\n<\/p>\n
For several weeks, mediators between Iran and the United States have been trying to reach a preliminary agreement that could ultimately end the war. Those efforts have repeatedly failed as the warring sides have accused each other of evading or falsifying the terms.<\/p>\n
Now, officials involved in the talks say discussions are underway on a new draft memorandum that is close to getting approval from both sides, although they have different views about some of the terms. President Trump has not signed it yet.<\/p>\n
This would be an initial framework that would pave the way for more concrete \u2013 and potentially more challenging and lengthy \u2013 negotiations to determine the future of Iran’s nuclear program, US sanctions on the country and a formal end to the war.<\/p>\n
In recent days, there have been brief exchanges of fire between US and Iranian forces, increasing pressure on negotiators to reach an agreement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Diplomats involved in the talks said the longer negotiations go on, the more frustrated both sides could become and the firing could increase – threatening to further jeopardize the broader diplomatic effort.<\/p>\n
Here are some of the details under discussion in the latest proposal, according to an Iranian official, US officials and two diplomats involved in the latest talks, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the draft.<\/p>\n
The agreement is likely to set out the terms of a non-aggression pact between Washington and Tehran.<\/p>\n
Mediators say it is expected to have a regional component, which Iranian officials and a diplomat said would include stopping the fighting in Lebanon. Despite the ceasefire there, both sides have continuously violated it. And Israel has recently stepped up military offensive against the Iran-backed terrorist group, Hezbollah.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Nevertheless, long-term irregularities persist. Since negotiations have taken place through the Pakistanis and Qataris, it has never been clear whether the Americans and Iranians are working on the same version of the memorandum, or who exactly has the authority on the Iranian side to sign an agreement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
The two diplomats, briefed on the latest terms, said the preliminary agreement outlines a cessation of hostilities for an initial 60-day period, allowing negotiations between the two sides, with the possibility of extension.<\/p>\n
However, the version of the draft described by the Iranian official stated that the terms included a “declaration of cessation of hostilities” on all fronts, including Lebanon, for the duration of the talks. Two Iranian officials said the terms of the memorandum of understanding relate only to a period of negotiations for a broader, more permanent agreement.<\/p>\n
The agreement was expected to allow a period of free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway vital to commercial shipping through which before the war about a fifth of the world’s oil and gas passed.<\/p>\n
The Iranian strikes effectively closed the strait shortly after the US-Israeli offensive began in February, crippling the global economy. In response, the US Navy imposed its own naval blockade of Iran’s ports and energy posts in the Persian Gulf.<\/p>\n
Under the U.S. understanding of the memorandum, the strait would reopen immediately, but the U.S. blockade would remain in place but would be eased in phases depending on how much pre-war ship traffic Iran restores, one official said. The idea is to encourage Iran to quickly destroy the Strait.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
The diplomat briefed on the latest outline said Iran had agreed to allow maritime traffic to return to pre-war levels for 30 days while the two sides negotiated a final agreement. Despite that hope, the process of decommissioning and opening the strait could take several weeks. Tehran is still debating with Washington about what happens after that, he said.<\/p>\n
The Iranian official said the agreement would lead to the US naval blockade being lifted “within 30 days” and the Strait of Hormuz open for the duration of the talks. The United States has not put any time limit on this, an American official said.<\/p>\n
Mediators say Iranian negotiators are sticking to their argument that Iran and Oman, whose territories border the strait, have the right to determine whether to impose some kind of service charge for ships passing after that period.<\/p>\n
On Wednesday, President Trump reiterated his claim that international waterways should eventually be open to all without any tolls or fees.<\/p>\n
Some US negotiators have suggested pushing the long-term status of the strait into another round of talks, the diplomat said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Perhaps most surprising, and apparently recent, the agreement includes a reference to an investment fund for Iran. Iranian officials and a diplomat put it at $300 billion, but other officials involved in the mediation would not confirm the amount.<\/p>\n
The Iranian official described it as a “reconstruction program” that would be promised to Iran if a final agreement was signed. In earlier talks, Tehran had sought compensation for damages caused by the bombing, which some Iranian officials estimated at $300 billion to $1 trillion.<\/p>\n
Two diplomats briefed on the latest draft called it an international “investment fund” that the United States would help in the event of a final deal. Diplomats said plans for such a fund would be discussed further during talks.<\/p>\n
The proposal appears to be a repeat of an earlier idea floated by Mr. Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, and the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Both are real estate investors, and some mediators said they had suggested promoting real estate projects in Tehran and creating an investment fund in the event of a deal.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Iranian officials said they have proposed to US negotiators that US companies, including major oil and energy corporations, could enter Iran for investment and joint venture deals.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
The draft agreement includes a pledge that both sides will commit to negotiating the fate of Iran’s enriched uranium, the Iranian official and both diplomats said.<\/p>\n
He said those discussions would take place during the second phase of talks and would include how to dispose of Iran’s stockpile of about 970 pounds of uranium, which can be quickly enriched to weapons grade. There are another ten tons of low-level enriched nuclear material that negotiators will have to deal with.<\/p>\n
Mr Trump initially said those stockpiles should be sent to the United States, while Iran wanted to mine some of the enriched uranium on its soil under international inspectors and send other parts of the stockpile to a third country. Mr Trump signaled some flexibility in a social media post this week, saying that decommissioning the enrichment or sending it to a third country under international inspectors would also be acceptable. But on Wednesday he said he was not comfortable with Russia or China taking it.<\/p>\n
According to a draft version of the agreement described by an Iranian official, Iran would suspend its nuclear program in exchange for a pledge by Washington not to extend sanctions while the two sides negotiate a final deal.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
According to the Iranian official, existing US sanctions on Iran \u2013 which were largely imposed in response to Iran’s nuclear program \u2013 will be lifted over time if a final agreement is reached.<\/p>\n
The framework agreement is expected to allow the eventual release of some of Iran’s frozen funds, three officials familiar with the draft said. But what is on paper may not match the verbal consent of both parties.<\/p>\n
Iran estimates that $24 billion of its own money is stored in foreign banks and insists that meaningful negotiations cannot begin without releasing it. The topic is particularly controversial for Mr Trump because of how vocal he has been in his attacks on former President Barack Obama, whose administration sent $1.7 billion to Iran in exchange for the release of four detained Americans \u2013 what critics called the “Pallets of Cash” scandal.<\/p>\n
Enabling the release of far more billions than Mr. Obama did could expose Mr. Trump to attacks by his opponents and Iran supporters alike. And he has made clear to allies that he will not sign any deal that involves the United States giving direct cash payments to Iran. Mr Trump has attacked Mr Obama for years over cash given by the United States to Iran to settle a decades-old financial dispute following Mr Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal.<\/p>\n
Given that political reality, Mr. Trump’s team is developing ideas that would involve other countries, including Qatar, in releasing funds to the Iranians.<\/p>\n
An Iranian official and two diplomats briefed on the plan said a written version of the draft is expected to include a pledge to gradually release the funds. Iran has said it wants access to $20 billion of assets seized in the Middle East.<\/p>\n
aaron boxerman And maggie haberman Contributed to the reporting.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
For several weeks, mediators between Iran and the United States have been trying to reach a preliminary agreement that could ultimately end the war. Those efforts have repeatedly failed as the warring sides have accused each other of evading or falsifying the terms. Now, officials involved in the talks say discussions are underway on a<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":162637,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[57],"tags":[7656,577,7429,6417],"class_list":["post-162635","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-bible-verse","tag-draft","tag-plan","tag-table","tag-usiran"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/christiancorner.us\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162635","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/christiancorner.us\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/christiancorner.us\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christiancorner.us\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christiancorner.us\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=162635"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/christiancorner.us\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162635\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":162638,"href":"https:\/\/christiancorner.us\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162635\/revisions\/162638"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christiancorner.us\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/162637"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/christiancorner.us\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=162635"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christiancorner.us\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=162635"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christiancorner.us\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=162635"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}