President Donald Trump said the 60-day [1] timeline in a memorandum of understanding with Iran is not a hard deadline to reach a final agreement.

The statement introduces uncertainty into a fragile diplomatic process intended to end the war. By suggesting the timeline is flexible, the president may be undermining the very framework his administration established to secure peace.

Diplomatic talks related to the agreement are currently taking place in Switzerland. However, the president's comments, made in the U.S., have led observers to question the stability of the deal. Adam Parsons of Sky News said, "The memorandum of understanding is now cloaked by a lot of misunderstanding."

Trump said the 60 days [1] outlined in the deal was not a hard deadline to reach a final agreement with Iran to end the war and suggested that it could take longer [1]. This shift in tone comes as the administration manages domestic criticism and political pressure.

Iranian officials have already cast doubt on the efficacy of the arrangement. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, an Iranian negotiator, said on June 19, 2026, that the agreement is a record of U.S. failure and that people will see it and judge [2].

While some analysts suggest the deal has achieved immediate goals, such as reopening the Strait, others argue the agreement is already under strain. The administration's approach has left the 80-year-old [1] president facing hurdles in maintaining the momentum of the peace bid. Some critics suggest the president may attempt to shift responsibility for the deal's complications toward Vice President JD Vance [3].

“"The memorandum of understanding is now cloaked by a lot of misunderstanding."”

The tension between a fixed diplomatic timeline and the president's preference for flexibility creates a strategic opening for Iran to negotiate from a position of strength. If the 60-day window is perceived as non-binding, the urgency for both parties to reach a final ceasefire diminishes, potentially prolonging the conflict while the U.S. manages internal political volatility.