The Trump administration is keeping major U.S. military forces positioned near Iran even after lifting its naval blockade and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, signaling that Washington intends to maintain military leverage while negotiations with Tehran continue through a 60-day diplomatic window.

Two U.S. carrier strike groups — the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS George H.W. Bush — remain operating in the Arabian Sea as the administration enters that negotiating period aimed at securing a final agreement with Iran over its nuclear program and regional behavior.

The statement marks one of the clearest signs yet that the administration is not ready to reduce its military posture in the Middle East, even as officials describe talks with Iran as moving toward a broader diplomatic settlement. A senior U.S. official told reporters that any drawdown of forces would be conditioned on achieving a final deal.

The decision leaves the Pentagon with a major regional footprint at a volatile moment. U.S. forces in the Middle East recently totaled roughly 50,000 troops — one of the largest American military concentrations in the region in more than two decades.

The Strait of Hormuz remains central to the crisis. The narrow waterway is one of the world’s most critical energy corridors, and even limited instability there can send shockwaves through global oil markets. While the blockade has been lifted, concerns persist over Iran’s future behavior, maritime security, and Tehran’s willingness to submit to a durable nuclear framework.

Speaking at an economy-focused event at Mack Trucks in Pennsylvania, President Trump defended his Iran policy and framed it as part of a broader effort to confront international adversaries who had gone unchallenged for decades.

Trump also confirmed that earlier he had written on Truth Social that Tehran had agreed to “highest level” nuclear inspections far into the future — a claim Iran’s Foreign Ministry has sought to qualify, asserting that no specific inspection schedule for nuclear sites damaged in U.S. strikes has been agreed upon.

One of the most ambitious elements of the U.S.–Iran memorandum of understanding — a proposed $300 billion investment fund for Iran’s reconstruction and development — faces serious legal obstacles under existing U.S. sanctions law, raising questions about whether one of the agreement’s central economic promises can realistically be fulfilled.

The State Department determined in 2020, and reaffirmed in May 2025, that Iran’s construction sector is controlled directly or indirectly by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Under the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act (IFCA), companies or individuals doing business in that sector could face sanctions exposure. IFCA waivers tied to IRGC-controlled sectors require regular Congressional justification — potentially turning the fund into a recurring political flashpoint.

Maleki warned that short-term waivers would be unlikely to reassure investors weighing long-term construction or infrastructure commitments in Iran — and that Washington may have surrendered a rare moment of maximum leverage.

A separate dispute has emerged over frozen Iranian assets. Iran says it expects access to $6 billion held in Qatar, while broader estimates of frozen Iranian assets range from roughly $100 billion to $120 billion. Trump confirmed that any financial releases would flow through a U.S.-controlled escrow system and be used exclusively for humanitarian purchases — food and medical supplies sourced from American farmers and producers.

John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America and a former national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, offered a stark warning about where any economic relief could ultimately flow.

Maleki added that Iran’s negotiating pattern favors delay over resolution — and that the current package of incentives may simply buy Tehran time rather than binding commitments.

Deeper than the immediate legal and strategic questions lies a structural reality that no memorandum of understanding can fully address: Iran’s hostility toward Israel and the West is not merely geopolitical — it is ideological and theological, rooted in the revolutionary foundations of the Islamic Republic.

For now, Trump is signaling that America’s sustained military and economic pressure campaign has forced Tehran into significant concessions. Iran is signaling that it has not capitulated. Israel and the broader region are left watching closely — knowing that any agreement with the Islamic Republic must ultimately be judged not only by what Tehran signs, but by what it truly intends to do next.