“Assuming Iran agrees to give what has been agreed to the Blockade will allow the Hormuz Strait to be open to all,” Trump said on social media, warning that failure to accept the proposal would result in intensified military action.

The remarks come amid indications that Washington and Tehran are nearing a one-page, 14-point memorandum of understanding aimed at ending the conflict and initiating further negotiations, according to a source familiar with the talks.

The proposed framework would declare an end to the war and launch a 30-day negotiating period to finalize arrangements covering maritime transit through the strait, limits on Iran’s nuclear program, and the lifting of US sanctions.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said on Wednesday that safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz would be ensured once US threats subside, adding that new procedures were being implemented for shipping, though no details were provided.The developments follow Trump’s decision to pause “Project Freedom,” a US naval mission intended to escort vessels through the waterway, citing progress in negotiations.

The blockade, however, remains in force.The Strait of Hormuz, a critical oil transit route, has been largely closed to international shipping since late February, when the United States and Israel launched military operations against Iran. The disruption has severely affected global energy flows and heightened geopolitical tensions.

According to sources, the draft memorandum could include provisions for Iran to halt nuclear enrichment activities, while the United States would lift sanctions and release frozen Iranian funds. Both sides would also gradually ease restrictions on shipping during the negotiation period.

The talks involve US envoys and Iranian officials engaging directly and through intermediaries, with Pakistan playing a mediating role, the source said.Despite the diplomatic progress, incidents in the strait have continued.

A French shipping company reported that one of its container vessels was struck in the waterway this week, with injured crew evacuated.Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, speaking during a visit to China, said Tehran was seeking a “fair and comprehensive agreement” but did not directly address Trump’s latest comments.

The conflict, which began on February 28, has disrupted shipping and triggered repeated strikes on vessels and regional targets, underscoring the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz to global trade and energy markets.

A Pakistani source involved in the negotiations said discussions were “on track” for Wednesday, despite earlier indications from Iran that it might not attend. U.S. President Donald Trump could join the talks either in person or virtually if an agreement is reached, the source added.

U.S. Vice President JD Vance is expected to travel to Pakistan for the переговоры, according to media reports, while Iranian officials said Tehran was “positively reviewing” whether to send a delegation, without confirming participation.

The diplomatic push comes as a two-week ceasefire in the conflict, which began on February 28, nears its end. A Pakistani source said the truce is expected to expire late Wednesday U.S. time.Financial markets reacted to signs of renewed diplomacy, with oil prices falling more than $1 and equities rising in early Asian trading amid expectations that talks could resume.

Brent crude traded near $94 a barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate fell below $88.Tensions remain elevated, however, following disputes over the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports and the recent interception of an Iranian vessel.

Tehran condemned the seizure and warned Washington would bear responsibility for any escalation.Iranian officials also reiterated that they would not negotiate under pressure. Senior figures, including Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, accused Washington of attempting to force concessions through economic and military pressure.

Washington has said it seeks an agreement that would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons while stabilizing energy markets. Tehran, for its part, is seeking relief from sanctions and an end to hostilities without compromising its nuclear program.

The strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz remains central to the negotiations, as the waterway handles a significant share of global oil and gas shipments and has been affected by restrictions imposed during the conflict.

Pakistan, acting as a mediator, has deployed nearly 20,000 security personnel in Islamabad ahead of the potential talks, underscoring the high stakes and security concerns surrounding the negotiations.

Trading volumes of the Iranian currency have reached as much as $6 million a day in Pakistan’s open market, according to the Exchange Companies Association of Pakistan, with demand accelerating after reports of renewed negotiations between Washington and Tehran.

The rally has been fueled in part by Islamabad’s diplomatic outreach, with Asim Munir visiting Iran and Shehbaz Sharif undertaking a regional tour following high-level U.S.-Iran talks hosted in the Pakistani capital. Market participants say these developments have strengthened expectations of a potential breakthrough.

The Iranian riyal has risen by around 50% in Pakistan’s informal market since late February, climbing from about Rs10,000 to Rs15,000 per 10 million riyals after talks began in Islamabad on April 11, ECAP data shows.Small investors are increasingly participating in the trend.

Muhammad Akbar, a chauffeur in Karachi, said he had invested part of his monthly income into the currency, hoping to profit if negotiations succeed. “I have become a millionaire,” he said, referring to the large nominal value of riyals he now holds.Others have built significantly larger positions.

Retail investor Azam Khan said he had accumulated hundreds of millions of riyals as the currency gained traction among traders seeking quick returns.Market participants say the surge reflects heightened expectations rather than underlying economic strength.

Zafar Sultan Paracha said demand had surged across investor categories, though he cautioned that trading volumes may be even higher due to undocumented transactions.“People’s expectations are very high,” Paracha said, urging investors to base decisions on fundamentals rather than speculation.Economists warn the rally bears hallmarks of behavioral bias rather than structural recovery.

Muhammad Waqas Ghani described the trend as a “gambler’s fallacy,” where investors assume a rebound is likely simply because the currency has weakened in the past.He said Iran continues to face deep economic challenges, including liquidity shortages and stress in its banking system, which limit the scope for sustained appreciation.

Without broader reforms or durable sanctions relief, gains are likely to remain localized to Pakistan’s market rather than reflecting a global revaluation.Some investors remain cautious. Isra Ghous Rasool, a business student and stock market participant, said volatility linked to geopolitical developments made the currency too risky. “There’s simply too much volatility for me to comfortably manage,” she said.

Pakistan has also taken steps to facilitate trade through Iran, temporarily easing export rules for shipments of goods to Central Asia via Iranian territory, a move analysts say may have contributed modestly to the currency’s local demand.

Still, analysts say the current surge is driven primarily by speculation tied to geopolitical expectations rather than economic fundamentals, leaving investors exposed to sharp reversals if diplomatic progress stalls.

The discussions, held days after a Pakistan-brokered ceasefire, marked the first direct engagement between senior U.S. and Iranian officials since Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution. Delegations led by U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf met over more than 20 hours at Islamabad’s Serena Hotel, with Pakistani mediators shuttling between the sides.

Despite moments when negotiators appeared close to a framework agreement, talks ultimately stalled over key issues including Iran’s nuclear program, control of the Strait of Hormuz, and access to frozen assets, according to 11 sources familiar with the discussions.

A U.S. official said Washington’s core objective remained ensuring Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon, while Iranian officials emphasized sovereignty concerns, sanctions relief, and broader security guarantees.

Iran has consistently denied seeking nuclear weapons but maintains its right to uranium enrichment.Sources described a tense and shifting atmosphere, with periods of optimism giving way to deadlock. At one stage, the sides were “80 percent” toward an understanding before unresolved political decisions derailed progress, one source said.

Pakistan played a central mediating role, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif confirming that efforts to bridge differences are ongoing. Officials said communication between Tehran and Washington continues through intermediaries, even after the formal talks ended.

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday that Iran had reached out seeking a deal, though this could not be independently verified. A White House spokesperson reiterated that Washington’s position remains unchanged, particularly its demand that Iran abandon any pathway to nuclear weapons.

Iranian officials signaled deep mistrust, citing past negotiations and subsequent military actions, while also indicating willingness to continue discussions under defined conditions.The Strait of Hormuz remains a central point of contention, with Iran asserting control over the waterway and the United States insisting on restoring unrestricted navigation.

The dispute has had significant implications for global energy markets, contributing to volatility and supply concerns.Mediators, including Pakistani officials and regional diplomats, have continued backchannel communications in an effort to revive talks.

Both sides face mounting pressure to de-escalate, with economic costs rising and broader geopolitical risks intensifying.

Iran and the United States have agreed to a conditional two-week ceasefire, marking a temporary pause in hostilities that have disrupted regional stability and threatened global energy supply routes, according to statements from officials in both countries and mediators involved in the talks.

The agreement provides for an immediate halt to attacks and the reopening of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical corridor for global oil shipments. Iranian authorities said safe passage would be coordinated with their armed forces during the ceasefire period, indicating continued operational control over the waterway.

The announcement was confirmed by Shehbaz Sharif, who said the ceasefire would apply “everywhere including Lebanon and elsewhere” and take effect immediately. Sharif also invited both sides to send delegations to Islamabad for talks aimed at reaching a longer-term settlement, positioning Pakistan as a key mediator in the process.

Officials in Washington and Tehran offered differing emphases on the agreement. Donald Trump described the ceasefire as a “total and complete victory” for the United States, stating that US military objectives had been achieved and that discussions toward a broader peace arrangement were already advanced. He added that Washington would suspend further military action, including previously stated threats against Iranian civilian infrastructure, contingent on compliance with the terms of the agreement.

Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi confirmed that Tehran would halt what he described as “defensive operations” to facilitate negotiations. He said Iran had submitted a 10-point proposal that Washington had accepted as the basis for talks, while also reviewing a separate 15-point proposal put forward by the United States.

Despite these developments, there were inconsistencies in how the ceasefire’s geographic scope was described. Benjamin Netanyahu stated that the agreement did not extend to Lebanon, contradicting assertions by Pakistani officials and some US sources that the ceasefire would apply across multiple fronts. The discrepancy highlights ongoing uncertainty over the terms and implementation of the arrangement.

No official text of either proposal has been publicly released. However, details reported by Iranian state media suggest that Tehran’s 10-point plan includes provisions for maintaining its authority over the Strait of Hormuz, securing the lifting of sanctions, unfreezing overseas assets, and obtaining compensation for damages.

The proposal is also reported to call for the withdrawal of US forces from the region, recognition of Iran’s nuclear enrichment activities, and a binding United Nations resolution to formalize any final agreement.

Iranian diplomatic messaging has reinforced these positions, emphasizing continued control over strategic waterways and a cessation of hostilities across multiple regional theaters. Tehran has also indicated that any lasting agreement would need to address broader geopolitical and economic demands, including sanctions relief and security guarantees.

By contrast, the US proposal is reported by regional sources cited by CNN to focus on nuclear and security constraints. The 15-point framework is believed to include commitments by Iran to forgo nuclear weapons development, surrender highly enriched uranium, limit its defense capabilities, and curtail support for regional proxy groups. It also includes provisions to ensure the continued operation of the Strait of Hormuz as an open international shipping route.

Iran has previously rejected these terms, describing them as “excessive, unrealistic and unreasonable,” suggesting that significant gaps remain between the two sides despite the temporary ceasefire.The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz is a central component of the agreement, given its importance to global energy markets.

Any disruption to shipping through the waterway has immediate implications for oil prices and supply chains, making the ceasefire’s maritime provisions a key focus for international stakeholders.

The two-week timeframe underscores the provisional nature of the arrangement, with both sides framing the ceasefire as an opportunity to advance negotiations rather than a definitive resolution. Diplomatic engagement is expected to intensify in the coming days, particularly with the proposed talks in Islamabad.

While the agreement signals a de-escalation after a period of heightened tensions, the absence of a publicly verified framework and conflicting statements from key actors point to a fragile understanding that will depend on sustained diplomatic coordination and adherence to interim commitments.

Writing in Foreign Affairs, Zarif said Iran should offer to limit its nuclear program and reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for a comprehensive lifting of U.S. sanctions, a proposal he said Washington had previously rejected but might now consider under changed circumstances.

The remarks come as the United States has put forward a 15-point ceasefire framework that includes restoring maritime access through the Strait of Hormuz, though there has been no indication of progress in negotiations.

Zarif, who played a central role in negotiating the 2015 nuclear agreement, no longer holds an official government position but remains an influential figure. Analysts note that such proposals are unlikely to be published without at least informal alignment with senior leadership in Tehran.

Iranian officials have repeatedly pointed to past instances in which negotiations with Washington coincided with military action, including the current conflict, as a source of distrust.

Zarif also criticized previous U.S. negotiating representatives, including Jared Kushner, questioning their expertise in geopolitics and nuclear policy.

The proposal underscores tentative signals of diplomatic maneuvering amid ongoing hostilities, even as military exchanges and tensions in the region continue.

Brent crude futures rose 65 cents to $112.84 a barrel by 0446 GMT, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate climbed 84 cents to $98.75, after both benchmarks had earlier fallen by more than $1. The spread between the two contracts widened to over $13 a barrel, the largest gap in years.

The volatility follows a U.S. decision to allow the temporary delivery and sale of Iranian-origin oil already at sea, injecting additional supply into markets strained by disruptions linked to the ongoing conflict.

Market sentiment remained highly sensitive to geopolitical developments after Donald Trump issued a 48-hour ultimatum demanding Iran fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face strikes on its power plants.Iranian officials responded with warnings that any such action would trigger attacks on critical energy and infrastructure assets across the Gulf.

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf said regional facilities could face “irreversible” damage if Iranian plants were targeted.Analysts said the exchange of threats pointed to a heightened risk of escalation.

Amrita Sen of Energy Aspects said markets were underestimating the likelihood that Iran would resist pressure, warning that further confrontation could have severe consequences for Gulf infrastructure.

Despite the release of additional Iranian oil, traders remained focused on the scale of supply disruption caused by the conflict. The Strait of Hormuz, a key artery for global energy flows handling roughly 20% of oil and liquefied natural gas trade, has been severely affected.Industry estimates suggest the war has removed between 7 million and 10 million barrels per day from Middle East production, tightening global supply even as policymakers attempt to stabilise markets.

Vandana Hari of Vanda Insights said short-term price movements would continue to be driven by geopolitical rhetoric, but longer-term trends would depend on the restoration of oil flows from the region.

Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency, described the current crisis as “very severe,” exceeding the combined impact of the oil shocks of the 1970s.The conflict, now in its fourth week, has damaged major energy facilities and disrupted shipping routes, amplifying concerns over prolonged supply constraints and broader economic fallout.

The interplay between potential supply increases from Iranian oil and the risk of further infrastructure damage has left markets exposed to sharp price swings as the situation evolves.

In an interview with Fox News aired on Sunday, Trump outlined a potential shift in U.S. policy toward Iran, emphasizing that sanctions relief could enable Tehran to rebuild its economy, particularly in the aftermath of its conflict with Israel.

“If Iran behaves itself, I would consider waiving sanctions so they can sell oil and engage in normal economic activities,” Trump stated. He clarified, however, that any decision to ease restrictions would hinge on Iran proving it is not pursuing harmful actions.

“If they show they’re not going to do any more harm, I would take the sanctions off,” he added.

Trump’s remarks come amid mixed signals from his camp. On June 24, he announced on Truth Social that China could resume purchasing Iranian oil, suggesting a softening of sanctions.

The following day, he clarified that he was not seeking to cut off Iran’s oil revenues, citing the country’s need for funds to recover from its war with Israel. However, on Friday, Trump abruptly paused efforts to lift sanctions, citing inflammatory remarks from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, whom he described as expressing “anger, hatred, and disgust.”

Addressing accusations that his administration had permitted China to buy sanctioned Iranian oil, Trump firmly denied the claims during the Sunday interview, insisting that sanctions remain in place. He emphasized that any future relief would be contingent on Iran’s willingness to adopt a peaceful stance.

Trump also linked the prospect of sanctions relief to broader Middle East peace efforts, particularly the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states. He described Iran as a historical obstacle to regional peace but suggested it could have joined the accords under different circumstances.

“Iran was the primary problem,” Trump said. “I thought there was a moment when they might have joined the Abraham Accords, but they’re worse off now.”

He hinted that new, unnamed countries have expressed interest in joining the accords following Iran’s recent setbacks, signaling potential momentum for expanded regional cooperation.

The comments reflect Trump’s broader approach to balancing economic pressure with diplomatic openings, a strategy that could reshape U.S.-Iran relations and influence Middle East dynamics if implemented.

If Washington and Riyadh can seize this moment to work together, they could reshape not just Syria’s destiny but also the broader regional landscape.

Next week marks a critical juncture for Syria’s embattled leadership—a rare opportunity to step onto the global stage and present their vision for the country’s recovery. A senior delegation is set to travel to Washington D.C. to participate in the IMF and World Bank spring meetings.

The stakes could not be higher. What unfolds in this high-profile forum may well shape Syria’s future trajectory after more than a decade of devastating conflict, economic collapse, and social disintegration.

This historic opportunity is underscored by a series of quiet but significant developments behind the scenes. Saudi Arabia, once distant from Syria’s political orbit, is now actively working with the World Bank to convene a high-level reconstruction roundtable. The gathering is expected to draw influential players including the G7 finance ministers and the IMF chief, signaling a serious shift in regional and international engagement.

Importantly, Riyadh has already taken concrete steps to remove financial obstacles by settling Syria’s $15 million debt to the World Bank. This move clears a major hurdle and paves the way for Syria to access potentially hundreds of millions in reconstruction grants. The focus of these funds will be on vital sectors such as repairing the devastated electricity grid and funding public sector salaries—critical lifelines for a country struggling to maintain basic services.

Michael Arizanti, a seasoned commentator on Middle Eastern affairs, succinctly framed this emerging reality: “This isn’t about handouts — it’s about hard-headed stability. A stable Syria benefits everyone, especially in a region that has paid dearly for more than a decade of conflict, economic collapse, and mass displacement.”

Yet, Arizanti cautions that rebuilding Syria requires more than money and good intentions. The foundation of renewed international cooperation depends heavily on confidence — and that starts with sanctions relief. Syria remains shackled by punitive measures that complicate every business deal, every investment decision, and every diplomatic outreach. Without clear pathways for easing these sanctions, the prospect of reconstruction remains fragile at best.

Syria’s Central Bank Governor, Husriyeh, underscored this message in a recent interview with Reuters, highlighting his delegation’s priority at the Washington meetings, “We want to be part of the international economy. And we hope the global community will help us remove any obstacle to this integration.” His words reflect the deep urgency within Syria’s economic leadership to reintegrate into the global financial system—a prerequisite to attracting the tens of billions in investments the country desperately needs.

Echoing this perspective, Abdallah Dardari, the UNDP’s senior figure on regional development, delivered a sobering reminder, “Even suspending sanctions won’t be enough. If I were an investor putting $100 million into a power plant, I couldn’t risk sanctions snapping back next year. They must be lifted in a comprehensive and lasting way.” His insight highlights the chilling effect that sanctions uncertainty has on investment flows—essential capital that Syria needs not just to stabilize but to build a sustainable post-war future.

The significance of this moment cannot be overstated. Regional players have begun to recalibrate their approach. Last month, Qatar announced plans to supply Syria with natural gas via Jordan to alleviate the chronic electricity shortages that plague the country. This move signals a thawing of Gulf ties after years of political estrangement and hesitation, and it highlights the practical benefits of engagement over isolation.

However, progress still faces formidable obstacles—primarily emanating from within Washington. Certain factions aligned with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu remain deeply skeptical of re-engagement with Damascus, citing Syria’s past ties to extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda as justification to maintain a hard line.

Arizanti argues this stance is dangerously outdated: “If we’re serious about fostering peace, rebuilding institutions, and preventing the return of chaos — we must look at today’s realities, not yesterday’s headlines.”

Indeed, the path forward demands courage and pragmatism on both sides. From the Syrian government, it requires transparency, meaningful reform, and a credible roadmap toward a stable and peaceful future. From the West—especially the United States—it requires abandoning isolationist policies that have failed to bring peace and instead embracing engagement as the only sustainable strategy to break the vicious cycle of conflict and despair.

“The international community must offer a credible path back into the global system,” Arizanti insists. “Isolation has failed. Engagement is the only sustainable path to peace, stability, and reconstruction—not just for Syria, but for the entire Levant.”

If Washington and Riyadh can seize this moment to work together, they could reshape not just Syria’s destiny but also the broader regional landscape. The coming weeks will be a test of political maturity and strategic clarity. For Syria, and for the millions of Syrians yearning for peace and normalcy, this moment may be the long-awaited turning point.