Does Trump have an Iran deal?

Something seemed up when President Trump hit the weekend via an announcement he'd have to miss his own son's Bahamas wedding because "I have a thing called Iran".

Imagine getting that RSVP via evite.com?

Then sure enough by Saturday, oil prices plunged 5% and S&P500 futures got a nice lil' 1% bump, after Trump announced a US-Iran framework was now "largely negotiated".

But before the president had even kicked off his victory lap, Iran's regime was pouring ice-cold chai on his claims, framing (🇮🇷) them as "inconsistent with reality".

So again… what — and we cannot stress this enough — is going on?

Trump variously claims Iran's regime is pledging to a) not pursue nukes, b) pause enrichment, and c) deal with the uranium it already enriched (up to 20x civilian needs!).

Trump (or his team) argues the regime will then get phased and limited sanctions relief in exchange for each verifiable step above.

But speaking of Iran's regime... the mullahs are claiming…

• a) Any deal is really focused on ending the war rather than a grand accord

• b) It'll also end the war between Israel and Hezbollah over in Lebanon

• c) Any re-opened Hormuz will still remain fully under Iranian control

• d) Phased sanctions relief will start immediately from phase one, and

• e) This MOU won't include any nuclear details (all deferred to future talks)

So... what exactly do these two old foes agree on? Basically just that i) there are real talks, and ii) an initial 30-day phase-one would entail some kind of Hormuz re-opening.

But beyond that, the much bigger list of unknowns includes some key wrinkles like...

Nukes: the only Iranian official claiming Iran is “ready to assure the world that it is not seeking nuclear weapons” is President Pezeshkian, who has about as much influence over the regime as we do — recall the IRGC even called him an idiot?

And even his assurances are based on the old supreme leader’s anti-nukes fatwa (religious ruling), which a) never appeared in writing, b) had an unclear date, and c) is subject to 'maslahat-e nezam' (theological flexibility for regime expediency). So you've got to wonder if it's an iron-clad rule or just tactical fiction for gullible Westerners.

But let's say there's some credible no-nukes pledge coming, the technical details ahead are then epic: Iran's enrichment pause is… for how long, verified how, and by whom? And that steaming pile of highly-enriched uranium just gets inspected? Or diluted? Or sent abroad… where? (the new ayatollah is ruling out that third option).

Absent any of those nuclear details (which took Trump’s predecessors years to lock down) it'll be hard to get much clarity on Iran's mooted sanctions relief.

And then there's all the silence on thorny issues like Iran's missiles and proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis) — aka Iran's twin pillars of what nerds call asymmetric deterrence ("we dare you to attack us again") and strategic depth (“let’s fight at your place, not ours”). The regime has always rejected any notion of abandoning either.

So with many key details still way up in the air — and grumbles even among Trump’s own senators (eg Graham, Cruz) — the US president has just tweeted there's no rush, and "if I make a deal with Iran, it will be a good and proper one, not like the one made by Obama".

Sound even smarter:

• President Trump jointly briefed several Gulf and Muslim state leaders over the weekend and says they’re on-board, though none have commented publicly.

• Israel’s Netanyahu got a separate briefing (most on the above call don’t recognise Israel), and he’s issued cautious support while reiterating “any final agreement with Iran must eliminate the nuclear danger. That means dismantling Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites and removing its enriched nuclear material from its territory.”