There have been so many statements about an impending peace deal with Iran, without any agreement actually materializing, that it’s hard to take seriously President Donald Trump’s claims of imminent success. But for the first time in four months, it appears we finally have a settlement — or, more accurately, a short-term placeholder to give everybody some time for a more complicated negotiation on what to do about Iran’s nuclear program.

Trump’s settlement with Tehran no doubt is a relief to everyone involved — except for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who never wanted an agreement with Iran and nearly upended the diplomatic process on a few occasions. Iran’s neighbors in the Gulf will no longer have to worry about Iranian ballistic missiles and drones slamming into their critical infrastructure or energy facilities, at least for the next 60 days. Iran, whose finances have taken a beating, will reportedly be able to send oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz again without seizure by U.S. Navy ships. A free and open strait will benefit Americans as well, because the more oil that enters the market, the lower the prices at the gas pump. Even Lebanon, a country that isn’t directly a part of the U.S.-Iran dispute, will see some benefits. The extension of the ceasefire also covers the current war between Israel and Hezbollah, which has uprooted more than a million people from their homes.

Yet let’s not pretend we’re out of the woods. The framework deal is the first step in what will be a long process. First comes implementation. According to public statements, the framework will be officially signed this Friday. Then, and only then, will the U.S. Navy drop its blockade in return for Iran permitting vessels to travel through the regional waterway. When the ceasefire in Lebanon will start is a mystery, although if it begins on Friday after Washington and Tehran put pen to paper on their accord, Israeli military operations against Hezbollah could get more intense as Netanyahu seeks to leverage whatever time is left on the clock to deal the Lebanese terrorist group a bigger blow.

Assuming there aren’t any hiccups in the implementation — and there’s no reason to believe there won’t be problems along the way — the United States and Iran will sit down again for direct talks on the nuclear issue. If this sounds familiar, that’s because it is. The Trump administration has been trying to hammer out a nuclear accord with Iran ever since it returned to power in January 2025. Both attempts — in spring 2025 and winter 2026 — were cut short after Trump, encouraged by Netanyahu, ordered airstrikes against the Iranians once he became frustrated with diplomatic efforts. Tehran responded to the first bombing campaign by suspending all cooperation with International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and launching a bunch of missiles at Israel. The second bombing campaign, unleashed on Feb. 28, was far more extensive than the first, compelling Iran to effectively shutter maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz and get much more aggressive militarily.

Now, we’re back to square one. Although Trump will habitually celebrate the framework’s success as one of the best diplomatic agreements ever negotiated, it’s important to be absolutely clear about what it’s not: a comprehensive accord that solves the Iranian nuclear issue. Instead, what we have is an attempt to return the U.S., Iran and the Middle East at large back to Feb. 27, the day before the war kicked off.

Moreover, as laborious as it was to arrive at a framework with Iran, this initial step was the easy part. In fact, the principle behind it is straightforward to the point of being elementary: In return for Iran bringing the Strait of Hormuz back to the prewar status quo, Washington will stop interdicting Iranian-affiliated ships carrying oil. You don’t need many expert-level officials at the table to make this work.

That’s not going to be the case when both sides start haggling over the details of a potential nuclear agreement. The mechanics involved in U.S. sanctions relief — how much Iranian money should be unfrozen, how Iran can use the funds that are released, when international oil companies can begin exploring opportunities in the Iranian energy sector and how Tehran’s demand for wartime compensation will be addressed — are destined to involve a give-and-take that will tax patience.

Nor will establishing an internationally verified monitoring regime over Iran’s nuclear work, or whatever nuclear work Iran is allowed to continue once the fundamentals of the nuclear piece are settled, be as simple as writing a meandering post on Truth Social. For reference, it took Barack Obama’s administration nearly two years to pull all of this off. The Trump administration is hoping to wrap all of it up in 60 days, which is about as realistic as a publisher asking an author to file a 600-page historical tome in a few months.

The questions is: Can both sides meet each other halfway? The Trump administration wants Iran to eliminate its entire enriched uranium stockpile, whereas Iran is willing to dilute it to a lower grade. Trump wants a 20-year suspension on Iran’s enrichment capabilities, which is 10 years more than Iran is offering. And Iran wants as much U.S. sanctions relief on the front end as possible. For the White House, only verified Iranian compliance can unlock economic rewards.

There can be a final deal if reasonable heads prevail. The key word is “if.”

____

Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a foreign affairs columnist for the Tribune.

___

©2026 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.