Trump says U.S., Iran are ‘getting a lot closer,’ but questions remain about concessions

WASHINGTON- President Trump said Saturday that the United States and Iran have agreed to the basic terms of a deal to end the two countries’ nearly three-month war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

“A deal has been widely negotiated,” Trump wrote in a social media post. “The final aspects and details of the agreement are currently being discussed and will be announced soon. In addition to many other elements of the agreement, the Strait of Hormuz will be open.”

Iranian state TV quoted Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei as saying the draft agreement would be a “framework deal” that postpones negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program. Trump did not mention the nuclear issue in his statement.

If that is the form the deal takes, it would represent at least a short-term concession from the president, who had initially demanded a permanent end to Iran’s nuclear program as the price of peace.

Trump also softened an earlier U.S. demand that Iran give up its right to enrich uranium and said he would settle for a deal to “pause” enrichment for 20 years.

These signs of American flexibility have alarmed Iranian hawks, notably Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. They say they fear Trump is so determined to restore the flow of Gulf oil that he might accept a deal that falls well short of U.S. goals.

Mark Dubowitz, a leading critic of the Iran deals, said he feared Trump would settle for a “foolish deal” to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

“I am concerned that the administration is seeking to pursue a ‘Phase 1’ deal in which Iran would receive ‘significant sanctions relief in exchange for an agreement to reopen the strait,’ he said in an interview Friday. “I think it would be a crazy deal. Iran would get real money, but it could continue to close the strait at any time, just by making threats.”

Robert Kagan, a conservative foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution, wrote that a deal to reopen the Strait while postponing the nuclear issue would amount to a “surrender” by the United States.

“On the current trajectory, Iran will emerge from the conflict far stronger and more influential than it was before the war,” Kagan wrote in The Atlantic.

When war broke out in February, Trump said he wanted not only to end Iran’s nuclear activities and destroy its ballistic missile program, but also to bring about regime change.

Instead, nuclear negotiations have focused on narrower, more achievable goals: a “suspension” of nuclear enrichment for 20 years or less and the removal or destruction of Iran’s highly enriched uranium, the essential ingredient for a nuclear weapon.

“A basic agreement should not be impossible to achieve,” said John W. Limbert, who worked on Iran policy at the State Department for three decades and was one of the American hostages captured by Iranian militants in 1979. “The agreement would be some sort of verifiable limits to the nuclear program in exchange for economic aid.” »

“The fact that we’re talking about a suspension of all enrichment, and the question is whether it will last five years, 20 years or somewhere in between, that’s important,” said Nate Swanson, an Iran expert who worked on the National Security Council under Presidents Biden and Trump. “It looks like you actually have the basis for an agreement. … But don’t be fooled into thinking that this completely resolves the situation.”

Swanson said other issues, including Iran’s nuclear research and its advanced ballistic missiles, were not discussed.

Despite signs of progress towards an agreement, the gaps between the two countries remain significant.

Part of the problem is that both sides seem to believe they have won the war, said Danny Citrinowicz, a former Iran analyst in Israel’s military intelligence agency.

Trump and other U.S. officials frequently assert that the United States gained the upper hand by destroying Iran’s navy, air force and large numbers of missiles.

But the Iranians use a different rating system, Citrinowicz explained.

“Iran does not measure success in the same way that Washington often does,” he wrote in an email. “From Tehran’s point of view, simply standing firm in the face of American pressure can be considered a victory. »

“Tehran believes that time is against Trump politically and strategically,” he added. “Iran is ready for a prolonged confrontation; the United States, much less. »

And even if a negotiated agreement were reached, the agreements currently under discussion will not resolve all the conflicts between the two countries.

“An interim agreement to buy time [is] probably where we end up,” Swanson said. “Saving time is not a bad thing. Ending a war is not a bad thing. But it is not a global solution.