He also said the United States would not resume military action against Iran before the November midterm elections. The comments came as Washington and Tehran continued exchanging proposals aimed at ending the conflict.
The statements have created some room for cautious optimism.
However, saying that negotiations are progressing is not the same as announcing a completed agreement.
Why the Strait of Hormuz Matters
The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow but critically important maritime passage connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman.
Large volumes of oil and other energy products normally pass through the area, making disruptions potentially significant for international markets.
Recent reports have described attacks and disruptions involving commercial vessels in and around the strait. Oil prices rose sharply on October 8 as concerns about Middle Eastern supply and shipping risks increased.
That is why any agreement affecting the waterway could have consequences far beyond the United States and Iran.
A Previous Agreement Already Exists
The latest diplomatic effort should also be viewed in the context of an earlier agreement.
In June, the United States and Iran signed a memorandum intended to extend a ceasefire and establish conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz. The agreement also left difficult questions, including Iran’s nuclear program, for further negotiations.
The arrangement later came under serious strain.
By August, the memorandum had effectively broken down, with the two sides disagreeing over its implementation and the status of the waterway.
That history explains why current diplomatic statements are being watched carefully.
What Would a New Understanding Need to Address?
Any lasting arrangement would likely need to deal with several complicated issues.
One is the security of commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Another involves the broader military confrontation between the two countries.
Iran’s nuclear activities are also a major point of disagreement. Washington has continued to demand restrictions on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, while Tehran has resisted some of those demands.
These issues are difficult to resolve quickly, which means negotiations could continue even if the immediate military situation becomes calmer.
A Ceasefire Would Not Automatically Mean Lasting Peace
A temporary reduction in fighting can create an opportunity for diplomacy, but it does not necessarily resolve the disagreements that caused the conflict.
For an agreement to last, both sides would need to understand what is expected of them and how violations would be addressed.
That is particularly important when shipping routes, military forces and nuclear policy are all part of the negotiations.
The experience of the earlier ceasefire demonstrates how quickly an agreement can become unstable when the parties disagree about its terms or implementation.
What Happens Next?
For now, the most important development is that diplomatic channels remain active.
Trump’s latest comments indicate that Washington sees negotiations as preferable to renewed military action in the immediate period.
At the same time, reports of continuing tensions around the Strait of Hormuz show that the situation remains unsettled.
The next major test will be whether the current discussions can produce clearly defined commitments that both sides are willing and able to follow.
Until that happens, it is better to describe the situation as an ongoing diplomatic effort rather than a completed peace agreement.
The possibility of progress is significant—but the details of any final arrangement will matter far more than optimistic statements made during negotiations.
