Trump tells negotiators not to rush Iran deal despite signs of progress

US President Donald Trump has instructed his negotiators not to rush into a deal with Iran, tempering expectations of an imminent breakthrough in Middle East negotiations just hours after his top diplomat suggested an agreement could be reached as early as Sunday. "The negotiations are proceeding in an orderly and constructive manner, and I have informed my representatives not to rush into a deal as time is on our side," Trump stated on Sunday.

These comments came shortly after Secretary of State Marco Rubio had signaled that the US and Iran could potentially strike a bargain to end the regional conflict within hours. The conflicting signals from Washington highlight the complexity of ongoing negotiations and the political pressure facing the Trump administration.

The United States and Iran have been observing a ceasefire since April 8 while international mediators work intensively toward a permanent solution. The conflict had escalated after Iran virtually halted all traffic through the strategically crucial Strait of Hormuz. In response, the US imposed a blockade on Iranian ports beginning April 13.

The Strait of Hormuz represents one of the world's most important shipping routes, with approximately one-fifth of global oil transport flowing through the waterway. The mutual blockade has had significant impacts on the global economy and energy prices. South Korea's currency, for example, weakened due to rising oil prices but showed slight recovery amid optimism about a possible Iran deal.

According to reports, the deal under discussion involves a 60-day ceasefire extension during which the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened. In exchange, Iran would be required to give up its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. However, important details, particularly regarding Iran's nuclear program, remain unclear.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also weighed in, stating that Trump had agreed any final deal with Iran must fully eliminate its nuclear threat. This would require dismantling Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities and removing all enriched nuclear material from its territory. Netanyahu emphasized that Israel would continue to retain the right to defend itself against any Iranian aggression.

However, reports suggest that the nuclear question may not be part of the current agreement but would instead be addressed in separate future negotiations. This has drawn criticism from Republican senators who fear that an incomplete deal would not adequately address Iran's long-term threat.

Political opposition in the US is growing. Senator Ted Cruz and other Republican lawmakers, including some of Trump's closest allies, have sharply criticized the emerging agreement, accusing the administration of undermining the president's own war goals. Cruz even engaged in a public spat with a MAGA influencer who defended Trump's Iran policy.

Regional actors are also inserting themselves into the discussion. Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem expressed hope that a possible agreement between Iran and the US would extend to Lebanon, where Israel and the Iran-backed group are locked in conflict. Iran itself responded to Trump's comments by recounting historic battles, which has been interpreted as a sign of resolve.

Experts warn against excessive optimism. A German Middle East expert told ZDF that the agreement could "still go relatively wrong" as the US is under pressure and Iran remains unpredictable. The negotiations are taking place in a complex regional environment where multiple actors pursue different interests.

Despite the tempered expectations, both sides continue to signal willingness to negotiate. The coming days will reveal whether diplomatic efforts can lead to a lasting agreement that addresses both immediate security concerns and long-term nuclear questions.

The potential deal represents a significant diplomatic test for the Trump administration, which must balance domestic political pressures with regional security concerns. Senate Republicans have cast doubt on the agreement, with lawmakers questioning whether it adequately serves American interests and addresses the full scope of Iranian threats.