The US and Iran have agreed in principle to extend the existing ceasefire for 60 days in order to begin substantive negotiations on Iran's nuclear program, according to a third-party report . The proposed terms require Iran to surrender all of its enriched uranium and commit to not developing nuclear weapons, in exchange for potential sanctions relief from Washington. However, President Trump has not yet formally signed off on the agreement, and Treasury officials have declined to confirm the deal, citing the need for presidential approval.

The 60-day timeline: a pause, not a breakthrough

The 60-day extension is described in the report as a crucial step toward a lasting solution, but it effectively freezes the current situation rather than resolves it. The report notes that American and Iranian officials have already agreed to the terms, but the absence of Trump's signature means the clock has not officially started. This interim period may be used to shape the agenda for deeper talks, but it also risks becoming a stall tactic if either side perceives the other as bargaining in bad faith.

According to the source, the proposed deal would require Iran to hand over all of its enriched uranium and commit to abandoning its nuclear program. In exchange, the US might consider loosening sanctions. The 60-day window is thus a confidence-building measure, but one that requires both sides to deliver on preliminary commitments before any substantive negotiations begin.

Trump's three conditions already on the table

The report explicitly states that President Trump has insisted on three key conditions for any deal: the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, the surrender of highly enriched uranium, and the abandonment of Iran's nuclear program. These conditions are listed as non-negotiable, and the proposed terms mirror them closely. Notably, the Strait of Hormuz condition is a new addition that goes beyond the scope of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, reflecting the administration's broader regional security concerns.

The inclusion of the Strait of Hormuz requirement suggests that the US is linking nuclear negotiations to Iran's behavior in the Persian Gulf.. As the source reports, Treasury officials have declined to confirm the deal's existence, citing the need for Trump's approval, which may indicate internal debate over whether these conditions have been adequately met in the current proposal.

The Treasury department's studied silence

The report notes that Treasury officials have refused to confirm whether a deal has been reached, pointing instead to the need for President Trump's sign-off. This silence is significant because it suggests that the agreement is not yet considered official by key US agencies. the Treasury's role in sanctions enforcement makes it a critical gatekeeper; without its confirmation, the proposed sanctions relief remains hypothetical.

This lack of formal acknowledgment leaves the status of the ceasefire extension ambiguous. The report does not clarify whether the 60-day period is already in effect or whether it only begins once Trump signs. that ambiguity is one of several open questions: Is the ceasefire currently holding on a handshake, or does it require written approval? And if Trump does not sign, what happens to the existing ceasefire?

The nuclear handover: what Iran would actually give up

The proposed deal would require Iran to surrender all of its enriched uranium and commit to not working toward obtaining a nuclear weapon. The report does not specify the current stockpile size or enrichment level ,but this condition would effectively require Iran to dismantle a program it has spent decades developing. The report also notes skepticism from some observers who argue the deal does not go far enough to address Iran's nuclear ambitions,while others worry it could be used as a pretext for further Iranian aggression.

Iranian officials have reportedly agreed to the terms, including the surrender of highly enriched uranium. However, the report does not mention any verification mechanism or role for the International Atomic Energy Agency,a crucial component of past agreements. The absence of such details in the source raises questions about how the uranium handover would be monitored and whether Iran would permit intrusive inspections.