What Washington presents as a possible end to the war is being fought over inside Iran as something more uncertain: hardliners see retreat, negotiators see leverage, and officials continue to warn that confrontation with Washington is far from over.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said a memorandum of understanding with the United States could be signed remotely if final negotiations are completed, while insisting the text has not yet been finalized and could still change.

US officials have also signaled that an initial deal may be close. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Friday an agreement could come within days, possibly by the weekend or Monday. Reuters reported that the proposed memorandum would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and lift the US naval blockade on Iranian ports, with nuclear talks left for a later stage.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said on Saturday a final text of the agreement had been reached and that Pakistan was preparing for an electronic signing expected within the next 24 hours. He added that technical-level talks would follow next week.

A deal still contested in Tehran

But the two sides are describing the possible agreement in sharply different ways.

Washington has framed it as a performance-based deal that would require Iran to dismantle its nuclear program, destroy and remove highly enriched uranium, and accept long-term inspections before receiving sanctions relief or access to frozen funds.

Tehran has presented the memorandum more as an interim political and security arrangement, centered on ending the war, reopening Hormuz and preserving later nuclear talks as a separate phase.

That gap has given hardliners inside Iran an opening to attack the draft before it is signed.

Kayhan, a hardline daily close to Iran’s most uncompromising faction, warned that the Strait of Hormuz must not be reopened through diplomacy with Washington. In a front-page article, it said Hormuz had been closed “with power” and should not be opened until US forces leave the region and Washington accepts the supreme leader’s red lines.

Khorasan daily went further, arguing that any deal would only delay what it described as a final confrontation between Iran and the United States. It said the real function of an agreement would be to give both sides time to rebuild offensive and defensive military strength before a wider war.

But the hardline front is not entirely unified.

The conservative daily Javan criticized those rejecting any negotiation with Washington, saying diplomacy can be part of the same confrontation rather than a surrender to it. The paper argued that governments can fight and negotiate at the same time, and said blanket opposition to talks only creates doubt and benefits the enemy.

Nuclear terms, money and side deals

The dispute has also reached parliament. A member of parliament’s presidium said any memorandum that becomes a binding agreement, treaty or similar arrangement must be reviewed by lawmakers. He also warned that no deal should violate Iran’s Strategic Action Law, the 2020 legislation that pushed Tehran to expand nuclear activity and restrict international inspections after US withdrew from the 2015 accord.

The nuclear question may now be harder to resolve than either side publicly admits.

CNN reported that Iran has sharply escalated efforts to seal off its near bomb-grade uranium stockpile, deliberately collapsing tunnels and placing explosive mines at entrances amid fears of a possible US operation to seize the material. The report said access to roughly half a ton of highly enriched uranium is now more difficult, dangerous and time-consuming, and could complicate any deal requiring Tehran to turn over the material for destruction and removal.

The money question is equally unsettled.

US officials say no frozen funds will be released simply for signing a deal or attending a meeting, and that any economic relief would depend on Iranian compliance. Reuters, however, reported that the United Arab Emirates had agreed to unlock billions of dollars for Iran under an arrangement aimed at halting Iranian missile and drone attacks on the Persian Gulf state. The UAE denied that any frozen Iranian funds had been released, transferred or facilitated.

Reuters also reported that Iran has approached at least two other Persian Gulf Arab countries seeking similar arrangements, under which Tehran would halt missile and drone attacks in exchange for economic and security understandings.

Such side arrangements point to a broader reality: even as the US-Iran track advances, regional states are trying to reduce their own exposure to Iranian attacks.

Hormuz remains the test

Hormuz remains the clearest test of whether diplomacy is lowering the temperature or merely reorganizing the pressure.

Araghchi said Iran’s pressure over the strait would remain in place and that Iranian forces would intervene whenever necessary. He said tolls could not be imposed under international law, but described “service fees” as part of the negotiations.

In parliament, National Security Committee Chairman Ebrahim Azizi compared a proposed bill on managing the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz to the nationalization of Iran’s oil industry, saying it would cover transit rules.

At the same time, the blockade is already affecting trade. Abbas Soufi, deputy chairman of parliament’s Construction Committee, said imports through Iran’s southern ports have faced challenges because of the naval blockade.

Military incidents are also continuing. US Central Command said Friday that Iran launched multiple one-way attack drones in an attempt to strike commercial ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz, and that US forces shot them down while traffic through the waterway continued.

The diplomacy is unfolding on a charged anniversary. Senior Iranian officials released messages marking one year since the 12-day war, using language that underlined mistrust of Washington rather than reconciliation.

Judiciary chief Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei said Iran had “absolutely no trust” in the United States and that Tehran’s confrontation with Washington and its allies would not end.

That is the central contradiction surrounding the possible deal: the war may be moving toward a memorandum, but neither side is presenting it as peace. The closer the agreement gets, the clearer the central question becomes – can it actually reduce the conflict, or merely give both sides a way to regroup before the next confrontation?