On the evening of May 24, US President Trump posted a message on social media platform Truth Social. Here is what he said:

"Negotiations are proceeding in an orderly and constructive manner. I have informed our representatives not to rush to reach a deal — time is on our side, and both sides must take the time to get this right, without any mistakes!"

Not long before that, he had posted on Truth Social saying the deal was "largely agreed" — or something to that effect.

So, the gap between "largely agreed" and "don't rush" was less than 24 hours.

This reversal itself tells us one thing: the negotiations are truly nearing the finish line, but the final steps are harder than anticipated.

Trump added a intriguing line to his post: "The deal is not yet fully negotiated."

From the White House, Trump gave no commitment on the timeline. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking to The New York Times in New Delhi, was more direct: "Nuclear negotiations are highly technical matters. You cannot resolve a nuclear issue in 72 hours."

Iran's Red Lines Are Harder Than Imagined

Iran is not a monolithic bloc either.

President Masoud Pezeshkian signaled through state television that Iran is prepared to "give the world assurance that we are not pursuing nuclear weapons." This was clearly not aimed at the United States, but at the international community.

But the parliament's tone was entirely different. Iranian Parliament spokesperson Ibrahim Rezai explicitly stated that the right to enrich uranium is a red line, and Iran will not compromise on nuclear rights.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Baqaei also explicitly said last week: "At this stage, we will not discuss the details of the nuclear issue," directly removing the nuclear issue from the current negotiating table.

Iran's bottom line is clear: ceasefire first, reopen shipping lanes, unfreeze assets — the nuclear question can wait.

The final decision rests with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Reuters, citing two senior Iranian sources, reported that Khamenei has ordered that not a single gram of weapons-grade enriched uranium may leave the country.

One source's words: "The Supreme Leader's directive and the consensus within the system is that enriched uranium stockpiles must not leave the country."

America's conditions are equally clear. When asked on May 21 whether Iran could retain highly enriched uranium, Trump answered: "No, we will get it. We don't need it, and we don't want it. After we get it, we may destroy it, but we will not let them have it."

America's logic: surrender first, then pay. Iran's logic: pay first, then discuss surrender. This deadlock cannot be resolved in a few rounds of talks.

What Does Support from Seven to Eight Countries Mean

Rubio also told The New York Times: "Currently, seven to eight countries in the region support this plan, and we are prepared to continue advancing according to this plan."

Trump mentioned calls with leaders of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Bahrain when announcing progress on the deal. Adding key mediator Pakistan and Qatar, the eight-country figure roughly checks out.

Rubio described this regional support as "strategic cover" — with these countries on board, America's position at the negotiating table is more stable.

But there is a critical distinction here: these countries support the fact that negotiations are progressing, not the specific terms of any deal. Every country has its own interests to calculate, and the final agreement can only be a "greatest common divisor" that all parties reluctantly accept.

Pakistan's Dual Role

Pakistan's role in this round of mediation deserves special attention.

Pakistan Army Chief General Asim Munir arrived in Tehran on May 22, meeting separately with Iran's president, parliament speaker, foreign minister, and interior minister, delivering the US message to Tehran: if Iran agrees to the deal, disputed issues can be resolved later; if it refuses, it faces "negative consequences."

Here is a background that is easily overlooked: the United States and Iran are not only in indirect contact. Since April 10, both sides have been in direct negotiations in Islamabad, Pakistan's capital, with US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf leading delegations in a marathon 21-hour session. Pakistan currently plays both direct and indirect mediation roles — it is not a simple messenger.

The Deadlock Itself

The core framework of the US-Iran agreement draft is already quite clear: a 60-day memorandum of understanding during which the Strait of Hormuz reopens for shipping, the US lifts its blockade on Iranian ports and introduces partial sanctions exemptions, Iran can sell oil normally, and both sides then proceed with follow-up nuclear negotiations.

But the US and Iran have disagreements on the specific implementation conditions of this framework so vast that their public statements openly contradict each other.

• The US says the strait will be "free and open," and Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency immediately responded: "Even in the event of a possible agreement, the Strait of Hormuz will remain under Iranian management." Iran even established a "Persian Gulf Strait Administration Agency" and released a map of so-called "controlled maritime zones."

• The US says Iran has agreed in principle to deal with highly enriched uranium, and the Iranian Foreign Ministry says the nuclear issue is not on this round of negotiations.

• Trump says this deal will go "further than" the 2015 Obama-era JCPOA, and Iran says at this stage it "will not make any commitments on the details of the nuclear issue."

The two sides hold fundamentally contradictory public positions on the same draft agreement. Either the agreement text still has major differences on key terms, or both sides have chosen entirely different narratives when explaining the same document to their respective domestic audiences.

As of May 25, the US military blockade of Iranian ports remains in effect — Trump explicitly stated the blockade will hold until "the deal is reached, certified, and signed." Global shipping data also shows no significant change in the Strait of Hormuz shipping situation.

The game at the negotiating table has reached a point where both sides know what the other wants, but neither is willing to take the first step.

For markets, delay without breakdown may already be the best short-term outcome. If a deal is reached, crude oil supply pressures ease and risk asset sentiment recovers; if it breaks down, Strait tensions escalate and oil prices may surge again.

Disclaimer: Readers are advised to strictly comply with local laws and regulations. This article is compiled based on publicly available market information and is for reference only. It does not constitute any investment advice.