Many questions, few details in latest Iran peace proposal

Eleven weeks ago, US President Donald Trump said the outcome of the Iran war would be simple.

“There will be no deal with Iran except unconditional surrender!” he wrote on social media. The White House issued a clarifying statement hours later, saying that even if no one in Tehran submitted a formal surrender, Mr Trump would declare when the country had essentially given up, or, as he put it, cried “uncle”.

It is too early to tell exactly what Mr Trump and Iran have agreed to, or if they have agreed to much at all. The US leader wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform that the Strait of Hormuz would reopen under some kind of memorandum of understanding.

Two US officials with knowledge of the negotiations said on May 23 that Iran has agreed in principle to give up its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. But the Iranians have not publicly confirmed that, and much hinges on the details of how that would be accomplished.

In 2015, without resorting to war, Iran shipped about 97 per cent of its stockpile at the time to Russia under its agreement with the Obama administration.

Many of the other details of the apparent agreement are based on reports from US and Middle Eastern sources, not all of whom seem to have the same understanding of what is in the memorandum, or even whether the details have been locked down.

Nonetheless, some Iran hawks were already taking to social media to denounce the agreement, even before they saw any details.

“The rumoured 60-day ceasefire – with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith – would be a disaster,” Republican Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, wrote on social media platform X before Mr Trump’s announcement of a near deal.

“Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!”

Mr Mike Pompeo, Mr Trump’s first-term secretary of state, was similarly dismissive on X, only to receive an expletive-laden response from Mr Steven Cheung, a top White House communications official, who said: “He should shut his stupid mouth and leave the real work to the professionals.”

Mr Trump and his aides said repeatedly in recent weeks that they would not agree to any accord that did not address the nuclear issues. But when judging whether the US leader achieved his objectives, here are a few key questions to look out for.

Does the agreement deal solely with resuming commerce in the Strait of Hormuz, which was open on Feb 28, the day Israel and the US began their attack? Is the reopening permanent, or does Iran claim that it now has the authority to control the waterway, even if it agrees to suspend “tolls” on traffic in and out of the strait? Does the US remove its blockade on ships headed to or from Iranian ports?

Does the US agree to release any of the US$25 billion (S$32 billion) in frozen Iranian funds that Iran has demanded be released? Mr Trump harshly criticised former president Barack Obama, as recently as in the past few weeks, for releasing US$1.7 billion in 2015 as part of the agreement that suspended most nuclear activity.

Does Iran agree to turn over its 439.9kg of near-bomb-grade uranium, or blend it down to a form that would largely neutralise the threat of it being used in a weapon? What happens to the roughly 10,000kg of other uranium, enriched at varying levels, that the International Atomic Energy Agency says is in Iran’s possession? Mr Trump has frequently said Iran must give up all of its nuclear material.

Is Iran allowed to enrich uranium in the future? Does it suspend its enrichment for 20 years, which Mr Trump told reporters on Air Force One eight days ago would be acceptable?

What happens to Iran’s missile arsenal? This is a critical issue for Israel, which is in range of many of Iran’s ballistic missiles. Early in the conflict, the Trump administration said Iran would have to give up its missiles or limit their range, but more recently, that topic had not been discussed publicly. NYTIMES