US and Iranian negotiators have reached a potential agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and begin nuclear talks, the White House confirmed Thursday — though President Trump has not yet signed off on the plan. 

If approved, the deal would see the US drop its blockade on Iranian ports in exchange for a return to “unrestricted” shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, according to the White House. It would also begin a 60-day period for the US and Iran to begin negotiating on Tehran’s nuclear issues.

“This administration — President Trump — has done something that no other administration is able to do: we have gotten the Iranians to talk about their nuclear program, and to perhaps commit to not having one,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Thursday on the emerging deal. “That has never happened before; it had been off the table.”

The tentative agreement would extend the cease-fire, which US Central Command said Iran egregiously violated on Thursday by firing toward a US military base in Kuwait. Despite the declared violation, the US is still adhering to the cease-fire — restraining its forces from returning to full-scale war, at least for now.

“It is a multifaceted agreement, and nothing is going to be on the table until we see the Strait of Hormuz open, and the Iranians agree that they have to turn over the highly enriched uranium, and that they can’t have a nuclear program,” Bessent said Thursday as Trump reviews the terms of a deal. 

Iran’s apparent openness to even discussing its nuclear program marked a major win for the Trump administration, Bessent said, as Tehran has previously refused to even broach the topic in prior deal drafts.

“When you look at the results of the kinetic action, of our economic pressure, it has worked to bring them to the table and have a discussion on this,” he added.

The agreement would also ban Iran from imposing a toll on ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz and would require it to de-mine the waterway within 30 days.

The US would also commit to discuss lifting sanctions and unfreezing Iranian funds during the talks, which would come with an Iranian pledge to talk about destroying its highly enriched uranium and addressing future enrichment.

News of the agreement reversed an early market spike following the Iranian attack on US forces. Brent crude tumbled from roughly $94.50 a barrel to about $91.30 shortly after the news broke, then clawed back to trade around $93.31.

Iranian sources told The Post it is essentially the same agreement as the one leaked to Iranian media earlier — that the White House’s Rapid Response 47 X account said was a “complete fabrication.”

“Iran’s position hasn’t changed after Trump’s rant and retreat yesterday,” Iranian professor and regime insider Mohammad Marandi said Thursday. “Both sides still had differences, but Trump’s retreat and last night’s attack made the Iranians more skeptical.”

That agreement held that the US would withdraw all its forces from around Iran and drop its naval blockade of Iranian ports in exchange for Tehran reopening the Strait of Hormuz and restoring non-military traffic to pre-war levels in 30 days.

It further alleged that Washington had agreed to allow Iran and neighboring Oman to “manage” the strait after it reopened — a claim seemingly at odds with repeatedly stated US and global demands that the passage be considered an international waterway owned by no nation.

Critics of the proposal argued against the US giving up arguably its most important point of leverage — the blockade of Iranian ports — before heading to the negotiating table.

“If we remove the naval blockade and economic pressure, then the likelihood of getting a strong nuclear deal falls to basically zero,” Foundation for Defending Democracies’ nonproliferation program deputy director Andrea Stricker said.

Conservative commentator and Iran hawk Mark Levin went further, questioning why the US would remove both “the economic and military pressure with only the threat that either or both could resume.” 

“Why not force concessions before lifting economic pressure?” he said in a post to X. “If they wouldn’t agree then how serious is the regime about making substantive and lasting concessions?” 

“I don’t blame the President for taking a few days to think about this, if this report is accurate.  And enforcement, given the nature and history of this terrorist regime, whatever the final terms may be, will be impossible (certainly after the Trump presidency),” he added.

But even those terms clashed with what the head of the Iranian parliament’s national security commission on Thursday said were Tehran’s “red lines” for any agreement.

Still, the US framework, if signed, may allow for discussion on ways to bridge those gaps — for example, through the degradation of Tehran’s highly enriched uranium in Iran versus its total removal, a regional source suggested.

“If I were in Trump’s position, I would want the enriched material degraded on Iranian soil in the presence of American/international experts with structured mechanisms and benchmarks put in place,” one person said.

“Giving it to Russians, Chinese or Pakistanis doesn’t suit US interests,” the person added, referring to previously floated options of what to do with Iran’s uranium.

But Stricker argued that permitting any amount of enriched uranium leaves open a dangerous gateway to future nuclear proliferation.

“If you’re leaving Iran with any enriched uranium — they have about 9,000 kilograms altogether enriched between two and 60% purity — they will essentially retain the capability to enrich it higher to weapons grade and break out of their commitments as soon as Trump leaves office,” she said.