President Trump is seeking tougher language on uranium removal and maritime security before finalizing a 60-day ceasefire memorandum with Tehran.
President Donald Trump has signaled a commitment to the ‘peace through strength’ doctrine by demanding specific amendments to a proposed 60-day ceasefire deal with Iran. Following a Situation Room meeting on May 29, the administration indicated that while a framework for de-escalation exists, the current draft requires more robust safeguards regarding Iran’s nuclear stockpile and international shipping lanes. The President’s insistence on these revisions underscores a broader strategy to ensure that any diplomatic thaw does not come at the expense of American security or regional stability.
The proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) aims to halt Iranian enrichment for a period of 12 to 15 years and initiate talks on the permanent disposal of highly enriched uranium. While the U.S. initially pushed for a 20-year moratorium and Iran proposed five, the current draft reflects a middle ground that remains fragile. The President has expressed specific concerns regarding the logistics of how and when nuclear material is transferred out of Iranian control, possibly to the United States. U.S. officials noted that the administration is willing to extend the timeline for a formal signing to ensure the language regarding the removal of nuclear materials is airtight and verifiable.
Beyond nuclear concerns, the amendments focus heavily on the Strait of Hormuz. The President is seeking clarity on the conditions for lifting the current U.S. naval blockade, specifically requiring comprehensive mine-clearing operations and established rules to prevent the harassment of commercial vessels. While the draft includes the reopening of the Strait without tolls, the White House is prioritizing a verifiable end to Iranian maritime aggression before easing economic pressure. This focus on maritime sovereignty is a cornerstone of the administration’s foreign policy, connecting the safety of global trade routes to the economic interests of the American heartland.
Domestic political hurdles remain significant in both capitals. In Tehran, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf have navigated the technical negotiations alongside U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff, but Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has yet to grant final approval. Ghalibaf has previously stated that Iran’s enriched uranium would not be transferred under any circumstances, a position that directly contradicts the President’s new demands for the material’s removal. This internal Iranian friction suggests that even if a technical consensus is reached, the political bottleneck in Tehran could still derail the agreement.
Financial considerations also loom over the negotiations. The President has voiced skepticism regarding the unfreezing of Iranian assets, including approximately $12 billion currently held in Qatar. For the American taxpayer and the international community, the stakes involve both national security and global energy stability. The administration’s refusal to release these funds without significant concessions reflects a principled stance against the weaponization of international finance by adversarial regimes. This caution is mirrored in other domestic policy areas, such as the recent federal court ruling blocking payouts from the $1.776 billion anti-weaponization settlement fund, highlighting a consistent theme of fiscal and legal scrutiny.
Communication constraints have slowed the diplomatic process significantly, with U.S. officials noting that Iranian leadership is operating under strict security protocols that eschew digital communication, with some officials reportedly operating from secure underground locations. Washington expects a formal response to the toughened terms within the coming days, likely delivered through Pakistani mediators. Despite the friction and the complexities of the draft, the administration maintains that Iran is negotiating from a position of weakness—negotiating “on fumes”—and asserts that the U.S. strategy will remain consistent regardless of domestic political cycles or midterm election pressures. The focus remains on a deal that serves the Western tradition of security and order.

