President Donald Trump announced this weekend that a comprehensive agreement with Iran is “largely negotiated,” signaling a potential end to months of conflict and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. According to details in the emerging draft memorandum of understanding (MOU), the pact would begin with a 60-day ceasefire extension during which Iran would clear mines it deployed in the strait, eliminate tolls, and allow unrestricted shipping. In return, the United States would lift its blockade on Iranian ports and provide initial sanctions waivers enabling Iran to sell oil on the global market.
This first phase focuses on immediate de-escalation and stabilizing global energy supplies, as roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil passes through the strait. Trump has stressed that the U.S. will not rush and that full sanctions relief will only follow verifiable performance on deeper commitments. The framework builds on Trump’s “relief for performance” principle, ensuring Iran receives economic benefits only as it delivers tangible concessions rather than upfront giveaways.
Any final deal must learn from the failures of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). That agreement was a myopic plan from Barack Obama, who thinks in 4-year terms, and a sweetheart deal for the Ayatollah, who thinks in 40-year terms. Obama claimed he had a win when he paused Iranian nuclear development for a decade, but he still allowed uranium enrichment, largely ignored its ballistic missile advancements, and did nothing to halt its sponsorship of terrorism. Had the JCPOA stayed in force without interruption, experts agree Iran would likely possess nuclear weapons today without violating its terms. Trump’s team is determined not to repeat those mistakes.
At the core of the new framework are ironclad requirements that were absent or weak in the previous deal. Iran must commit never to pursue or possess nuclear weapons, with binding negotiations to suspend all uranium enrichment and remove its stockpile of highly enriched uranium that sits dangerously close to weapons-grade levels. Advanced enrichment infrastructure at facilities like Natanz and Fordow would be dismantled or irreversibly disabled, while any civilian nuclear needs would rely on internationally supplied, low-enriched fuel with spent material returned abroad. These prohibitions must be indefinite, backed by robust IAEA inspections including snap access to all sites, with no sunset clauses to undermine them. Even the enriched nuclear dust in the desert would have to be confiscated.
The agreement must also confront Iran’s ballistic missile program, the largest in the Middle East and a clear threat to neighbors and global shipping. Unlike the JCPOA’s non-binding approach, the new deal would impose permanent restrictions on developing, testing, or proliferating missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction, including limits on range and payload. Strong verification mechanisms would accompany these limits, with automatic sanctions snapback for any violations.
Equally essential is ending Iran’s longstanding role as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. The JCPOA’s narrow focus allowed billions in sanctions relief to flow to proxies—including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and Iraqi militias—fueling regional instability and attacks on U.S. interests. Future relief under this framework would be strictly conditioned on the verifiable cessation of funding, arms transfers, training, and operational support for these groups, supported by intelligence monitoring and clear penalties for non-compliance.
Free-flowing commerce through the Strait of Hormuz forms a foundational element of the deal. All the oil pumped by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and Iraq that is loaded in the Persian Gulf passes through the strait. Iran would pledge to cease all interference with commercial vessels, remove all mines they laid, and ensure safe passage for international shipping. U.S. naval forces would maintain oversight during the initial period to confirm compliance, turning the strait into a secure global passageway rather than a point of leverage or extortion.
In parallel with the Iran negotiations, Trump has pressed Arab nations to join the Abraham Accords, expanding the historic normalization agreements between Israel and several Gulf and North African states. This initiative demonstrates his administration’s deep commitment to Israeli security and broader Middle East stability. By linking diplomatic recognition, economic incentives, and collective security cooperation to participation in the Accords, Trump is building a unified regional front against Iranian threats while promoting unprecedented integration and prosperity. These efforts further cement his record as the most pro-Israel president in American history, prioritizing Israel’s safety and regional alliances in a way no previous administration has matched.
The leverage achieved through recent military pressure and economic isolation has placed the United States in a strong position. Iran’s economy is strained, its nuclear sites have faced damage, and its leadership is isolated following the fighting. Trump has consulted with Arab and Muslim leaders, many of whom support the framework, and maintains close coordination with Israel even as differences on implementation details are addressed respectfully. U.S. forces will remain in the region during the 60-day period, withdrawing only upon a fully verified final agreement.
Enforcement mechanisms will be critical to success. Automatic multilateral sanctions snapback, independent monitoring, and the preserved option of stronger measures if Iran fails to comply provide the necessary teeth. This comprehensive approach links every economic benefit to measurable progress on nuclear restraint, missile limits, terrorism cessation, and secure maritime access, avoiding the compartmentalized flaws that undermined the JCPOA.
Global markets are already responding to the prospect of stabilized energy flows, yet the ultimate test will be whether the final agreement delivers permanent, verifiable change rather than temporary relief that could embolden the regime. With these bare-minimum demands integrated alongside the Abraham Accords expansion and the Hormuz reopening, the outlines of a truly stronger deal are taking shape. Trump’s strategy of maximum pressure followed by clear, results-oriented diplomacy offers the best opportunity yet for lasting peace through strength, provided the coming weeks produce concrete commitments rather than Obama-esque compromises.
Moshe Hill is a political analyst and columnist. His work can be found at www.aHillwithaView.com and on X at @HillWithView.
