US President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he had “cancelled the scheduled strikes and bombing against Iran ” after claiming that “discussions and final points have been, in both concept and great detail, approved by all parties involved.”
On his Truth Social network, he wrote that the naval blockade on Iran would remain in place “until this Transaction is finalized,” adding that the time and place for a signing would be “announced shortly.”
Speaking later from the Oval Office, Trump suggested the memorandum of understanding (MOU) could be signed “maybe this weekend,” insisting that Iran’s leadership had agreed to its terms, while Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei countered that Tehran had “not yet reached a final conclusion on the agreement.”
Competing drafts of the supposed deal have since surfaced in the media.
The semi‑official Mehr News Agency published what it described as a 14‑point draft MOU, citing a source close to Iran’s negotiating team and stressing that the document still awaited final approval in Tehran. Axios , quoting US negotiating sources, reported on a different version said to reflect Washington’s position, with both sides’ texts framed as preliminary and politically unratified.
Trump officials have previously claimed a deal with Iran was close, only to walk such statements back as talks faltered.
But reports that US Air Force planes departed on Thursday to move equipment ahead of a possible trip by Vice President JD Vance to a signing ceremony in Geneva have fuelled speculation that this round is more advanced. The New Arab breaks down where we stand with the supposed agreement. Iran’s 14‑point draft The Mehr ‑published draft sets out ambitious security and economic provisions .
It calls for an immediate and permanent ceasefire “on all fronts, including Lebanon,” alongside a full withdrawal of US forces from the vicinity of Iran, and a complete lifting of the naval blockade within 30 days with the Strait of Hormuz reopening under “Iranian arrangements.”
On the economic side, it envisages suspension of sanctions on oil and petrochemicals, US‑ and allied‑backed plans for “rebuilding Iran” worth at least $300 billion, and the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian funds within 60 days – half of which would be made available before follow‑on negotiations and immediately after signing the MOU.
Regarding the nuclear issue, the draft foresees 60 days of negotiations to reach a final agreement on Iran’s programme, while Tehran would reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non‑Proliferation Treaty not to produce nuclear weapons.
Final talks, according to this version, would focus on enriched material, enrichment activities, sanctions relief and economic reconstruction, while explicitly excluding Iran’s missile programme and its support for regional “resistance” movements from the agenda. Reported US version and Lebanon’s place The version reported by Axios appears narrower and more conditional.
It reportedly calls for the Strait of Hormuz to reopen immediately without tolls, with sanctions relief tied to Iranian compliance rather than to fixed figures, and for a 60‑day ceasefire – including Lebanon – during which nuclear talks would continue.
Leaks from the US suggest it contains a framework for addressing Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium and would see Iran commit never to acquire nuclear weapons in exchange for phased, reversible sanctions relief, with less emphasis than the Iranian draft on large‑scale reconstruction funds or formal “reparations.”
Despite these differences, both versions converge on the inclusion of Lebanon in a 60‑day ceasefire arrangement.
Lebanese MP Hassan Fadlallah, part of Hezbollah’s March 8 alliance, has argued that any US–Iran agreement “will have direct repercussions on Lebanon,” saying the movement has “full confidence in Iran” and that Tehran is “insisting on including the Lebanese file in any agreement.”
He stressed that Hezbollah’s priority remains “confronting the Israeli aggression,” but that this does not preclude political solutions emerging from indirect negotiations, including the diplomatic track forming around talks in Islamabad.
So far, there has been no clear, formal public statement from the Israeli government specifically addressing the leaked MOU drafts or their reported provisions on Lebanon.
Israeli leaders have consistently signalled that no US–Iran arrangement will limit Israel’s freedom of action against Iran or its allies, leaving open how they might respond if an agreement is signed.
On the ground, however, Israel has maintained its military campaign in Lebanon despite talk of ceasefires, carrying out daily strikes across the southern Lebanon and an attack on south Beirut on Sunda y.