After three months of war and seven weeks of ceasefire diplomacy, US and Iranian negotiators have produced the most detailed written framework yet for ending the conflict — a memorandum of understanding that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days, extend the ceasefire for 60 days, and begin formal nuclear talks. Here is a complete accounting of what the deal contains, what it leaves unresolved, and why it could still fall apart.
The United States and Iran have reached a preliminary memorandum of understanding to extend the ceasefire between the two countries for 60 days and start negotiations for permanently ending the war. The memorandum of understanding, which would enable further negotiations, still requires Donald Trump’s final approval.
For the first time since February 28 — the day the war began — there is a written framework on the table. It is not a peace treaty. It is not a nuclear agreement. It is a framework that would pause the most acute dimensions of the conflict for 60 days and create the space within which the harder questions might begin to be negotiated. Whether that framework becomes real depends on decisions being made in Washington and Tehran right now.
This is a complete breakdown of what is known.
What the MOU Contains
The Strait of Hormuz reopening: This is the single most commercially significant element of the deal.
The memorandum makes clear that Iran will not be able to impose tolls on the Strait of Hormuz and that Iran will have to remove all mines from the vital waterway within 30 days.
A 30-day timeline for mine removal and full commercial reopening is what global shipping companies, oil markets, and energy-importing nations have been waiting for. Oil has been above $100 per barrel since mid-March. A credible, verifiable reopening within 30 days would begin to ease that premium almost immediately, even before the first tanker clears the strait.
The ceasefire extension: US and Iranian negotiators reached a tentative agreement to extend the ceasefire in the three-month-old war by 60 days and start a new round of talks on Iran’s nuclear programme. The 60-day window provides the diplomatic space for nuclear talks to begin and for both sides to demonstrate that the agreement is holding before committing to anything more permanent.
Nuclear talks: The agreement the US and Iran are close to signing involves a 60-day ceasefire extension during which the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened, Iran would be able to freely sell oil, and negotiations would be held on curbing Iran’s nuclear programme, according to a US official.
Iran’s oil exports: The lifting of the US naval blockade — allowing Iran to freely sell oil again — is paired with the Hormuz reopening. The deal would avoid an escalation of the war and decrease the pressure on the global oil supply. However, it’s unclear whether it will lead to a lasting peace agreement that also addresses President Trump’s nuclear demands.
What the MOU Does Not Contain
The limitations of the MOU are as important as its contents.
Iran has insisted on its right to enrich uranium domestically, which is not prohibited under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. But Trump has stressed that the country’s entire nuclear programme must be dismantled.
This gap — between Iran’s position that it has a legal right to enrichment and the US demand for full dismantlement — is the central unresolved issue in the entire diplomatic process. The MOU does not bridge it. It defers it to the nuclear talks that would begin during the 60-day window.
The US is also seeking limits on Iran’s missile and drone production, but Tehran has ruled out negotiations over its defence policies.
Iran’s ballistic missile programme — which gives it the ability to strike targets across the region without air assets, most of which have been degraded in the conflict — is an absolute red line for Tehran. It is also a central concern for Israel and for US military planners. The MOU leaves this entirely unaddressed.
The Internal US Debate
Vice President Vance confirmed there was a tentative agreement, but said it was unclear whether President Donald Trump would approve it. Vance said: “There are a couple of issues on the nuclear stuff, the highly enriched stockpile, and also the question of enrichment. So we’re going back and forth with them. We do think they’re negotiating, at least so far, in good faith.” He added: “We’ll get to a point where we could potentially sit down and settle these issues, but that requires us to make a little bit more progress.”
Behind the scenes, the administration remains divided between the deal-oriented camp — Vance and envoy Steve Witkoff — and the sceptical camp, represented by Secretary of State Rubio and National Security Adviser Waltz. Both camps agree that a deal should not be signed at any price. They disagree on what constitutes an acceptable price.
Despite a recent exchange of attacks, Vance said the ceasefire remains in place but that the US reserves the right to launch defensive strikes. That reservation is not semantic. It has produced US strikes on Iranian drone sites and mine-laying boats throughout the ceasefire period — and it has prompted Iranian retaliatory actions including the ballistic missile fired at Kuwait.
Why the Deal Could Still Collapse
Three specific failure modes stand out.
Trump does not approve the current terms. The MOU is described uniformly by US officials as tentative — pending presidential approval. Trump has repeatedly said the US is “not satisfied.” If he judges the current terms insufficient — particularly on nuclear enrichment — he may reject the MOU and return to the military pressure track.
Iran’s IRGC acts unilaterally. Iran’s political system is not monolithic. The IRGC, which controls the Strait of Hormuz closure, has interests in the outcome of any peace settlement that do not automatically align with those of the Pezeshkian administration. A unilateral IRGC military action — like the Kuwait missile — could blow up the diplomatic track before a deal is finalised.
The Lebanon complication. Another issue is the raging war in Lebanon, where Israel has intensified its attacks, killing dozens over the past weeks and issuing forced displacement orders for two of the largest cities in the south of the country. Iran’s relationship with Hezbollah, and the separate but linked Lebanon conflict, creates a dimension that a US-Iran bilateral deal cannot resolve unilaterally.
What an Oil Price Drop Would Mean
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent predicted that the cost of oil would fall sharply if a peace deal is reached, providing relief for Americans who have been paying elevated gas prices since the conflict began.
The economic stakes are enormous. US inflation has hit 3.8% — a three-year high, driven primarily by energy costs. Gas above $4.42 per gallon. Global supply chains disrupted. A deal that delivers Brent crude back toward $80 within weeks of signing would be a significant economic and political win for the Trump administration — and potentially the argument that tips the balance in favour of approval.
What Happens Next
The immediate question is whether Trump approves the MOU this week. Both the US and Iranian sides have indicated that Sunday was the target date for an announcement that has not yet come as of Monday morning. The five-day pause on threatened power plant strikes has expired. The next round of talks was planned for Saturday — which has also passed.
The diplomatic process is in the most sensitive and uncertain moment it has faced since the ceasefire began. A deal is closer than it has ever been. A collapse is not impossible. And the world — which has been waiting for the Strait of Hormuz to reopen for three months — is watching.
LoudFact.com is an independent global news and explainer platform. This report is based on reporting from Axios, PBS NewsHour, CNN, Al Jazeera, and the House of Commons Library as of June 1, 2026.
