Trump says US-Iran deal may be signed Sunday as Tehran casts doubt on timing
President Donald Trump said a deal to end fighting between the US and Iran is scheduled to be signed on Sunday, while Iran's foreign ministry cast doubt on that timetable. In a post on social media, Trump said the Strait of Hormuz would be "open to all" once the agreement is signed, describing the shipping route as a key part of the emerging deal. Pakistan, which has been involved as a mediator, said finalisation could come within 24 hours and that preparations were under way for an electronic signing.
Sponsored
Before Trump's latest comments, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said people should wait for the exact date of the memorandum of understanding, adding that it would not be signed on Saturday. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said earlier that the sides were "closer to a peace deal than ever before", and said technical-level talks were expected next week after the signing. Iran's foreign minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, had already said on Friday that a deal with the US was close, and said it envisaged an end to the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The reported agreement matters because it links the fate of the Strait of Hormuz to wider regional diplomacy and to Iran's nuclear issue. Trump also referred to Iran's enriched uranium stockpiles, saying they would be dealt with when "all is calm", and warned of an "ultimate alternative" if things did not work out smoothly. US officials have confirmed some details of the arrangement, saying any economic benefits for Iran would depend on Tehran meeting its obligations, but the exact terms remain unclear.
The talks are unfolding against a long-running dispute over Iran's nuclear programme, which Western countries have accused of being aimed at building a weapon. Iran has denied that accusation and says its programme is for peaceful purposes, including electricity generation and research. The current negotiations also appear to go beyond the 2015 nuclear framework, with the reported deal involving the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the lifting of a US blockade on Iranian ports, while nuclear talks would begin later.
Sponsored
What remains unresolved is whether the signing will happen on the timetable Trump described, and whether Tehran will publicly confirm the same sequence of events. It is also not clear how the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened in practice, or how the uranium question would be handled in technical terms. The next developments to watch are any formal statements from Washington, Tehran or Islamabad, and whether the reported electronic signing leads to the start of the promised technical talks.
Donald Trump said on Saturday that an agreement with Iran was scheduled to be signed on Sunday, saying the Strait of Hormuz would be open to all immediately afterwards. He also said the United States would eventually destroy Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium, setting out one of his clearest public descriptions yet of how Washington might handle the material. The comments were made in a lengthy post on Truth Social and came as Iran signalled caution over the timing of any memorandum.
Trump described the emerging arrangement as the "exact opposite" of the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated under Barack Obama, which he said had created a path to a nuclear weapon. He said the new agreement would prevent Iran from ever acquiring such a weapon, whether through purchase, development or any other form of procurement. The White House did not immediately release further details of the proposed deal, and Trump did not explain how the uranium operation would be carried out or who would oversee it.
The issue matters because the Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most sensitive shipping routes, and any change in access would have immediate implications for maritime traffic and energy flows. The row also goes to the centre of the nuclear dispute, since enriched uranium can be used in civilian nuclear power but, at higher levels, is relevant to weapons development. Trump said the material would be "downblend and destroy[ed]", whether in Iran or the United States, and referred to using B-2 bombers and their pilots in the process.
Sponsored
The latest comments build on a long-running dispute over Iran's nuclear programme and the terms of any limits on enrichment. Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran was allowed to keep only a small amount of monitored, low-enriched uranium and had to reduce its stockpile sharply, while sanctions relief was offered in return. Trump has repeatedly argued since the war began on 28 February that Iran should surrender its stockpiles, including in remarks on 29 March and again in an NBC interview on 7 June, where he said the material would be taken out and destroyed.
Iran's position remains a major obstacle. The supporting material says Iranian officials have described "zero enrichment" as a red line and a violation of their rights, which suggests any agreement would need to bridge a wide gap between the two sides. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said the chances of finalising the memorandum were improving, but also indicated it was unlikely to be signed on Sunday.
That leaves the talks closer than at any point in recent months, but still unresolved. The uranium question is also significant because of reports in recent days that sites believed to contain near-bomb-grade material had been further fortified, including by collapsing tunnels and laying explosive mines around entrances. Those reports underline the technical difficulty of any removal or destruction plan, especially if the stockpile is buried deep underground.
Trump's statement did not address those details, but it suggested Washington sees the material itself as a central test of any deal. What remains unclear is whether the agreement can actually be signed on the timetable Trump described, and whether the final text will match his public claims. It is also not yet clear how the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened in practice, or what legal and operational steps would follow any change in the shipping blockade.
The next developments to watch are whether Tehran and Washington confirm the outline of a deal, and whether the uranium terms are accepted in a form both sides can live with.
The US says a deal to end the war with Iran could be signed in the next few days, according to a senior Trump administration official. The proposed agreement would reportedly reopen the Strait of Hormuz in return for the US lifting its blockade on Iranian shipping. Officials say the arrangement would also require the destruction or removal of Iran's enriched uranium stockpiles, although the technical details are still being worked out.
The comments point to a fast-moving phase in negotiations over one of the most sensitive issues in the dispute: Iran's nuclear material. The official said the deal could be judged against the 2015 nuclear agreement negotiated by the Obama administration and other nations, which Donald Trump abandoned during his first term. Iran has previously said "zero enrichment" is a red line and a violation of its rights, while the US position described in the row is that enriched uranium stockpiles must be removed or destroyed.
The stakes are significant because the Strait of Hormuz is a critical shipping route, and any reopening would have immediate implications for maritime traffic. The row says the US blockade on Iranian shipping is part of the current pressure campaign, and that lifting it is being discussed as part of a wider settlement. The issue is also central to nuclear non-proliferation concerns, because enriched uranium can be used in nuclear power but also, at higher levels, in weapons development.
The current talks are being framed against the legacy of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the 2015 deal that imposed strict limits on Iran's enrichment activities. Under that agreement, Iran was allowed to keep only a small amount of monitored, low-enriched uranium and had to reduce its stockpile by 98% to 300kg. The Obama administration said the arrangement would prevent Iran from building a secret nuclear programme through extraordinary monitoring, verification and inspection measures, while sanctions on oil, trade and banking were lifted in exchange.
The latest US position described in the row is more demanding on the uranium question than the 2015 framework, because it calls for destruction or removal of the stockpiles rather than simply limiting them. Trump has repeatedly said since the war began on 28 February that Iran needs to surrender its stockpiles, including in remarks on 29 March and again in an NBC interview on 7 June. In that interview, he said the material would be taken out and destroyed, either on site or off site.
For Iran, the issue is not only technical but political, because enrichment has long been presented by Tehran as a sovereign right. The row says Iranian officials have described zero enrichment as a red line, which suggests any agreement will need to bridge a major gap in negotiating positions. That makes the uranium question central not just to the nuclear file, but to the wider question of whether the two sides can reach a broader settlement after months of confrontation.
What remains unclear is whether the reported deal can be finalised in the timeframe suggested by the US official, and whether the technical terms on uranium can be agreed. It is also not yet clear how the proposed reopening of the Strait of Hormuz would be implemented in practice, or what exact steps would follow any lifting of the blockade on Iranian shipping. The next key point to watch is whether both sides publicly confirm the outline of an agreement and whether the final text resembles the 2015 deal or marks a more sweeping shift.
Sponsored
