US-Iran Peace Deal Nearing Signing: US Says Probability Rises to 85%, Iran Still Reviewing Final Text
0xBroomberg
A US-Iran memorandum of understanding to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and resolve the nuclear crisis is close to signing — US officials put the odds at 80%-85% — but Iran says it is still deliberating internally, and the two sides are broadcasting contradictory versions of every core term.
How close is the deal, really?
Pakistan's PM Shehbaz announced that the US and Iran have agreed on the final text and are now working out next steps.
But Iran's Fars News Agency quoted a source close to the Iranian negotiating team calling reports of a Sunday signing in Geneva "completely baseless."
A US official said the probability of signing rose from 75% earlier in the day to 80%-85%, but added: "It's not 100%." The reason: Iran's system is "very complex," with internal divisions.
This means → the text may already be written, but Tehran has not finished its internal sign-off process. The bottleneck is not at the negotiating table — it is inside the Iranian regime.
Three sources, three versions — what do the core terms actually say?
The deal's contents remain unpublished. What the outside world knows comes from three channels: diplomats, senior Trump administration officials, and Iranian state media. Their accounts fundamentally contradict each other on multiple key issues.
Strait of Hormuz: US officials and diplomats say the strait will reopen with no tolls, traffic returning to pre-war levels within 30 days. Iranian media insist Tehran will not give up control, the US will play no role, and coordination will be regional among coastal states only.
Nuclear program: US officials say Iran's nuclear program will be dismantled, materials destroyed or shipped out, and Iran will "permanently abandon" its nuclear program. Iranian media say Iran will only engage in nuclear talks within a "framework of basic principles" during a 60-day period, explicitly retaining enrichment rights.
In plain terms = the same document reads as "Iran gives up nukes" from Washington and "Iran keeps nuclear rights" from Tehran. Either the text itself is deliberately ambiguous, or at least one side is overstating what it secured.
What about the money?
VP Vance stated explicitly: "Iran will not receive any cash," and no funds will be unfrozen simply for signing or attending talks.
Iranian media tell the opposite story: the deal includes unfreezing $24 billion in Iranian assets, with half due immediately upon signing.
Iranian media also cite a reconstruction fund of at least $300 billion, framed as war-damage compensation. US officials and diplomats made no mention of this provision.
This means → the funding terms are where the narrative gap is widest. One side says "not a cent," the other says "$12 billion on signing day." A gap this large is hard to explain by wording ambiguity alone.
What does the deal's overall architecture look like?
The US framework is "deliver first, unlock later": Iran gets nothing at signing; economic benefits are tied directly to compliance actions.
After signing, a 60-day "technical" negotiation begins to resolve enrichment details. The deal includes verification mechanisms.
Diplomats add further details: an immediate "full 60-day ceasefire" covering Lebanon; the deal will be named the "Islamabad Accord"; sanctions relief will proceed in stages tied to compliance, with no fixed timeline.
In plain terms = the US describes a "you act, then we pay" structure — but Iran's public version is "sign and collect." Whether two such incompatible logics can coexist inside one document is the deal's biggest open question.
What was the Trump–Araghchi "fight then repost" episode?
After Iranian media disclosed alleged draft terms on Thursday, Trump posted Friday denying them, calling the leaked terms "totally unrelated" to the written agreement and accusing Iran of a "completely unacceptable" drone attack on an Indian vessel leaving the strait.
But Trump then reposted Iranian FM Araghchi's message — in which Araghchi said the two sides had "never been closer" to a memorandum of understanding.
This reflects a "deny and advance" dynamic: each side publicly rejects the other's framing to protect bargaining leverage while simultaneously signaling the deal is still on track.
Israel and India — what are the wild cards?
Israeli Defense Minister Katz declared Friday that Israel must retain "the ability to act independently to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons" and has instructed the IDF to prepare accordingly. This means → even if the US and Iran sign, Israel has reserved a unilateral military option.
Katz also said Israel will not withdraw from occupied "security zones" in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza — its posture is "confronting threats, not compromising."
The 14-point draft leaked by Iranian media shows that Iran's missile program and its support for proxy groups were excluded from the agenda — precisely the issues Israel cares about most.
A separate variable: India's foreign ministry summoned the US chargé d'affaires Friday to protest recent US naval strikes on tankers carrying Indian crew in the Gulf of Oman, which killed 3 Indian sailors — adding a new complication to the regional picture.
Content is for reference only, not financial advice.