The president says "it's in effect," while his aides say "it's still a long way off": Before the US-Iran agreement is even signed, a power struggle is already unfolding in the White House.
2026-06-16 09:04:49
As the G7 summit's agenda progresses steadily, US President Trump officially announced the latest developments in the US-Iran peace agreement, stating that the Strait of Hormuz will be fully open to the public this Friday (June 19). According to the established plan, the two countries will hold a formal signing ceremony in Switzerland, completely ending the four-month-long regional conflict and simultaneously launching a new round of special negotiations on the Iranian nuclear issue.
This memorandum of understanding is seen as a key tool for easing tensions in the Middle East and stabilizing the global energy market, with the potential to end the long-standing maritime standoff in the Gulf region. However, the current situation is far more complex than it appears on the surface. There are multiple disagreements among Trump's public statements, the statements from senior US government officials, and the positions of G7 allies, with differing opinions on core issues such as the timetable for opening the agreement, the details of the text, and the conditions for its implementation.
Multiple contradictions and internal and external resistance have fully exposed the weakness of this hard-won ceasefire agreement. Transforming the consensus on paper into actual results still faces many uncertainties, and the road to its implementation will be fraught with difficulties.
On June 15, the opening day of the G7 summit, Trump, while attending the opening ceremony with French President Macron, publicly briefed the public on the progress of the US-Iran agreement. He clearly stated that the agreement had been signed and entered into force, that the Strait of Hormuz was partially open and that navigation was proceeding smoothly, and that he was certain that the entire strait would be fully open by Friday, achieving unconditional freedom of navigation. He also promised to release the full text of the agreement to the public on the same day.
However, senior White House officials subsequently gave a completely different account to the media in an anonymous briefing, directly contradicting Trump's remarks. US officials pointed out that due to factors such as route rerouting, military deployments, and ship registration procedures, it would take at least two weeks for the Strait of Hormuz to fully return to its pre-conflict shipping levels, and the text of the agreement was expected to be released within two days. This contradictory official statement not only left shipping companies bewildered but also reflected an imbalance in the internal communication mechanisms of the US government.
It is understood that the memorandum was finalized after months of negotiations among various parties. It covers two basic terms: lifting the maritime blockade and a 60-day ceasefire. A two-month special technical negotiation will follow, with the core objective of destroying Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium and limiting Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons from the source.
Following the signing of the US-Iran ceasefire memorandum, the Iranian issue naturally became the core topic of discussion at this G7 summit, and a top priority for Trump's consultations with allies. Major G7 members adopted a cautious approach, with several officials privately revealing that they had not yet reviewed the complete text of the memorandum. Previous expressions of congratulations were based solely on verbal commitments from the US, Iran, and mediator Pakistan, without any substantial terms being known. Allies generally harbored doubts and planned to press Trump at the summit regarding plans for maintaining the agreement and risk management mechanisms, in order to assess the future direction of the Middle East situation.
Meanwhile, the biggest external obstacle comes from Israel. The Israeli authorities have consistently opposed the current version of the peace agreement, arguing that it only focuses on a ceasefire and the resumption of air travel, failing to address core threats such as Iran's missile development and overseas militias, and thus cannot fundamentally guarantee Israel's national security. Currently, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has urgently requested a meeting with Trump in an attempt to pressure the US to revise the agreement.
Furthermore, the Israeli Defense Minister publicly announced that Israeli troops would not withdraw from southern Lebanon, a statement that directly impacted the regional ceasefire agreement. However, senior US officials responded that troop withdrawal from Lebanon was not a hard condition of the US-Iran agreement, indirectly mitigating the negative impact of Israel's actions.
According to the detailed signing schedule released by the White House, U.S. Vice President Vance, along with Iran envoys Kushner and Witkov, will represent the U.S. at the formal signing ceremony in Switzerland this Friday, together with the Iranian delegation.
In fact, Trump and Vance completed the internal signing process of the agreement ahead of schedule via online digital signing last Sunday (June 14), which means that the US has completed the pre-signing work. In an interview, Vance stated frankly that the agreement still contains many vague clauses and many details have not yet been finalized, and the US and Iran need to negotiate and refine them face-to-face.
According to the agreement, technical negotiations will begin within 60 days of the formal signing. The negotiation list includes key items such as the highly enriched uranium destruction process, the tiered approach to sanctions relief, and detailed rules for navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. The navigation clause is the core of the negotiations; the US hopes to finalize long-term rules to achieve permanent free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and reshape the shipping landscape of the Gulf. Vance has publicly stated that the US holds absolute initiative in the entire negotiation and possesses all the bargaining chips.
However, Iran has taken a hard line, insisting that the US lift the blockade and ease sanctions as a prerequisite for negotiations, and the game between the two sides has entered a heated stage.
In addition to external conflicts, the US-Iran agreement also faces severe domestic political resistance, with members of both parties in the US Congress intervening to seek control over the review and voting rights of the agreement and to check the Trump administration's foreign policy decisions.
A clear division has emerged at the partisan level. Democratic factions, which oppose foreign conflict, have offered only conservative, neutral, and moderate support for the ceasefire agreement, without fully endorsing it. Meanwhile, the Republican camp, traditionally supportive of Trump, has voiced numerous objections and reservations, indicating significant internal divisions. Senior Iran hawk Senator Lindsey Graham publicly stated that, under current US law, all agreements related to the Iran nuclear deal must be submitted to Congress for review and a vote, and cannot be unilaterally decided by the president. Furthermore, a split has also occurred in the White House's economic policy pronouncements.
Trump announced last Sunday that Iran could immediately resume oil exports and quickly repatriate funds once the sanctions are lifted; however, US economic officials have maintained for weeks that the US will only lift sanctions and allow exports if Iran fully fulfills all its denuclearization commitments. This policy divide, coupled with congressional scrutiny, has further raised the bar for an agreement to be implemented, significantly increasing the uncertainty of US-Iran peace talks.
During the G7 summit, Trump announced that the Strait of Hormuz would be fully open this Friday and planned to hold a formal signing ceremony in Switzerland with Iran to launch nuclear negotiations, including the dismantling of highly enriched uranium. However, significant disagreements exist within the US government between Trump and White House officials regarding the opening timeline and implementation details. G7 allies lack a substantial understanding of the agreement text and remain cautious. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu strongly opposes the agreement's contents and refuses to withdraw troops from Lebanon. Both parties in the US Congress are also seeking the right to review the agreement. These multi-layered disagreements highlight the agreement's weak foundation and the multiple challenges its implementation faces, including high-level coordination, allied trust, regional resistance, and domestic politics. The prospects for global energy stability remain uncertain.
Q1: What are Trump's specific statements regarding the progress of the US-Iran agreement?
During the G7 summit, Trump announced that the agreement had been signed and entered into force, and that the Strait of Hormuz would be fully open this Friday, allowing unconditional freedom of navigation. He also promised to release the full text of the agreement on the same day. He emphasized that this move would end the four-month-long regional conflict and pave the way for subsequent nuclear negotiations. However, this optimistic statement contradicts statements from White House officials, who believe that a full return to normal shipping will take more than two weeks.
Q2: What are the core terms and follow-up arrangements of the US-Iran agreement?
The agreement primarily covers lifting the maritime blockade, a 60-day nationwide ceasefire, and outlines plans for Iran's reconstruction. The formal signing ceremony is scheduled for this Friday in Switzerland, with Vice Presidents Vance, Kushner, and Witkov representing the US. Following the signing, two months of focused technical negotiations will commence, emphasizing the destruction of Iran's highly enriched uranium stockpile, a tiered approach to sanctions relief, and details regarding permanent free passage through the Strait of Hormuz. The US claims to hold the upper hand, but Iran insists on the lifting of the blockade and the easing of sanctions as prerequisites.
Q3: Why does Israel strongly oppose the current agreement?
Israel argues that the agreement, focusing only on a ceasefire and the resumption of air travel, fails to address core threats such as Iran's missile development and support for overseas militias, thus failing to guarantee its national security. Netanyahu urgently requested a meeting with Trump to pressure for revisions and announced that Israeli troops would not withdraw from southern Lebanon. Although the US stated that troop withdrawal from Lebanon was not a hard condition of the agreement, Israel's position remains a significant external obstacle to its implementation.
Q4: How do G7 allies and the US Congress view this agreement?
G7 members have adopted a cautious stance, with many having yet to see the full text and offering only verbal congratulations, planning to press for its maintenance at the summit. Meanwhile, the US Congress is seeking the right to review the agreement: Democrats are offering moderate support, while Republicans are divided, with hawkish Senator Graham emphasizing that the Iran nuclear deal must be reviewed and voted on by Congress. The White House is also divided on policy regarding oil exports and the timing of sanctions lifting.
Q5: What are the main uncertainties and potential impacts of the agreement?
The agreement faces multiple obstacles, including differing statements from Trump and officials, concerns from allies, opposition from Israel, congressional review, and a hardline stance from Iran, making its implementation difficult. These disagreements could delay the full opening of the Straits and the stability of the energy market, increasing risks to global shipping and inflation. In the long term, the success or failure of the nuclear negotiations will determine whether the situation in the Middle East can truly ease, and will also test the United States' diplomatic credibility and domestic political balance.
This memorandum of understanding is seen as a key tool for easing tensions in the Middle East and stabilizing the global energy market, with the potential to end the long-standing maritime standoff in the Gulf region. However, the current situation is far more complex than it appears on the surface. There are multiple disagreements among Trump's public statements, the statements from senior US government officials, and the positions of G7 allies, with differing opinions on core issues such as the timetable for opening the agreement, the details of the text, and the conditions for its implementation.
Multiple contradictions and internal and external resistance have fully exposed the weakness of this hard-won ceasefire agreement. Transforming the consensus on paper into actual results still faces many uncertainties, and the road to its implementation will be fraught with difficulties.
Trump's statements contradict those of US officials.
On June 15, the opening day of the G7 summit, Trump, while attending the opening ceremony with French President Macron, publicly briefed the public on the progress of the US-Iran agreement. He clearly stated that the agreement had been signed and entered into force, that the Strait of Hormuz was partially open and that navigation was proceeding smoothly, and that he was certain that the entire strait would be fully open by Friday, achieving unconditional freedom of navigation. He also promised to release the full text of the agreement to the public on the same day.
However, senior White House officials subsequently gave a completely different account to the media in an anonymous briefing, directly contradicting Trump's remarks. US officials pointed out that due to factors such as route rerouting, military deployments, and ship registration procedures, it would take at least two weeks for the Strait of Hormuz to fully return to its pre-conflict shipping levels, and the text of the agreement was expected to be released within two days. This contradictory official statement not only left shipping companies bewildered but also reflected an imbalance in the internal communication mechanisms of the US government.
It is understood that the memorandum was finalized after months of negotiations among various parties. It covers two basic terms: lifting the maritime blockade and a 60-day ceasefire. A two-month special technical negotiation will follow, with the core objective of destroying Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium and limiting Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons from the source.
G7 Summit Focus and Israel's Opposition
Following the signing of the US-Iran ceasefire memorandum, the Iranian issue naturally became the core topic of discussion at this G7 summit, and a top priority for Trump's consultations with allies. Major G7 members adopted a cautious approach, with several officials privately revealing that they had not yet reviewed the complete text of the memorandum. Previous expressions of congratulations were based solely on verbal commitments from the US, Iran, and mediator Pakistan, without any substantial terms being known. Allies generally harbored doubts and planned to press Trump at the summit regarding plans for maintaining the agreement and risk management mechanisms, in order to assess the future direction of the Middle East situation.
Meanwhile, the biggest external obstacle comes from Israel. The Israeli authorities have consistently opposed the current version of the peace agreement, arguing that it only focuses on a ceasefire and the resumption of air travel, failing to address core threats such as Iran's missile development and overseas militias, and thus cannot fundamentally guarantee Israel's national security. Currently, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has urgently requested a meeting with Trump in an attempt to pressure the US to revise the agreement.
Furthermore, the Israeli Defense Minister publicly announced that Israeli troops would not withdraw from southern Lebanon, a statement that directly impacted the regional ceasefire agreement. However, senior US officials responded that troop withdrawal from Lebanon was not a hard condition of the US-Iran agreement, indirectly mitigating the negative impact of Israel's actions.
Signing arrangements and the next phase of technical negotiations
According to the detailed signing schedule released by the White House, U.S. Vice President Vance, along with Iran envoys Kushner and Witkov, will represent the U.S. at the formal signing ceremony in Switzerland this Friday, together with the Iranian delegation.
In fact, Trump and Vance completed the internal signing process of the agreement ahead of schedule via online digital signing last Sunday (June 14), which means that the US has completed the pre-signing work. In an interview, Vance stated frankly that the agreement still contains many vague clauses and many details have not yet been finalized, and the US and Iran need to negotiate and refine them face-to-face.
According to the agreement, technical negotiations will begin within 60 days of the formal signing. The negotiation list includes key items such as the highly enriched uranium destruction process, the tiered approach to sanctions relief, and detailed rules for navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. The navigation clause is the core of the negotiations; the US hopes to finalize long-term rules to achieve permanent free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and reshape the shipping landscape of the Gulf. Vance has publicly stated that the US holds absolute initiative in the entire negotiation and possesses all the bargaining chips.
However, Iran has taken a hard line, insisting that the US lift the blockade and ease sanctions as a prerequisite for negotiations, and the game between the two sides has entered a heated stage.
US Domestic Politics: Congress Seeks Oversight Power
In addition to external conflicts, the US-Iran agreement also faces severe domestic political resistance, with members of both parties in the US Congress intervening to seek control over the review and voting rights of the agreement and to check the Trump administration's foreign policy decisions.
A clear division has emerged at the partisan level. Democratic factions, which oppose foreign conflict, have offered only conservative, neutral, and moderate support for the ceasefire agreement, without fully endorsing it. Meanwhile, the Republican camp, traditionally supportive of Trump, has voiced numerous objections and reservations, indicating significant internal divisions. Senior Iran hawk Senator Lindsey Graham publicly stated that, under current US law, all agreements related to the Iran nuclear deal must be submitted to Congress for review and a vote, and cannot be unilaterally decided by the president. Furthermore, a split has also occurred in the White House's economic policy pronouncements.
Trump announced last Sunday that Iran could immediately resume oil exports and quickly repatriate funds once the sanctions are lifted; however, US economic officials have maintained for weeks that the US will only lift sanctions and allow exports if Iran fully fulfills all its denuclearization commitments. This policy divide, coupled with congressional scrutiny, has further raised the bar for an agreement to be implemented, significantly increasing the uncertainty of US-Iran peace talks.
Editor's Summary
During the G7 summit, Trump announced that the Strait of Hormuz would be fully open this Friday and planned to hold a formal signing ceremony in Switzerland with Iran to launch nuclear negotiations, including the dismantling of highly enriched uranium. However, significant disagreements exist within the US government between Trump and White House officials regarding the opening timeline and implementation details. G7 allies lack a substantial understanding of the agreement text and remain cautious. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu strongly opposes the agreement's contents and refuses to withdraw troops from Lebanon. Both parties in the US Congress are also seeking the right to review the agreement. These multi-layered disagreements highlight the agreement's weak foundation and the multiple challenges its implementation faces, including high-level coordination, allied trust, regional resistance, and domestic politics. The prospects for global energy stability remain uncertain.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: What are Trump's specific statements regarding the progress of the US-Iran agreement?
During the G7 summit, Trump announced that the agreement had been signed and entered into force, and that the Strait of Hormuz would be fully open this Friday, allowing unconditional freedom of navigation. He also promised to release the full text of the agreement on the same day. He emphasized that this move would end the four-month-long regional conflict and pave the way for subsequent nuclear negotiations. However, this optimistic statement contradicts statements from White House officials, who believe that a full return to normal shipping will take more than two weeks.
Q2: What are the core terms and follow-up arrangements of the US-Iran agreement?
The agreement primarily covers lifting the maritime blockade, a 60-day nationwide ceasefire, and outlines plans for Iran's reconstruction. The formal signing ceremony is scheduled for this Friday in Switzerland, with Vice Presidents Vance, Kushner, and Witkov representing the US. Following the signing, two months of focused technical negotiations will commence, emphasizing the destruction of Iran's highly enriched uranium stockpile, a tiered approach to sanctions relief, and details regarding permanent free passage through the Strait of Hormuz. The US claims to hold the upper hand, but Iran insists on the lifting of the blockade and the easing of sanctions as prerequisites.
Q3: Why does Israel strongly oppose the current agreement?
Israel argues that the agreement, focusing only on a ceasefire and the resumption of air travel, fails to address core threats such as Iran's missile development and support for overseas militias, thus failing to guarantee its national security. Netanyahu urgently requested a meeting with Trump to pressure for revisions and announced that Israeli troops would not withdraw from southern Lebanon. Although the US stated that troop withdrawal from Lebanon was not a hard condition of the agreement, Israel's position remains a significant external obstacle to its implementation.
Q4: How do G7 allies and the US Congress view this agreement?
G7 members have adopted a cautious stance, with many having yet to see the full text and offering only verbal congratulations, planning to press for its maintenance at the summit. Meanwhile, the US Congress is seeking the right to review the agreement: Democrats are offering moderate support, while Republicans are divided, with hawkish Senator Graham emphasizing that the Iran nuclear deal must be reviewed and voted on by Congress. The White House is also divided on policy regarding oil exports and the timing of sanctions lifting.
Q5: What are the main uncertainties and potential impacts of the agreement?
The agreement faces multiple obstacles, including differing statements from Trump and officials, concerns from allies, opposition from Israel, congressional review, and a hardline stance from Iran, making its implementation difficult. These disagreements could delay the full opening of the Straits and the stability of the energy market, increasing risks to global shipping and inflation. In the long term, the success or failure of the nuclear negotiations will determine whether the situation in the Middle East can truly ease, and will also test the United States' diplomatic credibility and domestic political balance.
- Risk Warning and Disclaimer
- The market involves risk, and trading may not be suitable for all investors. This article is for reference only and does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account certain users’ specific investment objectives, financial situation, or other needs. Any investment decisions made based on this information are at your own risk.
