Despite the optimism expressed by many regarding the progress of secret negotiations between the US and Iran, it is clear—at least at this moment—that no deal exists. While there is talk of converging views on several issues, all serious matters—such as the nuclear program and the Strait of Hormuz—are being deferred to the future. In his latest statements, Trump declared that either the deal will be big and significant for Washington, or it will not happen at all.
Analysts estimate that President Trump can neither impose his terms nor present an imminent agreement as a triumph of his foreign policy. On the contrary, the prevailing assessment is that the Iranians are determined to endure—and will endure—until the end of the military conflict, from which President Trump himself is now desperately trying to disengage. Indeed, the view prevails that Iran is willing to play the long game, relying on the fact that the clock is ticking faster for the US.
Trump: The deal will either be big and important or there will be no deal at all
In a post on Truth Social, US President Donald Trump argued that the deal with Iran will either be big and significant for Washington or there will be no deal at all. "The agreement with Iran will either be big and significant, or there will be no agreement," Trump stated, claiming that a future deal to end the conflict with Iran will not allow the country to acquire nuclear weapons. "This deal (with Iran) will be the exact opposite of the failed JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action)... which was a direct and open road for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. No, I do not make such deals," wrote Trump, referring to the 2015 agreement on Iran's nuclear program signed by Britain, Germany, China, Russia, the US, France, and Iran. It is noted that this agreement ceased to be in effect in October 2025. Furthermore, Trump attacked American politicians who criticize him, stating they "know nothing about the potential deal I am negotiating with Iran" and that it would be better for them to go home rather than create division and failure.
A bad deal
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued that US President Donald Trump will not consent to a bad deal with Iran. Despite this, an increasing number of analysts emphasize that the best hope for ending an ill-conceived war, which began with minimal consultation with Congress or the American people, may be an unsatisfactory peace that leaves critical issues for later resolution and will undoubtedly intensify conflicts in Washington. President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that a deal to end the conflict he chose to start against Iran is imminent and very close.
Miscalculations
Every time, his predictions proved to be either wishful thinking or a misreading of Tehran's true intentions. Thus, it is not surprising that his latest claims that a framework deal with Iran is close have been met with skepticism and confusion. Nor is it surprising that both conservative "hawks" and Democrats believe he is one step away from a bad deal.
Close to Hormuz, naval blockade
However, diplomatic processes indicate that an understanding on opening the Strait of Hormuz and relaxing the US blockade of Iranian ships and ports may be close. Such a development could be a starting point for talks that the Trump administration will attempt to leverage to prevent any remaining Iranian nuclear ambitions. A more substantial agreement beyond the current fragile ceasefire would be welcomed globally, as it would be accompanied by the hope of de-escalating the energy and economic crises caused by the war and Iran's closure of the Straits.
Trump cannot win
The war with Iran, like almost everything in Washington, is a hostage to political antagonism, entrenched ideologies, and politicians seeking to bolster their personal profiles. The administration's aggressive refusal to accept criticism for a conflict that seemed to seriously underestimate Iran's capacity for resistance has not helped the situation. It is worth noting that Donald Trump cannot win politically.
Military and strategic deadlock
Polls show that the majority of Americans oppose the war, so he would face equal or greater backlash if he ordered new strikes against Iran—a step that would threaten violent escalation and greater economic pain. However, presidents are often tempted to start new military adventures to save their prestige or seek a way out that often turns into a quagmire. When they back down, lives can be saved.
No triumph
Nevertheless, the details emerging regarding a potential deal with Iran show that the terms of a peace agreement may exceed even Donald Trump's ability to present them as a triumph. Indications, for instance, that Washington may release certain Iranian assets and gradually dismantle its own blockade to persuade Iran to reopen the Straits, would essentially confirm the negotiating power acquired by the Islamic Republic of Iran through the war and would surrender significant American bargaining chips.
Playing with time
Any commitment by Iran in the memorandum that it will not pursue nuclear weapons would be met with great reservation in Washington. A proposed period of at least 60 days for negotiations on outstanding issues of Iran's nuclear program, including uranium stockpiles, also seems very limited in time, given the complexity of the subjects. History shows that Iran would desire to lure the US into a long period of fruitless negotiations that would last months or even years.
New China intervention: The war in Iran should never have started
The war in Iran should never have started, argued Mao Ning, spokesperson for China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. "China has always emphasized that dialogue and negotiation are the only correct path and that there is no way out through the use of force. When the door to dialogue has opened, it must not close again. It is necessary, through strengthening the de-escalation process and adhering to the general direction of political solution, to reach through dialogue and negotiation a solution that takes into account the legitimate concerns of all sides," underscored Ning, noting that sea lanes must open as soon as possible to jointly ensure stability and the smooth operation of global industrial and supply chains. Furthermore, she emphasized that a comprehensive and sustainable ceasefire must be achieved as soon as possible, in order to contribute to restoring peace and stability in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf region.
Ross Harrison (analyst): The Iranians are determined to endure… until the end of the war
Ross Harrison, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, estimates that "the Iranians are determined to endure until this conflict ends, as they believe they have some economic lifeline for the next day." "For the Iranians, it's not just about time, but also about survival. And it concerns their ability to emerge from this conflict having restored some form of deterrence," stated Ross Harrison.
"This time it is a different type of deterrence compared to what existed before the war, which was based more on indirect deterrence through Iran's allies and proxies," added the analyst. Harrison commented on the latest statements by the spokesperson of the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Esmaeil Baghaei, who, as already reported, stated that the two sides have reached a framework of agreement but avoided characterizing a final agreement as immediate or imminent. "Iran is willing to play with time and relies on the fact that the clock is ticking faster for the US," concluded Ross Harrison.
At a dead end
Donald Trump is seeking a deal with Tehran that could extract him from the deadlock he has found himself in. According to a report by the Washington Post, an analysis by columnist David Ignatius examines the urgent effort of the Donald Trump administration to reach a peace deal with Iran. As stated, there are recordings of:
-
Retreat from initial demands The framework of the deal Washington is seeking is far from the slogan of "unconditional surrender" that Donald Trump had articulated at the beginning of the war, on February 28. This deal is presented not as a victory, but as an urgent escape route for Trump from a war that has yielded no clear result.
-
Ambiguity in technical and nuclear details The key points of the draft agreement include the immediate and unrestricted opening of the Strait of Hormuz and Iran's commitment not to build nuclear weapons, in exchange for the release of frozen assets and the gradual lifting of sanctions. However, details regarding the nuclear program are referred to 60-day negotiations, something characterized as highly ambiguous, as Tehran has not yet accepted the removal of enriched uranium from the country.
-
Effort to de-escalate the energy crisis The White House hopes that with the opening of the Strait of Hormuz the global energy market will stabilize immediately. Western officials estimate that dozens of ships remaining trapped in the Persian Gulf are carrying about 150 million barrels of oil, which, if channeled into the market, could reduce prices. However, independent analysts remain skeptical regarding the speed at which this could happen.
-
Lack of alternatives David Ignatius reports that, when asked, a source involved in war planning replied that the US can bomb everything, but does not have an option that can essentially influence Iran's decision-making. Therefore, the Washington Post concludes that Donald Trump is seeking to conclude a deal with Iran in order to essentially extract himself from a military quagmire and strategic deadlock. As Pentagon officials reportedly admit, the US may have the ability to bomb any location, but these attacks are not enough to change Tehran's strategic calculations.
Baghaei (Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman): There is convergence, but signing a deal with the US is not immediate - We are not discussing nuclear [issues]
The position that "we have reached conclusions on a large part of the issues discussed" was stated by the spokesperson of the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Esmaeil Baghaei, noting however that "this does not mean that the signing of an agreement is immediate." Baghaei emphasized that the focus of the negotiations is ending the war and that at this stage, no discussions are being held on the nuclear program. Referring to negotiations with the US to end the war and Trump's threats to suspend uranium enrichment, Baghaei stated that "the focus of negotiations is ending the war and at this stage we are not discussing the nuclear issue. The threats, pressures, and images projected are part of the political practice of the other side. We see the reality."
As he said, Iran will hold a new round of negotiations with the US as soon as it reaches the conclusion that the exchange of views should be done in person, while at the moment there is no such need. Baghaei, regarding Trump's talks with leaders of the region and claims about an attack on Iran, stated that "there is no guarantee that the other side will keep its commitments." Responding to American claims about progress in negotiations, Baghaei stated that "the developments of the last few days are the result of several weeks of talks via Pakistan as a mediator." "It is correct that on a large part of the issues convergence has been reached, but no one can claim that the signing of an agreement is imminent.
Politics in the US has fallen into a state of instability. Within a few hours, contradictory views are presented, and this makes every negotiation difficult. In diplomacy, we work with open eyes to protect national interests," said Baghaei, noting that "everyone saw that the only concern of the US in West Asia is the Zionist entity." He also said that in this agreement there is no discussion about the Strait of Hormuz. "How this region will be governed concerns the coastal states," said Baghaei, who, answering a question about possible transit fees, stated: "We do not impose fees. We must be careful in the use of words.
The actions of Iran and Oman to create a protocol for safe passage of ships are responsible actions. Of course, the services provided and the protection of the environment require some cost." Baghaei underscored that no specific deadline has been set for finalizing the agreement, but that Iran desires the fastest possible result that will secure the rights and national interests of the Iranian people.
Pezeshkian (President of Iran): We will not succumb to pressure
The President of Iran, Masoud Pezeshkian, stated that the course of negotiations and the country's international contacts have been designed in a way to fully secure the rights of the Iranian people. Pezeshkian, who participated in a special meeting aiming to examine and resolve the problems faced by economic entities and especially the private sector after the developments caused by the recent war, praised the role of the private sector and entrepreneurs in managing the country's critical conditions, characterizing them as "pioneers of the economic front" in the complex and multi-front war of the opponent.
He stressed that maintaining stability in the market, avoiding economic turbulence, and covering the country's needs in times of war were made possible thanks to the efforts and effective presence of the productive forces, noting that during the recent crisis no serious shortages of goods or major turbulence were observed in the market.
As he said, the progress and development of the country can be achieved only through the cooperation of all of Iran's forces and that the government considers the private sector a strategic partner and not an opponent. He also pointed out that, as the opponent has shifted the focus from military to economic war, the government and the private sector will overcome this phase as well through unity and cooperation. The President of Iran concluded by underscoring that the process of Iran's negotiations and international contacts is designed to fully secure the rights of the Iranian people and that the Islamic Republic is not going to, under any condition, succumb to pressure or excessive demands.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών