US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Monday that a "pretty solid thing on the table" exists between the United States and Iran, potentially leading to a deal to end their ongoing conflict as early as Monday.

Rubio made the remarks during a visit to India, indicating that while progress has been made, the situation remains a "work in progress." The potential agreement comes after President Donald Trump had previously instructed negotiators not to rush into a deal, despite earlier suggestions that one was imminent.

The reported framework for the deal reportedly includes a 60-day ceasefire extension and the reopening of the vital Strait of Hormuz. This crucial waterway, through which approximately 20% of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas passes, has been subject to Iranian blockades.

Rubio cautioned against reading too much into the developments, noting that communication with Iran can take time. He referred to the proposed opening of the Strait of Hormuz as a significant element of the current proposals.

Adding to the complexity, CBS News reported that US intelligence suggests Iran's supreme leader, injured early in the conflict, is in an undisclosed location, potentially hindering communication with his envoys and slowing the pace of negotiations. Iran's foreign ministry spokesperson had previously stated that both sides were simultaneously very close to and very far from an agreement.

According to US media, the proposed agreement is not a final settlement. Instead, it defers more contentious issues, such as the scope of Iranian sanctions relief, the release of frozen Iranian funds, and US demands for Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions, to future negotiations.

The prospect of a deal has already influenced global markets, with oil prices falling sharply and Asian stock markets rising on Monday due to hopes for an agreement. However, the reported terms have also drawn criticism from within President Trump's Republican party.

Senators have voiced concerns, with some labeling the potential deal as a "disastrous mistake" and arguing that a ceasefire would negate the gains made by military operations. These differing views highlight the internal political divisions surrounding the approach to negotiations with Iran.