By Daily Mail (U.S.) | Created at 2026-06-10 18:05:35 | Updated at 2026-06-13 21:48:20
3 days ago
Donald Trump says, over and over and over again, that a deal with Iran could be just days away.
JD Vance says it could take months.
That contrast alone tells you almost everything you need to know about where things stand.
Particularly as the Iranian Foreign Minister announced Wednesday morning that Tehran is pulling out of peace talks because of what they described as ongoing ceasefire violations.
Trump's response: Iran will have to 'pay the price' for ending diplomatic efforts.
The president's latest groundhog-day prediction is merely the newest installment in what has become the ultimate presidential kabuki theater of bluffing, according to senior Republican sources who are longtime and current backers of Trump.
They've apparently had enough of his now roughly 40 public suggestions, hints, declarations and forecasts that peace, progress, breakthrough, agreement or some version thereof is just one or two news cycles away.
Maybe one day he'll be right.
But the tendency of much of the media to treat each new declaration as meaningful evidence that an actual agreement is imminent remains one of the stranger features of this conflict.
Donald Trump says, over and over and over again, that a deal with Iran could be just days away
Nut Vice President JD Vance says that such a deal could actually take months to secure
At this writing, the United States and Iran are still shooting at each other, with reports that Tehran is targeting American bases in the region.
We do not yet have a clear battle damage assessment from the American strikes launched after the downing of a US helicopter on Monday. We do not know the full extent of the damage inflicted. We also do not know how Tehran ultimately intends to respond to the latest round of American retaliation.
What we do know is that the conflict widened dramatically this week.
Iran launched attacks against targets in Bahrain and Kuwait. Air defenses were activated. Jordan reported intercepting missiles headed toward an air base hosting American forces.
This is not typically what emerging peace looks like.
Yet Washington continues to discuss a potential diplomatic framework, with Qatari negotiators reportedly arriving in Tehran Wednesday to negotiate yet another final peace deal after consulting with American officials.
The broad outlines emerging from the various discussions are ambitious. Iran would suspend uranium enrichment for a lengthy period. Existing enriched uranium stockpiles would be diluted. Nuclear facilities would be dismantled. International inspectors would gain sweeping access through a robust inspection regime.
On paper, those provisions would represent restrictions more extensive than many of the arrangements previously extracted from Tehran, including the deal struck by President Barack Obama.
On paper.
The problem, of course, is that Tehran doesn't operate on paper - or truth.
Implementation would require extensive Iranian cooperation at every stage. Inspectors would need access. Equipment would need to move freely. Facilities would need to be opened. Declarations would need to be truthful. Verification would need to be continuous.
And all of that assumes Tehran actually intends to comply.
There is little evidence suggesting Iran's leadership has suddenly become more trustworthy than it was before this war began.
But even setting aside the obvious compliance problem, three enormous obstacles remain.
The first is the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran continues to view its ability to threaten shipping through one of the world's most strategically important waterways as leverage. Even if an agreement is reached, questions surrounding maritime security, enforcement and deterrence do not magically disappear.
Iran continues to view its ability to threaten shipping through the Strait of Hormuz (pictured) as leverage in any final peace deal
Mark Halperin is the editor-in-chief and host of the interactive live video platform 2WAY and the host of the video podcast 'Next Up' on the Megyn Kelly network
The second obstacle is money.
Iran wants sanctions relief. Iran wants frozen assets released. Iran wants economic concessions.
Some Iranian figures have gone even further, floating concepts that amount to compensation or reparations.
Politically, these are extraordinarily difficult asks for Trump.
After months of military confrontation and maximum-pressure rhetoric, it is difficult to imagine the president agreeing to the sort of financial package Tehran would likely view as meaningful any time soon, and certainly not before significant progress on dismantling the nation's nuclear weapons program.
The third obstacle is the broader regional reality.
The Israeli-Iranian confrontation is not some isolated dispute that can be neatly wrapped up with a signing ceremony and a photo opportunity.
Hezbollah exists.
The Houthis exist.
Iran's proxy network exists.
Israel's determination to confront those threats exists.
No piece of paper changes any of that.
No matter how many ceasefires are declared, the underlying conflict remains.
Administration officials continue to project optimism. Some believe the current fighting will prove a temporary interruption and that detailed negotiations could soon resume in Europe.
Perhaps.
But there is another school of thought inside the administration, one that receives far less public attention.
Its argument is straightforward.
The very military pressure intended to force Iranian concessions may have reinforced the belief among key elements of the regime that their ultimate security depends on maintaining the ability to rapidly build a nuclear weapon.
In other words, the bombing campaign may have strengthened exactly the instincts it was intended to weaken.
That does not mean diplomacy is impossible.
It does mean diplomacy is considerably more complicated than the public rhetoric suggests.
So let's review where things stand.
The president says peace may be just days away.
The vice president says it could take months.
Some Trump advisers believe JD Vance is being an optimist in this case.
American and Iranian forces are engaged in active hostilities.
The nuclear details remain unresolved.
Iran wants financial concessions that are politically impossible for Trump to grant.
The future status of the Strait of Hormuz remains uncertain.
Iran's regional proxies remain active.
And Tehran continues to behave less like a defeated power than like a government convinced it still possesses meaningful leverage.
Could Trump eventually announce a deal?
Absolutely.
In fact, I would be surprised if he didn't eventually announce something and call it a deal.
The harder question is whether such a deal could survive contact with reality.
Because there is a vast difference between announcing an agreement and implementing one.
A press conference is easy.
Verification is hard.
Declarations are easy.
Compliance is hard.
Optimism is easy.
The Middle East is hard.
If you believe a signed agreement automatically means lasting peace, durable implementation, and an end to the cycle of confrontation, then you are displaying a level of optimism that would make Ronald Reagan's famous pony-searching boy look like a hardened cynic.
