Iran–US–Pakistan Draft Deal Pending Approval, 2026

Key Points

• A draft memorandum of understanding (MoU) aimed at ending the war between Iran and the United States has been reached, with Pakistan acting as a mediator.
• The proposed framework includes an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire, a halt to attacks on infrastructure, and the restoration of freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz through a joint monitoring mechanism.
• The draft envisions the gradual lifting of US sanctions on Iran and the release of billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets, in exchange for Iran’s compliance with agreed‑upon terms.
• Nuclear‑program constraints are separated from the initial MoU, with the sides expected to launch follow‑on nuclear talks within 30 days of the agreement coming into force, to set limits on enrichment and strengthening inspections.
• Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, was expected to travel to Tehran to announce or formalize the framework before holding consultations with US officials, underscoring Islamabad’s role as an intermediary.
• US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has acknowledged “some progress” in negotiations, but stressed that Washington has not yet signed a final agreement and could give a public statement in the next 24–48 hours.
• Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has expressed continued distrust toward Washington, ruling out additional concessions beyond what is already outlined in the draft, while US President Donald Trump has warned that further strikes could follow if Tehran rejects a negotiated settlement.

Tehran (Evening Washington News) May 23, 2026 – A draft memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States, mediated by Pakistan, has brought the bitter Gulf conflict close to a formal ceasefire, but the deal remains contingent on Washington’s final approval, according to multiple diplomatic and media sources. As reported by Axios in a 6 May 2026 report, the White House is nearing a consensus on a one‑page MoU intended to end hostilities and establish a framework for broader nuclear talks, though no final agreement has yet been signed.

How does the draft MoU aim to end the war?

According to the Axios report, which cites two US officials and additional sources familiar with the negotiations, the proposed agreement would require Iran to impose a halt on nuclear enrichment, while the US would gradually lift sanctions and release billions of dollars in frozen Iranian funds. Both sides would also ease restrictions on maritime transit through the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint through which roughly a fifth of global oil and gas shipments pass.

The MoU, as described by these sources, would formally cease hostilities in the Gulf region and trigger a 30‑day window for more detailed negotiations on reopening the strait, tightening limits on Iran’s nuclear activities, and easing sanctions. Should those follow‑up talks fail, US forces would retain the option to reinstate the blockade or resume military operations, according to one US official quoted by Axios.

What specific nuclear conditions are being discussed?

The same Axios report indicates that the draft foresees a moratorium on uranium enrichment, with US envoys pushing for a 20‑year freeze, while Iran has proposed a five‑year pause. Three unnamed sources told Axios that the likely duration may fall between 12 and 15 years, but the final figure remains under negotiation.

The document reportedly includes a clause that any Iranian breach of enrichment restrictions would automatically extend the moratorium, and after it expires, Iran would be allowed to enrich uranium only up to the low level of 3.67 percent, far below weapons‑grade.

The MoU would also bar Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons or engaging in weaponization work, and discussions are underway on a provision that would prevent it from operating underground nuclear facilities.

In addition, Iran would accept an enhanced inspection regime, including snap inspections by UN inspectors, according to a US official cited by Axios.

How does the Strait of Hormuz feature in the draft?

Financial industry outlet Financial Juice reports that the final draft of the US–Iran agreement includes

“an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire on all fronts”,

mutual commitments not to target infrastructure, and the guarantee of freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz under a joint monitoring mechanism.

The outlet notes that sanctions would be gradually lifted in exchange for Iran’s compliance, and that negotiations on “outstanding issues” would begin within a maximum of seven days of the agreement coming into force.

What is Pakistan’s exact role in the framework?

Pakistan has repeatedly been described as a key mediator in the process. As reported by Reuters and subsequently picked up by outlets such as Moneycontrol, a draft US–Iran agreement will move forward only once both sides reach a basic consensus, and Pakistani officials have emphasized that the document is still in an early, non‑final stage.

A Pakistani official familiar with the process said the draft would be negotiated remotely until a basic consensus is achieved, making clear that a formal accord is not yet sealed.

The Arab News, citing an Associated Press account, notes that Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, met senior Iranian officials in Tehran with the aim of easing regional tensions and paving the way for further US–Iran talks.

According to The Media Line, Munir’s planned visit to Tehran was directly tied to Tehran’s acceptance of the latest US‑backed proposal, with one source calling the stakes “absolute” and clarifying that the Pakistani chief would travel immediately if a breakthrough and interim framework were confirmed.

Is the MoU dependent on Washington’s approval?

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has publicly acknowledged that “some progress” has been made in negotiations, but has not claimed that an agreement is final, according to Axios. Rubio told reporters on 6 May that Washington could issue a statement on the deal

“later today, tomorrow, or within two days”,

indicating that the White House is still reviewing the draft.

Under the current draft described by Axios, the MoU would only take full effect if both Washington and Tehran approve the terms, and many of its stipulations would depend on a final, signed agreement.

Without Washington’s explicit green light, the proposed ceasefire, sanctions‑relief schedule, and Strait‑of‑Hormuz arrangements would remain on hold.

Why is the nuclear issue treated separately in the draft?

Both Axios and Iran International note that the initial one‑page MoU is designed to stop the war and set the stage for a second round of technical negotiations on nuclear constraints, rather than settle all outstanding issues at once.

As reported by Iran International, the White House expects Iran to respond within 48 hours on key points of the proposed agreement, and the sides are framing the draft as the closest they have come to a deal since the war began.

By deliberately separating the nuclear file from the initial ceasefire package, negotiators aim to avoid derailing the broader peace framework over the most contentious technical questions, such as the length of the enrichment moratorium and the handling of Iran’s existing stock of highly enriched uranium.

According to two sources quoted by Axios, Iran is being asked to transfer its highly enriched uranium out of the country, potentially to the United States, a demand that Tehran has historically resisted.

What has Iran’s leadership signalled about the draft?

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has conveyed continued distrust toward Washington despite the diplomatic advances, as reported by Iran International and other outlets following the 6 May disclosure.

Araghchi stated that Tehran would not offer concessions beyond those already outlined in the proposed framework, signalling that further unilateral demands from the US would be unlikely to gain traction.

At the same time, US President Donald Trump has warned that Washington could launch additional military strikes if Iran rejects a negotiated settlement, a stance that has been relayed by multiple US and international outlets covering the talks. Rubio, speaking to journalists, has referred to some of Iran’s senior figures as “insane in the brain”, underscoring the deep mutual suspicion that still colours the negotiations.

What happens if the follow‑on talks fail?

The Axios piece warns that even if the initial MoU is approved, the situation could slide back into confrontation if the 30‑day negotiation window on nuclear and sanctions issues collapses. Under the draft terms, US forces would retain the legal and military option to reimpose the blockade or restart combat operations if Iran is found in breach of the agreed‑upon conditions or if the follow‑up talks fail to produce a detailed agreement on the Strait of Hormuz and sanctions.

This built‑in “sunset” clause means that, from Washington’s perspective, the MoU is as much a pause‑to‑negotiate mechanism as a definitive peace deal, allowing the US to keep pressure on Iran while avoiding an open‑ended, high‑risk conflict.

For Tehran, the draft offers a route to sanctions relief and the restoration of vital shipping lanes, but only if it accepts significant limits on its nuclear ambitions and agrees to intrusive inspections.

What is the background to this Iran–US–Pakistan framework?

The current draft memorandum stems from a protracted war in the Gulf that began with a series of escalating strikes and missile attacks, followed by a temporary truce that was brokered in part by Pakistan‑hosted talks between US and Iranian officials.

As reported by Middle East Eye and other outlets, Pakistan delivered an initial ceasefire plan to Washington and Tehran in early April 2026, tentatively dubbed the “Islamabad Accords”, which proposed an immediate temporary ceasefire followed by a comprehensive agreement to be finalized within 15–20 days.

Pakistan’s role grew after its military‑backed political establishment positioned itself as a neutral channel, allowing US envoys and Iranian representatives to meet in Islamabad without direct public exposure.

Field Marshal Asim Munir, Pakistan’s army chief, has been described as a central figure in the mediation, with one Islamabad‑based diplomatic source telling The Media Line that Munir’s Tehran trip and the timing of any public announcement of the MoU were contingent on Tehran’s acceptance of the US‑backed proposal.

The evolving framework also reflects a broader shift in Washington’s strategy under President Trump, from a posture of maximum pressure and unilateral strikes to a more calibrated approach that combines military leverage with a tightly structured diplomatic window.

At the same time, Iranian factions have appeared divided over whether to accept a long‑term enrichment freeze in exchange for sanctions relief, a split that has been noted by US officials as making a unified Iranian position difficult to secure.

What might this framework mean for regional and global audiences?

For regional audiences in the Middle East, the draft MoU could open the possibility of a lasting reduction in direct US–Iran military clashes, provided that both sides adhere to the ceasefire terms and the follow‑on talks on the Strait of Hormuz succeed. If the joint monitoring mechanism for shipping is implemented effectively, key regional economies such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Iraq may see lower insurance premiums and more stable energy‑transit conditions, according to analysts quoted by Financial Juice and similar outlets.

For global energy markets, the restoration of largely unrestricted passage through the Strait of Hormuz would ease concerns about prolonged supply disruptions, potentially reducing volatility in crude and refined‑product prices. However, if the follow‑up negotiations stall or if either side is accused of violating the MoU, markets could quickly reprice the risk of renewed hostilities and renewed shipping constraints.

For Pakistan, the mediation role offers both diplomatic leverage and economic risk. Successful brokering of a US–Iran deal would bolster Islamabad’s image as a neutral regional actor and could encourage further foreign direct investment and donor engagement; however, any perceived tilt toward Washington or Tehran could strain its relationships with other regional powers, particularly Saudi Arabia and China, which have been closely watching the process.