Axios citing US officials: We expect Trump to hold a meeting on Tuesday with the national security team to discuss a military operation against Iran

"At the beginning, the US position — particularly from Trump’s camp — leaned heavily toward the idea that Iran should never be allowed back into any meaningful nuclear framework and that pressure would remain indefinite. Now, however, the conversation has evolved toward longer-term containment and delayed nuclear consideration, including discussions framed around extended timelines such as 20-year restrictions before future reconsideration becomes possible. That is a significant shift in tone and negotiating structure, even if no final agreement has been reached yet."

The US position has changed multiple times since the war began. Iran has not changed its position. Iran insists that any discussion of enriched uranium and other nuclear issues be postponed until after the US and Israel stop their aggression against Iran and its allies. Calling that progress is setting an extremely low bar, considering the two sides can't even get to a negotiating table at this point. But if you define that as progress, that's your right.

I think you may be understating some of the shifts Iran itself has made during the course of this crisis. Iran’s public core position has remained firm, yes, but its tactical posture and negotiating flexibility have evolved in ways that suggest it is also looking for an eventual off-ramp rather than indefinite escalation.

For example, Iran has repeatedly signaled that restrictions around shipping security and regional escalation are conditional rather than permanent, tied specifically to cessation of hostilities and guarantees against further attacks. That is already different from an absolutist “no negotiation under any circumstances” stance. Tehran has also continued indirect communication channels instead of completely abandoning diplomacy altogether, despite having enough domestic justification to do so after the strikes and sanctions pressure.

More importantly, Iran has not fully utilized the leverage it theoretically possesses. If Tehran’s objective were pure escalation, we would likely have already seen a broader and more sustained disruption across Gulf energy infrastructure and shipping lanes. The fact that Iran continues calibrating its responses rather than maximizing them suggests there is still room being intentionally preserved for negotiation and de-escalation.

And on the nuclear issue itself, even Iran’s framing has shifted from outright rejection of discussions to sequencing discussions — meaning “not now” rather than “never.” That distinction matters in diplomacy. Sequencing disagreements are difficult, but they are fundamentally different from total diplomatic collapse.

So while I agree the negotiations are far from a breakthrough, I would still argue there has been movement from both sides away from absolute maximalism. In geopolitical conflicts, especially ones involving national pride and domestic politics, progress often looks messy, indirect, and publicly confrontational right up until the moment an actual framework begins to emerge.

"That is already different from an absolutist “no negotiation under any circumstances” stance."
That was never Iran's position.

"Tehran has also continued indirect communication channels instead of completely abandoning diplomacy altogether, despite having enough domestic justification to do so after the strikes and sanctions pressure."
That is true, but nothing has changed there either. Iran has maintained indirect communications through Pakistan since those channels first became available.

"More importantly, Iran has not fully utilized the leverage it theoretically possesses. If Tehran’s objective were pure escalation, we would likely have already seen a broader and more sustained disruption across Gulf energy infrastructure and shipping lanes. The fact that Iran continues calibrating its responses rather than maximizing them suggests there is still room being intentionally preserved for negotiation and de-escalation."
That's not really a valid point. It is sufficient for Iran to possess theoretical leverage. It doesn't need to actually exercise it. The fact that it exists is enough, and Iran has repeatedly said that it will only escalate if the US does.

"And on the nuclear issue itself, even Iran’s framing has shifted from outright rejection of discussions to sequencing discussions — meaning “not now” rather than “never.” That distinction matters in diplomacy. Sequencing disagreements are difficult, but they are fundamentally different from total diplomatic collapse."
Iran has never rejected discussions on the nuclear issues. However, I stand corrected that Iran did make a counter-proposal to the US (which Trump called "unacceptable") that it would consider diluting some of its highly enriched uranium and transferring the rest to a third country, suspending enrichment but for a shorter period than the 20-year moratorium proposed by the US, while rejecting dismantling its nuclear facilities.

So, in effect, the Iranians offered to discuss nuclear alternatives, after the US and Israel stopped their aggression. That would have been progress. But Trump rejected the proposal, leaving the negotiating process at zero once again. We may be getting down to splitting hairs here, which I won't do for much longer. To me, if even the most basic conditions for beginning negotiations have not been achieved, I do not consider that progress. I would consider some agreement on terms -- any agreement -- to be progress. Otherwise it's just positioning.

I understand your distinction, and I actually think it is a fair one from a strict diplomatic standpoint. But I would still argue that the existence of a holding ceasefire framework and continued indirect engagement already qualifies as a form of limited progress, even if it falls short of formal negotiations.

If both sides were truly at “zero,” we would likely be seeing continuous escalation, broader regional attacks, or a complete collapse of communication channels. Instead, despite all the rhetoric, there appears to be at least some mutually observed restraint currently holding parts of the conflict from spiraling further. That restraint itself implies some level of tacit understanding, even if unofficial and fragile.

Diplomacy in conflicts like this often begins with informal deconfliction before formal agreements ever materialize. Temporary pauses, calibrated responses, indirect mediation, and conditional restraint are usually the first building blocks before parties can even agree on terms for direct negotiation. In many historical conflicts, the ceasefire environment came first and the political framework came much later.

So I think where we differ is mostly definitional. You seem to define progress as a concrete negotiated breakthrough or mutually accepted framework. I am using a broader geopolitical definition where movement away from unrestricted escalation, preservation of communication channels, and gradual softening of previously rigid positions also count as incremental progress.

That does not mean the situation is stable — far from it. The ceasefire could easily collapse if either side feels politically cornered or militarily disadvantaged. But the fact that some degree of restraint is still holding despite the scale of tensions suggests neither side has fully abandoned the possibility of an eventual negotiated outcome.

I agree broadly with what you are saying. I would only clarify that I said "leaving the negotiating process at zero once again" -- not that both sides are "at zero", whatever that means. I stand by my statement. And let's remember that your original proposition was:
"I think it may be inaccurate to say there has been “no progress whatsoever” in the negotiations"
At this point, I think I have made my position clear as to why I believe that there has been, in fact, no progress made in the negotiations. You are now attempting to defend the idea that just the fact that the two sides are not in kinetic conflict suggests otherwise.

So be it. I respect your right to your opinion, and I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one.

That's fine, I'm only here in limited capacity anyway, to comment on war and fck off as soon as it finishes, godwilling.
But, it's also funny who is censoring me, those who live in a lie and I can read them here unable to predict jack shit on the fundamental level....exactly because they don't even make an effort to take a peak outside the illogical propaganda of their world view. And this is probably exactly how their trading is going too, powered by high hopes mixed with delusional narratives.
Assange and Snowden are legends, and they might prosecute Tucker as well, I've heard indication this might happen.

you probably have manual approval posts? perhaps thats why - in that case, you are not considered a full member... but my account is fucked up too, very often I never receive notifications unless its people I subscribe to, which I have done to you, thats why its weird, I also cannot PM you, which suggest you are not a full member.

To overcome this not full member issue, you need to contribute in the trading section, after 10-20 comments you will be accredited as a full member and there is no manual moderation for every post.

Stay and lets mock the empire bootlicker bots, just spend whatever time you want here and focus on your trading - I made a discord server you should join, its mainly about trading and creating a community and hopefully develop it into something were we actually can make a change politically if enough people are interested - will also do livestreams on discord and if you have a good system you can join and be part of the broadcast, its all about helping other traders who are similar to us in mindset and learning from each other and see were we take this forward...

We fucking dominate the news narrative, at the onset of this, I was alone and marginalized, now I am joined by Americans, Europeans, Africans, Asians, Brits, we all are young and want justice in this world, which is refreshing!

When the war is over, just focus on your trading, I will do the same - and from time to time, I will rub it in on the losers!

Yes sir, I am not a "full member" yet, but that's also allowed me to understand how people here in charge of moderation are also the ones posting the most Islamophobic posts, mainly directed at yourself. What can I say, next time don't manually censor a professional pattern observer guys. .... Which then leads me to the point of security and your own experience with these lowlifes. A version of what happened to you also happened to me, but in 2021 when the branch of Covidians had me cancelled in a certain real life capacity for the crimes of sounding the fakeneness and gayness alarms on their holocaugh fake pandemic, which I was totally vindicated on years later, ofcourse, because I try my best to always operate on unbiased truth of the matter instead of bs propaganda. I will join your discord very gladly, thank you for the invite (in the future), but I will also make as many security precautions there as well (and I recommend the same to any person going against big pharma, big war or big J in any shape or form it might be) Thank you