The contradictions in Donald Trump's statements, especially the latest ones, against the backdrop of reports of progress in the negotiations, make it difficult to understand what is really happening behind the scenes. At this stage, the possibilities are completely polar opposites, ranging from a resumption of fighting, even if not at high intensity, to the signing of a memorandum of understandings that would lead to a formal agreement between Iran and the US.
For example, Trump said Thursday that "the US will hit Iran very hard tonight," and even threatened that Washington would later take control of Kharg Island, the Islamic Republic's main fuel terminal, which is responsible for exporting about 90% of Iranian oil. But the dramatic threat was quickly canceled, and while Trump was talking about an unusual strike, it emerged behind the scenes that there was already an understanding on wording and an almost agreed document between the parties.
The rapid zigzag and the cancellation of the attack only strengthen the assessment that this was merely a negotiating tactic, since it may have been the pressure and previous strikes that led Iran to show flexibility.
In any case, according to Gulf sources, the story is far from over because of internal disagreements in Iran. Although Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that approval had been received from Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, the media in Tehran is still mocking Trump's statements.
The breakthrough was achieved in a direct conversation between Trump and Araghchi, using the phone of the Qatari mediator. According to the sources, Iran folded and accepted the American condition: Only $12 billion would be unfrozen in two installments, and would be transferred solely for humanitarian purchases under full American oversight. Still, even if a memorandum of understandings is signed, negotiations will only begin in 60 days, and the gaps remain enormous.
According to Gulf sources familiar with the matter, there are quite a few understandings, including on the wording of the framework and the principles for future negotiations on the nuclear issue. However, while the principles have been accepted by Iran's political echelon, the heads of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have still not given their approval.
Another substantive dispute concerns the amount the US will agree to release from frozen funds upon the signing of the memorandum of understandings. The Iranians are demanding $24 billion, while the Americans are prepared to release much less, and even that only for the purchase of humanitarian goods and under full US supervision, a demand the Iranians have agreed to, as noted, according to Gulf sources.
Disagreement within the administration
According to American officials, Trump is now maneuvering in the middle, between the approach of Vice President JD Vance, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, who are leading the negotiating line, and the approach of Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth and others, who support continuing intense economic pressure in addition to limited strikes in response to fire from Iran. Gulf officials, meanwhile, say the Iranian leadership remains stubborn and believes it can achieve more, despite the catastrophic state of Iran's economy, infrastructure and state institutions.
The current situation is causing deep concern among most Gulf states. An Arab diplomatic source said the sense was that Trump was returning to his conduct of several years ago, when he overlooked the bombing of the oil facilities of Saudi Aramco by Iran and its proxies, and that someone needed to stop him from doing so again. The source referred directly to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but also to figures inside the US administration, who must make clear to Trump that an agreement in the mold of the failed 2015 deal would destroy the image he is trying to build for himself. "This is not just about the Nobel Peace Prize he wanted," the diplomat said, "but about the world cup of disappointment and the missed opportunity for real change in the Middle East."
These comments are joined by the assessment of quite a few Israeli and American intelligence officials, according to which the ultimate objective, toppling the regime in Iran, is not a distant dream. According to data and information whose flow has accelerated in recent weeks, Iran's economic condition has moved beyond crisis and become catastrophic. The Iranian economy is in a situation in which even artificial resuscitation, in the form of lifting sanctions and free oil exports, would not heal it, but would provide only first aid. "It is like putting a bandage on spreading gangrene," a senior intelligence official said.
Official data from the Central Bank of Iran from the past month illustrate the depth of the fracture: Annual inflation reached 161% for dairy products, cheese and eggs, and 176% for meat products. The average household is close to the poverty line, and more than half the population has already fallen below it. An economic study published recently inside Iran determined that the severe crisis could be repaired only if foreign investment returns, something that will not be possible under the current Islamist regime.
"A march of folly"
Oded Ailam, a former head of the Mossad's counterterrorism division and a researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Foreign Affairs and Security, made clear that economic pressure is the central tool for achieving a decision. "The economic siege is the key to choking and collapsing the regime. It will not survive two months with a real closure and siege, and the disintegration will begin," Ailam said.
"Not only stopping oil exports, which are the regime's almost sole source of income and feed its military machine, but also preventing the import of essential goods. That, together with the state of the failing water infrastructure and the energy crisis, is the most effective mechanism for toppling the regime. Not in the style of Ahmed al-Sharaa in Syria, but through a process of disintegration, a combination of elements that will bring about an internal coup." In his assessment, the regular army carries the potential for such an uprising, especially considering that all Revolutionary Guard forces number only about 160,000 fighters.
But Ailam, like other security and intelligence officials in Israel, the US and the Gulf, is very concerned by the possibility that Iran will succeed in reaching an agreement with the US, an agreement that would significantly distance the supreme strategic goal. Criticism in widening circles over the way the negotiations are being handled is extremely harsh, both toward the team running them, Vice President Vance and the envoys Witkoff and Kushner, and toward Trump himself.
Ailam described the situation in especially clear terms: "The direction now looks like capitulation. Trump's red lines seem to be drawn in erasable chalk. Trump no longer wants to fight, and the problem is that he is showing it in such a stupid way, a real march of folly. How is it possible that the leader of the world's greatest power is the one who comes and asks for a ceasefire? This is a real display of weakness in this negotiation. He is behaving like a merchant in a Tehran bazaar who opens his stall and says in advance, 'I have to sell my merchandise quickly.'"
