US and Iran give conflicting accounts of whether talks are underway

By Abubakr Al-ShamahiWednesday March 25, 2026

As fighting grinds toward its first month, United States President Donald Trump is pressing a claim that “productive” talks with Iran are already paving the way to end the war he launched alongside Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — even as Iran’s senior leadership continues to flatly reject that account.

With wartime messaging and competing propaganda clouding the picture, it remains difficult to determine what is happening behind the scenes. One way to cut through the noise is to look at incentives: what Washington and Tehran each stand to gain from the appearance of negotiations, and what either side might win — or lose — from a ceasefire now.

Trump said there were “major points of agreement” after “very good” discussions with an unnamed “top” Iranian figure. He made the remarks as US markets opened for the week, and the five-day deadline he set for Iran to respond lands at the end of the trading week.

That coincidence has not gone unnoticed, particularly after two weeks in which oil prices have swung with developments in the Middle East, touching about $120 a barrel last week.

Talk of talks can serve another purpose as well: buying time for additional US forces to deploy to the region, should Washington decide to pursue some form of ground invasion into Iranian territory.

Among those casting doubt on Trump’s motives is the figure some believe he was referring to — 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.

Market repercussions are not only a concern for the United States and Trump. They matter to Iran too — but in Tehran’s case, the advantage lies in the economic strain the war places on the US and the wider global economy.

Iran’s leadership wants Washington to feel financial pain as a deterrent against any future Israeli or US attack, using the costs of the conflict as a warning of what renewed strikes could trigger.

In that sense, it may suit the US to amplify the idea of negotiations to steady markets, while Iran has reason to do the opposite — downplay any diplomatic track, keep pressure on the Trump administration, and deny it political or economic breathing room.

US benefits?

As a result, both sides are pushing narratives about negotiations, and public statements alone may reveal little about whether any channel exists — or what form it might take.

That shifts attention to what each side might actually gain from negotiations, and from an end to the war at this point.

Trump appears to have misjudged both the fallout from the conflict he launched with Netanyahu on February 28 and Iran’s capacity to absorb sustained attacks 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.

Setting aside that experts — including US intelligence officials — had repeatedly issued such warnings, events have now forced Trump to confront consequences he had previously brushed aside.

Even if some allies and supporters urge him to keep pressing the fight, Trump has also shown a willingness to strike deals that help him exit difficult situations. In this case, the practical appeal of that approach is not hard to see.

He has already directed his administration to issue temporary sanctions waivers for some Iranian oil in a bid to cool prices. This is the first time Iran has lifted sanctions on any Iranian oil since 2019, and Tehran is unlikely to miss what the timing suggests: the waivers followed Iran’s strategy of widening the conflict to the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz — a vital corridor through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquified natural gas transits.

The war was already unpopular in the United States. It has become more politically toxic as drivers feel it at the pump and worry about broader economic spillover, all while the country heads toward congressional elections later this year, in which Trump’s Republicans are likely to do poorly.

That leaves Trump weighing two costly paths: extend the war and absorb the economic and political fallout, or end it and face attacks from critics who will say he failed to complete what he described as a “short-term excursion”.

The Iranian perspective

Yet whatever Trump decides, he does not control the outcome alone. Iran — attacked for a second time in less than a year — now appears to have less incentive to stop fighting without securing an effective deterrent against another strike in the future.

The era of telegraphed blows against US assets and a measured climb up the escalation ladder looks to be over. From the beginning of this war, it was clear Iran had shifted tactics and was less focused on restraint.

From Tehran’s viewpoint, prolonging the conflict — and spreading suffering across the region — could be seen as serving state survival.

There may also be calculations that Israel’s interceptor stocks are dwindling, potentially allowing Iranian strikes to land more effectively. Among hardliners who now appear to be gaining influence in Iran, the argument may be that this is precisely the wrong moment to pause and give Israel time to replenish those defences.

Still, the costs inside Iran are mounting. The government says more than 1,500 people have been killed nationwide. Infrastructure has been badly hit, and the power grid could be next. Iran’s ties with Gulf neighbours have sharply deteriorated, and after repeated Iranian attacks, are unlikely to return to prewar levels when the fighting ends.

More moderate voices in Iran can look at those realities and warn that conditions could deteriorate further. They can argue that some deterrence has already been established and that a negotiating window is opening. And if Tehran could win concessions — such as a pledge against future attacks or greater authority in the Strait of Hormuz — those moderates may conclude the moment has arrived to make a deal.