American officials told the BBC on Thursday that the framework of a ceasefire extension deal with Iran had been agreed — pending approval by both Donald Trump and Iran’s supreme leadership. Vice President JD Vance, asked about the state of play, was carefully understated: the US is “very close” but “not there yet”. Oil markets took the hint, with prices falling sharply on reports of the breakthrough — a reminder of how tightly energy costs worldwide are tied to decisions being made in back-channel talks in Oman. The reported structure is a 60-day truce extension, formalised as a memorandum of understanding, subject to Trump’s sign-off. What happens after 60 days remains conspicuously unresolved.
The received wisdom
The mainstream reading of these negotiations is essentially optimistic. Neither Washington nor Tehran, the argument runs, wants a return to all-out conflict. The BBC’s own analysts noted that both sides have been signalling de-escalation despite a recent exchange of strikes — a sign of underlying rationality beneath the rhetorical thunder. Progressive commentators tend to credit the framework talks as evidence that multilateral diplomacy can tame even the most combustible actors when economic incentives align. The Oman channel, they note, has been the discreet corridor through which every US-Iran arrangement in recent memory has been threaded, suggesting institutional continuity survives political turbulence. If a 60-day deal holds, it buys time for a fuller nuclear agreement — the holy grail that has eluded every administration since the JCPOA collapsed under Trump’s first-term withdrawal in 2018. That, the optimists say, would be a genuine diplomatic achievement worthy of credit across partisan lines.
A different read
The trouble with this framing is that it mistakes a temporary abatement of pressure for a solution to the underlying problem. A 60-day MoU is not a treaty. It is a handshake with an expiry date, stitched together by interlocutors who cannot guarantee that either principal — Trump or Khamenei — will honour what their subordinates have drafted.
The history of US-Iran negotiations is not encouraging. The 2015 JCPOA, widely praised at the time as a landmark of non-proliferation diplomacy, required years of painstaking work by experienced career officials. It came apart in two years. The replacement framework being discussed now reportedly does not address Iran’s ballistic missile programme — the issue that, beyond nuclear enrichment, most alarms American military planners and Gulf allies alike. A ceasefire that leaves missiles intact is, at best, a pause.
Vance’s phrasing — “very close but not there yet” — is worth parsing. In diplomatic language, the distance between “almost agreed” and “agreed” is often where deals go to die. The Al Jazeera report describes the arrangement as an MoU, not a binding agreement — a category difference that matters enormously when one party has a Supreme Leader with a proven track record of walking back what his negotiators commit to, and the other has a president who governs by tweet and reversal.
There is also the Republican hawk problem. A faction within Trump’s own coalition — senators, think-tankers, and parts of the defence establishment — views any arrangement short of Iranian disarmament as capitulation. They argued loudly against the JCPOA; they will argue loudly against this. Trump, who is simultaneously trying to contain pressure from that flank while also delivering on his “deal-maker” brand, faces a structural tension that no Omani channel can resolve.
The oil market reaction is illustrative but should not be over-read. Markets price probability, not certainty. The drop in prices on Thursday reflects the hope of a deal, not its consummation. If the next 72 hours bring a Trump signature, the fall will persist. If Vance’s “not there yet” turns into “fell apart at the last minute,” we will see a sharp reversal — and with US inflation already at a three-year high, energy-driven price spikes carry real domestic political consequences.
None of this means the deal is doomed. Sixty days of not-shooting is better than sixty days of shooting. But the pattern of the past decade teaches a consistent lesson: tactical ceasefires in the Middle East tend to reset conditions rather than resolve them. Iran’s nuclear programme has advanced further during every pause in Western pressure than it has during any period of sanctions. The question that a 60-day MoU does not answer is what leverage exists, on day 61, to produce something more durable.
What to watch
- Trump’s formal sign-off: Whether the president endorses the framework in the next 72 hours — and in what form. A presidential statement that softens or qualifies what his officials agreed will signal trouble.
- Iran’s Supreme Leader: Khamenei has overruled his own negotiators before. Watch for any statement from Tehran that reframes the agreement’s scope.
- Republican hawk reaction: If Senate hawks signal opposition loudly enough to give Trump political cover to walk away, this deal could collapse before ink dries.
- Oil prices on Monday: If markets remain calm into next week, the deal has probably held. A spike would suggest something broke over the weekend.
— J