Trump Again Claims Iran Eager for Agreement but Not Ready
U.S. President Trump told reporters that Iran is very eager to reach an agreement and stated that the conflict is expected to be nearing its end. He also mentioned that he has communicated directly with Iran, rather than just through intermediaries.
Earlier this week, Trump wrote on social media that the failing Iran wants to reach an agreement as soon as possible and that he decides whether to engage. The U.S. is open to the concept of negotiations. He further stated that while Iran wants to make a deal, in his view, they are not yet ready; the U.S. will either make a deal that he considers good or not make one at all.
The conflict has entered its seventh month since the U.S. and Israel struck Iran on February 28. In June, both sides signed a memorandum of understanding that included a ceasefire, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, exemptions from sanctions on Iranian oil exports, and a framework for a $300 billion reconstruction and economic development plan, while nuclear issues were pushed into a negotiation window of up to 60 days, which could be extended by mutual agreement.
A CNN report in June indicated that since the conflict began, Trump has publicly claimed at least 37 times that an agreement is imminent or that Iran is eager to make a deal. Similar statements have continued, with nearly identical wording appearing in July. Iranian officials have recently stated that they will not negotiate until conditions are met and pointed to mixed signals from the U.S.
Oil prices surpassed $100 per barrel last week and continued to rise, coinciding with disturbances related to the Strait of Hormuz and fighting in Yemen. Trump previously stated that the conflict could end immediately after the midterm elections in November, asserting that Iran cannot hold out and is trying to delay to influence the elections.
In market mechanics, this is a typical event-driven pricing: energy traders are repeatedly adjusting their positions between the narrative of "an agreement is near" and "Iran denies, and the situation remains unstable." They are buying expectations of passage through the Strait of Hormuz and options for the return of Iranian oil, while selling the risks of continued blockades, limited strikes, and escalations before the elections. Beneficiaries are shipping, insurance, and hedging firms that can quickly realize passage and export exemptions; those under pressure are short sellers relying on high oil price premiums and long-term funds that must price in reconstruction funding, nuclear verification, and the pace of sanctions relief.
On a supplementary level, the text of the memorandum leaves the disposal of nuclear materials, verification mechanisms, and the final termination of sanctions for future negotiations. Subsequently, both sides provided contradictory statements regarding whether to agree to indefinite verification and how to use frozen funds, leading the market to interpret verbal commitments to "want to make a deal" as extremely short-term volatility rather than final pricing.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
After Trump withdrew from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action during his first term, Iran's enrichment scale increased, leading to renewed conflict in February 2026 following U.S. strikes on nuclear facilities and pathways. He has since repeated the phrase "Iran is begging to make a deal" as a fixed rhetoric: first announcing a closure within two weeks, then signing a memorandum that pushes the hardest terms to 60 days, and afterward claiming that the other side wants to make a deal but is not ready. The approach is not a one-time final negotiation but rather managing oil prices, election expectations, and domestic hawks with verbal timelines.
The direction of capital movement is clear: the memorandum initially presents passage through the Strait of Hormuz, a 60-day exemption for oil, and a claimed $300 billion regional reconstruction plan, while deferring the disposal of nuclear stockpiles and permanent sanctions relief. Money flows first to immediately tradable tanker insurance, Strait passage, and Iranian export cash flows, rather than to verifiable nuclear dismantlement. The motivation is to simultaneously suppress the energy crisis, retain options for further strikes, and keep the "deal or not" switch in the White House.
This is closer to the cycle of extreme pressure to reopen negotiations after exiting the old agreement in 2018, rather than the structure during the Obama era that locked in verification before changing sanctions. The industry position remains at the "ceasefire for negotiation window" stage, not yet entering an executable loop of nuclear limits and fund unfreezing, with backlash from Israel and Congress over ambiguous text also transforming the agreement from a final document into a memorandum that can be torn up at any time.
Structurally, this represents a transfer of pricing power: after the war began, passage through the Strait and Iranian exports became switches for global oil prices, and the verbal "want to make a deal" can itself briefly rewrite risk premiums, but nuclear and financial terms are not locked in, leaving the switch still in the hands of military escalation and the election calendar. Therefore, repeating the same phrase is not diplomatic progress, but rather turning the uncertainty of deadlines into a tradable asset.
ABAB News · Cognitive Law
- Repeating "imminent deal" is itself a pricing tool.
- First provide passage and cash flow, with nuclear terms always left for the next window.
- The closer the end of the war is to the elections, the more the agreement resembles an option rather than a treaty.