US and Iranian negotiators have reportedly agreed on a framework that would extend the ceasefire for 60 days and open talks on Iran’s nuclear programme, US officials told the BBC on Thursday. Vice‑President J.D. Vance, speaking in Washington, said negotiators remain engaged but several language points — most prominently the question of uranium enrichment — still need ironing out. Iran’s semi‑official Tasnim agency, however, said the arrangement had not been finalised. Both sides continue to trade claims about ceasefire breaches even as senior US officials urge caution before declaring a deal complete.
Key takeaways
- Negotiators reportedly agreed to a framework to extend the ceasefire by 60 days, pending final approval from President Donald Trump and Iran’s leadership.
- One sticking point in talks is highly enriched uranium: the US insists on halting production and disposing of existing stocks.
- The proposed package would include lifting a US naval blockade, sanction waivers to allow oil sales, and a 30‑day Iranian window to clear mines from the Strait of Hormuz.
- White House officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, declined to confirm a signed deal, saying the president must approve any agreement.
- Iran’s Tasnim agency called reports of a final agreement premature; independent media reports (Axios) said Trump had been briefed but had not yet signed off.
- Since the initial ceasefire began on 8 April, both sides have accused each other of violations, including fresh strikes and an IRGC claim of targeting a US base.
- The Strait of Hormuz remains a central economic pressure point: roughly one‑fifth of global LNG and oil normally transits the waterway.
Background
The current ceasefire took effect on 8 April after intense regional military exchanges and mounting international concern for commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. The US has repeatedly pressed Iran to halt production of highly enriched uranium, which Washington warns could shorten the timeline to a weapon‑capable material if stockpiles are retained. Gulf state allies and lawmakers in Washington have both increased pressure on the White House to secure a durable halt to hostilities.
Negotiations have cycled through public optimism and contradictory statements: President Trump has on several occasions suggested breakthroughs were imminent, while Iranian and US state media have published differing drafts and summaries of possible terms. Strategic stakes are high — any deal would need to balance nuclear safeguards, regional security guarantees, and the economic relief associated with sanction waivers and resumed oil exports.
Main event
On Thursday US officials told the BBC that a framework agreement was agreed in principle and would extend the ceasefire for 60 days while detailed talks proceed. Vice‑President J.D. Vance, traveling with the vice‑presidential delegation in Washington, said negotiators were still resolving language on enrichment and other technical matters. He told reporters the sides remained “very close” but declined to set a timetable for final signoff.
Media outlets reported varying accounts of what the draft package would include: lifting the US naval blockade, restoring non‑military traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, and restoring limited Iranian oil exports under sanction waivers. The draft reportedly gave Iran 30 days to remove mines obstructing commercial lanes. The White House labelled one widely circulated memorandum a “complete fabrication,” underscoring how fluid and contested interim reports have been.
Officials warned that operational options remain on the table. White House and Treasury officials emphasized that any agreement would require the president’s explicit approval; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said it would be a mistake to preempt the president’s decision. Simultaneously, both sides reported ceasefire infractions: US strikes on southern Iran and an IRGC claim of a subsequent attack on a US base were cited as recent incidents that complicate trust on the ground.
Analysis & implications
If implemented, a 60‑day extension would buy negotiators time to tackle technically complex issues such as uranium enrichment levels, monitoring arrangements, and the disposition of existing enriched material. The US demand that Iran stop enriching to high levels and dispose of or dilute stocks is central; resolving it requires verification steps that are inherently technical and contentious. A temporary extension could produce partial confidence‑building measures while longer‑term verification mechanisms are designed.
Economically, sanction waivers and reopened oil sales would quickly ease pressure on global energy markets, particularly if the Strait of Hormuz is kept open. Even a tentative pathway to resumed commerce can reduce immediate oil price volatility, but markets will track the durability of enforcement and the speed of actual oil flows. Politically, the Biden and Trump administrations have faced domestic pressure from allies and legislators to show progress; any perceived concession without strict verification could provoke pushback in Congress and from Gulf partners.
Regionally, the deal’s handling of naval access through the Strait of Hormuz and mine removal would shift maritime security dynamics. Allowing “unrestricted” passage under a jointly managed routing system — if enacted — would require robust confidence measures between Iran, Oman and international maritime stakeholders. Failure to ensure safe passages could keep insurance and shipping costs elevated even if formal restrictions are lifted.
Comparison & data
| Item | Current/Reported |
|---|---|
| Initial ceasefire | 8 April (in effect) |
| Proposed extension | 60 days |
| Mine removal window | 30 days (reported) |
| Global transit via Hormuz | ~20% of LNG/oil flows |
The table summarizes the key temporal and economic figures that negotiators cited publicly. The 60‑day extension and the 30‑day mine‑clearance window are central scheduling items that would determine how quickly normal maritime commerce and detailed nuclear talks can proceed.
Reactions & quotes
Key officials struck cautious tones while describing progress and remaining hurdles.
“We’re not there yet, but we’re very close and we’re going to keep on working at it.”
Vice‑President J.D. Vance (Washington briefing)
Vance framed the talks as near completion but emphasized unresolved technical language, especially regarding enrichment standards.
“It’s always a mistake to get out ahead of the president.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (White House briefing)
Bessent declined to confirm a final deal and stressed that any agreement would require the president’s formal approval before becoming binding or public policy.
Reports of a draft 14‑point memorandum were circulated by Iranian state media, but the White House called one such draft a “complete fabrication.”
State media / White House statements (reported)
The contradictory public accounts from Tehran and Washington highlight the negotiations’ fluidity and the gap between draft concepts and endorsed agreements.
Unconfirmed
- Whether President Trump will sign off on the proposed framework — US officials say he had been briefed but had not yet approved it.
- Full contents of the purported 14‑point memorandum reported by Iranian state media have not been independently verified.
- The exact mechanism proposed for disposal, dilution, or transfer of highly enriched uranium remains unclear and has not been publicly detailed.
- Claims of recent ceasefire violations by both sides have been reported but are not fully corroborated with independent on‑the‑ground verification.
Bottom line
Reported progress toward a 60‑day ceasefire extension could create valuable breathing room for technically complex negotiations over Iran’s nuclear activities and for steps to reopen shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. However, competing public accounts from Tehran and Washington and unresolved technical language on enrichment mean that a final, enforceable agreement is not yet in hand.
In the coming days, the outcome will hinge on whether the president formally approves the framework, whether Iran’s leadership accepts the final text, and whether verification measures can be made sufficiently robust to satisfy both regional partners and US lawmakers. Observers should watch for concrete verification proposals, confirmed timelines for mine removal, and any shifts in on‑the‑ground military activity that could jeopardise the fragile truce.
Sources
- BBC News (news report)
- Axios (news outlet — initial report of a tentative agreement)
- Tasnim News Agency (Iranian semi‑official media)