Pakistan Says a U.S.-Iran Deal Could Be Signed Within 24 Hours — But Tehran Still Hesitates
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif says the final text is ready. Trump says Sunday. Iran says timing remains uncertain. The deal is close, but not done.
Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif says the United States and Iran could sign a peace deal within 24 hours. Trump says the agreement may be signed on Sunday. Axios, Reuters and AP all report that a framework is close. Iran, however, continues to urge caution. That is the correct state of play: the deal is closer than ever, but not yet safely done.
The proposed agreement appears to involve an electronic signing, an extension of the ceasefire, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, steps toward lifting the U.S. naval blockade, and a 60-day window for negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program and frozen assets. The precise sequencing remains disputed. Washington wants performance before relief. Tehran wants tangible relief before deeper concessions.
Pakistan’s role is now central. Islamabad has positioned itself as a mediator able to speak to Tehran, Washington and Gulf actors. That is a major diplomatic win for Pakistan if the deal holds. It also allows Prime Minister Sharif to present Pakistan as a stabilizing power at a moment when the Middle East has exhausted traditional channels.
Why electronic signing? Partly logistics, partly politics. A physical meeting between U.S. and Iranian leaders would be symbolically explosive and domestically risky for both sides. An electronic memorandum allows each government to claim progress without staging a handshake that hardliners can weaponize.
Iran’s caution is understandable. Tehran wants to avoid looking like it accepted American terms after months of war. It also has internal divisions: diplomats may want a deal, the IRGC may want guarantees, and hardliners may object to nuclear concessions. If the signing is rushed before elite consensus is locked, the agreement could collapse before implementation.
Trump’s incentive is obvious. A deal would reopen Hormuz, calm oil markets, reduce pressure on U.S. forces, and give him a dramatic birthday-week diplomatic victory. He can say he forced Iran to negotiate through strength. But if he oversells the agreement before Iran signs, he risks another public contradiction.
Israel is the spoiler to watch. Netanyahu fears a deal that leaves Iran’s missiles and regional allies intact. If Israel escalates in Lebanon or strikes Iran again, Tehran may delay or reject the signing. That is why Lebanon appears tied to the negotiations even when Washington tries to treat it separately.
The headline says a deal will be signed within 24 hours. The safer version is that Pakistan believes the final text is ready and the signing is expected soon, while Iran has not fully locked the timing.
Peace agreements often fail in the last inch. This one has many inches left: sanctions, Hormuz, uranium, frozen funds, Lebanon, Israel and domestic politics in Tehran and Washington.
But the fact that all sides are talking about signing rather than striking is itself significant. After months of missiles, blockades and tanker attacks, the Middle East may be one signature away from a pause — or one miscalculation away from another war.