WASHINGTON — U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz signals cautious optimism Sunday regarding a looming peace deal framework with Iran, though he pointedly declines to confirm an exact signing time amid deep structural fractures within the Tehran regime.
The delay deepens Sunday afternoon after an Israeli airstrike targets Hezbollah in Beirut. President Donald Trump tells media outlets the strike “delayed the signing by a few hours,” while maintaining the agreement signs electronically Sunday.
Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” Waltz repeatedly emphasizes the administration maintains “every intent” to finalize the pact. His remarks underscore a fluid diplomatic situation in Washington as officials balance a desire for a swift foreign policy victory against the realities of a highly volatile negotiating partner.
The ongoing deliberations come amid a massive, administration-led economic pressure campaign. U.S. officials credit this strategy, spearheaded by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent under “Operation Economic Fury,” with forcing Iran back to the negotiating table.
When anchor Martha Raddatz presses him on the logistical details of a potential signing ceremony, Waltz deflects, leaving the ultimate announcement to the White House.
”The Iranians are incredibly difficult negotiators,” Waltz says. “They’re having a very hard time getting guidance from their supreme leader, and they’re not always on the same page within their team between the civilians and military.”
The acknowledgment of internal Iranian friction offers a rare window into the current state of the talks. U.S. diplomatic teams have their hands full managing the shifting dynamics of the Iranian delegation, Waltz notes. Internal hesitation continues in Tehran, with sources reporting Sunday that Iran has not made a final decision on the memorandum of understanding as diplomatic backchannels work to facilitate the agreement’s finalization.
Waltz explicitly contrasts the current administration’s approach with its predecessors, asserting diplomacy proves “feckless and meaningless” unless backed by a strong, credible threat of military force. He argues this aggressive posture, combined with devastating financial sanctions, represents the only language Tehran respects.
”I would argue in many ways this is the thing the Iranians fear the most, because it is affecting their internal stability,” Waltz says. “They’re unable to pay portions of the military and the civil service. This is why you see them coming to the table practically begging for cash.”
The framework under discussion marks a radical departure from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action brokered under the Obama administration. Waltz heavily criticizes the mechanics of the previous nuclear deal, specifically targeting its verification loopholes and the structure of its financial relief. According to Waltz, any prospective agreement operates strictly under a “pay-for-performance” model.
”There will not be upfront cash, so to speak, that we saw in the Obama deal,” Waltz says. “This is all about verification.”
Under the new framework, the U.S. demands the complete removal of highly enriched uranium from Iranian territory and a permanent reduction in the country’s domestic enrichment capabilities. Furthermore, Waltz asserts the administration refuses to accept restrictions on inspections at sites designated by Tehran as military installations—a major point of contention during the 2015 monitoring regime.
”We know the Iranians have tended to cheat in the past. There were not ‘anytime, anywhere’ inspections of their facilities,” Waltz says. “The Iranians could classify sites as military sites that were then off-limits. That’s like having a criminal on parole telling the parole officer you can’t check this bedroom or that bedroom.”
Beyond the core nuclear parameters, the U.S. mandate encompasses a broader stabilization plan for the Middle East. The framework requires Iran to halt its financial and logistical backing of regional proxy networks. Waltz specifically cites the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and various Shiite militias operating within Iraq as groups that must lose funding under the terms of the broader understanding.
The ambassador, who recently returned from a diplomatic tour of the region, emphasizes allies align completely with Washington’s current baseline, specifically naming the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar.
The security perimeter also extends to vital commercial shipping lanes. Waltz issues a sharp warning against recent threats by Tehran to impose unilateral transit tolls or deploy sea mines within the Strait of Hormuz.
”Morocco and Spain, as a hypothetical, can’t start charging tolls in the Straits of Gibraltar because they have a conflict or a dispute,” Waltz says, labeling such actions illegal under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Waltz claims Beijing also signals its disapproval of maritime disruptions to the Iranian regime following recent high-level communications between U.S. and Chinese officials. While the administration treats the current framework as a significant breakthrough, Waltz cautions the document remains a memorandum of understanding, meaning substantial technical details require further negotiation in subsequent rounds.
