Iran Deal Talks Fracture Over Competing Leak Wars, While Drone Attacks and Tanker Strikes Continue

Since Trump canceled planned strikes on Iran and declared a deal was imminent, the two governments have been engaged in what amounts to a public information war over what that deal actually says.

On Friday, Iranian state-run Mehr News Agency cited an unnamed "unofficial source" describing a draft memorandum that would include Iran's commitment not to develop nuclear weapons, a permanent ceasefire across all fronts including Lebanon, a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days, and 60 days of follow-on negotiations for a final nuclear agreement. That account, while largely favorable to U.S. objectives, was the most restrained version of what Iranian media published Friday.

Other Iranian outlets went considerably further. According to Breitbart News's summary of Iranian media reporting, those accounts described massive U.S. concessions: unfreezing Iranian assets, lifting oil sanctions, withdrawing American forces from the region, and the United States establishing a $300 billion fund to rebuild the Iranian economy. Those reports also claimed the U.S. would pressure Israel to halt operations in Lebanon and would drop demands that Iran scale back its ballistic missile program.

Trump rejected all of it on Truth Social. "The terms that Iran leaked out to the Fake News have NOTHING to do with the terms that were agreed to, in writing," he posted Friday. He also called Iran's conduct "very dishonorable" and warned that a drone attack against Indian ships near the Strait of Hormuz the night before was "TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE."

What the U.S. Says the Deal Contains

A senior White House official spent nearly an hour on a press call Friday morning laying out the American version of the emerging agreement. According to Breitbart News's account of that call, the deal has three core planks: removing and destroying Iran's existing stockpile of enriched uranium, a long-term Iranian commitment to never build or acquire a nuclear weapon, and a meaningful inspection regime to verify compliance over time.

The senior official acknowledged the destruction process is technically complicated. Because Operation Midnight Hammer last summer buried some enriched material under what the official described as skyscraper-depth rock, the memorandum of understanding would commit Iran to destruction and removal of the material while leaving the technical logistics to be worked out afterward. "You don't want to like send a guy down there with a backpack," the official said.

The official put the probability of the deal being signed in the coming days at 75 percent and said a signing ceremony announcement was expected imminently.

No independent verification of the deal's text exists as of June 12, 2026. The competing narratives, one from a senior U.S. official and another from Iranian state media citing unnamed sources, cannot currently be reconciled from open-source reporting.

Iran's Foreign Ministry Isn't Confirming Anything

Iran's Foreign Ministry has not confirmed a deal. On Thursday, the ministry stated that Tehran had made no final decisions and had no intention of yielding on its "red lines." Iran also accused the U.S. of changing the terms during negotiations. As of Friday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry's spokesman had not reversed that position, according to Breitbart News's reporting.

Iran is being asked to permanently surrender its nuclear program, submit to intrusive inspections, and halt proxy funding, all while the U.S. maintains a naval blockade that, according to Amit Segal, a political commentator cited by the Daily Signal, is costing Iran $450 million per day. From Tehran's perspective, agreeing to those terms while under military and economic pressure risks looking like capitulation, which could accelerate the domestic political fractures the regime is already managing. Negotiating publicly about what the deal does NOT require may be a strategy to preserve domestic credibility while quietly agreeing to the core terms privately.

That said, the drone attack on Indian ships near Hormuz Thursday night, confirmed by Trump's own Truth Social post, is a concrete action, not a negotiating posture, that directly contradicts any claim that Iran is ready to reopen the strait.

The Blockade Is Drawing Blood

The tanker situation has become its own crisis. U.S. Central Command confirmed Thursday that American forces fired Hellfire missiles into the engine room of the M/T Jalveer in the Gulf of Oman, the third Indian-crewed tanker disabled by U.S. forces in a week. The earlier strike on the Palau-flagged M/T Settebello reportedly killed three of the 24 Indian crew members aboard, according to Breitbart News. All 24 crew from the M/T Marivex, struck Monday, were rescued and were scheduled to be repatriated to India from Oman on Friday, per the Indian Foreign Ministry.

These ships were not innocent bystanders. The Marivex was managed by Arihant Shipping, which the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctioned in 2025 for running Iranian oil through the Gulf since at least July of that year. CENTCOM said it has disabled nine non-compliant vessels total and redirected 135 ships since the blockade began April 13.

Still, three dead Indian sailors and multiple ships with engine rooms destroyed is a diplomatic problem with New Delhi regardless of the legal status of the cargo.

The Strait Is Reshaping Energy Markets

One measurable consequence of the prolonged blockade: the United States became India's top liquefied natural gas supplier in May. According to data firm Kpler, cited by CNBC and reported by Breitbart News, India imported 900,000 tonnes of U.S. LNG in May, roughly triple the prior month's volume and about 40 percent of all Indian LNG imports. Qatar, which previously held a 40 percent share of India's LNG market, has been squeezed by the Hormuz disruption. QatarEnergy declared force majeure on multiple contracts in March.

Netanyahu Was Left Out

Israeli media reported Thursday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not informed of Trump's ceasefire move in advance and was caught off guard when Trump canceled the strikes. Israel has been a central military partner throughout this conflict, and a deal that reshapes Iran's posture in Lebanon and across the region without Israeli buy-in creates an obvious downstream problem, particularly if the final agreement includes any pressure on Israel to halt operations, as Iranian media claims it does.

The AP News site, while not loading its full article on this topic Friday, showed a headline stating that Pakistan's prime minister confirmed the U.S. and Iran have agreed to the wording of a deal. That would be the most concrete third-party confirmation to date, but it comes from Islamabad, not from Tehran or Washington's primary negotiating teams, and should be treated as one data point rather than a closing statement.

If both governments have agreed to written text, why are they publicly contradicting each other about what that text says?