Skip to content
Briefings are running a touch slower this week while we rebuild the foundations.See roadmap
Russia-Ukraine War 2026
5APR

Trump declares Iran deal, signs nothing

4 min read
19:51UTC

Trump posted on Saturday 23 May that the Iran war deal was 'largely negotiated' and Hormuz 'will be opened'; the only paper the White House signed all weekend was a Memorial Day proclamation.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Trump declared the war nearly settled, yet signed no Iran instrument and published no text.

Donald Trump posted on Truth Social on Saturday 23 May that a deal to end the Iran war had been "largely negotiated" between the United States, the Islamic Republic of Iran and other listed countries, adding that the strait of Hormuz "will be opened" 1. the strait is the 33-kilometre chokepoint between Iran and Oman through which roughly a fifth of the world's seaborne oil passes; Iran's blockade of it has driven this war since late February. It is the most consequential thing Trump has said about Iran in 86 days of fighting. He signed nothing.

The only presidential instrument the White House published across the 22 to 24 May window was a Memorial Day proclamation 2. No Iran order, no sanctions action, no Hormuz text. The verbal track that has carried this war since 28 February reached its loudest moment on a weekend that produced zero signed Iran paper , extending the streak that ran unbroken through the prior week's two non-Iran financial orders .

On Sunday 24 May, Axios reported the shape of what had been agreed 3. It is a 60-day memorandum of understanding (MOU), extendable by consent, not a treaty. During those 60 days Hormuz reopens toll-free, Iran clears its mines, the US lifts the naval blockade and issues waivers letting Tehran sell oil, while US forces stay in the region and withdraw only if a final deal follows. The draft rests on Iran's 14-point document and was approved on the Iranian side by Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, and on the US side by JD Vance, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner 4. Marco Rubio, speaking in New Delhi, repeated the American conditions: no weapon, Hormuz open without tolls, uranium handed over 5.

The MOU text has not been published. The sequence front-loads the reversible concessions, blockade lift and oil waivers, and defers the one irreversible commitment, the uranium, to a later negotiation. That ordering lets Tehran collect sanctions and shipping relief across the 60 days while never binding itself to surrender the stockpile.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

On Saturday 23 May, US President Donald Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social saying a deal to end the Iran war had been 'largely negotiated'. The next day, the news outlet Axios reported the shape of that deal: a 60-day temporary agreement (called a memorandum of understanding, or MOU) under which Iran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz (the critical sea passage through which about 20% of the world's oil flows), clear its naval mines from the waterway, and negotiate a pause on its nuclear programme. In exchange, the US would lift its naval blockade and issue waivers on some oil sanctions. The agreement would be approved on Iran's side by the Speaker of Iran's parliament, and on the US side by Vice President JD Vance and two presidential advisers. The catch: none of this has been formally signed. Trump made similar verbal deal announcements at least four times before this one, and Iran denied or contradicted each of them within hours. The MOU text was not published as of Sunday 24 May, leaving it as a reported verbal agreement rather than a binding document.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

Trump's preference for verbal deal-making over signed instruments is a structural feature of his administration, not a tactical choice. The White House presidential-actions index recorded zero signed Iran instruments across 80 days of war before this declaration.

Truth Social posts function as policy statements in this administration because the executive can claim they represent presidential intent without triggering congressional notification requirements that a formal executive order or treaty would impose.

The Iranian side's use of Ghalibaf rather than Pezeshkian or Araghchi reflects a parallel constraint: the Majlis and IRGC institutional bloc must be included in any deal architecture, or hardliners can torpedo implementation. Ghalibaf bridges that bloc. But his approval is not the same as Khamenei's, and the Supreme Leader's uranium-stay directive three days earlier sits in direct tension with the MOU's enrichment-suspension commitment.

Escalation

Marginally de-escalatory on the military track but no change on the nuclear track. The MOU framework, if it holds, pauses kinetic activity and begins a Hormuz reopening. But Khamenei's uranium directive three days earlier means the nuclear gap has widened since the deal's reported terms were agreed. The deal declaration itself creates a new risk: if negotiations fail publicly, the reversion to conflict may be sharper than if no deal had been announced.

What could happen next?
  • Risk

    A failed public deal announcement carries greater escalation risk than no announcement, because domestic audiences on both sides will have raised expectations to manage.

    Short term · Assessed
  • Opportunity

    If the 60-day MOU holds through formal signing, it creates the first institutional anchor for a permanent settlement and removes the immediate military pressure on Hormuz.

    Medium term · Suggested
  • Precedent

    Ghalibaf's parliamentary approval of an MOU, if accepted by all parties, establishes that Iran's Majlis can bind the executive on foreign policy — a constitutional precedent with long-term implications for Iranian governance.

    Long term · Suggested
First Reported In

Update #106 · Trump says deal; OFAC says nothing

NBC News· 24 May 2026
Read original
Causes and effects
This Event
Trump declares Iran deal, signs nothing
The loudest verbal move of an 86-day war landed on a weekend that produced no signed Iran instrument of any kind.
Different Perspectives
North Korea / DPRK
North Korea / DPRK
ISW confirmed the first mounting of DPRK Type-75 MLRS on Russian autonomous UGVs near Kharkiv on 7 June, the latest step in a supply axis that escalated from shells in 2023 to troops in 2024. Pyongyang gains live battlefield data on its ordnance and on Russia's uncrewed-systems programme.
IAEA / Rafael Grossi
IAEA / Rafael Grossi
Grossi confirmed Chornobyl structural damage with nuclear material metres away and could not attribute the ZNPP 15-hour blackout during the agreed repair window. Six ceasefires brokered and broken at ZNPP, compounded by Rosatom's May attack on IAEA neutrality, have eroded his ability to enforce the windows he negotiates.
Emmanuel Macron / France
Emmanuel Macron / France
Macron co-signed the E3 framework whose line-of-contact baseline marks Europe's first formal acceptance that 1991 borders are not the opening position. France's role carries weight because Macron had previously proposed a European force for Ukraine, and the framework's multinational force point is the vehicle for that.
Keir Starmer / E3
Keir Starmer / E3
Starmer, Macron and Merz met Zelenskyy on 7 June and backed a five-point framework taking the line of contact as the talks baseline, conceding roughly one fifth of Ukraine in exchange for a multinational force and frozen assets. With US mediation ended, the NATO Ankara summit on 7-8 July is the next test.
Vladimir Putin / Kremlin
Vladimir Putin / Kremlin
Putin used SPIEF to reject Zelenskyy's summit letter, citing 'elements of rudeness', and repeated the pre-agreed treaty precondition that has frozen every diplomatic round since May. The SPIEF platform's message of investor confidence was punctured by naval fires visible from St Petersburg, which Moscow declined to dispute in scale.
Ukraine / Unmanned Systems Forces
Ukraine / Unmanned Systems Forces
Commander Brovdi confirmed USF units tracked and set fire to Boikyi at Kronstadt, while Code 9.2 struck the Chonhar Bridge the following day. Ukraine is sequencing strikes for rear-area interdiction and political timing rather than ground gains, trading the Baltic Fleet's home base for the logistics squeeze Russia cannot absorb without rationing its own occupied territory.