[This Iran war post launched before complete because scheduled commitments. Please return at 8:00 AM EDT for a final version]
I would be delighted to be proven wrong about there being no negotiated settlement to the Iran conflict. But Trump capitulating was not on my dance card (nor among others, that of escalation expert Robert Pape). But initial accounts from Aljazeera and the New York Times differed on key details, and now Iran’s Fars News agency has denied claims about the status of the Strait of Hormuz made in Trump’s Truth Social announcement. Trump said it would fully reopen while Iran maintains it will stay under its control.
So will this tentative deal last much longer than the predictable Tuesday morning US markets pop? Recall that the big spanner of the Trump’s effort to cinch a Ukraine peace deal was that Ukraine had agency and did not go along. The Times of Israel reports that Netanyahu was frozen out of the talks and another subhead on the landing page reports, “Israel said to see emerging deal as ‘very big problem’”
We’ll first turn to the apparent disconnect between the two sides over what the agreement amounts to. Obviously it can founder on that alone. This has already happened twice before with Trump on Iran. Recall he famously said he agreed with Iran’s initial 10 point outline of terms as a basis for negotiation, then immediately walked that back when he understood what they contained. Later,Trump announced a ceasefire with Iran, which Iran had accepted, and then immediately blew that up by imposing the US blockade, which is an act of war.
And while you were busy watching the latest episode of the Iran war drama….from Simplicius, Oreshnik Shocks Ukrainian Capital: Kiev on Fire After Largest Ballistic Attack of War.
Keep in mind we are in the fog of misinformation phase. First to the Trump announcement:
Notice there are already glaring problems. First, Trump depicts the listed countries, including Turkiye, Pakistan, and Jordan as parties to the deal, meaning signatories. That can’t be right. Plus multiparty deals are extremely time-consuming to consummate. Second, Israel is clearly NOT a party to the deal. So how can this possibly get done? Iran has insisted and will continue to insist on a cessation of hostilities on all fronts, which includes Lebanon. Trump is not even pretending he has Israel’s participation or consent.
The US could not get Ukraine to bend to its wishes. Think Trump can get the much more politically and media-connected Israel to do so? Recall additionally that some YouTubers are saying (I confess to not independently verifying) that Israel now has more missiles in theater than the US. And it can also engage in terrorism, likely assassinating more key Iranian figures.
Even the New York Times is acknowledging the outtrade on its landing page:
Note that Iran is disputing the only substantive detail in the Trump, that the Strait of Hormuz “will be opened.” Aljazeera’s live feed had had an entry describing how the Iranian news agency Fars said otherwise; tellingly that update has vanished. Google Translate makes a hash of the Fars site so I am forced to rely on other accounts (and there are many), like:
BREAKING: Iran directly rejects Trump’s claim that Hormuz “will be opened” as part of a “largely negotiated” agreement he just posted on Truth Social, saying Trump’s claim is “far from the truth” and that Hormuz “will remain under Iranian management” with Iran retaining exclusive…
— The Hormuz Letter (@HormuzLetter) May 23, 2026
Similarly, from Larry Johnson in Peace is at Hand? Don’t Hold Your Breath (emphasis his):
The Iranians, however, have a different take: Trump’s claim about the Strait of Hormuz returning to its previous state is not true. According to Fars, contrary to Trump’s recent claim on the social network Truth Social that the Strait of Hormuz has returned to its previous condition and preparations are underway to sign an agreement, Fars reporter’s follow-ups show that this claim is also far from reality.
According to the latest exchanged text, if a possible agreement is reached, the Strait of Hormuz will still be under Iran’s management. Although Iran has agreed to allow the number of passing ships to return to the pre-war level, this does not mean “free passage” to the pre-war situation in any way. Accordingly, the management of the strait, determining the route, time, manner of passage, and issuing permits will remain exclusively under the control and discretion of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Therefore, Trump’s claim in this regard is incomplete and inconsistent with reality.
It is also worth mentioning that Trump had previously announced negotiations about Iran’s nuclear program as one of the main and inseparable conditions of any agreement. However, no commitment has been made by Iran, and the nuclear issue has not been discussed at this stage.
Iran is also rejecting rumors that it has made commitments with respect to its enriched uranium. This makes sense because Iran has consistently insisted on sequencing, as in resolving the hot war and Strait of Hormuz issues first, then turning to nuclear issues. I cannot find the referenced story on the English language version of the Tasnim site, but I assume it to be accurate:
BREAKING: Iran rejects the new NYT/US officials claim that Iran “agreed” to hand over its highly enriched uranium and suspend enrichment above 3.6% for 10 years as part of Trump’s announced “largely negotiated agreement,” calling these reports “completely false,” and confirms…
— The Hormuz Letter (@HormuzLetter) May 24, 2026
A Tasnim English language article has since gone live and makes further corrections to Anglosphere rumors in No MoU Possible without Release of Iran’s Frozen Assets:
An informed source said that while the US has consistently obstructed the negotiations and changed its positions, Iran has emphasized that no understanding will be reached without the release of a specified portion of Iran’s frozen assets in the initial step.
The informed source told Tasnim on Sunday that while the Americans have consistently obstructed the negotiations and changed their positions, Iran has made it clear that no agreement will be reached without the release of a specified portion of its frozen assets in the very first step and a clear mechanism for the continued guaranteed release of all frozen assets.
The source noted that the issue has been conveyed to the Pakistani mediator and to a number of regional countries involved in mediation efforts.
According to the source, despite prior arrangements reached through the Pakistani mediator and with the mediation of some regional countries, the Americans are now obstructing the process. However, he said, Iran has stated that it will not retreat from its red lines.
As this reads, Iran is raising the bar to reaching a resolution even higher. It wants some frozen assets back BEFORE making any commitments whatsoever.
More sightings of Iran throat-clearing:
BREAKING: Iran has rejected reports claiming Tehran agreed to transfer its highly enriched uranium abroad or suspend enrichment above 3.6% for a decade, with sources telling Tasnim that such claims are “completely false.”
According to the report, Iranian officials insist current…
— The Iranian Letter (@TheIranianzg3z) May 24, 2026
BREAKING: Iran says potential memorandum of understanding includes end of war on all fronts, reports Tasnim news agency
🔴 LIVE updates: https://t.co/YTIFRpJQEY pic.twitter.com/wuhiyuLWM6
— Al Jazeera Breaking News (@AJENews) May 24, 2026
Note above “potential memorandum of understanding”. That means terms are NOT agreed.
In keeping, the current Aljazeera live feed landing page shows that any “deal” is much less far along than Trump suggests:
A recap of recent developments
United States President Donald Trump has said that a Memorandum of Understanding in ceasefire talks to end the US-Israel war with Iran “has been largely negotiated”.
Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, following a call with Trump and a group of other Middle Eastern leaders, said talks between Iran and the US could take place “very soon.”
Pakistan’s army chief Asim Munir concluded a short but “highly productive” visit to Iran on Saturday, during which “encouraging progress” was made.
Iran is focusing the negotiations on ending the war “on all fronts including Lebanon” and refuses to discuss its nuclear programme, the Foreign Ministry says.
Israel continues to launch air strikes on southern Lebanon after killing at least 3,123 people since March 2 despite an ongoing ceasefire and peace negotiations.
NO1 confirms this assessment. From its daily summary:
Iran-US “deal” is a Schrödinger’s agreement — Trump announced a deal is “largely negotiated” with Hormuz reopening. Iran’s Fars News says Trump’s posts are “primarily for promotional purposes and media consumption” and that US officials told Iran to “ignore” them. Iran rejects claims it agreed to hand over enriched uranium or suspend enrichment above 3.6%. Supreme Leader Khamenei issued a directive that uranium “must not leave the country”. Kobeissi Letter published expected terms: 60-day ceasefire extension, gradual Hormuz reopening, sanctions relief, unfreezing of assets. But Iran says Hormuz remains under Iran’s management with tolls. No single point of agreement confirmed by both sides. Sources: 15+ accounts. Confidence: HIGH that negotiations are happening, LOW that any deal is imminent.
And US hawks are in revolt even based on the more US-favorable terms that Trump presented. From The Hill in GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham, Roger Wicker blast reports of 60-day ceasefire deal with Iran:
Key Senate Republicans are raising concerns about a reported peace deal being negotiated with Iran, arguing it would be a disaster for the United States that would make meaningless the war launched by President Trump nearly three months ago.
“The rumored 60-day ceasefire — with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith — would be a disaster,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, wrote in a post on social platform X.
He said the effects of the joint military operation between the U.S. and Israel titled “Operation Epic Fury” would “be for naught” if the deal as he understood it went forward.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a close ally of President Trump who for years has pushed for U.S. military action against the Iranian regime, said a premature deal could fundamentally shift the balance of power in the Middle East in Iran’s favor.
“If a deal is struck to end the Iranian conflict because it is believed that the Strait of Hormuz cannot be protected from Iranian terrorism and Iran still possesses the capability to destroy major Gulf oil infrastructure, then Iran will be perceived as being a dominate force requiring a diplomatic solution,” Graham wrote Saturday in a post on X.
The South Carolina Republican added that such a perception would become a “nightmare for Israel” over time, questioning the rationale behind the war entirely.
He also noted his skepticism that Iran could be denied the ability to threaten global oil supply by blocking the Strait of Hormuz again in the future.
“I personally am a skeptic of the idea that Iran cannot be denied the ability to terrorize the Strait and the region cannot protect itself against Iranian military capability,” he wrote, adding: “It is important we get this right.”
This tweet had 3 million views on a Saturday night on a holiday weekend:
The deal being floated with Iran seems straight out of the Wendy Sherman-Robert Malley-Ben Rhodes playbook: Pay the IRGC to build a WMD program and terrorize the world.
Not remotely America First. It’s straightforward: Open the damned strait. Deny Iran access to money. Take out…
— Mike Pompeo (@mikepompeo) May 23, 2026
A hot take from shipping maven Sal Mercogliano with Mario Nawfal says that even if there is an agreement soon, it will be a very long time before shipping gets back to normal, and even more so if Iran remains in control of the Strait of Hormuz as it insists.
Key points from a lightly cleaned up machine transcript:
Mercogliano: Can they get the Strait open? But the the caveat there is Iranian control of it.Obviously with the creation of the Persian Gulf Strait Authority which gives them oversight over the Strait do does this recognize them formally having that oversight? We know that the Gulf states in particularly were very concerned about that. They did not want Iran to have this. At the same time, however, what we see is there are tons of tankers, especially the very large crude carriers sitting outside the Persian Gulf right now. They have not displaced as much as many people think…
That is one that if the US agrees to it is really shocking to me because that’s giving them de facto oversight the Iranians over that Strait and that means Iran, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar are really going to be at the mercy of what Iran wants to do especially if they extract that toll money….
Because the fear here, Mario, I would tell you is if this agreement goes into place, let’s say this does get agreed exactly as it is, Iran does the toll. Does shipping come back the way it was pre-February 28th?
Because that’s the big question because what we’ve seen is shipping hasn’t returned into the Red Sea since the initial attacks back in 2023. And the large container carriers, a lot of the, you know, the higher value ships still take that alternative route. Are the ships going to come back? They need that security issue. One of the things that the US found out was they put together this war risk insurance policy, but the war risk in itself isn’t enough to get ships to go through without security.
And what they what the shipping companies want is security. They want to know the Iranians are not going to attack them, that they’re not going to hit them, that the ships can go through and they’ll pay a higher war risk.They’ll pay the money. That’s not the issue. What they want is the security that they’re not going to lose a ship for the next 20 years of revenue. That’s the concern they have.
We haven’t seen the massive reall allocation of of the the oil tankers on those long runs. We’ve seen more going to the United States doing that Cape of Good Hope run, but a lot of them are sitting out there waiting for this opening to take place….
What we’ve seen happen even recently over the past week is vessels make movement toward the Strait get turned around again. Uh it’s not a good flow. I mean, we’re just seeing the kind of start starts and stops all the time here. in the movement of shipping through this. What everybody wants is dependability. They need to be able to flow goods and know that their ships can both come in and come out.
We’re seeing ships come out. We’re seeing that the Iranians are letting ships come out. The question is, can you get ships going in and then turning around and coming out on a scheduled basis? And I think this is the fundamental flaw here with the US and the Iranians, this agreement, because the US isn’t going to pull off on their blockade until they know that the Strait is open….
Nawfal: There was a report I can’t remember what shipping company said even if the Strait of Hormuz is open and there’s a deal reached and Iran by the way said they’re happy that they want to charge a fee but they’re happy to open it up to the same volume of ships as before. Um it would take it by the end of the year the Strait of Hormuz will only be at 40% capacity.
I hate to seem reflexively cynical but at a minimum, the baked-in very large risk asset rallies and oil price plunge when markets open will be very profitable to Trump and his cronies. It would also greatly cheer the bond market, which were going haywire. Odds greatly favored contagion sooner or later to US equities.
Larry Johnson pointed out that the Hajj starts this year on May 25 and it would arouse ire across the Muslim war for the US and Israel to attack Iran then. But the Hajj ends May 30. Iran is already rejecting what is at best a prematurely-announced set of terms. Trump could use that to again demonize Iran and set up a new attack, with the deal pretense a device for temporizing to get past the Hajj and reset wobbly markets at much lower price points.
It would be better if I were wrong. But Israel allies and US warmongers are already depicting the rumored terms as an unacceptable US capitulation, even as Iran is nixing them as incorrectly US favorable on the two critical issues, the Strait of Hormuz and the status of Iran’s enriched uranium.
It would be better if I were wrong but this “deal” already looks to be going pear-shaped. Yours truly is not alone in that view:
Iran shut down their airspace and Trump backed down from the assault. For now. But I just don’t see how the Iran war won’t restart.
If im reading the tea leaves right war is inevitable. pic.twitter.com/NbTUAh2oSM
— Syrian Girl (@Partisangirl) May 23, 2026
And if Trump really were to knuckle under to Iran, I doubt he survives and I don’t mean politically.1 As Larry Wilkerson has said repeatedly with considerable alarm, Trump has packed the US military full of apocalypse seeking Evangelical nutters. Assassination is a core competence of Mossad. Colonel Macgregor has said contrary to his public image, Vance is actually more of a hawk than Trump. And even if not, a suspicious-looking Trump death could produce a Damascene conversion.
Mind you, the US has to back down at some point due to exhausting its means to wage a hot war. But the prevalent view (as articulated among others by Daniel Davis, based on gossip from his contacts) was that Trump wanted to give one more face-saving kick to Iran on the way out. That path is fraught since Iran will not allow itself to get a “mowing the lawn” treatment, with the US and Israel coming back every so often to try to weaken Iran. They need the US to be seen as defeated so it won’t try again. So it remains hard to see how it is possible to devise a deal that would work for Iran that is short of a visible US capitulation.
Done for today! I really hope I can get by with no or a thin post tomorrow, because I suspect we’ll have a lot more froth than substance in the next 24 hours.
____
1 There was a fresh attack at a White House checkpoint mere hours ago but the timing seems too close to the deal announcement to be related.
