There is suddenly newfound optimism about the Trump administration reaching an agreement with Iran to extend the ceasefire and to start to bring the war to an end — and not just inside President Donald Trump’s head this time.

Even Iran’s foreign minister says an agreement “has never been closer.”

But it’s important to note that, even if there’s good reason for the optimism, this would not be a peace deal, in and of itself. It’s the first step in a much longer process.

Getting here was likely the easier part; what comes next will be even harder.

The interim agreement under discussion would essentially involve the two sides coming to terms on some of the easier points — like ending Iran’s throttling of the Strait of Hormuz and the nearby US blockade — while setting a 60-day clock and a set agenda for resolving the more difficult ones.

The Trump administration is also claiming Iran has agreed to some very big concessions, but Iranian media is pitching a much different version of a tentative agreement.

Friday morning reinforced the fraught nature of what lay ahead. After media outlets connected to the Iranian government reported details of a potential agreement that looked very favorable to Tehran, Trump ripped into its leaders as “very dishonorable people to deal with,” with whom “there is no such thing as dealing in good faith.”

So what would Trump be trying to iron out with his irredeemably dishonest counterparts?

Let’s look at some of the potential sticking points, and why Trump could have some trouble selling the ultimate terms to the American public as a real accomplishment.

Halting Iran’s nuclear program

This is the most important aspect of any potential peace deal, and it’s extremely complex.

The Trump administration is telegraphing that Iran is agreeing that its nuclear program will be dismantled and committing “indefinitely” to not building a nuclear weapon. But even if that’s true, the details on how that would happen and how to enforce it in the future are critical — and have become a major point of contention before. It’ll surely take weeks just to iron that out.

A senior administration official on Friday cited a new “inspection regime,” but details are thin so far.

For example, would Iran give up all of its nuclear program, even the parts that could seemingly be used for civilian purposes? Or would it just agree not to enrich uranium beyond a certain level, theoretically preventing it from having access to weapons-grade uranium?

It sounds like the latter, with the official saying Friday that “we’re not bothered at all by the idea of civilian power plants in Iran.”

And, crucially, how would inspectors ensure Iran is abiding by any agreement?

Trump has played up the idea that Iran committing not to build a nuclear weapon would be a major win. But in fact, Iran has claimed for many years that it isn’t doing that.

The real crux here would be how the Trump administration would ensure compliance. Adding to the complications, the US president will need to make clear how the deal would be better than the one the Obama administration negotiated, since he’s constantly derided that as too weak. That one had restrictions on Iran’s uranium enrichment and had the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog verifying compliance.

The big hurdle here: There are many Iran hawks in Trump’s own party who say Tehran simply can’t be trusted to abide by the terms of any deal. Trump’s comments Friday about how unreliable Iran is obviously underscore that problem.

Iran’s highly enriched uranium

The uranium that is already highly enriched causes its own issues. The Trump administration has said Iran needs to turn it over, but it’s buried deep in the ground after US airstrikes a year ago.

And Trump has repeatedly and conspicuously alluded to the possibility that the US might not ultimately obtain those materials.

He’s floated the idea that the US military could merely “entomb” the areas and monitor them. “That’s so far ⁠underground, I ​don’t care about that,” he said at one point back in April.

There is also some talk about how the uranium could instead be “downblended” so it’s not so highly enriched, but would remain in Iran’s possession as fuel.

The senior administration official said Friday that the interim agreement involves the uranium being “destroyed on-site and then taken out of the country.” But they conceded that it’s “going to take a little bit of time to figure out” exactly how that will happen.

It’s difficult to see how Trump could sell this as a major win without getting the enriched uranium that Iran already has.

Iran’s frozen assets

This is where Trump’s old rhetoric could really come back to bite him.

Back in 2016, he and his fellow Republicans lambasted the Obama administration for giving Iran $400 million in cash in a transaction tied to a hostage release and the nuclear deal.

The money wasn’t strictly a gift. It was instead used to resolve claims at an international tribunal at The Hague over a failed 1979 arms deal. But the optics were terrible, and Trump and others claimed the money would be used for terrorism.

(The $400 million was actually the first installment in $1.7 billion that was due to the Iranians.)

Today, Iran appears to be insisting on unfreezing a much larger sum of its assets: $24 billion.

When the potential unfreezing of the assets was first reported in April, Trump assured: “No money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form.”

But he might be playing a semantic game, differentiating between unfreezing assets and handing over cash. That seems to be the fine line the Trump administration might walk, at least judging by Vice President JD Vance’s X post Friday.

Vance reiterated that Iran wouldn’t get “cash,” but added that “no funds are being released for simply signing a deal or attending a meeting.” That sounds like funds would indeed be unfrozen at some point.

But technically speaking, the 2016 payment was also money that was supposed to be in Iran’s possession.

Based on Iran’s public red lines, it seems like money has to be involved somehow. But if it is, Trump is opening himself up to similar claims that he’s giving Iran money that could be used for terrorism.

Opening the Strait of Hormuz

While many of the details risk looking somewhat like Obama’s Iran deal, the Strait of Hormuz presents a new variable in these negotiations.

After all, the war has given Iran a major strategic victory there. It has proven Iran is capable of effectively shutting down the strait — and negatively impacting the entire world economy — as a leverage point.

The big question here is not so much whether Iran relinquishes its effective control over the strait for now; the Trump administration would surely demand as much. It’s how the deal addresses Iran’s seeming ability to lock down the strait in the future.

If this issue is left unaddressed and the rest of the deal looks a lot like the Obama nuclear deal, it will be pretty easy for Trump’s critics to argue it’s a worse deal.

Iran’s proxy groups

Early on, Trump and those around him said one of their most important goals was making sure Iran can no longer fund its proxy groups — like Hamas and Hezbollah — which spread terror in the region.

When Trump falsely claimed two months ago that Iran had agreed to all of his demands, he said that included a commitment to stop backing all proxy groups.

But then, Trump and the administration largely stopped talking about the issue at all.

A senior administration official told CNN on Friday that Iran is agreeing not to fund terrorist groups. But again, even if that’s true, the devil is in the details — like what that means in practice and how it’s verified.

And if Trump doesn’t get something solid on this front, it will mean he’s failed to accomplish one of four key goals he laid out at the start of the war.