US and Iran Trade Conflicting Claims Over Potential Peace Deal as Strikes Canceled

The US administration abruptly canceled planned military strikes against Iran late Thursday, announcing that the two nations were on the verge of signing a historic peace agreement. The sudden pivot from threats of "very hard" kinetic action to diplomatic optimism sent shockwaves through global markets, temporarily driving down oil prices. However, within hours of the announcement, the fragile diplomatic breakthrough devolved into a public dispute, with Washington and Tehran trading conflicting claims over the actual terms of the draft deal.[1][2][4]

The chaotic negotiations follow a devastating three-month regional conflict that began in late February with a US-Israeli military campaign against Iran. While a temporary ceasefire was brokered in April, tensions flared again in early June. Recent days saw a resumption of hostilities, including an Iranian drone attack on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and Israeli strikes against Hezbollah militants in Lebanon. The initial US threat to target Iran's Kharg Island oil terminal was widely seen as an attempt to force Tehran into finalizing an "off-ramp" agreement.[2][5]

The dispute over the deal's contents erupted after Iranian state media published what it claimed was a finalized draft of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). According to the semi-official Mehr news agency, the agreement included massive concessions from the United States. The leaked terms alleged that Washington would unfreeze $24 billion in Iranian assets, lift crippling sanctions on Iranian oil and petrochemicals, and ensure an end to military operations in Lebanon. The report also claimed the US agreed not to intervene in Iran's internal affairs.[1][3][4][7]

The US President responded furiously to the Iranian reports, taking to social media to denounce the leaked terms as "Fake News." He stated that the claims bore "no relation to the truth" and had "nothing to do with the terms that were agreed to, in writing." The administration characterized the Iranian leadership as "very dishonorable people to deal with," adding that "there is no such thing as dealing in good faith" with Tehran. The US also demanded that Iran immediately halt its attacks on shipping vessels.[1][3][4]

Senior US administration officials quickly offered a starkly different version of the emerging agreement. According to officials who briefed Reuters and other outlets, the US-backed draft is a strictly "performance-based" deal. Under these terms, Iran would be required to completely dismantle its nuclear program, destroy all existing nuclear materials, and permanently cease funding for proxy militant groups across the Middle East. Officials emphasized that none of Tehran's frozen assets would be released until these sweeping conditions were verifiably met.[3][4][6]

A major sticking point remains the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime chokepoint for global energy supplies. Iran has heavily restricted the waterway in recent months, demanding that international vessels obtain permission from its armed forces before transiting. The US administration insists that the peace deal must guarantee total freedom of navigation. US officials indicated that the agreement would see the strait fully reopened, while the US would simultaneously lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports.[1][4]

The nuclear component of the treaty also presents significant hurdles. Washington is reportedly demanding concrete parameters, including a strict 15-year moratorium on uranium enrichment and the immediate disposal of Iran's highly enriched uranium stockpile. While the US wants these details codified in the initial MOU, Iran has reportedly pushed for a 60-day negotiation period specifically dedicated to the nuclear program, separate from the immediate cessation of hostilities.[1][2][4]

Complicating the diplomatic efforts is a profound leadership vacuum in Tehran. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who historically held ultimate authority over Iran's nuclear and foreign policy, was reportedly killed or severely wounded during the initial days of the war in February. With his status uncertain and no clear successor publicly steering the state, US negotiators face the challenge of determining whether the Iranian officials at the table have the actual authority to sign and enforce a binding international treaty.[1][2]

The international community has been left to navigate a maze of contradictory signals. Adding to the confusion, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif claimed on social media that a final text had already been agreed upon, a statement neither Washington nor Tehran corroborated. Meanwhile, a senior US official estimated there was an "80 to 85 percent" likelihood of the agreement being signed within days, noting that while most Iranian authorities want the deal, internal fractures within Tehran's leadership are still being resolved.[1]

If the remaining disputes can be bridged, the agreement could be signed as early as this weekend in Europe, with the US Vice President expected to attend the ceremony. However, the situation remains highly volatile. If the conflicting narratives cause the fragile MOU to collapse, the US military remains positioned to execute the strikes that were canceled just days ago, threatening to plunge the Middle East back into full-scale war.[2][3]