President Donald Trump has prioritised securing a swift peace agreement with Iran over achieving a comprehensive or thoroughly negotiated deal, according to recent developments surrounding the interim accord aimed at halting ongoing hostilities. The ceasefire agreement, signed in late June, seeks to pause conflict, but it leaves several critical issues unresolved, particularly the contentious negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

Under the terms of the interim arrangement, the United States and Iran have 60 days—subject to possible extension—to negotiate a more detailed nuclear deal. Central to Trump’s demands is the removal of Iran’s 440 kilograms of highly enriched uranium and a proposed 20-year suspension of uranium enrichment activities, accompanied by a stringent inspection regime. Iran, however, has historically rejected such conditions and has yet to indicate willingness to accept them in these talks.

Sanctions relief is a pivotal leverage point for the U.S., which has frozen billions of dollars in Iranian assets under economic sanctions aimed at curbing Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Despite the ceasefire, disagreement has already surfaced over the sequencing of sanctions relief and asset releases. The U.S. insists on conditioning sanctions easing on measurable progress toward a nuclear deal, while Iran asserts it should receive immediate significant sanctions relief for merely signing the interim agreement.

Trump’s approach represents a shift from his initial objectives, which included regime change in Iran, the dismantling of its ballistic missile program, and a permanent end to its nuclear capabilities. Analysts note that the current accord falls short of these ambitions, instead reflecting an emphasis on quickly ending the war to alleviate the global economic strain caused by the conflict, particularly the energy crisis, and to address President Trump’s declining domestic approval ratings.

The agreement’s durability is further complicated by regional dynamics, especially the ongoing tensions between Israel and Hezbollah. Israel was not a party to the ceasefire and maintains a stance against including its conflict with Hezbollah in any peace process. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered retaliatory strikes against Hezbollah installations in Beirut just hours before the deal was signed, an action criticised by Trump as poorly timed. Iran has stated that peace will be sustainable only if Israel ceases its attacks on Hezbollah, a group Iran supports and designates as a proxy.

The challenge now lies in whether Trump can compel Netanyahu to restrain Israeli military actions and, conversely, whether Iran can influence Hezbollah to halt attacks on Israeli territory. Israeli officials have made clear that they will not tolerate continued rocket fire.

Questions remain about key elements of the deal, including whether it addresses Iran’s funding of other militant groups such as Hamas and the Houthis. Given these unresolved issues, the interim agreement reflects a fragile and incomplete peace effort, whose long-term effectiveness remains uncertain.