US-Iran Peace Framework Explained: Why the 60-Day Deal and Strait of Hormuz Agreement Could Reshape West Asia

In a significant diplomatic breakthrough, the United States and Iran on Monday agreed on the broad framework of a peace arrangement that would extend the current ceasefire for 60 days and lay the foundation for a more comprehensive settlement of the conflict in West Asia.

US President Donald Trump announced that he had authorised the immediate lifting of the American naval blockade on Iranian ports.

At nearly the same time, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif confirmed that both sides had agreed to permanently halt military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon.

He also announced that the formal signing ceremony of the agreement would take place in Switzerland on June 19.

Strait of Hormuz to Reopen After Formal Signing

In an important development, President Trump revised his earlier statement regarding the Strait of Hormuz.

Initially, he had announced that the strategically vital waterway would be reopened immediately.

However, he later clarified that commercial shipping would resume only after the agreement is formally signed on Friday.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council subsequently confirmed that Tehran and Washington had reached a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), reinforcing expectations that both countries are moving towards de-escalation after months of military tensions.

Although the complete text of the Memorandum is expected to be released after the signing ceremony, reports suggest that the draft agreement contains several key provisions.

Key Provisions of the Draft MoU

Under the proposed arrangement, Iran is expected to reopen the Strait of Hormuz immediately to commercial vessels, while the United States Navy would remove its maritime blockade on Iranian ports within 30 days of the agreement being signed.

The agreement also reportedly includes provisions for the release of approximately $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets held abroad.

Additionally, Washington and its regional allies would refrain from imposing fresh sanctions on Tehran while temporarily easing restrictions on Iranian oil exports.

Reports further indicate that the United States intends to negotiate an economic reconstruction and development package for Iran, estimated to be worth around $300 billion, within 60 days of the signing of the MoU.

The draft framework also reportedly outlines a phased withdrawal of American military forces from areas surrounding Iran.

On the nuclear front, Iran is expected to commit to never acquiring nuclear weapons and to maintaining the current status of its nuclear programme, meaning that no additional uranium enrichment activities would take place while negotiations continue towards a final agreement.

What Triggered the Agreement?

The immediate backdrop to President Trump’s announcement was another military escalation in the region.

Israeli Defence Forces carried out airstrikes in Beirut, prompting Iran to prepare a potential response.

At the same time, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf warned that the United States would have to honour its commitments if it wished to preserve the fragile peace process.

Soon after the Israeli strikes, President Trump publicly criticised the attack, saying it should not have occurred, particularly at a time when both sides were close to reaching an agreement.

He further emphasised that there should be no additional attacks by Israel in Lebanon or retaliatory actions by Hezbollah.

The developments underscored the deep interconnection between the Lebanese front and Iran’s commitment to the ceasefire.

They also appear to have accelerated the White House’s decision to announce the immediate removal of the naval blockade instead of following the previously discussed timeline of lifting restrictions 30 days after the signing of the MoU.

The removal of the blockade had long been one of Tehran’s key preconditions for negotiations and was repeatedly rejected by US officials during the ceasefire period.

In response to Washington’s concession, Iran refrained from retaliatory military action against Israel, although it stopped short of committing to an unconditional and permanent opening of the Strait of Hormuz.

Nuclear Deal Deferred as Both Sides Rebalance Their Positions

Even though the Memorandum has not yet been officially published, two important realities are already evident.

First, the larger nuclear agreement has effectively been postponed for future negotiations.

Second, the 60-day implementation period will serve as a crucial test of Iran’s intentions and Washington’s willingness to uphold its commitments.

Many analysts believe the US-Israeli military campaign failed to achieve its broader strategic objectives and, paradoxically, strengthened Iran’s geopolitical leverage.

The draft agreement largely restores the nuclear status quo that existed before the war. In essence, the arrangement appears designed to rebalance the negotiating positions of both sides.

Before the conflict, the United States possessed two principal sources of leverage over Iran.

The first was its extensive sanctions regime, which had significantly isolated Iran from the global economy.

The second was the damage inflicted on Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow during Operation Midnight Hammer in June 2025, which reportedly disrupted Tehran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

However, Iran succeeded in offsetting some of this American leverage by demonstrating its ability to disrupt maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and threaten the military and energy infrastructure of US allies across the region through its missile and drone capabilities.

Since the beginning of the conflict, Iran repeatedly demonstrated these capabilities, carrying out retaliatory strikes against significantly more targets than those attacked by the United States and Israel.

As a result, American military operations failed to eliminate Iran’s strategic leverage, thereby strengthening Tehran’s negotiating position and reducing Washington’s historical advantage.

Why the Next 60 Days Matter

Many experts argue that the 60-day verification and implementation period may prove even more critical than the eventual comprehensive nuclear agreement.

There is historical precedent for Iran honouring nuclear commitments.

Tehran complied with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated during former US President Barack Obama’s administration and adhered to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 until President Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018.

Iran’s willingness to consider even stricter restrictions on uranium enrichment during the second Trump administration further reinforces its track record of accepting nuclear compromises.

However, there is little precedent for Iran possessing the level of geopolitical leverage it now exercises through the Strait of Hormuz.

Growing Scepticism Among Iranian Hardliners

Iran’s enhanced strategic position has also generated scepticism among hardline political factions inside the country.

Many fear that making concessions regarding the Strait of Hormuz could weaken Tehran’s newly acquired bargaining power and limit its room for manoeuvre in future negotiations.

These political groups have previously accepted compromises on nuclear issues under former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s leadership.

However, surrendering a newly acquired form of leverage is considered significantly more difficult.

Since February, many ordinary Iranians and hardline constituencies have witnessed a dramatic rise in Iran’s strategic influence over both Western and regional powers, extending beyond the country’s traditional networks of influence known as the Axis of Resistance.

Although opposition from hardliners is unlikely to derail an agreement supported by Iran’s leadership, it does provide additional space for political groups seeking tougher negotiating positions.

Areas Likely to Face Greater Scrutiny

Several concerns have already been raised within Iran regarding the draft Memorandum.

Mahmoud Nabavian, Deputy Chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security Commission, questioned the possibility of indefinitely extending the 60-day implementation period before reaching a final agreement.

He also expressed concern over the vague wording surrounding the withdrawal of US forces from “areas surrounding Iran”, arguing that the phrase lacks clear geographical definition.

However, his strongest criticism focused on the draft’s failure to explicitly preserve Iran’s right to regulate shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz during peacetime.

Analysts argue that had the sequence been reversed—with the nuclear agreement negotiated first and the Strait of Hormuz issue addressed later—the level of uncertainty might have been considerably lower.

Under the current arrangement, Tehran may feel compelled to remain on high alert, fearing possible military action by the United States or Israel if negotiations falter.

Why Iran Is Willing to Take the Risk

Despite these concerns, Tehran appears willing to proceed with the agreement for several important reasons.

First, the recent conflict effectively tested the long-standing threat of direct American military action against Iran.

While previous US administrations avoided such action, President Trump’s military option has now been exercised without fundamentally altering Iran’s strategic position.

Tehran may therefore believe this creates an opportunity to pursue a long-term agreement from a more balanced negotiating position.

Second, the proposed economic concessions—including sanctions relief, the lifting of the naval blockade and the release of frozen Iranian assets—represent significant gains for an economy that urgently requires financial relief.

Third, Iran believes its missile and drone capabilities, along with its geographic advantages, allow it to return to pre-agreement conditions if it concludes that the United States or Israel is violating the terms of the understanding.

Importantly, the draft MoU reportedly imposes no restrictions on Iran’s missile programme or drone capabilities.

Consequently, Tehran’s commitments remain closely tied to Washington’s adherence to the agreement.

The Road Ahead

The success of the post-MoU period will ultimately depend on several critical factors.

These include Washington’s ability to restrain Israeli military actions, the speed with which the US Navy lifts its blockade, the scale of Iranian assets released by the United States and its regional allies, and the extent of America’s military withdrawal from the region.

Together, these factors will determine whether the current understanding evolves into a lasting peace agreement or becomes another fragile pause in one of West Asia’s most complex and consequential conflicts.