- May 22, 2026
- 2:14 pm
- Middle East
The Saudi TV channel Al-Arabiya reported on the morning of May 22, 2026, about a draft framework agreement between the US and Iran. According to the channel, the document is already awaiting approval by the parties, but there is no official confirmation from Washington, Tehran, or other independent sources at the time of publication.
That is why this project is approached with caution in Israel. On one hand, the very fact of such a text appearing may indicate an attempt to urgently stop further conflict escalation. On the other hand, if the published points are accurately conveyed, they hardly touch on topics that are key for Israel: ballistic missiles, enriched uranium, and real guarantees of changing Iran’s behavior.
What, according to Al-Arabiya, is included in the draft agreement
According to the publication, the framework document includes nine main points. The main idea is an immediate ceasefire on all fronts and a transition to a diplomatic mechanism that should prevent further escalation.
The draft speaks of a complete and unconditional ceasefire, a refusal of attacks on military, civilian, and economic infrastructure, as well as the cessation of military actions and information warfare between countries.
Respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-interference in internal affairs, and adherence to international law and the UN Charter are separately stipulated. For the region, this is not just a diplomatic formula: it is an attempt to establish at least temporary rules of the game after a period of direct threats, strikes, and mutual pressure.
The Strait of Hormuz as the main nerve of negotiations
A special place in the project is occupied by the freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Arabian Sea. For Israel, the US, Gulf countries, and the global energy market, this is one of the most sensitive points.
The Strait of Hormuz remains a critical route for oil tankers and commercial ships. Any attempt by Iran to turn passage through it into a tool of political bargaining directly affects prices, supply security, and the stability of international trade.
Against this backdrop, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that there is ‘slight progress’ in contacts with Iran. But on the issue of Hormuz, he spoke harshly: no country, he said, should agree to the system that Iran is trying to create. Washington considers such a model unacceptable.
Why the published project raises questions in Israel
The main problem for Jerusalem is not that the US is trying to use a diplomatic channel. In Israel, they understand: the Donald Trump administration intends to exhaust the political path and see if an agreement can be reached without further war expansion.
The problem is different. If the project indeed looks as described by Al-Arabiya, it leaves out the most dangerous elements of Iranian policy.
According to the published data, the document does not separately mention ballistic missiles. Nor is there a mechanism for the removal or neutralization of enriched uranium stocks from Iran. And without these points, any agreement risks becoming not a solution to the crisis, but a pause that Tehran can use for regrouping.
For the Israeli audience, this detail is important: a ceasefire in itself does not eliminate the strategic threat. It only lowers the conflict’s temperature on the surface.
NANews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency in this context views Al-Arabiya’s publication not as a ready deal, but as a signal of the struggle between two logics: the American attempt to quickly stop escalation and the Israeli demand not to leave Iran with a nuclear and missile advantage.
What the project proposes on sanctions and control
The published text also mentions the creation of a joint monitoring and dispute resolution mechanism. In addition, the parties are supposedly to begin negotiations on the remaining contentious issues within seven days after signing.
Another important point is the gradual lifting of American sanctions in exchange for Iran’s compliance with the agreement’s terms.
This is where the main risk arises. If sanctions begin to be lifted before issues of uranium, missile programs, and control over the Strait of Hormuz are resolved, Tehran will receive political and economic relief without giving up key levers of pressure.
There is optimism, but it is very cautious
Iranian sources also broadcast softer signals. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fleet stated that in the past day, 35 ships, including oil tankers, cargo, and other commercial vessels, passed through the Strait of Hormuz with Iran’s permission.
At first glance, this may look like a demonstration of readiness for de-escalation. But the very wording — ‘with Iran’s permission’ — only underscores the problem. Tehran is trying to present control over an international maritime route as its own tool of influence, rather than a matter of freedom of navigation.
Iranian media also reported that Iran’s Foreign Minister met with Pakistan’s Interior Minister to discuss proposals for ending the US-Israeli conflict. According to the Saudi channel Al-Hadath, a Pakistani source described the atmosphere of the talks as ‘cautious optimism.’
At the same time, the source acknowledged: reducing disagreements over uranium and the Strait of Hormuz is not easy, as each side puts forward very high demands.
What might happen next
Al-Arabiya does not specify who exactly prepared the draft agreement and whether both sides agreed to it. The channel writes that an announcement of such an agreement may be made within a few hours, but the document’s authenticity cannot yet be verified.
For Israel, this means a period of heightened attention. Even a temporary agreement between the US and Iran can change regional dynamics: reduce conflict intensity, give markets a breather, and open a new round of negotiations.
But if the document does not include strict conditions on enriched uranium, ballistic missiles, and freedom of navigation without Iranian dictate, such a project is unlikely to be perceived in Jerusalem as a reliable solution.
Currently, it looks more like an attempt to stop the clock before the next stage rather than the end of the crisis. Diplomacy can work, but only if it does not become a beautiful package for old threats.