Trump Admits Iran Nuclear Deal 'Isn't Even Fully Negotiated' Despite Reopening Strait of Hormuz

President Donald Trump is publicly celebrating what he calls a "groundbreaking" agreement with Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, even as he admits the deal remains incomplete and sidesteps the most contentious issues between the two nations. The admission comes as both countries prepare for complex negotiations to clear a massive backlog of ships that have been stranded in the vital waterway for nearly three months.

Trump's acknowledgment that the agreement "isn't even fully negotiated" has raised questions about the scope and durability of the breakthrough. According to administration officials, the current framework addresses the immediate crisis of reopening the strait but deliberately avoids addressing Iran's nuclear stockpile, uranium enrichment capabilities, and ballistic missile programs—the core issues that have driven tensions between Washington and Tehran for years.

The strategic waterway has been effectively closed since late February, creating a shipping crisis that has disrupted global supply chains and contributed to rising energy prices worldwide. An estimated 1,500 vessels are now backed up in the region, representing billions of dollars in cargo and highlighting the critical importance of the narrow passage through which roughly 20 percent of the world's oil flows.

Trump gave conflicting signals about the progress of negotiations during recent public appearances, at times suggesting major breakthroughs were imminent while at other moments tempering expectations. Both American and Iranian officials have suggested that a comprehensive breakthrough is not expected in the immediate future, despite the agreement to begin the complex process of reopening maritime traffic.

The deliberate decision to postpone discussion of nuclear and missile issues reflects the administration's strategy of securing quick wins on immediate crises while leaving more intractable problems for later negotiations. However, critics argue this approach risks creating a false sense of progress while fundamental security concerns remain unaddressed, potentially complicating future diplomatic efforts and leaving room for the current crisis to reignite.