For the fourth month of the brutal US‑Israeli war on Iran, the world has become accustomed to a peculiar ritual. It begins with a blaring social media alert from President Donald Trump, often in the early hours of the morning, announcing that a monumental peace deal is on the verge of being signed. Global oil markets react immediately, prices dip, and investors breathe a cautious sigh of relief. Then, within hours or days, Tehran releases a terse, dismissive statement, flatly denying any such progress. The cycle repeats. On Thursday, June 11, the ritual unfolded once again with almost theatrical precision. In a dramatic Truth Social post, Trump declared that he had canceled planned “strikes and bombings against Iran this evening” because “discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran have been brought to the highest level of Iranian leadership and approved.”
He claimed the deal had been blessed by a coalition of nations including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt and others. But almost immediately, the familiar counter-narrative emerged from Tehran: no final decision has been made, no deal has been sealed, and the United States is as far from a resolution as ever.
The sheer volume of Trump’s premature declarations is staggering. According to a CNN analysis published on June 9, the US president has publicly claimed that a deal with Iran is “imminent” or that Tehran is “desperate” to reach an agreement “at least 38 times since March”. These claims have been made across social media posts, public appearances, and phone calls with journalists. The analysis noted that despite the optimistic tone, “there is little evidence the two sides are any closer to a final settlement now than they were weeks ago”. Other outlets have independently tracked the claims, with The Indian Express reporting “at least 37 times” and The Daily Beast noting “dozens of times”.
On June 9 alone, Trump predicted “total victory” within two weeks. By June 11, the timeline had shifted again, with Trump telling Fox News that a deal could be signed “this weekend” and that a signing ceremony was being planned in Europe. This pattern of shifting timelines and grandiose promises has become a hallmark of the Trump administration’s approach.
The announcement of canceled strikes came just hours after Trump had issued a far more aggressive warning. In a separate Truth Social post on Thursday morning, the president threatened to hit Iran “VERY HARD TONIGHT” and vowed that “at some point in the not too distant future, we will be taking Kharg Island, and other oil infrastructure points, and assume total control of their Oil and Gas Markets”. Kharg Island is Iran’s primary oil export terminal, handling over 90 percent of the country’s crude exports. The threat was an extraordinary escalation, implying a ground invasion to capture and hold Iranian territory.
Yet by evening, the threat had evaporated, replaced by a promise of a deal. This is the pattern that has defined the Trump administration’s approach to Tehran: maximum rhetoric, minimal follow through. By threatening the seizure of Kharg Island and then canceling the strikes hours later, the White House appears to be attempting to claim credit for preventing a war that it itself was threatening to start.
Behind the theatrical announcements and the threats of bombardment, a serious negotiation is taking place, but it is proceeding at a glacial pace. According to a senior Iranian source who spoke to Reuters, “The Americans could not achieve their goals by attacking Iran. There has been progress in negotiations”. However, the source added that significant gaps remain, particularly over the mechanism for the release of billions of dollars in frozen Iranian funds. Tehran insists that the funds be released directly and unconditionally, while Washington wants to release them in stages for humanitarian goods only.
Iran also demands an end to Israeli attacks in Lebanon, the lifting of all sanctions, and recognition of its control of the Strait of Hormuz. The United States insists on the opposite: that Iran must first agree to severe limitations on its nuclear programme, reopen the strait without tolls, and accept inspections before any funds are released. The two positions remain irreconcilable.