An agreement to tentatively conclude the conflict that started following airstrikes on Feb. 28 may be nearing completion between Iran and the United States. The nature of any potential agreement—whether a temporary cessation of hostilities, a comprehensive peace settlement, or something else entirely—remains uncertain.

Iranian officials stated they would respond following strikes conducted by the United States in the country's southern region on Tuesday. Defence officials reported strikes on missile-launching positions and vessels engaged in mine-laying operations within the Strait of Hormuz.

Both parties continue to possess numerous motivations for pursuing a permanent cessation of hostilities. Iran's economic situation has deteriorated substantially, with most officials who held power before the conflict now deceased. Worldwide markets face pressure from rising prices for energy, agricultural inputs and essential commodities.

However, this does not ensure the two nations will resolve their dispute. On Monday, the president indicated negotiations were advancing, though he has previously suggested a deal was imminent and stated in mid-April that Iran had accepted all items on the agenda.

Meanwhile, the conflict persists. When both parties reveal their subsequent measures, observers should note the following:

Multiple administrations in the United States have maintained that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons capability. This is characterized as the primary concern for national security in the United States. A key question concerns what Iran will state publicly regarding its future nuclear weapons program.

This potential diplomatic achievement for Washington appears straightforward, given Tehran's commitment in the 2015 nuclear agreement to refrain from pursuing atomic weapons development, a pledge that remains technically feasible to reaffirm. If the proposed plan fails to meet this minimal standard, doubts about resolving the conflict would be warranted.

Two key aspects warrant attention: Iran's handling of its current highly enriched uranium reserves and its approach to ongoing enrichment activities that refine uranium to weapons-grade capability. Historically, Tehran has maintained its position on domestic uranium enrichment, asserting entitlement to civilian nuclear energy development. Washington has long regarded this arrangement with caution, noting that it would allow Iran to maintain uranium enrichment capabilities that could be redirected toward weapons production if desired.

Is Tehran willing to agree to restrictions on its uranium enrichment activities within the country? Would verification procedures be in place to confirm the absence of weapons-grade fuel production at nuclear facilities? The fate of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, accumulated following the withdrawal from the 2015 agreement during the previous administration, remains uncertain.

The closure of the strait by Iran has led to rising fuel costs, as motorists have noticed when refuelling since the end of February. This leverage represents one of the most effective tools available to Iran for exerting influence on Washington to halt hostilities.

Iran has stated its intention to continue charging fees for vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Should a deal reopen Hormuz, questions remain about how soon vessels and freight containers waiting in the strait since late February can deliver their cargo. What timeframe might be expected before costs decrease?

Tehran seeks the removal of financial penalties and the release of frozen financial holdings to ease economic constraints. What terms and timelines will the agreement specify for removing restrictions?

This element of any agreement may prove most contentious for lawmakers, given concerns that increased financial resources for Tehran could enable continued support for militant groups and activities targeting Israeli and American interests. Does the agreement contain binding provisions requiring Tehran to cease financial support for armed groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis?

The obstacles faced are substantial. For many years, Iran has used these organizations to extend its influence throughout the area. However, few aspects of these discussions present straightforward challenges.

The central uncertainty revolves around whether the parties will opt for diplomatic agreements rather than military escalation.