Negotiations between the United States and Iran over Tehran's nuclear program appear to be moving toward a conclusion, though the two sides are publicly describing the same deal in very different terms.

President Donald Trump posted on social media that a deal is "largely negotiated," signaling confidence that an agreement is within reach. But Iranian state media outlet Fars pushed back almost immediately, stressing that the Strait of Hormuz will remain under Iranian control under the latest version of the proposal exchanged between the two sides.

The gap in messaging matters more than it might seem. Trump's framing suggests a deal is effectively done and waiting for sign-off. Fars's statement is a pointed reminder that Iran views sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz as non-negotiable, and that any agreement being discussed does not alter that position.

Why the Strait of Hormuz Is the Central Pressure Point

The Strait of Hormuz is the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman through which roughly 20 percent of the world's oil supply passes. Any credible Iranian threat to close or disrupt the strait sends energy prices sharply higher and rattles global shipping markets. Iran has historically referenced control of the strait as its most powerful economic lever in confrontations with the West.

By reiterating Hormuz control in the context of deal coverage, Iranian media is sending a specific signal to domestic audiences and international energy markets: whatever concessions Tehran may be making on nuclear matters, its ability to influence global oil flows is not part of the conversation.

That distinction carries direct consequences for energy traders. A deal that resolves the nuclear file but leaves Iranian leverage over the strait intact does not eliminate the geopolitical risk premium that has been built into oil prices. Markets watching for a clean de-escalation will need to weigh that nuance carefully.

What the Conflicting Signals Mean for a Final Agreement

Public contradictions between negotiating parties at this stage of a deal are not unusual. Each side speaks to its own audience: Trump signals strength and progress to a domestic base skeptical of diplomacy with Iran, while Iranian state media reassures hardliners at home that core national interests are protected.

The risk is that the gap between the two public positions reflects a genuine disagreement still embedded in the text, rather than just a difference in political messaging. If the parties are describing the same document differently, at least one side may face serious domestic resistance when the fine print becomes public.

What to watch next is whether an official joint statement or a formal text emerges that either reconciles or widens these competing characterizations. Any agreement that moves toward signing will require both sides to present a consistent public account of what was actually agreed, and that moment will be the real test of how solid this deal is.

For energy markets, the key question is what sanctions relief Iran receives and on what timeline, since that directly affects how much Iranian oil returns to global supply. On the security side, whether the deal includes any provision related to Iranian military posture in the Gulf will determine whether the Hormuz risk premium fades or stays embedded in crude pricing.