Deep uncertainty surrounds efforts to end the war between the United States and Iran, now entering its fourth week, as sharply conflicting statements from Washington and Tehran fuel confusion in global financial and energy markets.
Oil prices have surged and diplomatic channels appear active yet opaque, with no clear indication whether meaningful negotiations are actually underway.
US President Donald Trump has sent inconsistent signals in recent days, alternating between threats of escalation and suggestions of diplomacy.
Over the weekend, he warned that the US could “obliterate” Iran’s power infrastructure if the Strait of Hormuz was not reopened within 48 hours, raising fears of a major regional escalation.
By Monday, however, Trump abruptly announced a five-day pause on such strikes, claiming “productive conversations” had taken place with Iranian interlocutors.
He later suggested that Iran wanted “to make a deal,” citing contact with a “top person” in the Iranian system and pointing to “major points of agreement,” without providing further details.
Tehran has publicly dismissed those assertions. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf denied reports that he or other senior figures had been engaged by Washington, describing such claims as “fake news” intended to manipulate financial and oil markets.
At the same time, an Iranian source acknowledged that indirect outreach had taken place through intermediaries, stressing that these contacts had not reached the level of formal negotiations.
Iran’s position remains cautious. Officials say they are willing to consider proposals for a sustainable agreement but insist any deal must preserve national interests, include sanctions relief and provide guarantees against further attacks.
Analysts suggest Tehran is likely to demand stronger assurances after being targeted during earlier diplomatic efforts, reinforcing a deep trust deficit.
Iranian leaders have also signaled that any settlement would require compensation for damage caused by US and Israeli strikes, while maintaining the country’s missile and drone capabilities.
Some experts argue Iran now enters any potential talks with increased leverage, citing its ability to disrupt regional stability and threaten critical shipping lanes such as the Strait of Hormuz.
At the same time, its military leadership has adopted a defiant tone, vowing to continue operations “until complete victory” while warning of wider escalation if attacks persist.
Despite the uncertainty, diplomatic activity continues behind the scenes. Several countries are attempting to facilitate dialogue, with contacts reported between regional and global actors seeking to de-escalate the conflict.
Pakistan has indicated it is ready to host talks, while Turkey has engaged multiple parties in parallel discussions. Even so, prospects for a breakthrough remain fragile, with Israeli officials indicating that a deal to end the war is not currently within reach.
A significant obstacle to de-escalation appears to be pressure from Saudi Arabia’s leadership.
Mohammed bin Salman has reportedly urged Washington to continue military operations against Iran, arguing that the Iranian system remains a long-term threat. According to officials familiar with the discussions, he has advocated sustained strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure and even raised the possibility of deploying ground forces to weaken the regime.
While Saudi Arabia has publicly supported a diplomatic resolution, it is said to favour an outcome that significantly reduces Iran’s military capabilities without collapsing the state entirely, reflecting concerns about both Iranian aggression and the risks of regional instability.
On the ground, the conflict continues to exact a heavy toll. Iranian authorities say widespread US and Israeli strikes have damaged tens of thousands of civilian structures, including homes, schools and medical facilities, as well as critical infrastructure such as fuel sites and transport links.
In Lebanon, more than a thousand people have reportedly been killed since the expansion of Israeli operations earlier this month, with strikes continuing across the south.
Iran has responded with drone and missile attacks targeting Israeli infrastructure, including areas near major airports and industrial facilities. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has warned it could escalate further if attacks on civilians in Gaza and Lebanon continue.
Criticism of the conduct of the war is also growing. A former Pentagon official described Israel’s approach as setting a “horrifying” precedent for modern warfare, accusing it of disregarding international law and civilian protection.
Such assessments reflect wider concern among analysts that the conflict is normalising large-scale strikes on civilian infrastructure.
The uncertainty surrounding diplomacy is already having global repercussions. Brent crude prices have risen sharply from pre-war levels, reflecting fears of prolonged disruption to energy supplies, particularly if tensions intensify around the Strait of Hormuz.
With contradictory signals from Washington, denials from Tehran and competing regional interests, the path to ending the conflict remains unclear. While indirect contacts suggest diplomacy has not entirely collapsed, the war continues unabated, and for now the gap between rhetoric and reality appears as wide as ever.
