Trump Revises Iran Deal, Demands Stricter Nuclear Limits and Strait Guarantees
Trump revises Iran deal proposal, seeking tougher nuclear limits and guarantees to reopen strategic waterways as negotiators extend talks for another week.
President Donald Trump has redrafted a proposed agreement with Iran and sent the changes back to negotiators, extending the oscillating talks for at least another week, U.S. officials told CNN. The move, widely reported in Washington media, reflects the president’s insistence on tougher language governing Tehran’s nuclear activities and explicit commitments to restore freedom of navigation through key waterways. The redraft follows a White House meeting with senior advisers and has raised new questions about the timetable and durability of any final arrangement.
White House redraft prolongs negotiations
U.S. officials said the president’s revisions arrived after deliberations with national security and diplomatic advisors, effectively pausing momentum toward a previously described near-final deal. The changes were not publicly detailed, but aides indicated the administration wants firmer, enforceable provisions and clearer timelines before signing off. Negotiators from multiple parties remain engaged, but the redraft requires fresh review and likely further exchanges in the coming days.
Stricter nuclear curbs at the core of the revisions
According to officials, one of the two primary areas where Mr. Trump demands tougher text is the scope and duration of constraints on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. The administration seeks more intrusive verification, longer sunset provisions, and stricter limits on uranium enrichment levels and centrifuge numbers. These elements aim to reduce Tehran’s breakout risk, though they are likely to be contested by Iranian negotiators who resist detailed public discussion of weaponization thresholds.
Guarantees on maritime access and the Strait of Hormuz
The second major pillar of the president’s changes centers on assurances that Iran will reopen and secure strategic waterways for international shipping, particularly the Strait of Hormuz. Washington has pressed for explicit commitments and operational steps to prevent the use of mines or other methods that could block transit. U.S. officials framed this demand as essential to regional stability and the uninterrupted flow of commerce, but Tehran has pushed back against external constraints it sees as infringing on sovereign maritime rights.
Financial relief remains a flashpoint
Mr. Trump also raised concerns about the nature and timing of any financial relief included in a settlement, seeking safeguards against what he described as a repeat of past arrangements that delivered large, fungible funds to Tehran. Administration sources referenced previous U.S. policy choices under prior administrations as cautionary examples and want more transparency and limitations on how funds could be used. Iran, by contrast, continues to insist that financial measures are a necessary component of any comprehensive deal and has sought concrete compensation for sanctions relief.
Tehran signals hard line through parliament and state media
Iranian officials have publicly rejected negotiating away core elements of their nuclear program and maintained that financial compensation will be part of any acceptable understanding. State-affiliated agency reports quoted parliamentary leaders warning that diplomatic negotiators must secure tangible guarantees to protect national rights before ratifying any accord. Those statements underscore a domestic audience in Tehran that remains skeptical of Western concessions and quick to demand reciprocal, enforceable commitments.
Military posture and operational concerns persist
On the military front, the United States continues maritime operations aimed at securing ports and clearing mines, while senior American officials have warned of forceful measures to secure navigation. President Trump posted messages on social platforms asserting U.S. readiness to seize and destroy Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile, a claim that administration spokespeople said was intended to signal firmness rather than describe a negotiated outcome. Meanwhile, some U.S. lawmakers and analysts caution that kinetic measures could have limited effect on asymmetric threats such as mines or unmanned aerial systems.
Bipartisan questions about enforceability and risks
Within Washington there is growing debate about whether the tightened conditions the president seeks are practically enforceable and whether they would deter Iran’s asymmetric options. Senator Chris Coons, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, voiced skepticism that technological superiority alone could prevent Iran from employing mines to disrupt shipping or drones to threaten allies. Critics on both sides of the aisle worry that a deal perceived as brittle or unverifiable could collapse and leave regional tensions unresolved.
Regional and international partners have been monitoring the talks closely, with diplomats urging a balanced approach that couples robust verification with credible incentives for compliance. The extended timetable for talks gives negotiators more time to reconcile competing demands, but it also increases the risk that momentum will stall amid domestic political pressure in both Washington and Tehran. Observers say the next week will be critical in determining whether the redrafted text narrows gaps or further entrenches opposing positions.
The coming days are likely to see continued diplomatic shuttle efforts and behind-the-scenes consultations among signatories and regional stakeholders as they try to translate revised U.S. demands into language that Iran can accept without appearing to capitulate on core national interests.