Trump: The agreement with Iran consists of 15 clauses.

US President Donald Trump announced that a long-term framework agreement with Iran, comprising 15 clauses, has been reached, in a move that could pave the way for ending the military escalation between the two sides and opening the door to a political settlement.

Trump explained that most of the terms of the agreement had already been agreed upon, noting that there was a strong basis for a comprehensive agreement, despite continued uncertainty about the possibility of its full implementation in the next phase.

He stressed that negotiations are still open, and that the final results will depend on the extent to which the various parties adhere to the terms of the proposed understanding.

Simultaneously with the announcement, the United States agreed to suspend military operations against Iran for two weeks, as part of a mutual truce aimed at creating the conditions for the completion of negotiations.

This move comes after diplomatic pressure and regional mediation efforts, especially from the Pakistani side, which played a role in bringing the two sides closer together.

Trump indicated that Iran’s uranium enrichment program would be one of the most prominent issues on the negotiating table, as it’s a pivotal element in any final agreement concerning regional and international security.

He also declined to clarify whether Washington would return to military escalation options if the negotiation track failed.

In response, Tehran presented a 10-point proposal, which Trump considered a negotiable basis, including key demands such as:

Guarantees against further military attacks on Iran;

Complete lifting of US sanctions;

Release of frozen Iranian assets;

Full withdrawal of US forces from the region;

The recognition of Iran’s right to uranium enrichment.

The proposal also includes arrangements relating to the Strait of Hormuz, including regulating navigation and security coordination during the period of calm.

The US announcement was supported by Benjamin Netanyahu, who expressed support for the temporary truce, while stressing the need to ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear or security threat in the region.

On the other hand, some outstanding issues, such as the scope and comprehensiveness of the ceasefire, remain a point of contention between the parties.

A round of direct negotiations between Washington and Tehran is expected to begin in the coming days, with the aim of turning initial understandings into a comprehensive formal agreement that ends the ongoing military tension.

Observers believe that the success of these talks will depend on the ability of both sides to make mutual concessions, especially on sensitive issues such as sanctions and the nuclear program.

On the same context, Democratic Senator Chris Coons sharply criticized US President Donald Trump, arguing that the agreement reached with Iran could put the United States in a weaker position on the international stage.

Coons said Trump’s approach to negotiation is clearly repetitive, explaining that it relies on issuing harsh and unrealistic threats before backing down at the last minute, which negatively impacts the credibility of the United States.

He added that this policy, in his opinion, ultimately led to an agreement that does not serve American interests, but rather puts them in a less powerful position than was previously available.

These statements come in the wake of Trump’s announcement of a two-week ceasefire with Iran, shortly before the end of a deadline he had set for Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, or face widespread attacks on its infrastructure.

On the Iranian side, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced that his country would halt its counter-military operations, while guaranteeing safe passage for ships through the Strait of Hormuz during the period of calm.

In contrast, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council described the agreement as a victory, arguing that Washington had agreed to Tehran’s conditions for ending the military confrontation.

The temporary truce has sparked a wave of controversy within American political circles, with critics of the administration seeing the agreement as reflecting a retreat in the American negotiating position, while other parties consider it a necessary step to contain the military escalation and open the door to diplomatic solutions.