Hopes for a lasting agreement between the United States and Iran dimmed significantly over the weekend, with Wednesday's ceasefire deadline now just days away. Mediators are actively seeking an extension, acknowledging substantial gaps remain on critical issues like Iran's enriched uranium stockpile and maritime access through the Strait of Hormuz, Middle East Eye reported. A collapse in these delicate negotiations could trigger a brutal new phase of conflict, a Turkish security official warned.
Pakistani mediators are pushing hard for an extension to the two-week ceasefire, which is set to expire on Wednesday. This push underscores a stark reality: despite days of intensive discussions, key issues remain unresolved. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan publicly supported the call for more time on Sunday, signaling the complexity of the current diplomatic landscape.
Initial progress had been reported on several fronts. Discussions included the transfer of Iran's highly enriched uranium to Pakistan, a multi-year suspension of future enrichment, and new arrangements for shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Proposals also touched on the partial disarmament of Tehran's allied armed groups in Iraq and Lebanon, alongside the immediate lifting of economic sanctions and the return of Iran's frozen assets, Middle East Eye noted.
However, the mood among diplomats shifted abruptly over the weekend. A senior Turkish official, speaking to Middle East Eye, described the negotiations as having "several moving parts." Some elements were on track, the official stated, but the gaps in others remained "too wide to bridge." This assessment points to the significant chasm separating the two sides. One of the primary sticking points centers on the duration of Iran's uranium enrichment suspension.
Some reports indicated Iran had agreed to a five-year halt. Other sources suggested a 12-year period. The United States initially demanded a 20-year moratorium.
This discrepancy is not merely procedural; it touches the core of Iran's nuclear capabilities and its long-term ambitions. After any agreed suspension, Iran could extend the moratorium in consultation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Another critical area involves Iran's highly enriched uranium stockpile.
Middle East Eye reported that Tehran was nearing an agreement to transfer its entire inventory to Pakistan. "Pakistan suggested the uranium be sent to a third country, a principle Iran accepted," one source told Middle East Eye. Iran then proposed Pakistan as the destination, which Islamabad accepted. This move, if finalized, would represent a significant step in de-escalation, but its implementation details remain complex.
Maritime control in the Strait of Hormuz presents another flashpoint. The proposed agreement would allow Iran to reopen the vital shipping lane, but with specific conditions. Iran would impose a tariff, to be shared with Oman, on transiting vessels.
Crucially, the proposal would prohibit warships from using the strait. This move directly rebuffs earlier plans by British and French navies to escort tankers through the waterway. Iran's control of the strait would no longer be contested.
Permission would be required for each transit. Here is what they are not telling you: this proposal fundamentally alters the balance of power in one of the world's most strategic choke points. Iran seeks to codify its dominance.
This assertion of control became evident on Saturday. Iran announced it had closed the strait again, after reopening it just two days prior. Tehran cited an ongoing US naval blockade as the reason.
Iranian sources, cited by Middle East Eye, stated the closure aimed to demonstrate control over maritime traffic and respond to what they considered a violation of the ceasefire. US President Donald Trump, speaking on Sunday, accused Iran of violating the ceasefire by closing the strait. He confirmed, however, that US representatives would still travel to Islamabad for further negotiations on Monday.
Trump's rhetoric remained aggressive. In an interview with Fox News, he warned America would "blow up the whole country" if Iran did not sign a peace deal. He later posted on Truth Social, "IT’S TIME FOR THE IRAN KILLING MACHINE TO END!" The math does not add up for a quick resolution when such stark warnings are issued.
Tehran, through its Tasnim news agency, has not confirmed whether it will send a negotiating team to Pakistan. This decision hinges on the US naval blockade. Iran demands its removal.
This illustrates the transactional nature of the current diplomacy. Both sides leverage their positions. Follow the leverage, not the rhetoric.
Regarding Iran's regional influence, the draft agreement includes provisions for the partial disbandment of allied armed groups. This applies to Iraq's Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) and Lebanon's Hezbollah. The PMF, a powerful paramilitary umbrella group, is largely under Iraqi government control.
However, Middle East Eye reported that several smaller factions within the PMF are directly commanded by Iranian officers. The proposal would require these specific groups to withdraw from areas near Iraq's borders, particularly with Kuwait and Jordan. The number of fighters in these groups could be capped at 15,000, a stark reduction from the PMF's estimated 238,000 personnel.
This is a tough pill for Tehran to swallow. In Lebanon, the proposed agreement addresses Hezbollah's arsenal. It would include the disarmament of Hezbollah's offensive weapons.
This would occur alongside a broader political settlement with Israel, potentially ranging from a non-aggression pact to outright recognition. "Hezbollah will retain weapons for self-defence, but the main weapons used against Israel will be dismantled," an informed source told Middle East Eye. Nabih Berri, Speaker of the Lebanese parliament and leader of the Amal Movement, a political ally of Hezbollah, reportedly conveyed to American officials that Hezbollah must retain arms for self-defense. This highlights a fundamental disagreement.
Iranian sources flatly denied influencing either the PMF or Hezbollah, insisting Hezbollah's decisions are its own. Other senior sources, cited by Middle East Eye, argued the proposed framework would never work in Lebanon. One source vividly described the unlikelihood of Hezbollah's disarmament: "Do you think that two million people, one third the population of Lebanon, would take off their clothes and go naked in the streets?" This source further stated, "Hezbollah is not a product of Iran.
It was the result of an Israeli invasion. The Lebanese army can not protect Lebanon from Israel." This statement underscores Hezbollah's deep integration into Lebanese society and its perceived role in national defense, a narrative that complicates any external disarmament efforts. Should a deal be struck based on these proposals, its presentation would differ dramatically between the two sides.
Iran, believed to possess enough low-enriched uranium for five years, would not view a full suspension of enrichment as a major concession. This is according to sources familiar with Tehran's position, as reported by Middle East Eye. US negotiators, conversely, would likely present the halt as a breakthrough directly attributable to the US military assault.
This divergence in framing illustrates the political posturing inherent in such high-stakes diplomacy. Iran has long insisted on its right to enrich uranium, a right recognized under the 2015 nuclear deal signed during the Obama administration. However, before the US and Israel launched their war on Iran in February, Oman's foreign minister, Badr Albusaidi, indicated Tehran had agreed to dilute its existing stockpiles to "the lowest level possible" and convert them into irreversible fuel.
This historical context reveals a pattern of negotiation and concession that predates the current conflict. Uncertainty also surrounds the approval process within Iran. One informed source told Middle East Eye that Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei had agreed to the proposal.
Other sources, however, claimed Khamenei had been severely wounded in the attack that killed his father, Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, losing a leg and suffering serious facial injuries, rendering him unable to communicate. Such conflicting reports complicate any assessment of internal Iranian consensus. Furthermore, the deal explicitly excludes Iran’s ballistic missile program, a key demand from the US and its allies.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could derail any potential agreement. Multiple sources, speaking to Middle East Eye, confirmed that Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio had compelled Israel to halt its offensive in Lebanon last week. A deal allowing Iran to suspend, rather than end, uranium enrichment, retain its ballistic missiles, and keep its current regime in power falls short of Israel’s stated war aims.
Officials acknowledged Netanyahu's dissatisfaction. A broad consensus exists in Israel that the war against Iran should continue. A ceasefire without a definitive victory harms Netanyahu’s popularity in an election year.
Doubts persist over whether Mossad would abandon its longstanding efforts to pursue regime change in Iran. Three Gulf states — the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Bahrain — also view the proposed deal with apprehension. These nations sustained extensive damage to their oil and gas infrastructure and cities during the conflict.
While they initially lobbied against an attack on Iran, by the end of the conflict, they urged Trump to "finish the job." Indications suggest the UAE and Bahrain may have participated in some drone strikes, evidenced by a Chinese-made drone supplied to the UAE being shot down in Iran. They feel abandoned. This is a fragile moment.
The ongoing talks in Islamabad will be critical. The Wednesday deadline looms large. Watch for any official announcements regarding an extension, or conversely, a definitive breakdown.
The immediate consequences of a failure could include a rapid escalation of military actions in the Strait of Hormuz and renewed hostilities involving regional proxies. The world waits for the next move in this high-stakes geopolitical chess match.
Key Takeaways
— - Mediators are pushing to extend the US-Iran ceasefire beyond Wednesday's deadline due to unresolved core issues.
— - Key disagreements persist on the duration of Iran's uranium enrichment suspension and proposed new arrangements for the Strait of Hormuz.
— - Proposals include the partial disarmament of Iraqi PMF and Lebanese Hezbollah, alongside the lifting of all economic sanctions and return of frozen assets.
— - US President Trump's aggressive rhetoric and Iran's conditional participation highlight the fragility of the talks, with a risk of renewed conflict.
Source: Middle East Eye