Donald Trump says a ceasefire deal is 'close', but it could be on Iran's terms

For the past few days, the world has been watching the exchange of fire between the United States and Iran across the Persian Gulf like a crowd at a tennis game.

And it seems, based on the details which are emerging about what might be in this deal between Washington and Tehran, that it's the Islamic Republic about to serve for the match.

The terms seem to reflect Iran's negotiating position much more than what the US president had been demanding for months.

Donald Trump called off a third day of strikes on Iran, saying a "great settlement" had been reached, just hours after using his Truth Social platform to promise the US would hit the country "VERY HARD".

A day earlier, he said Iran was "all talk and no action" and would "have to pay the price" for stalled negotiations.

That price, however, might be written on the US chequebook. If there's an agreement at all, of course.

We've seen this story before — a deal being spruiked which never eventuates. CNN has run the numbers, and said President Trump suggested a deal was imminent 38 times.

This time it does feel a bit different, but that may also just be fatigue from the rhetoric whiplash that has surrounded this war.

It's important to keep in mind that this is not an entire peace deal. This would be a memorandum of understanding that opens the door to further talks — it kicks some of the issues down the road for a few months.

Let's consider what details are trickling out through Iranian state media, while taking into account such reporting will always have pro-regime bent.

Mehr News — an outlet linked to the Iranian government — appears to have the most detailed reporting on the draft document, and the wording suggests Iran is getting a lot of the things it's been hoping for, while the benefits for the US are more conceptual.

In many ways, it looks like it's taking the US-Iran relationship back to not only what it was before the war began, but before the first Trump administration pulled out of the last Iran nuclear deal.

That raises an obvious question: what was all this chaos all for?

President Trump, in a social media post, disputed the reports, and said the details Iran was putting out through the media "have NOTHING to do with the terms that were agreed to" and "bears no relation to the truth".

The draft deal reportedly includes the following:

• A permanent and immediate halt to the fighting on all fronts, including Lebanon.

This tallies with some of the reporting from other media outlets, including in the US, but it needs to be viewed through a very important lens: comments from the Israeli prime minister that his country is not party to this deal.

As the prospect of a breakthrough firmed, Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to stress he was in lock step with President Trump.

He did so while also putting distance between Israel and the agreement. And if there's one thing we've learned in recent weeks — a "ceasefire" in Lebanon can be declared, but whether it is actually adhered to is something different.

Earlier this week, Iran fired upon Israel in protest over the latter's conduct in Lebanon. And if Israel tries to keep fighting Tehran's proxy Hezbollah, it could cause trouble.

• A US commitment not to interfere in Iran's internal affairs and to respect the sovereignty of Iran.

The devil will be in the detail here, but it seems fairly uncontroversial. The extent of Iranian sovereignty will be the sticking point here, given Tehran has been demanding recognition of its rights over the Strait of Hormuz, which the US has opposed to this point.

• The lifting of the US naval blockade within 30 days.

The US has been blockading Iranian ports and ships in the Strait of Hormuz for months now, and it has been a contentious issue in the negotiations.

Donald Trump has said that there would be an end to the blockade if Iran agreed to terms, but the timing could be fluid. The President said, when cancelling the third round of strikes, the blockade would "remain in full force until this Transaction is finalised".

• A US commitment to withdraw forces from around Iran.

 Again, we need more of a sense of what the proximity to Iran would be here.

When the US and Israel launched their strikes against the Iranian regime on February 28, the retaliation from Tehran crippled the entire Middle East.

The Gulf States copped an absolute battering — the rationale put forward by Iran was that they host US military personnel and bases, and those facilities were rightful targets.

In recent days, the Iranian attacks have targeted places like Bahrain, which is home to the Fifth Fleet command — the US Navy headquarters in the Middle East.

This clause might mean pulling the warships, planes and troops deployed to the region as the US massed its forces at the start of the war. But you would not expect the US to be agreeing to close bases across the Gulf.

• The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days, under arrangements set by Iran.

Iran calling the shots here is the complete opposite of what the US had been demanding, which was the return to usual shipping traffic through the narrow channel without restriction.

"Arrangements" needs more of an explanation. Could it mean financial tolls for safe passage?

When the ABC was in Iran, and specifically asked the Iranian foreign ministry's spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei about that issue, the term "toll" seemed to be a dirty word.

But Baghaei said there would be costs incurred by Iran and Oman, the sultanate on the other side of the Strait, in their management of the waterway, and that would need to be passed on.

US media, including CNN, is citing diplomatic sources saying there would be no tolls.

• The suspension of sanctions on Iranian oil sales, and the unfreezing of Iranian finances that flow from that.

This is clearly designed to allow Iran to sell the liquid gold it pumps out of the ground, and goes to the parlous state of Iran's finances. So, it is a financial benefit to Iran.

The need for the US and its allies to present reconstruction plans for Iran worth at least $US300 billion ($425.4 billion). Here's the demand for the US to pull out its chequebook, and pay for what it blew up in Iran.

Iran may be stretched for cash, but the Trump administration having to cover the cost of what the US destroyed would be another concession.

• Sixty days of negotiations to reach a final agreement on nuclear issues and the lifting of all sanctions.

There's two parts to this. First, it's pushing the nuclear debate down the road — things like the future of Iran's nuclear program and its stockpiles of enriched uranium.

That tallies with recent comments by US officials about the rollout of any agreement, and the US president has made various statements about what would happen to Iran's nuclear material.

The second part of this is trying to help ease the financial pressure on Iran. Again, this is something Donald Trump said wouldn't be considered in the first phase of a deal, suggesting that it could follow if Iran was to "behave".

The previous Iran nuclear deal, the JCPOA, included sanction relief for Tehran. Trump has repeatedly labelled that as "the worst deal".

• Reiterating Iran's commitment not to produce nuclear weapons.

This is something which has been at the heart of Donald Trump's campaign on Iran: that it must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

It goes to the core of the conflict, and echoes the rhetoric of Israel's PM.

There's long been debate about how close Iran was to getting a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu has been saying for the best part of three decades that Iran was on the cusp of obtaining one.

Iran had committed to no nuclear weapons under the JCPOA, and while there is an argument to be made about whether it can be believed, the commitment in this deal is no improvement on previous agreements.

• During the negotiations, the US would commit to not increase its forces in the region and will not impose new sanctions.

This language goes to the point Iran keeps making that it is the US which is shifting the goal posts in the negotiations, over and over again.

And that it's the US sending mixed messages — threatening Iran while also demanding it do as it says.

• Release of $US24 billion in blocked Iranian funds during the 60-day period of final negotiations. Half of this amount must be made available to Iran before the negotiations begin.

Again, a significant concession.

• Establishing a monitoring mechanism to implement the agreement.

This is not particularly surprising, but how the mechanism operates will be important. For example, there has been a monitoring mechanism in places like Gaza and Lebanon and strikes have continued there.

• The final agreement will be approved by a UN Security Council resolution.

This is not a controversial idea, and certainly gives any agreement a bit of international heft — even with the disdain the Trump administration has expressed about the UN's ability to stop conflicts.

• The final negotiations will not begin before the release of half of Iran's frozen funds, the suspension of Iran's oil sanctions, and the lifting of the naval blockade. And the final agreement will be made solely on the fate of enriched materials and enrichment, the lifting of sanctions, and the Iranian economic reconstruction program — not missile programs or support for resistance groups.

Again, this would allow cash to flow to Iran, and limit the scope of any future deal. The US has, at various points, said it wanted to degrade Iran's missile program.

Iran's support for its proxies, like Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, has been a point of dispute too.