‘Makes no sense’: experts doubt pause in US arms sale to Taiwan is due to Iran war

​

“Experts doubt the Trump administration’s justification for pausing a $14 billion arms sale to Taiwan, citing the low likelihood of a connection to the Iran conflict. The arms package, which could take years to deliver, is unrelated to the current conflict, and any delays could put Taiwan in a difficult position. Trump’s suggestion of using Taiwan arms sales as a negotiating chip with China also raises concerns about US support for the island.

​

While approval is due soon for $14bn deal, actual deliveries to Taiwan are years away – making ‘Operation Epic Fury’ in the Gulf an unlikely cause

Alastair McCready and Yu-chen Li in Taipei

Experts have questioned the Trump administration’s justification for pausing weapons sales to Taiwan, saying the transfers are unconnected to the Iran war. Photograph: I-Hwa Cheng/AFP/Getty Images

The Trump administration’s war against Iran should have no impact on arms sales to Taiwan, experts have said, after a US official suggested a pause in the delivery of a key weapons package was due to the Gulf conflict.

Analysts told the Guardian that a $14bn arms package left in limbo after Donald Trump’s meeting with Xi Jinping could take up to six years to process, and there was a “low likelihood” of any true connection between events in Iran and weapons delivery to Taiwan.

Uncertainty over Washington’s support for the island democracy re-emerged after Trump suggested he could use arms sales to Taiwan as a “negotiating chip” in future talks with Beijing.

Comments by Washington’s acting navy secretary, Hung Cao, at a congressional hearing on Thursday provoked further alarm in Taipei after he suggested that the weapons package awaiting Trump’s sign off for months had been paused.

“Right now we’re doing a pause in order to make sure we have the munitions we need for Epic Fury [the Iran war],” he said. “We’re just making sure we have everything, then the foreign military sales will continue when the administration deems necessary.”

The US has reportedly drained its missile stockpiles since launching its increasingly intractable war against Iran on 28 February.

Cao’s justification for the pause “makes no sense”, according to Rupert Hammond-Chambers, president of the US-Taiwan Business Council and a senior adviser at strategic consultancy group Bower Group Asia.

There is a “very very low likelihood” that there is any true connection between events in Iran and weapons delivery to Taiwan, Hammond-Chambers said, adding that the weapons deals that Trump is considering at the moment “don’t get delivered for anywhere from three to six years”.

“If he sends those congressional notifications by the end of June, you’re talking about another six to 12 months before the contract is signed, and then the clock starts on delivery. So we’re really into the 2030s [by the time Taiwan’s weapons are delivered],” he said.

Over the weekend, Reuters reported comments from an unnamed US official that the military had “more than enough munitions, ammo, and stockpiles to serve all of President Trump’s strategic goals and beyond”, and that the pause in sales to Taiwan was “unrelated to the war with Iran”.

China claims Taiwan as a breakaway province, despite never having ruled it, and strongly opposes Washington’s arms sales to the island democracy. US law dictates that Washington should supply Taiwan with defensive materials in order for the island to maintain a “sufficient self-defense capability”.

Xi told Trump in Beijing this month that the Taiwan issue was “the most important issue in China-US relations,” according to a Chinese foreign ministry statement. Trump has said he made no commitments about Taiwan during the meeting with Xi, but his statements since have cast doubt over Washington’s support.

Trump’s suggestion he could use Taiwan arms sales as a bargaining chip would violate Washington’s longstanding policy that it does not discuss the issue with Beijing.

The US president’s comment last week that he may speak directly with Taiwan’s president, Lai Ching-te, was another break from decades of diplomatic protocol. No sitting US president has spoken to a Taiwanese president since 1979, when Washington shifted diplomatic recognition to Beijing, and it would enrage China if the call were to take place.

On Monday, five lawmakers from Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive party, joined by Peter Mattis, president of the Jamestown Foundation, a thinktank, held a press conference addressing Taiwan-US relations in the wake of the Xi-Trump summit. There, DPP legislator Ngalim Tiunn reiterated that “Taiwan’s communication channels with the US remain open and smooth”.

Mattis said he also thought Cao’s comments were not accurate, saying there was “no way” in which arms packages to Taiwan that had already been decided and notified to the US Congress could be affected by the Iran conflict.

“Whatever has been said is somebody misspeaking and not necessarily understanding the technical details of how US arms sales work,” he said. “I think these are separate issues and should be treated differently.”

Hammond-Chambers said that if Trump approved the sales “in the next four to six weeks” then uncertainty about US support for Taipei “mostly goes away”.

But if delays were to drag on into the autumn – when Trump is set to host Xi in Washington, before another two potential meetings at the Apec summit in China in November and the G20 summit in Miami in December – then it “puts Taiwan in a terrible position”.

The White House and China’s Taiwan Affairs Office were approached for comment.”

 

Middle East crisis live: Iran’s foreign ministry says US broke ceasefire with overnight strikes

​

“Iran accused the US of violating a ceasefire with overnight strikes in Hormozgan, near the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed to have shot down a US drone and fired at a fighter jet. The strikes, along with an Israeli airstrike in Lebanon, contributed to rising oil prices and heightened regional tensions.

​

The US military said it carried out strikes on Monday against targets including boats attempting to lay mines and missile launch sites

Vessels anchored at the Strait of Hormuz Photograph: Reuters

30m ago09.00 EDT

Afternoon summary

Iran’s foreign ministry has accused the US of violating the ceasefire after overnight strikes by the US military on targets in the southern coastal province of Hormozgan, next to the strait of Hormuz.

Here’s a round-up of the other key events so far today:

• Iranian supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei said on his Telegram channel that Gulf powers will no longer be a shield for US bases and the US will no longer have a safe haven in the region. The post followe overnight attacks on Iran by the US, testing the ceasefire agreed in April.

• Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps said it reserved the “legitimate and definite” right to retaliate against any ceasefire violations by the US. It added that its air defence units had shot down a US MQ-9 drone and fired at a fighter jet that had entered Iranian airspace.

• Brent crude oil rose 3% on Tuesday after the news of the US strikes on Iran. The strikes added to uncertainty about whether a deal will be imminently reached to end the war and open up shipping flows through the Strait of Hormuz.

• An Israeli airstrike on a village in eastern Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley killed 12 people, AP reports, citing the country’s state-run National News Agency. Rescue workers said a dozen bodies were pulled out of the rubble following an intense wave of overnight strikes targeting swaths of southern and eastern Lebanon.

• Israel’s military has warned residents of the southern Lebanese town of Nabatieh to leave ahead of possible airstrikes, Reuters reports. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday that Israel would escalate strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon, as a US official said the militia had ignored warnings to halt firing at Israel.

• United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) said that a tanker had reported an external explosion on the vessel’s port side, 60 nautical miles off Oman’s capital Muscat. In a post on X, UKMTO said the vessel and its crew were safe, although the tanker reported that some bunker fuel was discharged into the sea. UKMTO urged vessels to transit with caution and report suspicious activity.

I’m clocking off, but my colleague Tom Ambrose will continue to bring you the latest updates from the crisis in the Middle East.

08.47 EDT

Iran’s judiciary has suspended a presidential body that had ordered the restoration of internet access, AFP reports.

Iranian authorities first imposed sweeping internet restrictions during large-scale anti-government protests that peaked in early January, before shutting access down again on 28 February at the start of the war.

The judicial decision targeted the “Special Headquarters for Organising and Governing the Country’s Cyberspace”, a body formed on 12 May by president Masoud Pezeshkian.

The body had on Monday reached a decision to “restore the internet” in Iran, according to government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani, after local media reported that Pezeshkian had decreed the measure.

In recent weeks, Iran introduced a tiered internet system known as “Pro Internet”, which, according to Iranian media, granted broader access to selected groups of professionals for higher fees.

By 5 April, internet monitor NetBlocks said the shutdown imposed after the outbreak of war was “the longest nation-scale internet shutdown on record in any country”.

 

Pope Leo Warns of Risks From A.I. in 42,300-Word Encyclical

​

“Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas,” warns of the risks posed by artificial intelligence to human dignity and agency. He calls for government regulation of A.I. development, protection and retraining for workers, and safeguards to ensure human responsibility for decisions involving A.I. weapons. The encyclical emphasizes the importance of retaining a fundamental social role for all humans and highlights the need for ethical considerations in A.I. development.

​

The document marks a powerful foray by the leader of the Roman Catholic Church into the debate about the misuse or overuse of artificial intelligence.

May 25, 2026Updated 11:14 a.m. ET

Pope Leo Warns of A.I. Risks in His First Papal Encyclical

Pope Leo XIV presented his first encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas,” in which he outlined his desire to protect human dignity and agency in an age when technology threatens to replace people in many professional and social roles.Alberto Pizzoli/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Pope Leo XIV on Monday set out a sweeping vision for corporate executives, politicians and individuals who will shape and be shaped by the future of artificial intelligence, warning leaders to safeguard humanity from A.I.’s most disruptive effects.

Leo’s declaration came in the form of a papal encyclical, an open letter to “all people of good will” that ran to roughly 42,300 words in its English version. It outlined his desire to protect human dignity and agency in an age in which technology threatens to replace humans in many professional and social roles. He presented it alongside Christopher Olah, a co-founder of Anthropic, a major A.I. developer, in a symbolic gesture of dialogue between leaders of the spiritual and technological worlds.

While emphasizing that “technology should not be considered, in itself, as a force antagonistic to humanity,” he wrote that “the pursuit of greater profits cannot justify choices that systematically sacrifice jobs.”

Among other things, Leo called for:

• government regulation of the private companies that are driving the development of A.I.

• protection and retraining for workers whose jobs are threatened

• education to help students think critically about the technology

• action to protect children from violent, hypersexualized or fake information online that is often generated by A.I.

• safeguards to ensure that humans, not artificial intelligence, remain responsible for all decisions regarding the use of weapons.

Above all he emphasized the importance of retaining a fundamental social role for all human beings. “A society that guarantees employment to only a small fraction of the population, despite having a high level of technical development, risks exposing many to forced inactivity,” he wrote.

“This creates a paradox of material progress and anthropological regression that undermines the foundations of a just and stable social peace,” he added.

Leo, presenting the encyclical to a packed hall at the Vatican, said his views had been shaped by conversations with scientists, engineers and political leaders. He singled out Mr. Olah, with whom he pledged to work “to find a way for humanity in this time of artificial intelligence.”

“What a great sign of hope it is that in our differences we can listen to one another,” Leo said.

Mr. Olah, who is not Catholic, praised the pope’s initiative, acknowledging that companies like his own need moral guidance to avoid being swayed by “a set of incentives and constraints that can sometimes conflict with doing the right thing.”

“We need moral voices that the incentives cannot bend,” Mr. Olah added.

“Today is just the beginning — the start of a long collaboration between those of us who are building this and those who can see what we, from the inside, cannot,” Mr. Olah said. Both men spoke, along with a panel of theologians and Vatican officials, before an audience of cardinals, computer scientists, journalists and diplomats including Brian Burch, the United States ambassador to the Holy See.

Leo greeting Christopher Olah, a co-founder of the A.I. developer Anthropic, before the presentation.Alberto Pizzoli/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Leo had made clear his concerns with A.I. as early as his second day as pope, just over a year ago, when he told the College of Cardinals that, under his leadership, the church would address the risks that the evolving technology poses to “human dignity, justice and labor.”

He has since repeatedly spoken about A.I., including during a trip to Turkey and Lebanon, in an address to Catholic university leaders and even when celebrating the international day of mathematics. Last week, the Vatican announced it had created a commission of senior Catholic officials to discuss the challenges posed by A.I.

Pope Francis, Leo’s immediate predecessor, had also warned about the dangers of artificial intelligence and called for the ethical use of technology.

Although Leo publicly presented his encyclical on Monday, he formally signed it on May 15, the 135th anniversary of the publication of “Rerum Novarum,” — or “Of New Things” in English — a major encyclical written in 1891 by his namesake, Leo XIII.

The pope’s encyclical was timed to prompt comparisons with that earlier document, which guided Catholic teaching on how to protect workers after the technological and industrial disruptions of the 19th century.

Written amid the upheaval of the Industrial Revolution, “Rerum Novarum” sought to safeguard the rights and dignity of the working class and became one of the foundational texts of modern Catholic social teaching. It called on governments to “save unfortunate working people from the cruelty of men of greed, who use human beings as mere instruments for money making,” even as it praised the “discoveries of science.”

In the new encyclical, titled “Magnifica Humanitas,” or “Magnificent Humanity,” Leo struck a similar tone, warning of the new threat to workers posed by artificial intelligence.

Work, he wrote, is more than a way of earning income, but “a requirement of the human condition, a normal path toward maturity, development and personal fulfillment.” He called for “the protection of employment opportunities and the irreplaceable role of the individual.”

The encyclical also called for imposing the “most rigorous ethical constraints” on weapons developed using artificial intelligence, continuing Leo’s — and the Vatican’s — longstanding opposition to war.

“The growing ease with which autonomous weapons systems can be deployed makes war more ‘feasible’ and less subject to human control,” Leo wrote. That, he added, contradicted “the principle that armed force should be used only as a last resort in cases of legitimate self-defense.”

Leo also used the encyclical to apologize for the Vatican’s role in slavery. In a section about modern-day slavery, Leo personally apologized for the papacy’s failure to condemn earlier forms of slavery and for supporting rulers who engaged in it. An earlier pope, John Paul II, apologized in 1985 for the role of Christians in perpetuating the slave trade, but did not explicitly discuss the Vatican’s role.

Although the encyclical includes significant references to scripture and religious teachings, the document in many ways reads like a policy paper from a think tank or a lawmaker.

Leo wrote in detail, for example, of the importance of protecting children, who are particularly susceptible to the warping effects of technology.

“Psychological and psychiatric literature has documented with growing insistence how early and unsupervised exposure to digital devices and social media can negatively impact sleep, attention span, control of emotions and relationships, especially during the most vulnerable stages of life, at times with tragic consequences,” he wrote.

Scholars were divided about what effect, if any, the document would have on the technology industry, in which rival tech titans are jostling with Anthropic for dominance.

Brian Patrick Green, director of technology ethics at Santa Clara University in Northern California, said some technology leaders “will have to take it seriously in a sense,” partly because it provides them with “a moral imperative” even as it recognized their autonomy.

The church, he said, “does not claim to supplant the responsibilities of politics or institutions, but offers itself as a foundation,” urging other institutions to “recognize and promote whatever serves the dignity of persons, the vitality of communities and the common good.”

Others said that an encyclical’s primary targets are the clergy and the faithful.

“I don’t think the ‘tech bros’ in Silicon Valley will listen that much,” said Prof. Noreen Herzfeld, director of a program on technology and ethics at St. John’s School of Theology and Seminary in Collegeville, Minn. “But I think within the church, it will be there as a reference for priests and bishops and particularly for those of us who are educating seminarians or young people.”

Priests can use the contents of the document to guide conversations with parishioners who share their concerns about the technological pressures of modern life, Professor Herzfeld said.

Josephine de La Bruyère contributed reporting from Rome.

Motoko Rich is the Times bureau chief in Rome, where she covers Italy, the Vatican and Greece.

Elisabetta Povoledo is a Times reporter based in Rome, covering Italy, the Vatican and the culture of the region. She has been a journalist for 35 years.

Elizabeth Dias is The Times’s national religion correspondent, covering faith, politics and values.“

Elon Musk is losing the culture war — he just doesn’t know it yet

(A Truly Evil Man)

​

“Elon Musk has been vocal in his criticism of Christopher Nolan’s casting choices for his upcoming film adaptation of “The Odyssey,” particularly the casting of Lupita Nyong’o as Helen of Troy. Musk’s complaints, which have been echoed by some of his followers, are rooted in racist and outdated notions of historical accuracy. Despite Musk’s objections, the film remains highly anticipated and is expected to be a commercial success.

​

Musk’s one-man battle against “The Odyssey” is another symptom of his waning influence on the world outside the hothouse of X.

Elon Musk on April 28, 2026 at the U.S. District Court in Oakland, Calif.Godofredo A. Vásquez / AP Photo

Elon Musk has been busy: SpaceX filed for a blockbuster IPO. On Monday, a U.S. jury dismissed his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI. And last Wednesday, he accompanied President Donald Trump, and an entourage of tech moguls, to China for an elaborate state visit.

And yet, the richest man in the world spent much of the past week heckling a movie he hasn’t seen yet, directed by one of Hollywood’s most successful and celebrated directors, and starring a small army of A-list actors, including Matt Damon, Anne Hathaway, Robert Pattinson, Zendaya, Tom Holland, and Jonathan Bernthal. He seemed especially angry that a woman of color was cast in two roles.

In a just-dropped Time Magazine interview, director Christopher Nolan confirmed that Oscar-winning actress Lupita Nyong’o is playing two iconic roles in his $250 million adaptation of the Greek myth “The Odyssey.” In the ancient poet Homer’s epic “The Iliad,” which precedes “The Odyssey,” the Trojan prince Paris abducts Helen, wife of the Spartan king Menelaus, sparking a 10-year war with Greece that ends in tragedy.  Nyong’o will portray Helen, “the face that launched 1,000 ships,” as well as Helen’s sister, the murderous Clytemnestra.

Musk quickly took to X to voice his displeasure with this casting choice: “Chris Nolan desecrated the Odyssey so that he would be eligible for an Academy Award.” Never mind the fact that the Academy’s eligibility criteria have nothing to do with casting. 

Musk also reposted conservative commentator Matt Walsh, who wrote, “Not one person on the planet actually thinks that Lupita Nyong’o is ‘the most beautiful woman in the world.’ But Christopher Nolan knows that he would be called a racist if he gave the ‘most beautiful woman’ role to a white woman. Nolan is technically talented but a coward.”

Nolan’s casting of Zendaya as Athena, the goddess of wisdom, and rap superstar Travis Scott as a bard has also angered Musk toadies and assorted online bots. The trans actor Elliot Page was also cast, causing some hysterical right-wingers to (apparently incorrectly) suggest the actor is playing the great Greek warrior Achilles, slain by the Trojans, and who Odysseus briefly meets in the afterlife. Musk’s minions are so desperate for engagement that they have to work themselves into a lather over mere speculation.

All of this points to a clear conclusion. Elon Musk is losing the culture war; he just doesn’t know it yet. His whiny, white grievance and anti-DEI posts are becoming predictable. Boring. Viral filler. He has an enormous platform, but his messages are increasingly small-minded.

Musk’s one-man battle against “The Odyssey” is another symptom of his waning influence on the world outside the hothouse of X; his Cybertrucks aren’t selling, Grok, his AI product, is lagging behind rivals, and the man can’t decide whether Trump is his bestie.

Another sign that he’s losing his grip: Musk took a break from insulting Nolan and Nyong’o to petulantly criticize the series finale of Amazon Prime’s hit superhero parody “The Boys,” which he called “pathetic” for killing off the show’s MAGA-coded villain, Homelander, but not before he murders a parody of the billionaire. Musk admitted he hadn’t actually watched the show, though. He’s just sitting in one of his mansions angrily scrolling, and getting bent out of shape.

At least “The Boys” showrunner seems to be to having fun sparring with an increasingly humorless Musk on X.

Meanwhile, the two people Musk is targeting in his crusade against “The Odyssey” also seem to be taking his harassment in stride. Nolan hasn’t commented. But Nyong’o did chime in. “Our cast is representative of the world,” she said. “I’m not spending my time thinking of a defense. The criticism will exist whether I engage with it or not.”

Musk frequently posts bigoted opinions to X, which is his prerogative, I suppose. He owns that dumpster fire. But his current attempts to shame Nolan and suggest that the director, whose action and sci-fi movies are beloved by dudes, is indulging in nontraditional casting to win another Oscar feel transparently pitiful. 

When it was first rumored that Nyong’o had been cast as Helen back in January of this year, furious users on X called it an “insult” to Homer. Musk later posted that “Chris Nolan has lost his integrity.” This underlying thesis is not only racist, but it’s also so ignorant that I wonder if Musk can tell the difference anymore between what is real and what is make-believe.

I’m not an expert in ancient history, but I’m pretty sure “The Odyssey” is fictional. There is no such thing as a man-eating Cyclops. And like all classic literature, Homer’s works are open to interpretation.

Another of the arguments against Nyong’o’s casting is that it isn’t historically accurate, never mind that both African and Middle Eastern countries border the Mediterranean. These critics seem to think the ancient Greeks really looked like ripped Scottish hunk Gerard Butler in director Zack Snyder’s cartoonish Spartan action film “300.”

You want realism? Helen of Troy’s father is Zeus, the god of thunder. Zeus, who transformed into animals and seduced mortals. What are we doing here? 

Despite Musk’s musings, “The Odyssey” is already the most buzzed-about movie of the summer. The 70mm IMAX screenings are a hot ticket: opening weekend sold out within minutes of going on sale 12 months in advance. This isn’t surprising. Nolan remains one of the entertainment industry’s most dependable and respected directors of blockbusters, from 2023’s Oscar-winning historical phenomenon “Oppenheimer” to his formidable Batman trilogy to 2014’s emotional space opera “Interstellar.”

He’s also a director who has never worn his personal politics on his sleeve, although many of his movies have what could fairly be called conservative vibes. In 2012’s “The Dark Knight Rises,” for example, a billionaire puts down a populist revolution led by a cross between Darth Vader and a communist guerrilla. 

Everything I know about “The Odyssey” I learned in high school. I guess I was lucky enough to have an English teacher who knew this epic was full of action and romance, so he always emphasized the good parts. But while Musk might not want to admit it, at its core, “The Odyssey” is really an anti-war story about the ultimate wife guy on an endless, dangerous road trip back home. Through his hero’s journey, Homer teaches that smarts and grit matter more than brute strength. “The Odyssey” is a 2600-year-old message passed from storyteller to storyteller about what really matters in life. It’s a message a man like Musk could learn from — if he’d only stop whining long enough to listen. “

What to Know About the Potential U.S.-Iran Peace Deal - The New York Times

What to Know About the Potential U.S.-Iran Peace Deal

"President Trump said on Saturday that an agreement to end the war was “largely negotiated,” but neither the United States nor Iran released many details of the proposal.

May 24, 2026Updated 11:43 a.m. ET

People walking near a billboard depicting the closure of the Strait of Hormuz in Tehran, Iran, this month.Arash Khamooshi/Polaris for The New York Times

President Trump said on Saturday that the United States was close to reaching an agreement with Iran to end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. He offered few details in a post on social media but said the preliminary agreement had been “largely negotiated.”

Mr. Trump made his announcement hours after Esmail Baghaei, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman, said Washington and Tehran were in the “final stage” of drafting a memorandum of understanding and “may be able to reach a mutually acceptable solution.”

As of Sunday morning, it was unclear what Mr. Trump and Iran had agreed, with U.S. and Iranian officials describing basic elements of the deal in different terms.

Mr. Trump’s announcement followed a wave of late diplomatic efforts to avert a return to full-scale war. In recent days, the president repeatedly threatened to launch new strikes on Iran, and Tehran escalated its rhetoric.

Here’s what to know.

What have Trump and U.S. officials said?

In his social media post, Mr. Trump said he had spoken by phone with several Arab leaders, and the leaders of Pakistan and Turkey about a memorandum of understanding “pertaining to PEACE.” He said the agreement was “subject to finalization” by the United States, Iran and other countries, but did not provide any details.

Two U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said a key element of the proposed agreement was an apparent commitment by Tehran to give up its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. The officials said questions about how that would occur would be deferred to a later round of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

Another crucial component of any deal would involve the release of billions of dollars in Iranian assets frozen abroad. Iran will only get access to the bulk of those assets that the United States and allies would put into a reconstruction fund once they agreed to a final nuclear deal, the officials said. That would give Iran an incentive to stay at the table and make an agreement, they added.

What has Iran said?

Iran had not formally responded to Mr. Trump’s comments. But three senior Iranian officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said that Tehran had agreed to a memorandum of understanding that would stop the fighting on all fronts, including Lebanon, where Israel is fighting with Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed militant group; reopen the Strait of Hormuz without any tolls; lift the U.S. naval blockade on Iran; and release $25 billion in Iranian frozen assets.

It was unclear whether the proposal described by the Iranian officials was the same one Mr. Trump referred to in his social media post. The officials told The New York Times that the proposal said nothing about the fate of Iran’s nuclear program, only that a plan for dealing with the country’s highly enriched uranium would be negotiated within 30 to 60 days.

What has been the reaction?

Even with a few details announced, some Republicans and Iran hawks quickly took to social media to denounce the potential agreement.

“The rumored 60-day cease-fire — with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith — would be a disaster,” Senator Roger Wicker, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, wrote on social media before Mr. Trump announced a possible deal. 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, whose country joined the U.S. attack that started the war in late February, said in a statement that he had discussed the agreement with Mr. Trump on a call on Saturday. The prime minister said any deal would focus on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and would lead to wider talks about Iran’s nuclear program, and that both he and the president agreed that Iran could not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.

Mr. Netanyahu added that Mr. Trump reiterated Israel’s right to defend itself, including in Lebanon.

The clashes between Hezbollah and Israel have strained the broader cease-fire with Iran after Mr. Trump announced it in April.

What still needs to be addressed?

The potential agreement appears to leave some of the thorniest questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program unresolved.

Iran possesses a stockpile of about 970 pounds of uranium enriched to 60 percent, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

Under the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated during Obama’s administration, Iran turned most of its stockpile over to Russia, an arrangement that could serve as a model again. Another possibility would involved diluting the uranium to lower enrichment levels that could not be made into a nuclear weapon. The United States has sought a 20-year moratorium on enrichment, while Iran had proposed a far shorter timeline.

Yan Zhuang is a Times reporter in Seoul who covers breaking news."

What to Know About the Potential U.S.-Iran Peace Deal - The New York Times