US President Donald Trump is pushing to revise the terms of a proposed agreement with Iran to end hostilities, even as Tehran simultaneously prepares to introduce its own amendments to the draft — a parallel manoeuvre that risks resetting negotiations to an earlier stage, according to sources cited by The New York Times.

What Trump Wants Changed

According to information gathered by Axios, Trump is seeking more detailed provisions on two specific points: the management of Iran's 60 per cent enriched uranium stockpiles and the modalities for reopening the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic. A source also indicated that Trump intends to insert precise language on the timing and methods by which the United States would acquire Iran's accumulated fissile material.

Speaking to Fox News, Trump expressed confidence in the framework. 'The only guarantee I need to have is that there will be no nuclear weapons. They have accepted this,' he said. He elaborated: 'Initially, they said: ‘We will not develop a nuclear weapon’. I replied: ‘Okay, but what happens if you buy a nuclear weapon?’ So now the text says: ‘We will not develop or acquire a nuclear military weapon in any way’. It’s a big difference,' adding, 'They are very tough negotiators, and it takes a long time, but I’m not in a hurry.'

Iran's Parallel Push for Amendments

The Tasnim news agency — considered close to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) — reported that Tehran decided to introduce new amendments to the draft after Trump first moved to alter the proposed text. A 'source familiar with the details' was cited, though no specifics were disclosed publicly.

The current draft agreement includes Iran's commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons development and a 60-day negotiation window for finalising Tehran's nuclear obligations and the fate of accumulated fissile material. Any modification to the memorandum of understanding that forms the basis of the deal would, according to sources, inevitably extend the timeline.

Divided Voices from Tehran

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi offered a measured public stance. 'Talks and exchange of messages with the United States are ongoing, and until they produce a concrete result, it is not possible to judge them,' he told state television, cautioning that 'everything said at this stage is speculation and should not be given too much importance.'

That conciliatory tone was sharply countered by Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament. 'We will not approve any agreement until we are sure that we have guaranteed the rights of the Iranian people,' Ghalibaf said, adding, 'Those involved in diplomacy do not trust the words or promises of the United States.' He noted that any changes to the country's development plan would be examined by specialised parliamentary committees, with particular attention to post-war reconstruction.

Final approval authority in Tehran rests with Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, underscoring the layered decision-making structure that Trump, according to sources, is finding difficult to navigate at pace.

Pezeshkian Resignation Report Denied

Adding to the internal turbulence, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reportedly submitted a letter of resignation to Khamenei, according to a source cited by Iran International, an Iranian opposition outlet based in London. The letter, reportedly sent on a Sunday, alleged that the president and government had been effectively excluded from key decision-making processes, and that the vacuum had allowed 'intransigent factions' within the IRGC to take control.

Pezeshkian reportedly wrote that under such circumstances he was unable to fulfil his responsibilities, and therefore sought immediate resignation. The Tehran government swiftly denied the report, accusing what it called 'lying media.' It remains unclear whether Khamenei has received or acted on any such letter, but the episode, if substantiated, would point to an unprecedented fracture at the highest levels of Iranian power.

White House Remains Confident

Despite the complexity, the White House maintained an optimistic public posture. 'There will be an agreement,' a senior official said, indicating that finalisation could come 'in a few days to over a week.' The statement signals that Washington views the current back-and-forth as a negotiating process rather than a breakdown — though three sources told The New York Times that the talks risk sliding backward.

This comes amid broader regional tensions and an ongoing war whose end both sides publicly claim to want, yet whose terms remain deeply contested. How quickly — and whether — the two sides can converge on a single text will be the defining question in the days ahead.