Key Sticking Points Emerge in Potential Iran Peace Framework

Negotiations aimed at ending the ongoing conflict with Iran are “proceeding nicely,” according to President Donald Trump, though significant obstacles remain before any final agreement can be reached. Lawmakers from both parties have voiced criticism of the current framework, while experts caution that critical details remain undisclosed.

Matteo Farzaneh, a Northeastern Illinois University professor and Iranian native, provided analysis on the potential deal’s contents and viability. While the full terms of the memorandum of understanding have not been made public, Farzaneh identified several major sticking points.

The amount of enriched uranium in Iran’s possession remains a central dispute. Iranian officials have stated they will not relinquish these materials, though President Trump recently indicated Iran could destroy them within its own territory. Control of the Strait of Hormuz presents another hurdle: Iran has proposed a “navigation fee” of approximately $2 million per tanker passing through the strategic waterway, a measure Farzaneh noted Iran has already begun implementing.

Additionally, Iran is seeking two security guarantees: a U.S. commitment not to attack Iranian territory, and assurance that Israel will not target Lebanon. Farzaneh assessed that these demands remain “far away from a reality right now.”

The negotiations also intersect with the Abraham Accords, the 2020 normalization agreements initially signed by the UAE and Bahrain, later joined by Morocco, Kazakhstan, and Sudan. President Trump has reportedly made the participation of six Muslim-majority nations a requirement for any Iran peace framework. Farzaneh observed that with only five or six Muslim-majority countries having recognized Israel among the world’s 193 nations, substantial diplomatic work remains. He emphasized that lasting peace is unlikely “until the Palestinian situation is addressed.”

Inside Iran, the humanitarian and economic toll continues to mount. According to Farzaneh, the conflict, which he stated began on February 28, has driven inflation sharply higher and severely disrupted daily life. Iran has been cut off from the international internet, operating instead on a domestic network that allows limited banking and bill-pay services but prevents global connectivity. Communications with family abroad are possible only at high cost and for brief durations.

Farzaneh, who maintains family ties in Iran, reported that over 3,500 Iranian civilians have been killed, including approximately 170 children in a school struck by U.S. missiles at the war’s outset. Public sentiment, he said, is marked by “apprehension, sadness, and helplessness,” with ordinary citizens hoping any agreement delivers tangible relief—not just for the wealthy, but for average Iranians.

Economic indicators have shown some movement in response to diplomatic developments. Oil prices, which had climbed to $118 per barrel roughly a month ago, declined notably following Friday’s announcement of a possible framework. A reported 60-day negotiation window has been established, which Farzaneh said offers “a lot of hope.”

Still, he urged caution. “We are dealing with an unconventional president and an unconventional administration,” Farzaneh noted. “Anything can go wrong at any minute. Ceasefires are incredibly difficult to control.”

He concluded that regardless of political complexities, “Iran and the U.S. have to make peace one way or another. The world cannot handle closure and the blockade” of critical maritime routes. For now, stakeholders on all sides await further developments as negotiations continue.