On May 23, 2026 (Eastern Time), Trump announced on Truth Social that the US-Iran agreement has been “largely negotiated,” with only final details pending. He specifically mentioned that the Strait of Hormuz will be opened or normal passage will be restored under the framework of the agreement, as if this global energy artery is about to shift from tension to smooth transit. However, within hours, Tehran provided a completely different version: the spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry publicly refuted, stating that the Strait of Hormuz “is not America’s business,” and the passage mechanism should be jointly defined by Iran and Oman, reaffirming that the Strait remains under Iran's complete control and management regarding shipping routes, timings, permits, and passage rules. At the same time, an official Iranian statement denied any nuclear commitments under the current understanding framework, deliberately leaving the nuclear issue to be discussed in a subsequent negotiation window of about 30 to 60 days. A declaration on social media claiming a “deal has been largely reached” corresponds to another party’s mention of drafts and memorandums of understanding, with the narrative gap widening around the issues of Hormuz and nuclear matters, pushing regional dynamics and market sentiment back to the edge of uncertainty.

Trump Takes the Lead: The Version of an Agreement “Basically Reached”

In his Truth Social post on May 23, 2026, Trump provided a framework draft that could almost serve as a White House version of an “end of war announcement.” He used “largely negotiated” to describe the progress of this US-Iran agreement, as if all that remains is polishing details rather than negotiating principles; in his narrative, this framework will “end fighting along multiple fronts including Lebanon,” wiping out the conflict lines from the Levant to the Gulf. In exchange, he claimed that the US would unfreeze Iran's “tens of billions” of frozen assets, with a single source estimating it around $25 billion; simultaneously, US troops would withdraw or redeploy from areas near Iran, yielding a portion of their military presence. The most symbolic point is his repeated emphasis that the Strait of Hormuz will be “opened” under the agreement, restoring normal passage and facilitating shipping, portraying this waterway as an immediately visible dividend of the agreement. The genuinely tricky nuclear issues and more detailed sanction arrangements are pushed into the future negotiation window of about 30 to 60 days, deliberately separated from this “basically reached” framework.

To lend spillover influence and legitimacy to this version, Trump repeatedly mentioned his contact list before and after posting—leaders from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, as well as the Chief of Staff of the Pakistan Army, were all included in his consultation list. The external narrative is that these key regional players have already been “informed” or even “nodded,” and the opening of Hormuz and the redeployment of US troops are not isolated transactions, but part of a regional security reshuffling. Under this narrative, even though Iran’s stance remains entrenched in “memorandum of understanding” and unresolved nuclear issues, Trump’s version of the agreement has already been depicted as a script being watched by various parties, clearly hoping to author the final draft of this scene himself.

Tehran's Tough Retaliation: Strait Sovereignty is Undeniable

After Trump included the Strait of Hormuz in the “open” and “facilitate shipping” script, Tehran nearly immediately flipped the table. The spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry stated publicly that the Strait of Hormuz “is not America’s business,” and explicitly denied Washington’s qualification to arrange the future direction of the Strait in external statements. The Iranian side emphasized that any mechanism for this passage can only be jointly defined by Iran and Oman, asserting that the US is neither a coastal state nor a mechanism designer, and has no right to package “opening” as a chip generously granted by itself. Subsequently, Iranian officials reiterated that the Strait remains under Iran's complete control and management, from route definition to passage timings, permit issuance, and specific navigation rules, all under the control of Tehran and Muscat, and not any third party.

Coupled with the sovereignty issue is Iran's comprehensive withdrawal from “nuclear issue progress.” In response to international interpretations of Trump’s post as “the overall agreement nearing completion,” Iranian officials issued a statement clearly indicating that there has been no discussion or consensus regarding any nuclear commitments in the current understanding framework, denying any specific nuclear concessions made in this still-draft-level memorandum of understanding. Tehran deliberately minimized its exposure: nuclear issues have not yet entered the current negotiation agenda and will be left for later discussions; in the meantime, the control over Hormuz, shipping mechanisms, and interpretation rights will not be included in any “opening agreement” announced by the US.

The Same Draft, Two Different Stories Fermenting Globally

The same draft remaining at the memorandum level has been spun into two completely different stories in Washington and Tehran. Trump described it on Truth Social as a “largely negotiated” “good deal”: the Strait of Hormuz will be opened or restored for normal passage under the framework, facilitating shipping; Iran’s frozen “tens of billions” of assets will be unfrozen; and in the subsequent 30 to 60 days, nuclear issues and more detailed sanction arrangements will be packaged together. Meanwhile, the Iranian Foreign Ministry immediately countered, emphasizing that Hormuz “is not America’s business,” the passage mechanism can only be defined by Iran and Oman, and the Strait remains under Iran's complete control and management; at the same time, it repeatedly reaffirmed that there are no nuclear commitments in the current understanding framework, no specific nuclear concessions, only related issues left to be discussed later.

This narrative chasm is rooted in two domestic political scripts unfolding simultaneously. Trump needs to demonstrate to his supporters that he has negotiated a major deal that “unfreezes assets, relaxes Hormuz, and keeps a window for nuclear negotiations,” thus intentionally exaggerating the completion level of this “set framework”; Iran, on the other hand, must present an image of sovereignty being unchallenged both internally and externally, packaging all sensitive issues as “future negotiable, no current concessions.” The result is: what the outside world sees is merely a draft or memorandum of understanding that remains unsigned and ineffective, with all parties discussing two sets of contradictory public statements, any judgment on the content of the agreement and prospects for execution inevitably shrouded in a high degree of uncertainty.

The Fate of Hormuz Rests in Limbo: Energy Passages and Risk Premiums

To anyone familiar with the energy landscape, the narrow Strait of Hormuz is the lifeblood of global crude oil and natural gas exports. The fleets of oil-producing countries in the Persian Gulf must navigate through here to deliver goods worldwide, thus it is viewed as a key choke point for global energy. The reality is that control firmly lies in Iran's hands, with Oman merely “participating” in the design of passage mechanisms, not being a leader. While Trump describes the future of Hormuz as a symbol of “openness” and “facilitating shipping,” the Iranian Foreign Ministry retorts, “This is not America’s business,” emphasizing that the Strait remains under Iran’s complete control—who can pass, when to pass, on what routes and rules, all require Iran's approval. For regional countries, this is not just a struggle over a passageway, but also a redistribution of security: whoever controls Hormuz holds a part of their neighbors' economic nerves.

The current draft can only touch upon temporary arrangements for “facilitated passage” within a 30 to 60 day negotiation window, rather than any ceding of sovereignty or rewriting of control. In other words, the market hears: short-term ships can move more smoothly, but the real switch remains in Tehran's hands. Historical experience shows—whenever tensions arise around Hormuz, oil prices are “elevated with one click,” with geopolitical risk premiums subsequently rising, and the risk appetite for global risk assets swiftly contracting. Now, if this draft truly enters the execution phase, energy traders will habitually lower a portion of the interrupted risk premium, but will not dare to eliminate it completely, because any political reversal by either party or any “pause on convenience” could turn this passageway back into a panic amplifier for the market.

30 to 60 Days Negotiation Window: Will the Agreement Emerge from Rumors?

As of May 24, 2026, the outside world can only see a vaguely outlined draft: ending conflicts on multiple fronts including Lebanon, unfreezing Iran’s “tens of billions” of assets, US military withdrawal or redeployment from areas near Iran, and in some sense “opening” the Strait of Hormuz to facilitate shipping, but specific terms have not been made public, and nuclear issues as well as more detailed sanction arrangements have deliberately been pushed into a 30 to 60 days negotiation window. Iran, on one hand, reaffirms that the Strait of Hormuz's mechanism should be jointly defined by it and Oman and is still under its complete control and management, while on the other hand clearly states that no commitments have been made on any nuclear issues, and that it is currently only a framework of understanding, not a binding treaty. Over the next 30 to 60 days, the path will likely sway between three options: first, formally writing the existing draft into a text, forming a memorandum of understanding with execution mechanisms; second, repeated tugging around nuclear and sanctions, with the framework stuck in a long-term gray area of “principle agreement, details undetermined”; third, a gradual disconnection of the narrative between both sides, resulting in a breakdown in negotiations on Hormuz control or nuclear conditions. For the outside world, what truly needs differentiation is the Trump-style political claim of “largely negotiated” versus verifiable on-ground signals—such as whether formal signed texts appear, whether specific rules for Strait passage are established, and whether regional countries confirm this framework through public expressions or coordinated actions. The most crucial observation point will continue to be how the narrative of control over the Strait of Hormuz is unified between paper and sea.

Join our community, let’s discuss and strengthen together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。