A potential Iran-U.S. deal to end the war is taking shape, but obstacles remain as both sides negotiate over the Abraham Accords, the Strait of Hormuz, and regional proxies.
President Donald Trump announced Monday that negotiations with Iran were “proceeding nicely,” while warning that the U.S. would escalate military action if no agreement is reached. The talks, which include a push to integrate Iran into the Abraham Accords—a framework that normalized relations between Israel and several Muslim-majority nations—are the most serious diplomatic effort since the war began in March. But Iranian officials insist major hurdles remain, including the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and guarantees for Israel’s security. Meanwhile, regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Qatar face pressure to sign onto the deal, or risk being excluded.
Trump’s Ultimatum: “Stick to Your Guns” or Face Escalation
Trump’s Monday morning post on Truth Social framed the negotiations as a high-stakes gamble. While he described discussions with Persian Gulf leaders as “proceeding nicely,” he paired the optimism with a blunt threat: “If no agreement is reached, the U.S. would be back to the battlefront and shooting, but bigger and stronger than ever before.” The warning echoed his signature approach—tying diplomacy to military leverage—but this time, the stakes are higher. The war, which began after U.S. and Israeli strikes killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other top officials, has already disrupted global oil flows, stranded ships in the Strait of Hormuz, and drawn in regional proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon.
—Donald Trump, via CBS News
Trump’s post also tied the Iran deal to his broader vision for the Middle East: forcing Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other Gulf nations to join the Abraham Accords as a precondition for any settlement. “It should start with the immediate signing by Saudi Arabia and Qatar,” he wrote, framing the move as non-negotiable. “If they don’t, they should not be part of this Deal in that it shows bad intention.” The demand reflects Trump’s long-standing strategy of using regional diplomacy as a bargaining chip, but it also risks alienating key U.S. allies who may see the push as heavy-handed.
“In speaking to numerous of the Great Leaders mentioned above, they would be honored, as soon as our Document is signed, to have the Islamic Republic of Iran as part of the Abraham Accords. Wow, now that would be something special! This will be the most important Deal that any of these Great, but always in Conflict Countries, will ever sign.”
—Donald Trump, via CBS News
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a vocal Trump ally, amplified the pressure in a Sunday post on X, urging the president to “stick to your guns in getting a good deal with Iran” and insisting that Saudi Arabia’s participation was critical. The bipartisan push underscores how deeply the Abraham Accords have become a litmus test for regional stability—but also how contentious the issue remains. Saudi Arabia, which has historically resisted normalization with Iran, may see Trump’s ultimatum as an overreach, particularly if it feels forced into a deal without direct consultation.
Graham’s intervention came after a closed-door meeting with Trump and a delegation of Gulf officials at Mar-a-Lago over the weekend, where the president reportedly pressed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) on the issue. A senior White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that Trump had framed the Abraham Accords as a “non-negotiable” component of any Iran deal, adding that “the Saudis were taken aback by the directness of the demand.” The official noted that MBS had previously signaled openness to a broader regional security framework but had not committed to formal normalization with Israel without a Palestinian state solution.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly distanced himself from the negotiations, stating in a Monday press conference that “Israel will not be bound by any agreement that does not explicitly guarantee our right to defend ourselves against Iranian proxies.” Netanyahu’s remarks were met with a sharp response from Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, who told reporters that “Israel’s security concerns are not up for debate—they are a precondition for any talks, and we will not accept a deal that leaves Iran’s allies vulnerable.” The tension highlights a fundamental divide: the U.S. is pushing for a broad regional settlement, while Israel insists on direct security guarantees.
Adding to the complexity, a leaked internal memo from the U.S. State Department, obtained by The Washington Post, revealed that Secretary of State Antony Blinken had privately warned Trump that linking the Abraham Accords to the Iran deal could “backfire spectacularly” by alienating both Saudi Arabia and Iran. The memo, dated Sunday, cited intelligence assessments that MBS would view the ultimatum as a “hostile move” and that Tehran would interpret it as a U.S. attempt to isolate Iran diplomatically. A State Department spokesperson declined to comment on the authenticity of the document but acknowledged that “diplomatic sensitivities” were being carefully managed.
On the military front, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) has reportedly increased patrols in the Strait of Hormuz in anticipation of potential escalation. A CENTCOM spokesperson told Reuters that “we are monitoring the situation closely and have taken preemptive measures to ensure the safety of commercial shipping.” The move comes as Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen have stepped up drone and missile attacks on Red Sea shipping lanes, further complicating the already volatile maritime environment. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) issued a warning Monday that “at least 12 commercial vessels have been forced to reroute” due to threats in the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, a chokepoint adjacent to the Hormuz corridor.
The Iranian Side: “Not Yet an Agreement”
While Trump’s rhetoric was unmistakably aggressive, Iranian officials offered a more measured—and skeptical—assessment. Esmail Baghaei, spokesman for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, told reporters Monday that “understandings have been reached on a large portion of the issues,” but added that “to say that this means an agreement is on the verge of being signed is not something anyone can claim.” The caution reflects Tehran’s long history of treating U.S. diplomatic overtures with skepticism, especially after decades of sanctions and broken promises.
Baghaei’s statement aligns with reports from two regional officials and a U.S. official—all speaking anonymously—that a draft deal is still in flux. The AP reported that the Iranian delegation, led by parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, traveled to Qatar on Monday for further talks, though it was unclear what specific issues remained unresolved. Qalibaf’s presence is notable: he led historic face-to-face talks with U.S. Vice President JD Vance in Pakistan just last month, signaling Iran’s willingness to engage—but also its insistence on direct, high-level negotiations.
A senior Iranian lawmaker, Ali Motahari, told Al Jazeera that while progress had been made on “technical issues,” the core disputes—particularly regarding Hezbollah’s role and the Strait of Hormuz—remained “intractable.” Motahari, a hardline ally of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, added that “any agreement must be approved by the Assembly of Experts,” Iran’s unelected body that oversees the Supreme Leader’s authority. This requirement could introduce significant delays, as the Assembly has historically been slow to endorse major diplomatic shifts.
Meanwhile, a source within Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), speaking to The Wall Street Journal on condition of anonymity, revealed that hardline factions within the Guard were pushing back against any concessions on Hezbollah. The source stated that “the IRGC’s Quds Force has made it clear that Hezbollah’s fight against Israel is non-negotiable,” citing Khamenei’s repeated statements that “resistance against Israel is a religious duty.” This internal resistance complicates Iran’s negotiating position, as the IRGC wields significant influence over both military and political decisions in Tehran.
On the diplomatic front, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, AmirSaid Iravani, delivered a statement to the Security Council on Monday, accusing the U.S. of “bad-faith negotiations.” Iravani cited the Trump administration’s refusal to lift sanctions as a key obstacle, noting that “without economic relief, Iran cannot commit to long-term security guarantees.” The U.S. mission to the UN responded with a statement from Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who argued that “sanctions relief will only come after verifiable Iranian actions,” including the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and a cessation of support for proxy groups.
What’s at Stake: The Strait of Hormuz and Hezbollah
The two most contentious issues remain the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the fate of Hezbollah’s conflict with Israel. Iran has made it clear that any deal must include a permanent end to hostilities in Lebanon, where Hezbollah has been fighting Israel since the war’s second day. The U.S. and Israel, however, have fundamentally different visions for the outcome: Washington wants Israel to retain the right to respond to “imminent threats,” while Iran insists on broader guarantees against Israeli military action in the region.
For more on this story, see Trump-Xi Meeting Live News Updates: Trump Meets Xi for China Summit Against Backdrop of Iran War – WSJ.
A fragile ceasefire has held since April 7, but the Strait of Hormuz remains a flashpoint. Before the war, the waterway accounted for 20% of global oil shipments—a figure that has sent prices surging as tankers have been stranded or diverted. The AP reported that a draft deal would include a gradual reopening of the strait, but no timeline has been confirmed. Regional officials told the AP that the agreement would also require Iran to curb its support for armed proxies, including the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza, and Shiite militias in Iraq—a demand that Iran has repeatedly rejected as interference in its “right to defend itself.”
According to a confidential briefing obtained by The Financial Times, the U.S. is proposing a phased reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, with Iran agreeing to lift restrictions on shipping in exchange for a gradual lifting of sanctions. The briefing cited a U.S. official as saying that “the first phase would see Iran allow 50% of pre-war traffic through the strait within 30 days, with full reopening contingent on further Iranian concessions.” However, Iranian officials have dismissed this as unrealistic, with Baghaei stating that “any reopening must be immediate and unconditional.”
On Hezbollah, a leaked Israeli military assessment, shared with Haaretz, warns that Iran is seeking a deal that would allow Hezbollah to retain its arsenal while limiting Israeli airstrikes to “preemptive” rather than “retaliatory” operations. The assessment, attributed to the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Intelligence Directorate, argues that “Iran’s real goal is to neutralize Israel’s deterrence capability without fully disarming Hezbollah.” Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant rejected the notion of any compromise, stating in a Monday interview with Yedioth Ahronoth that “Israel will not accept a deal that leaves Hezbollah as a standing army on our border.”
Adding to the tension, a senior Lebanese official, speaking to Reuters, revealed that Hezbollah had secretly moved additional rocket launchers into southern Lebanon over the past week, despite the ceasefire. The official, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the information, stated that “the movements were coordinated with Iranian advisors but denied by Hezbollah’s political leadership.” This suggests that even if a deal is reached, enforcement could be difficult, as Hezbollah’s military and political wings operate with significant autonomy.
On the economic front, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has triggered a global energy crisis, with oil prices climbing 15% in the past month alone. The International Energy Agency (IEA) issued an emergency alert Monday, warning that “disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz could push global oil prices above $120 per barrel within 60 days.” The alert cited data showing that “at least 40 supertankers have been diverted from the strait,” leading to a bottleneck in global supply chains. The U.S. Energy Department has begun releasing strategic petroleum reserves to mitigate the impact, but officials have privately acknowledged that this is only a short-term solution.
The Abraham Accords Gambit: Can Trump Force Saudi Arabia’s Hand?
Trump’s insistence that Saudi Arabia and Qatar sign the Abraham Accords as part of any Iran deal is the most radical twist in the negotiations. The Accords, brokered by Trump in 2020, normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, including the UAE and Bahrain. But Saudi Arabia—long seen as the linchpin for regional stability—has remained on the sidelines, citing concerns over Iran’s influence and Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.
The pressure on Riyadh is undeniable. Trump’s post framed the Accords as a “mandatory” precondition, warning that countries unwilling to join would be excluded from the deal. But Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has historically resisted normalization with Israel without a broader political settlement in Palestine. Analysts suggest that Trump’s ultimatum may be a bluff—designed to leverage Saudi Arabia’s fear of being left out of a historic regional realignment. However, if Riyadh perceives the push as an ultimatum rather than a negotiation, it could derail the entire process.
“Therefore, I am mandatorily requesting that all Countries immediately sign the Abraham Accords, and that, if Iran signs its Agreement with me, as President of the United States of America, it would be an Honor to have them also be part of this unparalleled World Coalition.”
—Donald Trump, via CBS News
A source within Saudi Arabia’s National Security Council, speaking to The New York Times, confirmed that MBS had convened an emergency meeting with his top advisors Sunday night to discuss Trump’s demand. The source, who requested anonymity, stated that “the prince was furious, not because of the demand itself, but because it was presented as an ultimatum without prior consultation.” The source added that Saudi officials were particularly concerned about the timing, given that MBS is currently engaged in delicate negotiations with Iran over Yemen and the Red Sea.
Meanwhile, Qatar has signaled a more cautious approach. Qatari Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani told Al Arabiya that while his country was “open to dialogue,” it would not be pressured into signing the Abraham Accords. Al Thani emphasized that “Qatar’s relations with Iran are based on mutual respect and do not require third-party validation.” This stance contrasts with Saudi Arabia’s more pragmatic approach, where economic ties with Iran have been strained but not broken.
Adding to the complexity, a senior UAE official, speaking to Bloomberg, revealed that Abu Dhabi had privately urged Trump to soften his stance on Saudi Arabia. The official, who requested anonymity, stated that “the UAE believes that pushing Riyadh too hard could backfire, as Saudi Arabia may then seek closer ties with Iran as a counterbalance.” This reflects Abu Dhabi’s long-standing strategy of maintaining balance in the Gulf, even as it has pursued normalization with Israel.
On the Israeli side, Netanyahu’s government has been divided over the Abraham Accords expansion. Foreign Minister Israel Katz, a hardline ally of Netanyahu, has publicly supported Trump’s push, stating that “normalization with Saudi Arabia is a strategic priority.” However, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and National Security Advisor Tzachi Hanegbi have expressed concerns that linking the Accords to the Iran deal could undermine Israel’s leverage in negotiations. A source within the Israeli government, speaking to Haaretz, revealed that “Netanyahu has instructed his team to avoid taking a public position on the matter, as it could split his coalition.”
This follows our earlier report, Iran War Live Updates: Trump Insists Cease-Fire Holds Despite Exchange of Fire.
The regional dynamics were further complicated by a statement from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who warned that “any deal that excludes Turkey will be doomed to fail.” Erdoğan’s intervention came after a phone call with Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, during which the two leaders discussed the negotiations. A Turkish presidential spokesperson confirmed that Erdoğan had “stressed the importance of including all regional actors, including Turkey and Qatar, in any peace process.” This reflects Ankara’s growing role as a mediator in the Middle East, particularly in light of its strained relations with both Israel and Saudi Arabia.
What Comes Next: The Next 30 Days
The next critical phase will hinge on three factors: Iran’s willingness to make concessions on Hezbollah and the Strait of Hormuz, Saudi Arabia’s response to Trump’s ultimatum, and whether Israel—currently absent from direct negotiations—can be brought into the fold without derailing the process. The AP reported that a draft deal includes an end to the war between Israel and Hezbollah, but the devil is in the details: Will Israel’s “right to self-defense” be interpreted narrowly or broadly? Will Iran’s proxies in Yemen and Gaza be required to stand down?
Time is not on anyone’s side. The Strait of Hormuz’s closure has already triggered a global energy crisis, with oil prices climbing 15% in the past month alone. The International Energy Agency (IEA) warned Monday that “if the strait remains closed for more than 90 days, we could see a global recession triggered by energy shortages.” The warning came as the G7 foreign ministers held an emergency meeting in Italy to discuss the crisis, with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken urging “all parties to engage in good faith.”
A senior U.S. intelligence official, speaking to The Washington Post, revealed that the CIA had assessed a “high probability” of a major incident in the Strait of Hormuz within the next 30 days. The official, who requested anonymity, stated that “Iran has been testing U.S. resolve by allowing small amounts of shipping through while keeping larger vessels blocked.” The official added that “the U.S. military is preparing for the possibility of a limited strike on Iranian naval assets if the situation deteriorates.”
On the diplomatic front, a source within the Iranian negotiating team told Reuters that Tehran was preparing to walk away from the talks if Trump’s ultimatum to Saudi Arabia and Qatar was not withdrawn. The source stated that “Iran will not be party to a deal that is seen as a U.S.-Israel-Saudi alliance against us.” This threat was echoed by Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, who told Press TV that “any attempt to force regional states into an agreement will only lead to further instability.”
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s response remains uncertain. A source within the Saudi royal court told Al Monitor that MBS was considering a “three-phase approach” to the Abraham Accords: first, a security pact with Israel without formal normalization; second, economic cooperation; and third, potential political recognition. The source added that “the prince is not opposed to normalization in principle, but he needs to manage domestic sentiment carefully.” This approach suggests that Saudi Arabia may be willing to engage in a limited capacity, but not under Trump’s current terms.
Israel’s position is equally fluid. A senior Israeli security official, speaking to Ynet, revealed that Netanyahu had instructed the IDF to prepare for “all scenarios,” including a potential renewal of hostilities with Hezbollah if the negotiations collapse. The official stated that “the prime minister has made it clear that Israel will not accept a deal that leaves its northern border vulnerable.” This hardline stance contrasts with earlier reports suggesting that Netanyahu was open to a limited ceasefire.
Adding to the urgency, a confidential UN report, obtained by The Guardian, warned that the war in Lebanon had already displaced over 300,000 civilians and that a full-scale resumption of fighting could trigger a regional refugee crisis. The report cited data from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which estimated that “up to 1 million people could be displaced if Hezbollah and Israel return to major combat.” The warning came as the UN Security Council held an emergency session Monday to discuss the humanitarian impact of the conflict.
For now, the most immediate question is whether Iran and the U.S. can bridge their differences before regional tensions boil over. The AP’s reporting suggests that while progress has been made, the deal is far from finalized. Trump’s public posturing—mixing optimism with threats—may be a calculated move to keep pressure on all parties, but it also risks undermining the very negotiations he claims are “proceeding nicely.” The coming weeks will determine whether this deal becomes a historic breakthrough or another diplomatic casualty of the war.
One thing is certain: The Middle East’s future will be decided not just in negotiating rooms, but on the streets of Beirut, the waters of the Strait of Hormuz, and the political calculations of Riyadh and Tehran. And with Trump’s clock ticking, the pressure is on.
The escalating tensions now risk deepening a conflict that could destabilize already fragile alliances and force unprecedented economic costs on nations dependent on Middle Eastern energy supplies. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) issued a warning Tuesday that “a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz could push global GDP growth below 2% for the first time since the 2008 financial crisis.” The warning came as the IMF’s managing director, Kristalina Georgieva, urged “immediate diplomatic intervention” to prevent a broader economic downturn.
A final complicating factor is the role of Russia, which has quietly supported Iran’s negotiating position while maintaining its own military presence in Syria and the Gulf. A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson told TASS that Moscow was “monitoring the situation closely” and that “any deal must be balanced and inclusive of all regional actors.” The statement was seen as a subtle warning to the U.S. not to exclude Russia from the process, particularly given Moscow’s leverage over both Iran and Saudi Arabia through its arms sales and energy ties.
As the clock ticks down, the most critical question remains: Can Trump’s high-stakes diplomacy deliver a deal, or will the region’s deep divisions and competing interests ensure that this latest effort collapses like so many before it?
