On Tuesday, US Vice President JD Vance emerged from a White House briefing with a familiar refrain: “We think that we’ve made a lot of progress. We think the Iranians want to make a deal”. Vance added that neither side wants a return to war, but warned that “option B”, a fresh military campaign remained on the table if negotiations failed. He spoke of a “pretty good spot” in the talks and of an opportunity to reset 47 years of strained ties between Washington and Tehran.
Yet for anyone who has followed the ten week old war, these optimistic pronouncements have become as predictable as they are unreliable. Vance’s remarks were the latest in a long series of “breakthrough is imminent” statements from US officials, each one raising oil prices, each one followed by a collapse back into deadlock.
The rhythm of the Iran war has been defined not by major battles or diplomatic breakthroughs, but by a grinding cycle of threat, extension, hope and disillusionment. It began on 8 April, when Pakistan announced a two‑week ceasefire that was supposed to be the prelude to a permanent peace. That truce was extended “indefinitely” by Trump on 22 April, after the president claimed he was giving Tehran time to produce a “unified proposal”. Two weeks later, on 7 May, Trump warned that the ceasefire was on “massive life support” and that the Iranian response to the latest US offer was “a piece of garbage”. By 14 May, Vance was again in front of cameras telling reporters that he believed “progress is being made”, even though Trump had just rejected Tehran’s proposal as unacceptable. On 18 May, Trump announced that he had been “an hour away” from ordering a major new attack, but paused it at the request of Gulf leaders who assured him that “a Deal will be made”. The next day, Vance declared that a “lot of progress” had been achieved. So how it goes these days is that a senior US official declares a deal imminent; the deadline passes; nothing changes; a new warning or extension is issued; and the cycle repeats.
For those counting, Trump has personally announced that a deal was “very close” on 8 April, 22 April, 14 May, and again on 18 May. Vice President Vance has followed suit on at least three separate occasions. Each time, the Strait of Hormuz remains largely sealed, the war grinds on, and the only certainty is that the next “deadline” will be missed.
These repeated promises of a deal have had a predictable, and perverse, effect on global energy markets. Oil traders have learned that “peace headlines” are fleeting, while “war headlines” are enduring. As Jim Cramer, the former hedge fund manager, noted last week: “These days, oil goes down less when Trump says there is a hint of peace, and it goes up much more when there is a rumor of war”. A single threat from the White House can send crude soaring, while even the most optimistic announcement of progress yields only a shallow, temporary dip.
The numbers bear this out. On Monday, Brent crude was trading near 112 a barrel when Trump issued his “clock is ticking” ultimatum. Within hours, the oil price swung violently: it fell briefly after an unconfirmed report of a US waiver on Iranian sanctions, then rose again on fears of war, then fell 107.80, still nearly 50% higher than pre‑war levels, and still vulnerable to the next jolt of bad news. Energy analysts warn that the market has become desensitised to peace talk. “Traders have priced in the risk that the ceasefire will collapse, and they will only react to a concrete, verifiable reopening of the strait,” said a senior analyst at Rystad Energy. Until then, each new “imminent deal” announcement is met with a yawn, while each new threat sends prices climbing.
The substance behind the slogans has remained remarkably consistent. Iran’s latest peace proposal, delivered via Pakistan, calls for an end to the war on all fronts, including a cessation of Israeli strikes on Lebanon, the lifting of the US naval blockade, the release of frozen assets, and the withdrawal of US forces from the region. Crucially, Tehran has agreed to defer discussion of its nuclear programme to a later stage, a significant concession from a nation that has long insisted that its right to enrichment is non‑negotiable. In return, Iran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, restoring the flow of 20% of the world’s oil.
The US, for its part, has reportedly shown some flexibility. According to a senior Iranian source, Washington has agreed to release a quarter of Iran’s frozen assets; tens of billions of dollars and to allow limited peaceful nuclear activity under IAEA supervision. However, a US official has denied that any such agreement has been reached, and Trump continues to insist that Iran must surrender its entire enriched uranium stockpile and abandon any path to a weapon. The gap remains wide, and the clock continues to tick.
As the war enters its third month, the repeated cycle of false dawns has taken a toll on Washington’s credibility. A Pakistani source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters that the mediators were growing frustrated: “They keep changing their goalposts. We don’t have much time”. Even the United Nations has registered its unease. Responding to Iran’s creation of a “Persian Gulf Strait Authority” to administer shipping through Hormuz, UN spokesperson Farhan Haq said the organisation “does not want any particular entity to restrict freedom of access” to the waterway, a statement that implicitly rebukes Tehran’s unilateral control.
For now, the ceasefire holds, but it is a ceasefire in name only. Israeli strikes continue in Lebanon, Iranian drones are launched at Gulf targets, and the US Navy maintains its blockade of Iranian ports. Vance may speak of a “reset” in relations, but the only reset that has occurred is in the expectations of global oil markets. Until Washington and Tehran agree on a framework that both can accept, the pattern of “deal tomorrow” will continue and the world will continue to pay the price at the pump.