USA x Iran: Understand the challenges in signing the interim agreement

There is suddenly a newfound optimism that the Trump administration can reach a deal with Iran to extend the ceasefire and begin to move toward an end to the war - and not just in President Donald Trump's mind this time.

Even Iran's foreign minister says a deal has "never been closer."

But it is important to note that even if there are good reasons for optimism, this would not, in itself, be a peace agreement. It is the first step in a much longer process.

Getting here was probably the easiest part; What comes next will be even more difficult.

The interim agreement under discussion would essentially involve the two sides reaching an understanding on some of the simpler points - such as ending Iran's restriction on the Strait of Hormuz and the US blockade of the nearby Strait - while establishing a 60-day deadline and an agenda for resolving the more difficult issues.

The Trump administration also claims that Iran has agreed to very important concessions, but the Iranian media presents a very different version of a still tentative agreement.

Friday morning reinforced the tense nature of what is to come. After media outlets linked to the Iranian government reported details of a possible deal that appeared very favorable to Tehran, Trump attacked its leaders as "very dishonorable people to deal with" with whom "there is no such thing as acting in good faith."

So what is Trump trying to work out with his hopelessly dishonest counterparts?

Let's look at some of the potential points of impasse and why Trump may have difficulty selling the final terms to the American public as a real achievement.

Suspension of Iran's nuclear program
This is the most important aspect of any potential peace agreement, and it is extremely complex.

The Trump administration is signaling that Iran would agree to dismantle its nuclear program and commit "indefinitely" not to build a nuclear weapon. But even if that's true, the details of how it would happen and how it would be applied in the future are critical - and have been a major point of contention before. It will certainly take weeks just to get this right.

A senior government official said on Friday the existence of a new "inspection regime", but details are still scarce.

For example, would Iran give up its entire nuclear program, including the parts that apparently could have civilian uses? Or would you just agree not to enrich uranium beyond a certain level, theoretically preventing access to weapons-grade uranium?

It appears to be the second case, with the official stating on Friday that "we have no problem with the idea of civilian power plants in Iran."

And, crucially, how would inspectors ensure Iran is complying with any agreement?

Trump has reinforced the idea that Iran's commitment not to build a nuclear weapon would be a great victory. But in practice, Iran has maintained for many years that it is not doing this.

The real focal point would be how the Trump administration would ensure compliance. Further complicating the situation, the US president will need to make clear how the agreement would be better than the one negotiated by the Obama administration, as he constantly criticizes it as too weak. That deal placed restrictions on Iran's uranium enrichment and had the UN nuclear watchdog verifying compliance.

The big obstacle here: many within Trump's own party who say Tehran simply cannot be trusted to meet the terms of any deal. Trump's statements on Friday about Iran's unreliability highlight this problem.

Iran's highly enriched uranium
Already highly enriched uranium also brings its own problems. The Trump administration has said Iran needs to hand it over, but it is buried deep after US airstrikes a year ago.

And Trump has made repeated and explicit references to the possibility that the US may not end up obtaining these materials.

He suggested that the American military could just "bury" the areas and monitor them. "It's so deep underground that I don't care about it," he said in April.

There are also discussions about how the uranium could instead be "downgraded" so that it is not so highly enriched but remains in Iran's possession as fuel.

A senior government official said on Friday that the interim agreement involves the uranium being "destroyed on site and then removed from the country." But he acknowledged that "it's going to take a little bit of time to figure out" exactly how that will be done.

It's hard to see how Trump could sell this as a major victory without obtaining the enriched uranium that Iran already possesses.

Iran's Frozen Assets
Here's where Trump's old rhetoric could really come back to haunt him. In 2016, he and other Republicans sharply criticized the Obama administration for handing Iran $400 million in cash in a transaction linked to the hostage release and nuclear deal.

The money was not strictly a donation. It was used to settle claims in an international court in The Hague related to a failed 1979 arms deal. But the image was very negative, and Trump and others claimed the money would be used for terrorism.

The $400 million was actually the first installment of $1.7 billion owed to Iran.

Today, Iran appears to be demanding the unfreezing of a much larger sum of its assets: $24 billion.

When the possible release of these assets was first reported in April, Trump assured: "No money will be transferred in any way, shape or form."

But he may be playing a semantic game, differentiating between releasing assets and delivering cash. That appears to be the fine line the Trump administration may try to walk, at least judging by Vice President JD Vance's X post on Friday.

Vance reiterated that Iran would not receive "money" but added that "no funds are being released just by signing a deal or attending a meeting." This sounds like the funds will actually be unfrozen at some point.

But technically, the 2016 payment also involved money already in Iran's possession.

Based on Iran's public red lines, it appears that some kind of money will have to be involved. But if he is, Trump leaves himself open to similar allegations that he is handing money to Iran that could be used for terrorism.

Opening of the Strait of Hormuz
While many details risk appearing similar to the Obama administration's nuclear deal, the Strait of Hormuz presents a new variable in these negotiations.

After all, the war gave Iran a major strategic victory there. He has demonstrated that he is capable of, in practice, closing the strait - and negatively affecting the entire world economy - as a form of leverage.

The big question here is not so much whether Iran would give up effective control of the strait for now; the Trump administration would certainly require it. It's how the deal addresses Iran's apparent ability to block the strait in the future.

If this question is left unanswered and the rest of the deal looks a lot like Obama's nuclear deal, it will be easy for Trump's critics to argue that it is an even worse deal.

Iran's proxy groups
Early on, Trump and his allies said that one of their most important goals was to ensure that Iran could no longer finance its proxy groups - such as Hamas and Hezbollah - that spread terror in the region.

When Trump falsely claimed two months ago that Iran had agreed to all of his demands, he said this included a commitment to stop supporting all proxy groups.

But after that, Trump and the administration practically stopped talking about the issue.

A senior administration official told CNN on Friday that Iran is agreeing not to fund terrorist groups. But again, even if that's true, it's in the details - like what that means in practice and how it will be verified.

And if Trump doesn't achieve something solid on this point, it will mean that he has failed to meet one of four main objectives he set out at the beginning of the war.

Analysis: The details for the US-Iran deal and Israel's dilemma | WW

Why is the Strait of Hormuz so important to the world economy?

Source: CNN