US President Donald Trump is selling peace with Iran again. Leaks about draft memorandums and breakthrough talks are circulating, and the familiar choreography has resumed – inflated expectations, maximalist demands, brief rallies in energy markets and, eventually, strategic deadlock.
“We’ve had very good talks over the last 24 hours, and it’s very possible that we’ll make a deal,” Mr Trump said on Wednesday. His administration is reportedly optimistic that a one-page memorandum of understanding can be agreed within days, with negotiators simultaneously working on a broader 14-point framework to freeze Tehran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief and a pause in hostilities.
The conditions Washington is reportedly pressing, however, read less like a traditional negotiating framework than demands Tehran is unlikely to accept. The reported proposals include dismantling the Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities, a 20-year halt to uranium enrichment, surrender of highly enriched uranium stockpiles and unrestricted access to suspect sites. Iran spent two decades building those facilities precisely so that they could not easily be negotiated away under pressure.
Regime-aligned commentators in Tehran have dismissed the reports as “White House market manipulation” and “more of an American wishlist than a reality”. Such language matters. Iran often uses semi-official media to signal its negotiating posture before formal responses emerge. A leadership preparing domestic opinion for compromise would probably be sending very different signals.
Mr Trump has added to the confusion, alternating between declaring a deal imminent, claiming Iran has already agreed to proposals and threatening escalation if talks fail. The effect is less strategic signalling than the appearance of an administration trying to manage headlines and oil prices simultaneously.
Events on the ground are moving in another direction. Mr Trump’s “Project Freedom” initiative to escort stranded commercial shipping through the Gulf reportedly lasted barely a day before Iran fired missiles and drones at the UAE, including attacks near Fujairah’s energy infrastructure, and a South Korean vessel. Rather than restoring deterrence, the episode underscored how quickly things can unravel in a region where escalation now outpaces diplomacy.
Pakistan says it stands ready to host talks and continues to project optimism. Mediators often sound most optimistic when negotiations are furthest from resolution.
Washington and Tehran are seeking different things from the same table. The White House wants rapid, visible concessions it can present as a victory. Iran wants sanctions relief and enough nuclear capability to deter future strikes while retaining leverage over the Strait of Hormuz. These are not positions that a one-page memorandum can bridge.
The current round increasingly resembles the ones that preceded it: heavily sourced, breathlessly timed and ultimately detached from what either side is realistically prepared to accept. The pattern is now almost mechanical: a leak, a rally, an Iranian denial, renewed threats, then fresh speculation presented as momentum.
Unless Washington substantially scales back demands that Tehran sees as capitulation, or Iran abandons the deterrence architecture it has spent decades constructing, the likeliest outcome is another framework that briefly steadies markets before collapsing under the weight of irreconcilable goals.
