With uncertainty surrounding the talks and the fragile ceasefire nearing its end, several outlets have begun outlining possible trajectories for the negotiations. While some reduce the situation to a simple binary of “deal or no deal,” others argue that the more likely outcome may lie somewhere in between.
Writing in the pro-government Etemad daily, columnist Babak Kazemi described three possible scenarios for the talks: a limited agreement on less contentious issues, a pause in negotiations due to irreconcilable differences, or a collapse of the process if either side insists on maximalist demands.
The dispute appears to center on several core issues, foremost among them Iran’s nuclear program. Tehran insists on its right to enrichment, while President Donald Trump has been pressing for “zero enrichment.”
Iran is also seeking full or at least partial lifting of US sanctions, along with guarantees that any agreement reached with the Trump administration would be honored by future US governments.
Kazemi suggested that the two sides’ experience with the 2015 nuclear agreement could serve as a foundation for progress, arguing that détente and mutual economic benefits could help stabilize the region.
He added that even if a comprehensive agreement proves out of reach, a limited deal could create space for broader negotiations later.
Other commentators are more pessimistic.
The reform-leaning Fararu website described Iran–US tensions as “complicated and multi-layered,” arguing that the two sides are neither heading toward full-scale conflict nor toward a durable agreement.
Instead, it portrayed the situation as a protracted game of attrition in which each side seeks to gain leverage before the crisis eventually reaches some form of resolution.
Former diplomat Jalal Sadatian echoed this view, saying neither Tehran nor Washington appears willing to start a war, yet neither sees a clear path to a sustainable agreement. He added that Israel’s role as a regional actor capable of escalating tensions further complicates the landscape.
Another veteran diplomat, Fereidoun Majlesi, offered an even bleaker assessment, telling Fararu that the United States is unlikely to accept anything short of Iran’s “surrender” and that the chances of reaching an agreement in Islamabad are extremely narrow.
Analysts writing on the Asr Iran website outlined several possible outcomes, arguing that the worst scenario would be the continuation of the current “no deal–no war” status quo.
The editorial warned that prolonged limbo would deepen economic instability and create a precarious security environment in which war could erupt at any moment, potentially giving Israel and the United States time and space to prepare for further attacks.
According to Asr Iran, even if wartime conditions temporarily foster social cohesion, the long-term strain would weaken the country’s internal resilience.
For that reason, the editorial called for a comprehensive and durable agreement that removes the pretext for future economic or military pressure and moves Tehran and Washington toward non-hostility and lasting peace.
