US and Iran Said to Prepare Direct Talks During Ceasefire

Washington and Tehran are preparing to open direct negotiations during the announced ceasefire, according to a report carried by Middle East Eye, even as Iranian officials publicly maintain that no final agreement has been concluded. The reported back channel runs in parallel with Iran’s public posture of caution, with Tehran weighing the proposed framework while voicing wariness about US intentions.

The result is a split-screen morning: two governments quietly building toward a negotiating table while their public statements continue to diverge, and the Strait of Hormuz remaining live, with US forces shooting down two Iranian drones overnight near the chokepoint.

What the report says

According to the Middle East Eye summary of the report, US and Iranian officials are preparing for direct talks under the cover of the ceasefire that President Donald Trump announced Thursday. The report does not name the venue, the format, or the level of representation on either side. It describes the preparations as taking place during the ceasefire window rather than as a precondition to it — meaning the talks would test, rather than ratify, the framework Trump has publicly described.

The reporting is consistent with the pattern this site tracked Thursday, when Trump declared a “great settlement” and called off planned strikes while Iran’s foreign ministry said no final decision had been made. By Friday morning Tehran time the gap between the two governments’ messaging had not closed, even as the back-channel work reportedly advanced.

Tehran’s public posture

Iranian officials have continued to describe the proposed deal as under review rather than agreed. Al Jazeera’s Friday segment reported that Iran is weighing the proposal but remains wary of US intentions, citing officials who said any concessions would need to be matched by verifiable American steps on sanctions and on freedom of navigation in the Gulf. The BBC’s overnight wrap likewise noted that Tehran has not confirmed any settlement, and that the Iranian foreign ministry’s most recent statement framed contacts as preliminary.

Trump, by contrast, has continued to describe the framework in concluded terms. In remarks reported by Middle East Eye, the president said Iran had agreed not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, language that goes beyond anything Tehran has publicly confirmed. The White House has not released text of any agreement or said which Iranian body had authorized the reported commitment.

The divergence — Washington describing a settled position, Tehran describing a proposal under consideration — has held for more than 24 hours. It tracks the pattern we identified Thursday in coverage of Iran walking back the deal as Hormuz incidents continued.

Israel reviews its options

A second strand of the diplomatic picture runs through Jerusalem. Middle East Eye reported that Israel is reviewing its Iran strategy in light of Washington’s diplomatic push, with the review covering both military planning and intelligence-sharing with the United States. Israeli officials cited in the report did not say whether Jerusalem would coordinate with, accept, or attempt to constrain a US-Iran agreement that fell short of dismantling Iran’s enrichment program.

The Israeli review is significant because the cycle that produced the current ceasefire began with overlapping Israeli and American operations against Iranian targets. A US-Iran track that excludes Israel — or that produces commitments Jerusalem regards as insufficient — would be a meaningful break from the posture of the spring escalation. None of this is settled in the public reporting.

Cairo presses for conversion

Egypt is publicly urging both sides to convert the ceasefire into a written agreement. In remarks summarized by Middle East Eye, Cairo called on Washington and Tehran to seize the opportunity and reach a deal rather than allow the pause to drift. Egyptian diplomacy has played a recurring role in Gulf de-escalation efforts through the cycle, and Cairo’s intervention is a signal that regional capitals see the ceasefire window as narrow.

The Egyptian message is consistent with the broader pattern of Arab government posture this week, in which states that publicly condemned earlier US strikes have nevertheless pressed for talks to advance. The pattern of talks surviving as US-Iran strikes continued earlier in the cycle suggests regional mediators have grown accustomed to working through kinetic incidents rather than waiting for them to stop.

The water has not gone quiet

The reported diplomatic preparations are taking place against a Strait of Hormuz that remains active. US Central Command said it had shot down two Iranian drones overnight near the strait, describing the unmanned aircraft as a threat to coalition shipping. CENTCOM did not say which Iranian formation operated the drones, and Tehran did not immediately address the engagement.

The overnight incident is the second in 36 hours that has produced a CENTCOM downing of Iranian drones near the strait. It does not, on its own, change the diplomatic picture — but it is a reminder that the ceasefire as described covers a narrow set of operations and does not amount to a stand-down on the water.

What is unresolved

Several questions remain open as of Friday morning:

• Whether the reported direct talks have a confirmed venue, format and level of representation.
• Whether any text has been initialed on the Iranian side, and by which authority.
• Whether the framework Trump has described matches what Tehran is actually willing to sign.
• Whether freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz is part of the talks or a separate track.
• Whether Israel will coordinate with, accept or resist the US-Iran process.

None of these have public answers in Friday’s reporting. The reported back channel is a signal that both governments see a path worth testing; the public statements are a reminder that neither has committed to the path Trump has described.

The tension

A back channel and a public split are not contradictions; they are how this kind of opening usually begins. Washington is talking up a deal it has not produced; Tehran is talking down a deal it is reportedly preparing to negotiate; Cairo is pressing both to convert words into text; Jerusalem is reviewing its options; and the strait remains live. Whether Friday is the day the ceasefire begins to harden into an agreement or the day the gap between rhetoric and substance widens will turn on what comes out of the reported talks — and on whether the next Hormuz incident is small enough to absorb.