Iran Talks Near Deal Amid Hormuz Tensions

The article reports that Iran says a near-final deal with the United States to end fighting could soon be signed and would include reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial global energy shipping route. Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said the agreement would also end a US blockade on Iranian shipping, while broader talks on Iran’s nuclear program would follow later. US officials confirmed parts of the arrangement, stressing that any economic benefits for Iran would be conditional on verified compliance with obligations such as stopping support for proxy groups and addressing enriched uranium stockpiles. The report places the talks in the context of a tense conflict that began after US and Israeli strikes on Iran, followed by Iranian retaliation and the effective closure of Hormuz. Despite a ceasefire in April, intermittent exchanges of fire have continued. President Donald Trump said he had canceled planned strikes because a “great settlement” had been reached, although Iranian media and Trump disputed details of an alleged 14-point deal. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said a memorandum of understanding had been agreed and was awaiting finalization, with Pakistan and Qatar helping mediate. There remains uncertainty over the final form of the agreement, including the handling of enriched uranium, sanctions relief, and whether Lebanon and Hezbollah are included. Still, officials on both sides described cautious optimism, and Araghchi said the deal could be signed and announced within days if approved by Iran’s security body.

CBS News reports that a U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding or letter of intent is likely to be signed early next week, according to sources familiar with the diplomatic process. The agreement would begin a 60-day negotiating period aimed at producing a broader U.S.-Iran deal, with the timeline potentially extended. The proposed framework would reportedly start with practical confidence-building measures such as securing freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, including demining and reopening the waterway to shipping. In exchange, Iran would supposedly commit to a long-term halt in uranium enrichment, dismantle its nuclear sites, and receive phased financial sanctions relief tied to compliance. The article places these developments in the context of longstanding U.S. and Israeli concerns over Iran’s nuclear program. U.S. intelligence does not believe Iran currently has a nuclear weapon, while Israeli intelligence has assessed the program differently. President Trump said on Truth Social that he had canceled planned strikes on Iran because the final points of a deal were approved, though Iranian-linked media quickly denied that any initial memorandum had been approved. Trump also said the signing could occur in Europe as soon as the weekend, and that Vice President JD Vance would attend. The administration has not officially confirmed the arrangement. The reported understanding would also involve the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Strait of Hormuz, and unspecified provisions related to Lebanon and Hezbollah. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had earlier outlined possible deal parameters in Senate testimony, including reopening the strait, negotiations over highly enriched uranium, and long-term restrictions or cancellation of enrichment. Overall, the piece describes an uncertain but potentially consequential diplomatic opening, while noting conflicting accounts and limited confirmation from official sources.

CBS News reports that U.S. military planners have been discussing contingency options for securing Iran’s nuclear materials if a deal with Tehran is reached. According to U.S. officials familiar with the planning, the discussions are preliminary and do not indicate any decision to launch an operation. Instead, they explore how the Pentagon could support the Department of Energy in locating, securing, and removing Iran’s highly enriched uranium under a potential agreement. One scenario would place U.S. forces at multiple sites across the Middle East to support a rapid response effort, while specialized Department of Energy teams, including the Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST), could enter Iran alongside military personnel and other U.S. agencies. The planning reportedly includes the possible involvement of U.S. Special Operations forces and the Army’s 20th Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosives Command. Officials emphasized that the discussions are routine contingency planning, not a final decision. A senior administration official also said that under a prospective deal, Iran’s enriched uranium would be destroyed on site and then removed from the country, with technical details to be worked out during a 60-day negotiation period after a memorandum of understanding is signed.

CNN reports that Iran has recently intensified efforts to secure a stockpile of near bomb-grade uranium by collapsing tunnel entrances and laying explosive mines around suspected storage locations, according to five sources familiar with U.S. intelligence. The material—estimated at roughly half a ton of highly enriched uranium—is believed to be buried primarily in collapsed tunnels at the Isfahan nuclear complex, with some additional material at other sites. These new fortifications make any effort to recover the uranium significantly more dangerous and technically difficult, whether by the United States or by Iran itself, and complicate ongoing negotiations between Washington and Tehran over a possible deal to remove the material from Iran. The article says the Trump administration has been considering a plan to secure and destroy the uranium, but earlier military preparations for a ground seizure operation were paused because of the risks. U.S. officials and Iranian officials have offered conflicting accounts of the draft agreement, and key details remain unresolved. Experts quoted in the article say the new defenses could hinder verification and create room for Iran to later claim that some uranium is irretrievable, reducing confidence that all of it has been accounted for. The reporting frames the uranium cache as a central issue in broader talks related to ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and notes that public discussion by Trump about seizing the uranium may have encouraged Iran to harden its defenses further.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz said Gulf Arab allies are strongly backing President Donald Trump’s economic pressure campaign and blockade against Iran, arguing that Tehran is beginning to feel significant financial strain. Speaking after visits to Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom, Waltz said regional leaders believe sanctions, military pressure, and isolation are worsening Iran’s economy, draining foreign currency reserves, weakening its currency, and making it harder for the regime to pay officials and security forces. He said the UAE, in particular, supports maintaining “credible pressure” on Tehran and sees little difference between its position and Washington’s, describing the relationship as having “zero daylight.” The article also notes that these regional partners have suffered missile and drone attacks during the conflict but remain committed to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The piece frames Waltz’s comments amid reports that a potential Iran deal may be nearing completion, though U.S. officials and analysts remain cautious about Iran’s sincerity and negotiating behavior.

The article reports that the United States intercepted and destroyed multiple Iranian drones that were aimed at commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz early Saturday, despite recent signs that a peace agreement to end the broader Middle East war was drawing closer. According to U.S. Central Command, Iran launched one-way attack drones toward vessels transiting the strait, a vital shipping lane for global oil and gas, and all of the drones were shot down. CENTCOM said maritime traffic in the area continued without interruption and that the strait remained open for transit. The incident occurred after several weeks of stalled negotiations between Tehran and Washington, with Pakistan mediating the talks. Those discussions have taken place against a backdrop of continued hostility, including threats and exchanges of fire, even after a fragile truce reached in April. The article also notes that disagreements persist over the terms of any potential deal, with Iranian state media presenting a version of the proposed terms that conflicts with the U.S. account. Overall, the piece highlights the tension between diplomatic progress and continued military confrontation in a strategically important waterway.