15JUN

Trump touts a deal he cannot sign

3 min read

11:40UTC

Donald Trump said on 9 June that an Iran deal was in 'the final throes' and could be signed 'in two or three days', and credited the US naval blockade as 'much stronger than bombing'. Neither claim rests on a signed instrument.

← Back to Trump declares Iran war over Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictDeveloping

Key takeaway

Trump promised a deal in days and praised an unsigned blockade, neither backed by a signature.

Donald Trump said on Tuesday 9 June that an Iran deal was in "the final throes", that the Strait of Hormuz would reopen "immediately upon signing, which could be in two or three days", and that the US naval blockade had "turned out to be much stronger than bombing" ¹. the strait of Hormuz is the Persian Gulf chokepoint through which roughly a fifth of the world's seaborne oil passes.

The line about the blockade matters more than the timeline. CENTCOM (US Central Command, the Pentagon's Middle East command) runs that blockade on a written military order, not a presidential instrument, and it has redirected 127 vessels and disabled six without an executive signature behind it . On Tuesday Trump elevated that unsigned mechanism above kinetic force in public for the first time, even as the one ally executing kinetic force ignored him.

Trump has floated near-term deals before, telling reporters on 4 June a deal could close "this weekend" before his own Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, said on 7-8 June that enrichment matters could take months . For 102 days his words pointed at Tehran. This week the harder words pointed at Israel instead, while the deal stayed a promise rather than a document.

Tehran negotiates through written positions and general-officer shuttles, channels that respond to signed paper, not to interview cadence. A blockade Trump now calls war-winning and a deal he says is days away both rest on the same absence: no signature that would force the War Powers clock or bind either side to terms.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Since late February, the US Navy has been blocking the Strait of Hormuz, the 33-kilometre chokepoint through which most Gulf oil exports pass. Trump is now publicly saying this blockade has worked better than the earlier bombing campaign, and that an agreement with Iran could be signed within days. The problem is that Iran's government communicates with Washington only through written messages that take three to five days to travel through middlemen. So when Trump says a deal is nearly done, he may be talking about a conversation where the last message from the other side arrived days ago. Financial markets have already priced in 'nearly done' twice this year and reversed both times when nothing was signed.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

Trump's 'final throes' claim reflects a structural asymmetry in the negotiation: Iran communicates only in writing through intermediaries with a 3-to-5-day courier lag (confirmed by Rubio on 2 June), meaning Trump receives no real-time feedback on whether Tehran accepts the terms he publicly endorses. In that information vacuum, his public statements function as aspirational pressure rather than confirmed progress.

The blockade's effectiveness claim is grounded in real data , CENTCOM reached 127 redirected vessels with six disabled by 2 June , but Trump's framing elides the fact that the blockade operates without a signed presidential instrument, which means it exists in a legal grey zone that any future administration could end by executive order. Crediting it as the decisive weapon before a deal is signed risks creating a removal cost that constrains whatever agreement follows.

What could happen next?

Risk
A third 'deal within days' claim that produces no signature will accelerate market scepticism of any future announcement, potentially delaying the economic relief a genuine deal would provide.
Consequence
Iran's negotiators will read Trump's public credit to the blockade as confirmation that Washington values it as an end-state rather than a transition instrument , which hardens Tehran's demand for full sanctions relief before any reopening.

Source Landscape

This story draws on centre-left-leaning sources from Qatar

Qatar

Primary parallel: Nixon's 1973 Operation Linebacker II , the 'Christmas bombing' of Hanoi , ended after 11 days with US negotiators publicly declaring a breakthrough imminent. The structural parallel is that both presidents publicly overstated deal proximity to create momentum in a negotiation that required the adversary to concede before a domestic political audience. In both cases, the stated timeline was aspirational rather than based on confirmed counter-party commitments.

Counter-parallel: The 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea, by contrast, was announced after technical working groups had confirmed the core trade-off. The absence of a confirmed Iranian counter to the 1 June US memorandum (ID:3887) means the 2026 situation structurally resembles the 1973 Vietnam case rather than the 1994 Korean one.

The naval blockade's economic leverage rests on a specific chokepoint: Iran's oil exports fell from 1.84 million barrels per day before the war to below 300,000 bpd by May 2026, a revenue loss of approximately $5.8 billion since April . At that export rate, Iran's foreign-currency earning capacity cannot service the rial's collapse, which reached 1,746,000 per dollar on 1 June before a brief Rubio-testimony bounce.

Trump's public claim that Hormuz would reopen 'immediately upon signing' creates a specific market problem: oil traders will begin pricing the reopening forward as soon as a deal looks credible. That has already happened twice , the Rubio bounce and the 1 June suspension spike , and reversed both times when no signature followed. A third false dawn carries diminishing market credibility.

Consensus view: Carnegie Endowment analysts Karim Sadjadpour and Ariane Tabatabai assess that Trump's public endorsement of the naval blockade as more effective than bombing represents a strategic disclosure: it confirms that economic strangulation, not kinetic strikes, is now Washington's primary coercive instrument.

The practical consequence is that a deal's timeline is now tied to the point at which Iranian economic pain , 77.2% inflation, oil exports at 300,000 bpd , forces a concession on nuclear terms, not to a military breakthrough.

Counter-view: Beijing's Academy of Social Sciences Iran analysts note that Trump's public elevation of the blockade creates a ceiling problem for any deal: the more publicly he credits the blockade, the harder it becomes to lift it without claiming a substantive Iranian concession in return. Rubio's 7-8 June walk-back , 'months not days' on enrichment matters , suggests Washington itself recognises the deal framework cannot deliver what Trump's words imply.

Key tension: Whether Trump's 'two or three days' claim was a negotiating signal aimed at Tehran's economic pain threshold or a commitment that will require a public Iranian concession to satisfy , with the domestic US audience now watching.

Sources:Al Jazeera

Mentions:Donald Trump →CENTCOM (US Central Command) →Strait of Hormuz →Iran →Vietnam →Marco Rubio →North Korea →Karim Sadjadpour →Nixon →Persian Gulf →Beijing →Tehran →US Navy →Washington →Israel →Pentagon →

First Reported In

Update #122 · Trump warns Bibi as Israel strikes anyway

Al Jazeera· 9 Jun 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

CENTCOM Gulf blockade tally reaches 127

Trump's public praise of the naval blockade as stronger than bombing directly references CENTCOM's 127-vessel redirect and six-disabled tally.

Occurred 2 Jun 2026

Read story →

This Event

Trump touts a deal he cannot sign

Trump elevated an unsigned military blockade above kinetic force in public for the first time, even as the deal he promised carried no presidential signature.

Different Perspectives

G7 Leaders (ex-US)

Kananaskis ended without a joint communique for the first time in the body's history; Macron credited G7 pressure with speeding the ceasefire while Trump publicly denied the summit played any role. The split between US and European G7 partners over what the memorandum means for sanctions relief was the direct cause of the text failure.

Protection-and-Indemnity insurers

London-based P&I mutual clubs declined to underwrite Hormuz crossings while the IRGC Strait Authority remained operational, making the passage commercially impassable regardless of the memorandum's terms. Shipping operators said they would wait weeks for on-water conditions to change before routing tankers through.

IRGC Persian Gulf Strait Authority

P&I mutual insurers declined to underwrite Hormuz crossings on 15-16 June while the IRGC's Strait Authority remained in operation, reducing actual transits to two vessels against a pre-war daily rate of 94. The corps' revenue-generating toll mechanism, created 5 May and collecting $1.5-2 million per VLCC in crypto, has not been stood down and cannot be dissolved by Ghalibaf's signature.

Israeli Cabinet

Netanyahu admitted he had not seen the memorandum's text but confirmed IDF forces would stay in southern Lebanon; Finance Minister Smotrich called for ten Beirut buildings destroyed per Hezbollah drone and National Security Minister Ben-Gvir said the agreement 'does not bind us in any way'. Israel signed nothing in Islamabad and is the central unresolved variable in the Lebanon clause.

Iranian Majlis hardliners

Around 60 MPs signed a letter demanding Ghalibaf explain the memorandum; Paydari faction MP Sabeti said the deal violates the Supreme Leader's red lines, and MP Aboutorabi argued the document carries binding obligations 'that cannot be resolved by simply changing the name'. President Pezeshkian defended the negotiators against accusations of betrayal, confirming the fracture inside Iran's political class.

US Vice President JD Vance

Vance signed on 15 June and said the memorandum was 'not conditioned on Israel withdrawing from Lebanon' while also saying it 'envisioned a ceasefire that covers both Iran and Lebanon'. The two formulations are incompatible and hand Iran's foreign minister a ready-made violation claim before Geneva.