US, Iran and mediators discuss terms for a 45-day ceasefire

[Twiglets1]

As reported by Axios, the U.S., Iran and a group of regional mediators are discussing the terms for a potential 45-day ceasefire that could lead to a permanent end to the war, according to four U.S., Israeli and regional sources with knowledge of the talks.

Four sources with knowledge of the diplomatic efforts said the negotiations are taking place through Pakistani, Egyptian and Turkish mediators and also through text messages sent between Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff and Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

• A U.S. official said the Trump administration gave Iran several proposals in recent days, but so far Iranian officials hadn't accepted them.
• The sources said the mediators are discussing with the parties the terms for two-phased deal; the first phase would a potential 45-day ceasefire during which a permanent end to the war would be negotiated.
• The ceasefire could be extended if more time were needed for talks, one of the sources said.
• The second phase would be an agreement on ending the war.
• The sources said mediators think that fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz and a solution for Iran's highly enriched Uranium — either through its removal from the country or dilution — could only be a result of a final deal.
• These two issues are Iran's main bargaining chips in the negotiations and the Iranians will not agree to fully give up on them for only 45 days of ceasefire, two of the sources said.
• The mediators want to see whether Iran could take partial step on both issues in the first phase of the deal. They are also working on steps the Trump administration could take to give Iran guarantees that the ceasefire will not be temporary and that the war will not resume.

www.axios.com/2026/04/06/iran-war-us-tehran-ceasefire-talks

It is not moaning pointing out that whilst far from perfec, the JPCOA was better than anything in place now.

But there isn't an agreement in place yet so why not wait until we can all see the final document before deciding whether it is better or worse.

Well stop accussing people of moaning then.

Military analyst Michael Clarke's opinion on Sky News

Can Trump get a nuclear deal that's better than Obama's? Probably not - here's why

https://news.sky.com/story/iran-war-latest-us-and-iran-getting-a-lot-closer-to-finalising-agreement-to-end-war-says-donald-trump-13509565?postid=11750403#liveblog-body

And this is what Clarke thinks it boils down to:
I think that whatever that proposal was, however far it got, I'd be quite surprised if the Iranians would agree to no enrichment. I think we'll end up - if there is a deal... it's going to look pretty much like the 2015 deal.

Because "that was the best deal available".

Well we still have the IRCG in control and Iran are going to maintain some form of control over the SOH, so it already looks like a worse deal.

Re the JPCOA.

I recall at the time of ripping up, near everyone said... DONT DO IT MR PRESIDENT.

I think only Trump, Netanyahu and US hawk republicans wanted to rip it up.

I reckon it is totally ok to keep mentioning the JPCOA. Especially given that the two main people wanting to rip it up then are the same 2 people that started the war that is now ongoing.

Trump is once again posting AI images of the US destroying the Iranian navy, which he claims over and over again has been destroyed completely.

The reason I and other posters reference the JCPOA is because Trump tore it up.

If you end one agreement claiming it's inferior then it stands to reason people will expect your iteration to be substantively better.

Otherwise Trump will have left the world in a worse position than it was before.

I'll do what I want thanks.

People will continue to go on about the JPCOA and I'll continue to mention roughly every 100th time I see it posted that it's pointless as firstly, it's in the past and secondly, we don't know yet how the new agreement will compare.

One person's opinion.

I could find another analyst saying something different, if I could be bothered.

Why don't you bother?

I am interested in hearing different opinions.

Yeah. Lets see what the Fox News expert says.

But seriously, if any deal talked about now was better than anything before, Trump would not shut up about it.

As it is, this feels like Trump just repeatedly saying " The cheque is in the post.". And if anyone asks if the cheque is for the full amount due, he just says: " The cheque is in the post."

There’s an article in reuters saying that Iran will not be handing over their enriched uranium. Can’t link it because it’s behind a paywall.

This deal is looking worse and worse.

Watch out Cuba.

Because it's pointless doing a deep dive into differing opinions when we don't even know what the outcome of these negotiations will be. And the two deals will not be directly comparable anyway.

This Guardian article points out that comparisons between the 159-page 2015 joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA), the product of a specific moment in time, and whatever comes out of Islamabad cannot be exact since the nature of the Iran’s nuclear programme has altered so much since 2015.

Moreover other issues, such as Iran’s ballistic missile programme or the stewardship of the strait of Hormuz, have greater prominence than in 2015.

In one respect, any Islamabad deal will be better than the JCPOA since it will contain no sunset clauses, one of Trump’s major criticisms of the Obama deal. The new deal will have datelines for specific events to be triggered, but overall the deal is intended to be for ever.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/15/trump-needs-a-better-iran-deal-than-obamas-but-faces-major-hurdles

Interesting that some consider things in the past are irrelevant though
I strongly disagree with that although I do agree it’s important to always look forward to possible better solutions by learning from the past

Full statement from Trump on Truth Social:

"One of the worst deals ever made by our Country was the Iran Nuclear Deal, put forth and signed into existence by Barack Hussein Obama and the rank amateurs of the Obama Administration.
"It was a direct path to Iran developing a Nuclear Weapon. Not so with the transaction currently being negotiated with Iran by the Trump Administration - THE EXACT OPPOSITE, in fact!
"The negotiations are proceeding in an orderly and constructive manner, and I have informed my representatives not to rush into a deal in that time is on our side.
"The Blockade will remain in full force and effect until an agreement is reached, certified, and signed. Both sides must take their time and get it right.
"There can be no mistakes! Our relationship with Iran is becoming a much more professional and productive one. They must understand, however, that they cannot develop or procure a Nuclear Weapon or Bomb.
"I would like to thank, thus far, all of the countries of the Middle East for their support and cooperation, which will be further enhanced and strengthened by their joining the Nations of the historic Abraham Accords and, who knows, perhaps the Islamic Republic of Iran would like to join, as well!

So there we have it - an invitation to Iran to join the Abraham Accords 😂

Response from Ursula von der Leyen on X:

I welcome the progress towards an agreement between the US and Iran. We need a deal that truly de-escalates the conflict, reopens the Strait of Hormuz and guarantees toll free full freedom of navigation. Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. It must also end its destabilising actions in the region, directly or through proxies, as well as its unjustified and repeated attacks on its neighbours. Europe will continue working with international partners to seize this moment for a lasting diplomatic solution. And to contain the spillover of this conflict, notably on supply chains and energy prices.

I don’t think Trump’s statement adds any clarity.

’time is on our side’? I suppose that’s true if you aren’t concerned about the global impact.

Earlier Reuters reported - “Even if the war ends now, full flows through the strait will not return before the first or second quarter of 2027, the head of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company said last week.”
That would be a full year after the bombing began.

Ok? If you don't think it's at all interesting then you don't need to comment on it.

Iran not seeking nuclear weapons: Pezeshkian

President Masoud Pezeshkian says Tehran is not seeking nuclear weapons, as negotiations with the US on Iran’s nuclear programme continue.

“We are ready to reassure the world that we are not seeking nuclear weapons,” Pezeshkian said, according to local media reports.

But he emphasised that Iran’s negotiating team “will not compromise” when it comes to its “honour and dignity”.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/5/24/live-trump-says-new-iran-deal-largely-negotiated-with-talks-very-soon

Deal will be signed in coming days, but not today; Iran prepared to ‘dispose’ of enriched uranium

A senior US official just briefed reporters that an agreement with Iran “will be signed in the coming days,” though not today, and that Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has given “a general agreement” to the terms, Israel’s Channel 12 news reports.

Still, nothing is done until it’s done, the official reportedly clarifies. The official is evidently referring to a Memorandum of Understanding discussed by US President Trump yesterday.

The official says the Iranians gave assurances — verbal and in writing — that any subsequent permanent deal will include the “disposal” of all enriched uranium, higher and lower levels. They did not specify how the stockpiles would be disposed of.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/us-official-deal-will-be-signed-in-coming-days-but-not-today-iran-prepared-to-dispose-of-enriched-uranium/

I just noted that Trump's 'Truth Social' post didn't add any clarity. Which it doesn't.