US President Donald Trump confirmed that the United States has reached an agreement to end the war with Iran, and that it is in its final stages and only to finalize it, despite repeated similar statements he has made since the outbreak of the war on February 28, where he announced or hinted that an agreement or end the war is close at least 13 times.

Trump denied narratives that the upcoming deal is in Tehran's interest, stressing that the ongoing negotiations are aimed at achieving U.S. interests and preventing Iran from acquiring military nuclear capabilities, Reuters reported.

Since the beginning of the war, Trump has repeatedly stressed that a deal is imminent. On March 23, he said the two sides had agreed on "almost all points," while on March 30 he threatened to destroy Iran's energy facilities if an agreement was not reached soon.

On March 31, he predicted that the war would end in "two to three weeks," before announcing on April 7 that most points of contention had been resolved and that only two weeks were before the deal went into effect.

Trump's optimistic statements continued through April and May, as he repeatedly stressed that negotiations had come a long way and that an agreement was imminent, noting on several occasions that most of the issues had already been negotiated or agreed upon.

In his latest remarks, Trump said on June 11 that the United States had reached a "wonderful settlement" with Iran, expressing his belief that the agreement could be signed soon, possibly as early as next week in Europe, and that the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz would take place immediately after the signing was completed.

These statements come at a time when Tehran is still dealing with talk of a final agreement, stressing that negotiations have not yet been resolved and that any final understanding remains subject to the completion of procedures and understanding on the outstanding issues.

Experts analyze Trump's repeated statements

While the US president promotes the narrative of quick resolution and "blitzkrieg", the reality on the ground reveals that these promises often coincide with a new escalation or a stalemate in negotiations, making the gap between rhetoric and facts more pronounced.

Economic data show that these 13 statements had a direct and immediate impact on the energy and financial markets, as oil prices were falling as soon as the agreement was imminent, before rising again with any tension or military operation, reflecting the sensitivity of the markets to the political signals issued by Washington.

Experts believe that this pattern is not spontaneous, but rather used as a negotiating tool aimed at keeping the adversary in a state of constant scrutiny, controlling the tempo of the conflict, and creating a pressure environment that allows for better concessions.