A possible U.S.-Iran war-ending agreement now has a sharper reported test: what happens to Iran’s nuclear material.
The Associated Press reported Friday that the United States and Iran are close to signing an agreement aimed at ending the war. The new detail is that a senior U.S. official said the tentative deal includes terms for removing and destroying nuclear material from Iran, along with dismantling Tehran’s nuclear program.
That is a meaningful shift from the morning’s deal chatter. Earlier reports focused heavily on whether the Strait of Hormuz would reopen, whether sanctions would be lifted in phases, and whether the war pause would hold. The nuclear-material language raises the stakes because it touches the issue that Washington and Israel have described as central to the conflict.
The deal is still not signed
AP reported that three regional officials said the emerging agreement is expected to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, phase in sanctions relief, and release frozen Iranian assets. Those officials spoke anonymously because the negotiations remain sensitive.
But the agreement is not final. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the proposed Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has “never been closer,” while also urging media outlets not to speculate on the text before it is finalized. Al Jazeera’s live coverage carried the same broad picture: officials are talking as if a breakthrough is near, but the final terms remain politically sensitive.
The Times of Israel reported that Araghchi described the memorandum as close to finalization and said details would be shared publicly “in due course.” That caution matters because President Donald Trump also attacked what he called leaked Iranian descriptions of the deal, saying the reported terms did not match the written agreement.
Why the nuclear-material clause matters
If confirmed, a requirement to remove and destroy nuclear material would go beyond a vague promise of future talks. It would put physical stockpiles, verification, and sequencing at the center of any peace framework.
Iran has long said its nuclear program is peaceful. The United States and Israel have argued that Iran’s program could lead to a nuclear weapon, a claim Tehran rejects. That dispute is why wording matters. “Dismantling” a program, “removing” material, “destroying” material, and launching a new negotiation phase can mean very different things once inspectors, sanctions, and domestic politics enter the room.
The reported clause also sits awkwardly beside Tehran’s public caution. If Iran’s leadership believes the deal preserves its sovereignty and face-saving position, it may still move forward. If the public version looks like forced nuclear surrender, hardliners could try to slow or block it.
Hormuz is still part of the same bargain
The nuclear issue is not separate from the maritime crisis. AP reported that the broader package is expected to pave the way for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, while sanctions relief and asset releases would be tied to the deal’s progress.
That links the two pressure points List25 has been tracking all week: the world’s most important oil chokepoint and the future of Iran’s nuclear program. A deal that reopens shipping but leaves nuclear terms vague may calm oil markets only briefly. A deal that demands nuclear-material destruction but is not accepted in Tehran could collapse before ships move normally.
For now, the credible read is cautious: negotiations appear closer than they were Thursday, but the decisive issue is no longer just whether leaders announce a signing ceremony. It is whether the nuclear-material terms AP reported are real, enforceable, and acceptable to both governments.
Sources: Associated Press, Al Jazeera live updates, The Times of Israel.