The United States and Iran have reached an interim agreement on Tehran's nuclear programme, opening a two-month window for negotiations. However, key issues such as verification mechanisms, enrichment limits, and long-term compliance remain unresolved and are now set for further negotiation.
Details of the Interim Deal
The peace deal signed by US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Wednesday aims to initiate a two-month period of negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme. Under the initial terms, Iran would immediately take steps to reopen the Strait of Hormuz for global oil shipments and would be permitted to sell oil without restrictions, senior US officials said on Wednesday.
Objectives and Reactions
Preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon has been cited by Trump as a key objective of the campaign alongside Israel launched in February. However, analysts quoted by Associated Press note that the interim framework leaves limited time to resolve the core dispute, unlike the earlier multilateral deal that took many months to negotiate.
The framework states that Iran will not 'procure or develop nuclear weapons' and that the two sides will seek to resolve 'the disposition' of Iran's highly enriched uranium during this timeframe, including dilution under supervision of the UN nuclear watchdog, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Trump has linked the initiative directly to preventing nuclear escalation. He said, 'If it's not permanently, we will bomb them,' referring to Iran's nuclear ambitions, and insisted that surveillance measures were already in place, saying, 'we have cameras on every inch of it.'
He also warned that any attempt to move enriched material would trigger military action, stating: 'If Iran tries to move it, the U.S. will attack and they'll be gone. And they know that.'
Skepticism and Challenges
However, the timeline has drawn scepticism in Washington and beyond. According to AP, Senator Lindsey Graham said, 'My skepticism is Iran itself. What would a good deal look like? No enrichment. And we'll see if we can get there. But whether or not we can get phase 2, I don't know.'
Experts have also questioned whether the political and technical bandwidth exists to deliver a full agreement within 60 days. David Schenker, director of the Arab Politics Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the news agency, 'this administration has proven that it has a hard time keeping its attention on these issues.'
Schenker added, 'This is the kind of thing that requires dogged attention, attention to detail and numerous technical experts involved. Trump loses his attention, moves on, and so does the administration. It's like they don't understand Iran's strategy. They didn't get it the first time, or the second.'
Comparison with Previous Deal
The 2015 nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), took more than 18 months to negotiate and involved extensive technical coordination across multiple capitals, including Vienna. That agreement collapsed after Trump withdrew the US in 2018, with subsequent negotiations failing to restore a similar framework. The earlier accord included restrictions on uranium enrichment, centrifuges and heavy water production in exchange for sanctions relief worth billions of dollars.
Congressional and Strategic Perspectives
Republican lawmakers have indicated that any final agreement would require congressional approval. AP quoted Senator Ted Cruz saying, 'would certainly anticipate that' the Senate would have a final say. However, Senator Roger Marshall suggested the compressed timeline could serve a strategic purpose, saying, 'Iran's modus operandi is to negotiate for the purpose of delaying, so they can rearm themselves. I think the president has to give them some type of a finite amount of time, or there's going to be consequences. So I think it can be done.'
Unresolved Issues
The interim draft excludes other longstanding concerns, including Iran's ballistic missile programme, its regional proxy network and domestic political issues, which have been central to US, Israeli and European concerns. Analysts say the framework represents a limited step rather than a comprehensive settlement. A senior fellow at the Middle East Institute told AP, 'A deal is better than more fighting, but the war America and Israel prosecuted against Iran has fallen short of achieving its stated objectives. This agreement is mostly about cleaning up an unnecessary mess and putting the best face on it.'
