Negotiations over extending a ceasefire between the United States and Iran have sparked concerns in Tehran that generous American terms could mask preparations for renewed military action, according to analysts tracking the talks.
Outlines of a potential deal include Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz to ship traffic without imposing tolls. In exchange, the U.S. would lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports and offer limited sanctions relief that would allow Tehran to resume open oil sales, sources told Axios.
The most difficult issues remain unresolved and must be addressed during a 60-day period of continued talks. These include the future of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, a permanent end to U.S. sanctions, and the release of roughly $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets held abroad.
The U.S. plans to keep its military forces in the region during the talks and would only withdraw them after a final agreement is reached. Even so, President Trump would be relinquishing significant leverage by easing sanctions early, observers noted.
“One of the problems with this approach and deciding that you will just deal with the nuclear issue later is that waiving sanctions on Iranian oil exports now will decrease, not increase, Iran’s motivation for reaching a nuclear agreement,” said Eric Brewer, a former National Security Council director for counterproliferation. “Also, by tying those sanctions to the Strait, you’ve lost your ability to reimpose them without a huge risk that Iran retakes control of the waterway.”
Reports of the emerging ceasefire extension have alarmed several Republican senators who worry the administration is offering too many concessions. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina cautioned that any arrangement effectively recognizing Iranian control over the strait would shift the regional balance of power and eventually create a “nightmare” for Israel.
Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi described a 60-day extension as a disaster that would render “Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury” meaningless. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas warned that the outcome could leave an Islamist regime “still run by Islamists who chant ‘death to America’—now receiving billions of dollars, being able to enrich uranium & develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz.”
Despite heavy damage inflicted on Iran’s military and economy by previous U.S. and Israeli strikes, Tehran retains enough capability to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed using missiles, drones, and fast-attack boats. Iran has refused to ease its core demands while holding global oil markets under pressure.
Trump has shown reluctance to resume strikes and has curtailed an earlier plan to use Navy warships to escort tankers through the waterway. The regime in Tehran remains wary that the current offer may not be genuine, given that earlier negotiation rounds last year and this year ended with U.S. airstrikes.
“The deal in play looks like a win for Iran. But Tehran is not convinced that it is not a dress rehearsal for war now or in 30 days,” wrote Vali Nasr, a former senior State Department adviser. “In fact the more generous the terms for Iran the more the suspicion that U.S. is not serious about peace and wants to distract Iran ahead of another attack.”
Tehran will look for concrete signs that American forces are truly standing down, Nasr added, and any decision to trust the offer will ultimately rest with Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei. The Institute for the Study of War reported that Iranian leaders believe they are negotiating from strength after what they view as a victory in the recent conflict.
One of Iran’s main goals is to secure recognized sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. The current U.S. naval blockade has not loosened Iran’s grip because vessels that have not entered or left Iranian ports can still transit, even after complying with Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps conditions.
The Institute for the Study of War warned that prolonged talks risk normalizing Iran’s de facto control over the critical waterway. “The Iranians are likely aware of that fact, which is one of the reasons they are stalling and delaying the negotiations process,” the group stated in a recent report. “If negotiations do not lead rapidly to an agreement to reopen the strait under the previous, internationally recognized transit scheme, then it will unfortunately be necessary to resort to force.”
Global oil markets are expected to face severe disruption within weeks if the strait remains restricted, adding urgency to the diplomatic effort. Both sides continue to weigh whether the current terms represent a genuine path to stability or merely a temporary pause.