The United States has signalled that it remains prepared to return to military action against Iran if ongoing negotiations fail to deliver an agreement, while deep divisions persist over Tehran’s nuclear programme and wider regional security issues.
Speaking at a defence summit in Singapore on Saturday, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said Washington retained the capability to restart military operations if required. His comments came as uncertainty continued to surround a proposed agreement that President Donald Trump has yet to approve.
“There is no question that the United States has the capacity to act if necessary,” Hegseth said, adding that American military resources remained sufficient to support such a move.
The remarks underline the fragile nature of the current ceasefire between the two countries. Although the truce has largely held since April, sporadic incidents have continued to raise concerns about a possible return to conflict.
The White House has indicated that discussions with Tehran have advanced significantly, with US officials suggesting a potential framework is awaiting presidential approval. However, Iranian authorities insist that they have not reached a final agreement.
President Trump has repeatedly stated that any deal must guarantee that Iran will never acquire nuclear weapons. He has also linked a settlement to the reopening of the strategically important Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most significant energy transit routes.
A White House official said the president would only support an agreement that protects US interests and meets Washington’s core security requirements, particularly preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Iran has strongly rejected what it describes as American attempts to dictate terms. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said Tehran would not accept externally imposed conditions, arguing that negotiations must proceed on the basis of mutual respect rather than ultimatums.
While both sides acknowledge that communication channels remain open, conflicting accounts have emerged regarding the content of any prospective agreement.
In a social media post, Trump suggested that Iran would remove maritime mines from the Strait of Hormuz, reopen the waterway without imposing fees and cooperate in the removal and destruction of enriched uranium stockpiles. He also indicated that the US could ease restrictions on Iranian ports as part of a broader settlement.
Iranian media, however, offered a markedly different account. Reports from Tehran suggested that Iranian negotiators were seeking immediate access to billions of dollars in frozen assets before advancing to the next phase of talks.
State television cited what it described as an unofficial memorandum under which the United States would grant Iran access to approximately $12 billion in frozen funds within 60 days. The White House has previously rejected similar claims, describing them as inaccurate.
Disagreements also persist over the future of the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian media reports disputed suggestions that Tehran had agreed to guarantee toll-free passage through the waterway or accept the destruction of its nuclear materials.
The Strait remains central to global energy markets, carrying a substantial share of the world’s seaborne oil and liquefied natural gas exports. Any disruption to shipping through the narrow channel has the potential to affect international energy supplies and prices.
At the same time, tensions continue beyond the US-Iran relationship. Fighting on the Lebanese front has persisted despite separate ceasefire efforts.
Israel issued additional evacuation warnings for communities in southern Lebanon on Saturday, one day after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israeli forces had advanced deeper into Lebanese territory.
Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam accused Israel of pursuing a policy of collective punishment in the south and called for an immediate and effective ceasefire.
A truce between Israel and Hezbollah announced in April has failed to take hold, with both sides repeatedly accusing each other of violating the agreement.
The continued instability in Lebanon remains closely linked to wider regional negotiations. Iran has repeatedly argued that developments in Lebanon must be considered as part of any broader settlement aimed at reducing tensions across the Middle East.
With competing demands still separating Washington and Tehran, prospects for a comprehensive agreement remain uncertain. While diplomatic contacts continue, both sides appear determined to maintain pressure, leaving the region caught between the possibility of a negotiated breakthrough and the risk of renewed confrontation.
