Iran Sets Conditions for Accepting Trump Deal

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said Thursday that Tehran will insist on the immediate release of 50 percent of its frozen overseas assets upon signing any memorandum of understanding with the United States, setting an explicit financial precondition for a deal that the Trump administration has framed as imminent, according to Middle East Monitor.

Separately, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said there would be no calm in the region unless Israel withdraws from occupied territories — a demand that links the bilateral US-Iran negotiation to the broader Arab-Israeli conflict and complicates any attempt to isolate the nuclear track from other regional disputes.

The two statements, delivered on the same day, amount to Tehran publicly raising its asking price at a moment when Washington is signaling that a framework is within reach.

The Frozen Assets Demand

Gharibabadi’s condition is specific and measurable in a way that previous Iranian demands have not been. Rather than general calls for sanctions relief, Tehran is naming a concrete deliverable — half of the frozen funds released at the point of signature, not phased in over months of compliance verification.

The total value of Iran’s frozen assets held in banks in South Korea, Japan, Iraq, and other countries has been estimated at roughly $100 billion, though the liquid portion accessible through diplomatic agreement is substantially smaller. The 2023 prisoner swap arrangement under the Biden administration involved the release of approximately $6 billion in frozen funds held in South Korea, a transaction that drew significant Republican criticism at the time.

A demand for 50 percent upfront release changes the negotiation architecture. It shifts the risk profile: Washington would be transferring tangible economic value to Tehran before any compliance milestones on enrichment, inspections or military de-escalation have been met. For the Trump administration, which has insisted on a posture of maximum pressure, agreeing to such terms would require either a fundamental shift in approach or a creative restructuring of the deal’s sequencing.

The IRGC’s Parallel Condition

The IRGC’s statement tying regional stability to Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories introduces a second axis of conditionality that extends well beyond the bilateral US-Iran channel.

Iran has consistently maintained that its regional posture — support for Hezbollah, Hamas, and other allied groups — is inseparable from the broader question of Palestinian statehood and Israeli occupation. The IRGC restating that position now serves a dual purpose: it signals to domestic hardliners that the military establishment has not been sidelined in the diplomatic process, and it warns Washington that a deal limited to nuclear enrichment and sanctions will not buy the regional calm the administration wants.

This tracks with the pattern identified earlier this week, in which Supreme Leader Khamenei projected battlefield confidence while Foreign Minister Araghchi kept the diplomatic channel open. The IRGC’s statement adds a third voice — the military establishment — to the chorus, and its message is the most hawkish of the three.

Trump’s Position: Enrichment Is “Entombed”

President Trump complicated the picture further on Thursday by saying he does not need a deal with Iran to address its enriched uranium, stating the material is “entombed” and that he does not favor a military operation to remove it, Middle East Monitor reported.

The remark is significant because it appears to lower the urgency of the enrichment issue — the core concern that has driven US-Iran negotiations since the original JCPOA. If Trump considers the enrichment threat contained without a deal, it raises questions about what the administration’s actual objectives are in the current talks. A deal motivated primarily by a desire for a diplomatic headline carries different structural incentives than one driven by nonproliferation urgency.

At the same time, Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi said Thursday that US military bases in the region are a source of instability, a familiar talking point that takes on sharper relevance as both sides position themselves ahead of any potential agreement.

Congress Moves to Constrain

The domestic political landscape shifted on Wednesday when the US House of Representatives passed a war powers resolution 215-208 to curb the president’s authority to wage war against Iran without congressional approval, Middle East Eye reported.

The resolution does not carry the force of law without Senate passage and is unlikely to survive a presidential veto, but the narrow margin reflects the fragility of domestic political support for the current approach. A deal that requires substantial upfront concessions — such as releasing frozen assets — would face significant congressional resistance, while continued military operations without a deal face the war powers constraint.

The Hormuz Variable

Gharibabadi was also reported to have framed Iran’s position on the Strait of Hormuz as a matter of service fees rather than tolls — a semantic distinction with legal significance. Tehran is positioning its claims over Hormuz transit as cooperative arrangements with Oman rather than unilateral enforcement, a framing that attempts to insulate the Hormuz issue from the broader military confrontation.

That effort became harder to sustain after a blast at Oman’s Mina Al Fahal terminal halted crude loading operations earlier Thursday, pushing Brent crude above $95 and undermining Oman’s position as a safe harbor outside the conflict zone.

The Structural Gap

Iran’s conditions, taken together, describe a deal far more expansive than what the Trump administration has publicly outlined. Tehran wants frozen assets released immediately, Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories as a prerequisite for regional calm, and legitimized authority over Strait of Hormuz navigation. Washington wants enrichment limits, de-escalation, and a signing ceremony — and Trump has threatened to end ceasefire efforts if American troops are killed.

The gap between those positions is not a negotiating margin. It is a structural disagreement about what a deal is for. Iran sees a comprehensive settlement that reshapes the regional order. The United States appears to be pursuing a narrower arrangement that addresses immediate security concerns.

Whether the contacts that Araghchi confirmed are continuing can bridge that gap remains the central question as the war enters its 98th day.