U.S. and Iran close to potential peace deal

The White House believes it's getting close to an agreement with Iran on a one-page memorandum of understanding to end the war and set a framework for more detailed nuclear negotiations.

Objective Facts

The White House believes it's getting close to an agreement with Iran on a one-page memorandum of understanding to end the war and set a framework for more detailed nuclear negotiations, with no agreement finalized yet, but the sources saying this was the closest the parties had been to an agreement since the war began. The one-page, 14-point memorandum of understanding is being negotiated between Trump's envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and several Iranian officials. Among other provisions, the deal would involve Iran committing to a moratorium on nuclear enrichment, the U.S. agreeing to lift its sanctions and release billions in frozen Iranian funds, and both sides lifting restrictions around transit through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran is expected to hand over its response to the latest US peace proposal to Pakistani mediators Thursday. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, speaking following discussions with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, emphasized that any final understanding must be balanced and comprehensive, saying "We will exert all efforts to protect our legitimate rights and interests in the negotiations… we will only accept a fair and comprehensive agreement".

Left-Leaning Perspective

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, appeared on Democracy Now! arguing that Trump remains "looking for a silver bullet" instead of negotiating seriously. Parsi contends that "both sides are making maximalist demands," so a diplomatic solution is unlikely. Speaking to Al Jazeera, Parsi argued the U.S. naval blockade of Iran has backfired on Trump, saying "The negotiations were taking place and could have continued regardless of the blockade" and "If anything, it is blocking diplomatic progress more than anything else". CNN's analysis noted concerns that "the president's imprecision; his apparent wish-casting about staggering diplomatic breakthroughs; and the idea that a one-page memo could hold the key to peace raise new doubts about the administration's seriousness and capacity". Left-leaning coverage emphasizes the complexity of Iran-U.S. relations and questions whether quick diplomatic fixes can resolve deep structural issues around nuclear weapons, regional proxies, and the Strait of Hormuz.

Right-Leaning Perspective

Conservative pundit Mark Levin rejected Axios reports of a deal, writing "I have to believe the Axios report is largely fake" and warning "If the Axios report is close to accurate, the Iranian regime will survive, the Iranian people will face even more extensive brutality, and the Israeli government could fall in the October election. A disastrous result". Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton warned that any future U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement would require Senate approval and that such approval would only be possible if Iran fully dismantled its enrichment capabilities and addressed its missile and terrorism activities. Longtime Iran hardliners on the right, including Fox News' Mark Levin, are lamenting that Trump appears willing to back away from military action that could further cripple the country. Right-wing coverage emphasizes concerns that Iran will escape accountability, that concessions on nuclear issues represent capitulation, and that without complete regime dismantlement or comprehensive nuclear disarmament, any deal is fundamentally flawed.

Deep Dive

The negotiations represent a dramatic shift in Trump's maximalist opening demands. At the outset, the U.S. outlined four objectives: destroy Iran's ballistic missile capabilities, dismantle its navy, sever support for armed proxies, and ensure Iran never obtained a nuclear weapon. A 15-point proposal delivered to Tehran via Pakistan in late March called for dismantling nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, handing over highly enriched uranium to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and permanently prohibiting nuclear weapons development. Now, the U.S. appears to have come around to accepting Iran's demand for multi-stage negotiations, with a preliminary deal aimed at ending the war and nuclear negotiations pushed for later. What each perspective gets right: The left correctly identifies that a two-month military campaign—intended to end a two-month-old war and defer key disputed issues to a future negotiation—cannot resolve structural issues like Iran's ballistic missile program or its support for regional proxies. The right correctly notes that many of the terms laid out in the memo would be contingent on a final agreement being reached, leaving the possibility of renewed war or an extended limbo in which the hot war has stopped but nothing is truly resolved. What they leave out: Left commentators downplay the genuine security concerns about Iran's nuclear program and regional destabilization. Right-wing hawks ignore that Trump appears to be simplifying issues in peace negotiations so moderates in the Iranian regime can come back to the negotiating table, with the aim being to tackle thornier issues later—a strategic gambit rather than surrender. To watch next: Iran is expected to hand over its response to the latest US peace proposal to Pakistani mediators Thursday, with mediators hoping for one page and Trump expressing optimism about a deal. Key indicators include whether Iran accepts the moratorium length, whether the U.S. genuinely lifts sanctions as promised, and whether the Lebanon ceasefire holds—ongoing fighting in Lebanon has remained a major complicating factor, with Tehran thus far refusing to agree to any wider peace deal that doesn't include a halt to Israel's fight with Hezbollah.

Regional Perspective

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing on May 6 and said Iran will only accept a fair and comprehensive agreement in indirect negotiations with the United States aimed at ending the war. According to domestic media and international sources, Araghchi emphasized that the Islamic Republic will only accept "a comprehensive and just agreement" and remains committed to protecting its rights and interests. In a televised interview with Iran's state media from Beijing, Araghchi said Iran has attained "an elevated international standing" after the war, having proven its capabilities and strength. Meanwhile, Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif thanked Trump for announcing a pause in the operation in the Strait of Hormuz, saying "I am grateful to President Donald Trump for his courageous leadership and timely announcement regarding the pause in Project Freedom in the Strait of Hormuz", highlighting Pakistan's central mediation role. Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tahir Andrabi stated "We expect an agreement sooner rather than later" and "We hope the parties will reach a peaceful and sustainable solution that will contribute not only to peace in our region but to international peace as well". China's positioning differs: Wang Yi called for "a comprehensive ceasefire" that "brooks no delay," emphasizing the conflict has "caused serious losses to the Iranian people" and that "China is deeply distressed by this". Wang criticized U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran as "illegitimate," while also not endorsing restrictions on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and continuing to emphasize the need for stability and dialogue. Regional media perspectives emphasize different stakes: Iran frames negotiations around sovereignty and dignity protection, Pakistan celebrates its mediation success and regional stability, and China balances its economic interests in Gulf energy with diplomatic neutrality between Washington and Tehran.

OBJ SPEAKING

Create StoryTimelinesVoter ToolsRegional AnalysisPolicy GuideAll StoriesCommunity PicksUSWorldPoliticsBusinessHealthEntertainmentTechnologyAbout

U.S. and Iran close to potential peace deal

The White House believes it's getting close to an agreement with Iran on a one-page memorandum of understanding to end the war and set a framework for more detailed nuclear negotiations.

May 7, 2026
What's Going On

The White House believes it's getting close to an agreement with Iran on a one-page memorandum of understanding to end the war and set a framework for more detailed nuclear negotiations, with no agreement finalized yet, but the sources saying this was the closest the parties had been to an agreement since the war began. The one-page, 14-point memorandum of understanding is being negotiated between Trump's envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and several Iranian officials. Among other provisions, the deal would involve Iran committing to a moratorium on nuclear enrichment, the U.S. agreeing to lift its sanctions and release billions in frozen Iranian funds, and both sides lifting restrictions around transit through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran is expected to hand over its response to the latest US peace proposal to Pakistani mediators Thursday. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, speaking following discussions with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, emphasized that any final understanding must be balanced and comprehensive, saying "We will exert all efforts to protect our legitimate rights and interests in the negotiations… we will only accept a fair and comprehensive agreement".

Left says: Progressive analysts like Trita Parsi argue that "both sides are making maximalist demands," making a diplomatic solution unlikely, and view the one-page memorandum approach skeptically as insufficient to solve a half-century of U.S.-Iran issues.
Right says: Conservative pundit Mark Levin rejected reports of an Axios deal, calling it "largely fake," and warned the agreement would involve "Iran committing to a moratorium on nuclear enrichment, the U.S. agreeing to lift its sanctions and release billions in frozen Iranian funds".
Region says: Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasized that Tehran will only accept "a fair and comprehensive agreement" protecting Iran's rights, while Pakistan's Prime Minister credited the pause to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia's requests, expressing hope for lasting peace.
✓ Common Ground
Several voices across the political spectrum acknowledge that some U.S. officials remain skeptical that even an initial deal will be reached, reflecting shared concerns about Iranian follow-through.
Both left and right commentators recognize the extraordinary complexity of resolving issues including nuclear enrichment, ballistic missiles, regional proxies, and the Strait of Hormuz in a narrow timeframe.
Conservative and progressive observers share concern that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps allegedly launched missiles and drones at the United Arab Emirates on Monday and Tuesday, the first such attacks since the April 8 truce, showing the fragility of any ceasefire.
Both sides acknowledge the ongoing fighting in Lebanon has remained a major complicating factor in efforts by Pakistan to broker a diplomatic end of the war between the U.S. and Iran, with Tehran thus far refusing to agree to any wider peace deal that doesn't include a halt to Israel's fight with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Objective Deep Dive

The negotiations represent a dramatic shift in Trump's maximalist opening demands. At the outset, the U.S. outlined four objectives: destroy Iran's ballistic missile capabilities, dismantle its navy, sever support for armed proxies, and ensure Iran never obtained a nuclear weapon. A 15-point proposal delivered to Tehran via Pakistan in late March called for dismantling nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, handing over highly enriched uranium to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and permanently prohibiting nuclear weapons development. Now, the U.S. appears to have come around to accepting Iran's demand for multi-stage negotiations, with a preliminary deal aimed at ending the war and nuclear negotiations pushed for later. What each perspective gets right: The left correctly identifies that a two-month military campaign—intended to end a two-month-old war and defer key disputed issues to a future negotiation—cannot resolve structural issues like Iran's ballistic missile program or its support for regional proxies. The right correctly notes that many of the terms laid out in the memo would be contingent on a final agreement being reached, leaving the possibility of renewed war or an extended limbo in which the hot war has stopped but nothing is truly resolved. What they leave out: Left commentators downplay the genuine security concerns about Iran's nuclear program and regional destabilization. Right-wing hawks ignore that Trump appears to be simplifying issues in peace negotiations so moderates in the Iranian regime can come back to the negotiating table, with the aim being to tackle thornier issues later—a strategic gambit rather than surrender. To watch next: Iran is expected to hand over its response to the latest US peace proposal to Pakistani mediators Thursday, with mediators hoping for one page and Trump expressing optimism about a deal. Key indicators include whether Iran accepts the moratorium length, whether the U.S. genuinely lifts sanctions as promised, and whether the Lebanon ceasefire holds—ongoing fighting in Lebanon has remained a major complicating factor, with Tehran thus far refusing to agree to any wider peace deal that doesn't include a halt to Israel's fight with Hezbollah.

◈ Tone Comparison

Left-leaning outlets use cautious, analytical language—Parsi's description of Trump's strategy as a "silver bullet" approach implies dismissal of oversimplification. Right-leaning commentary uses more alarming rhetoric—Levin's phrase "the Iranian regime will survive" conveys failure, while skepticism about the deal being "largely fake" suggests deep distrust. Both employ different baselines: the left questions whether diplomacy can work given maximalist demands, while the right assumes Iran cannot be trusted regardless of terms.