The emerging US-Iran peace deal is being hailed as a diplomatic turning point abroad even as it intensifies political and economic battles at home in the United States.

From tentative truce to agreed text

After months of conflict around the Strait of Hormuz, President Donald Trump first signalled a diplomatic shift on June 12, saying the US was “close to [a] deal with Iran” and calling off planned strikes, while claiming the agreement would reopen the vital waterway.¹ That same day, Pakistan’s prime minister said the US-Iran peace deal text [was] agreed, with both sides expecting to sign within days.²

On June 13, Trump escalated expectations, declaring the US and Iran would sign [a] deal on Sunday to reopen [the] Strait of Hormuz.³ Over the following weekend, reports described Trump as having settle[d] for a truce of convenience with Iran, in contrast to his earlier promises of “unconditional surrender.”⁴

Ceasefire, oil shock and market relief

By June 15, multiple outlets reported that Iran and [the] US agree[d a] deal to open [the] Strait of Hormuz and extend [the] ceasefire, including ending the US naval blockade of Iranian ports.⁵ Oil prices fell on news of the agreement, though analysts warned the Hormuz shipping backlog might last weeks and flows remained vulnerable to renewed disruption.⁶

Global markets reacted sharply. World equities jumped as stocks surge[d] as [the] US-Iran deal ignite[d a] global rally, helped by broader risk appetite.⁷ Asian technology shares led the charge; Asian tech stocks surged after the Iran-US deal, and AI chipmakers gained the most, as the removal of a geopolitical risk premium buoyed firms exposed to energy prices and complex supply chains.⁸

A fragile peace and domestic backlash

Strategists framed the outcome as a fragile Iran peace [that] follows a war without victors, arguing the deal reflected the failure of a purely military option.⁹ Another analysis said the Iran deal leaves Trump fighting a war at home, with Republican splits and higher prices leaving Americans “with no clear sense of victory.”¹⁰

Central to the political storm was reporting that the Trump administration considers [a] $300bn fund for Iran if [the] deal is upheld, tying incentives to Tehran’s performance on reopening Hormuz and nuclear talks.¹¹ Critics seized on this, with one piece headlined “Humiliation”: Donald Trump Battles Claims His Iran Deal Is Worse Than Obama’s, questioning whether concessions justified four months of war.¹²

On June 17, amid fierce bipartisan backlash, Trump publicly reversed course, insisting the US will not invest in [a] $300bn fund for Iran, pushing back on reports that such a provision was embedded in the peace package.¹³ For now, the deal promises reopened sea lanes and a ceasefire, but its long-term durability—and Trump’s political gains from it—remain uncertain.