Iran’s Leaked Framework: $25 Billion, Hormuz Reopened — and Uranium Stays on Iranian Soil
Reuters says Iran’s version of the draft U.S. framework includes asset releases, oil sanctions relief, a reopened Hormuz and 60 days to negotiate the nuclear file.
Iran’s version of the U.S. framework deal is now public enough to explain why Israel is furious, why markets rallied, and why Washington is trying to control the narrative.
According to reporting attributed to a senior Iranian official, the draft memorandum includes several major concessions: Iran reopens the Strait of Hormuz immediately; the U.S. lifts its naval blockade on Iranian ports; Washington releases roughly $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets; no new sanctions are imposed during negotiations; oil sanctions are waived temporarily; and the U.S. and regional partners prepare a reconstruction and development plan for Iran.
On paper, Iran gives something major too. It declares it will not produce, develop or acquire nuclear weapons, freezes the nuclear program at current levels, and halts enrichment during the negotiation period. But the most sensitive detail is what Iran does not do: it reportedly keeps enriched uranium on Iranian soil and dilutes it domestically, rejecting earlier U.S. demands that the material be transferred abroad.
That single point explains the political explosion. For Iran, keeping the material inside the country preserves sovereignty and avoids the humiliation of surrender. For Trump, domestic dilution can be sold as preventing a bomb without another war. For Netanyahu, it looks like Iran retains too much leverage.
The deal also delays the hardest questions. The nuclear file is pushed into 60 days of further negotiations. That creates a temporary ceasefire architecture but not a final settlement. It buys time. It does not remove mistrust.
Iran’s supporters will call this a diplomatic victory. After months of war, Tehran appears to be extracting sanctions relief, asset access, recognition of its role in Hormuz and no immediate dismantling of its program. U.S. supporters will argue that the deal stops the shooting, reopens energy flows, freezes nuclear activity and prevents Iran from getting a bomb.
Both narratives can coexist because the agreement is designed to be politically survivable for both sides. Trump can say Iran agreed not to seek nuclear weapons. Iran can say it did not surrender enrichment sovereignty. The Gulf can say shipping is returning. Markets can price in lower risk.
But the weakness is obvious. The deal depends on everyone behaving for 60 days. Israel must restrain strikes. Hezbollah must avoid escalation. Iran must reopen Hormuz and halt enrichment. The U.S. must begin financial relief without appearing weak. One missile, one assassination, one tanker incident, or one domestic political revolt could break the sequence.
The big question is whether this is a peace deal or a pressure pause. If the parties use 60 days to create a real agreement, it could become the most consequential Middle East settlement in years. If they use 60 days to rearm, reposition and blame each other, the next war may be worse.
For now, the leaked framework is best understood as a ceasefire-for-leverage exchange: Iran gets money and access; the U.S. gets de-escalation and nuclear restraint; Israel gets anxiety.