WASHINGTON (Realist English). On May 29, a two‑hour meeting in the White House Situation Room involving key advisors, intelligence officials and the diplomatic corps ended inconclusively.
President Donald Trump did not make a final decision on the deal. According to sources, serious disagreements persist within the administration. The main stumbling block remains the nuclear issue: the United States insists on the removal of enriched uranium, while Iran continues to refuse.
Negotiating process: agreed draft, but no final agreement
On May 28, US and Iranian negotiators agreed on a draft 60‑day memorandum of understanding (MoU). The document envisages the resumption of commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the complete lifting of the naval blockade on Iranian ports, and the elimination of all tolls.
Oman has already assured Washington that it will not charge for passage, and in return the US has promised not to impose sanctions on the sultanate. Iran, for its part, undertakes to clear the waters of mines.
But a final decision in Washington has been postponed. Tehran, for its part, is expressing cautious optimism. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei confirmed on May 30 that diplomatic exchanges continue, but said that an agreement has not yet been reached.
Iran remains focused on ending the war, putting nuclear discussions off for later. The Tasnim news agency also warned that no final version of the document ready for publication exists.
Military backdrop: mutual strikes
The talks are taking place amid mutual accusations of ceasefire violations. On May 29, the Pentagon announced that it had intercepted five Iranian drones and carried out a strike on a ground control station in Bandar Abbas.
In response, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) attacked a US base in the region, while Kuwait reported intercepting a ballistic missile. At the same time, according to US Vice President JD Vance, the ceasefire remains in effect, but the United States reserves the right to carry out defensive strikes.
Israel: a sense of isolation and escalation
Tel Aviv remains outside the diplomatic process. All key players — the United States, Iran, Pakistan, Qatar and Oman — have effectively excluded Israel from the discussions. As The Times of Israel notes, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is forced not to seek the cancellation of the deal, but to beg Trump for security guarantees in the event the talks collapse.
The impression is that the White House is ready to end hostilities at the price of merely halting Iran’s nuclear programme, leaving the issues of missile arsenals and proxy forces “for later”.
Lebanon: ground operation and strike on Beirut
Israeli forces have expanded their ground manoeuvres in southern Lebanon, seizing strategic heights, and have officially warned residents of ten villages north of the border that they must evacuate immediately.
On May 28, the Israeli Air Force carried out its first strike in three weeks on the southern suburbs of Beirut. The target was Ali al‑Husseini, head of the rocket forces of the pro‑Iranian “Imam Hussein” division, which operates alongside Hezbollah. According to Israeli sources, the operation was coordinated with the Trump administration after “very intense dialogue” in recent days, indicating that Washington is not opposed to increasing Israeli pressure on Hezbollah.
Casualties and the humanitarian situation
According to UN data, over the past week Israeli strikes in Lebanon have killed 15 children and wounded another 62 — an average of 11 children every 24 hours. Since the April ceasefire, 603 people have been killed in Lebanon, and since the start of full‑scale hostilities on March 2, the death toll has reached 3,324.
Regional context
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has proposed an emergency summit to formulate a common position. However, analysts believe that reaching a consensus will be extremely difficult because of the increasingly divergent interests of member states.
Expert opinions
Ynetnews analysts warn that any potential agreement with Iran is “deeply troubling” for Israel, as it would effectively legitimise the survival of the ayatollahs’ regime and its continued regional expansion.
An editorial in the Arabic newspaper Al‑Quds Al‑Arabi described the situation as “Netanyahu’s personal defeat”, because Israel is being pushed back into the passenger seat after having been in the driver’s seat during the war.
Times of Israel analyst Nava Freiberg notes that the outline of the deal contains no guarantees regarding Iran’s missile programme, its proxy forces or, even less, a change of regime — goals that were stated as objectives of the joint US‑Israeli campaign.
