Trump’s hopes for an Iran peace deal come with caveats

Initial Optimism and Market Reaction

Trump s hopes for an Iran – Donald Trump’s decision to halt a short-lived initiative known as “Project Freedom,” aimed at ensuring the free passage of ships through the strategic Strait of Hormuz, initially brought relief to global oil markets. The move, which Trump claimed signaled tangible progress toward a “Complete and Final Agreement” with Iran, sparked renewed optimism about a potential breakthrough in the long-standing conflict between the two nations. However, this enthusiasm was quickly challenged by the president himself, who later cast doubt on the viability of the deal. As the situation unfolded, the market’s calm was met with a wave of skepticism, setting the stage for a complex diplomatic landscape.

Trump’s Shifting Stance

On Wednesday, after briefly suspending Project Freedom, Trump emphasized that the Iran deal remained a “big assumption.” He hinted at the possibility of resuming military action at a “much higher level and intensity than it was before” if negotiations faltered. This abrupt pivot came less than 24 hours after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had announced that Operation Epic Fury, the American-led strikes on Iran, had concluded. The inconsistency in Trump’s messaging underscored the precarious nature of the peace talks, as his statements oscillated between cautious optimism and aggressive threats.

“They want to make a deal, they want to negotiate. And we’ll see whether or not they are agreeing,” Trump stated during a morning call with PBS, acknowledging the deal’s previous elusiveness.

Meanwhile, a source close to the mediation team in Pakistan told Reuters that a deal was “very close” and could be finalized soon. This claim was supported by reports suggesting that Washington and Tehran were nearing a one-page, 14-point memorandum to end hostilities. The plan, according to the media, would first aim to halt military clashes, followed by discussions to unblock the Strait of Hormuz, lift sanctions, and address Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Yet, Trump’s abrupt shift in tone raised questions about the sincerity of these efforts.

Skepticism Among Experts and Officials

Despite the reported proximity to an agreement, some U.S. officials expressed doubts about its likelihood. Grant Rumley, a former Middle East policy adviser to both the Biden and Trump administrations, noted that the administration’s public rollout of Project Freedom had been a strategic maneuver, but its sudden suspension highlighted the lack of a cohesive policy process. “Clearly, the administration thinks a deal is possible,” Rumley said, “but we’ve seen negotiations collapse at the last minute for various reasons.” His remarks reflect broader concerns about the reliability of Trump’s diplomatic approach, particularly given the intricate technicalities involved in reaching a consensus on Iran’s nuclear materials.

“The president makes decisions based on impulse more than process, therefore there are inconsistencies that happen all the time,” Mick Mulroy, a former Pentagon official, remarked, linking the pause in Project Freedom to the possibility of a peace deal.

Furthermore, Iranian parliamentarian Ebrahim Rezaei, a spokesperson for the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, dismissed the 14-point proposal as a “U.S. wish list.” He stated that Iran “has its finger on the trigger and is ready” to escalate tensions if the Americans did not “grant the necessary concessions.” This response highlights the Iranian government’s readiness to assert its position, emphasizing the leverage they hold in the negotiations.

Previous Claims of Progress

Trump had previously hinted at progress since the ceasefire announcement on 7 April. On 17 April, he told CBS that Iran had “agreed to everything,” including allowing the U.S. to remove enriched uranium. However, Tehran officials rejected this claim outright, underscoring the lack of consensus. The president’s latest statements, while more measured, still carry an undercurrent of uncertainty, as he admitted during a Wednesday press briefing that the deal had “proven elusive” in the past.

Rumley pointed out that the memorandum, though promising, would likely not resolve all disputes. “Even if a one-page agreement was reached, it’s highly unlikely it would solve all the issues,” he said, citing the complex negotiations required during the Obama administration to finalize the Iran nuclear deal. That process took over 20 months to iron out the finer details, suggesting that the current talks may face similar challenges.

Project Freedom’s Limited Impact

Project Freedom, announced on Sunday, was designed to demonstrate U.S. military capability and signal a shift toward diplomatic engagement. However, shipping experts noted its limited immediate effect, with only a small number of vessels navigating the Strait of Hormuz in its opening hours. Ali Vaez, director of the Iran project at the International Crisis Group think tank, argued that Iran’s response to the operation—shooting at ships and launching attacks on UAE targets—had convinced Trump that the military strikes were “not going to solve the problem.” This perspective adds to the doubts surrounding the effectiveness of the operation as a precursor to peace talks.

Vaez also highlighted the administration’s tendency to prioritize speed over thoroughness. “There is no real policy process in this administration,” he said, “so decisions are often made impulsively, leading to inconsistencies.” This critique aligns with broader concerns that Trump’s approach to diplomacy may lack the systematic planning seen in previous administrations, potentially complicating the path to a lasting agreement.

Path Forward and Uncertainties

As the situation develops, the focus remains on whether the proposed memorandum can bridge the gap between Washington and Tehran. While the White House continues to assert that a deal is within reach, the conflicting signals from Trump and the skepticism of Iranian officials suggest a fragile and uncertain process. The success of the talks will depend not only on the agreement’s content but also on the ability of both sides to overcome internal divisions and external pressures.

Rumley stressed that the memorandum, though a step forward, would need to address the deeper issues driving the conflict. “The technical aspects of the nuclear deal are particularly challenging,” he said, noting that even the Obama administration faced significant hurdles in reaching a compromise. With the current administration’s approach, the road to resolution may be longer and more fraught than anticipated. The coming days will be crucial in determining whether the optimism surrounding the deal can be sustained or if the negotiations will once again stall under the weight of unresolved tensions.