A proposed 60-day ceasefire agreement between the United States and Iran includes a $30 billion reconstruction fund and U.S. investments for Iran. While U.S. President Donald Trump has claimed that an agreement on the nuclear program is near, the Iranian Foreign Ministry has denied these assertions. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, stated that Iran would not grant any concessions unless the U.S. takes concrete steps. (May 29, Kathmandu)
The terms of the proposed 60-day ceasefire agreement between America and Iran include a reconstruction fund worth $30 billion—equivalent to 40,200 crore rupees—and investments from American companies for Iran. According to a report by The New York Times, an Iranian official referred to this as a reconstruction program. Following a final agreement, significant economic support would be provided to Iran.
Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump asserted that both sides are close to reaching a deal on the nuclear program. According to Trump, under the potential agreement, Iran would not pursue nuclear weapons and enhanced uranium would be destroyed. In exchange, the U.S. would lift the naval blockade and ships would be allowed to freely pass through the Strait of Hormuz without tolls or fees.
Iran has rejected Trump’s claims. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Bazegaran refuted the assertion, clarifying that no talks on the nuclear issue are currently underway and emphasizing that the focus remains on ending the war. A source cited by Iran’s Fars News Agency stated that there are no provisions in the agreement for the destruction of nuclear materials. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Speaker of Iran’s Parliament, remarked that trust lies in action rather than words in Tehran. He added that until the U.S. takes substantive measures, Iran will not offer any concessions. Additionally, Iran has rejected Trump’s attempt to impose the Abraham Accords in the Middle East. Mohammad Fathali, the Iranian ambassador to India, expressed skepticism over the durability of the agreement, calling it a product of foreign pressure.
