the agreement was “largely negotiated” and awaiting finalisation, according to Al Jazeera, Fox News, The Japan Times, and BBC News. Several reports linked the framework to a step to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which has been disrupted during the war.
Yet Trump also injected uncertainty. Axios reporting cited by Middle East Eye said Trump described himself as “50-50” on an Iran deal. ANSA, also citing Axios, reported him framing the choice as “Accordo o attacco fifty-fifty,” adding that a decision could come quickly.
On the US side, Secretary of State Marco Rubio repeatedly suggested a deal could arrive soon—ANSA and Le Monde reported Rubio saying an announcement could come as early as Sunday, while cautioning, per ANSA, that Trump “non concluderà un cattivo accordo” (“will not conclude a bad deal”). Ukrinform summarized Rubio’s line more starkly: the US would reach a favorable deal or address Iran “another way.”
Diverging narratives: what’s in the deal — and what’s not
A central contrast across sources concerns scope. The Times of Israel reported the sides were closing in on steps tied to Hormuz and broader talks, while adding Iran said the nuclear issue was not yet on the table. ANSA and The Times of Israel later echoed Tehran’s message that an agreement was not imminent, and that nuclear discussions would come only after sanctions relief.
Trump, however, publicly raised a tougher nuclear condition. Middle East Eye reported him saying Iran’s uranium must be “handed over or destroyed” as part of a deal; RT likewise highlighted Trump saying the enriched uranium stockpile would be “destroyed,” with international witnesses referenced in The Times of Israel coverage.
Implications and reactions: political pressure and market signals
The diplomacy has drawn political scrutiny. The Guardian and Middle East Eye described criticism from Republican hawks, with Middle East Eye characterizing the emerging framework as a “nightmare for Israel” in US domestic debate and reporting that Israel had warned the deal was “not good,” citing a report.
Markets also responded: Middle East Eye reported Brent crude falling below $100 as traders weighed the likelihood of progress and potential reopening of Hormuz.
Conclusion: framework emerging, final approvals pending
By May 25, ANSA said media accounts described the framework as defined, but still awaiting the final approval of both Trump and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The talks remain fluid: Washington signals optimism but keeps military options visible, while Tehran emphasizes narrowed gaps yet downplays any immediate breakthrough—leaving the region, and global energy markets, watching for whether diplomacy can convert a fragile pause into a longer-term settlement.