A Shift in Tone Before the Midterms
President Donald Trump signalled on Monday that talks with Iran were making progress and that a deal to avoid a return to war could happen, in remarks that marked a noticeable softening of tone on the eve of the midterm elections. In a post on Truth Social, he wrote that a deal with Tehran could happen, that Iran wanted a settlement as soon as possible, and that oil prices were dropping sharply because people felt there would not be a war with Iran. In a separate interview, he said Iran wanted a deal more than it ever had, and that he was in no hurry to decide whether to resume military operations, preferring to give diplomacy more time. Those statements, taken together, presented negotiation as the preferred path, at least for the moment, and they stood in contrast to his repeated hints in recent weeks that larger strikes could resume after the elections.
Vice President JD Vance reinforced that message in his own remarks on Monday, saying that both he and the president felt reasonably good about the prospects of a negotiated settlement, and that progress had certainly been made, with more progress still to be sought. Vance said the administration had held a number of good conversations with Iranian officials, that no deadline had been given to Tehran, and that Trump retained both military and non-military options while pursuing a deal. That combination, optimism without a deadline and without renouncing force, is a familiar pattern in this conflict, but the emphasis on Monday was on the diplomatic side of the balance. Vance also disclosed, through reporting, that he had sent a letter the previous week to Iran’s national security chief, Mohsen Rezaei, a move described as the highest-level outreach in months, although the White House offered few details about its contents and Trump later described it as dealing with medical supplies and other matters.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Monday that indirect talks with Washington were taking place through mediators, and that intensive exchanges were under way. That description, indirect rather than direct, is important, because it reflects the structure of the current diplomacy: messages passed through intermediaries, principally Qatari mediators, rather than face-to-face negotiations between American and Iranian officials. Qatari mediators, according to reporting, held two rounds of talks with Iranian officials last week and were working on a draft agreement involving a sequence of confidence-building measures over three days, aimed at restarting direct negotiations. The Qatari mediator Ali al-Thawadi travelled to Tehran on Monday to continue discussions, according to the same reporting. No agreement has been announced, and the existence of talks should not be confused with the existence of a deal.
Trump Iran Talks and the Strait of Hormuz Offer
The most concrete element of the Iranian position, as reported on Monday, concerned the Strait of Hormuz. A senior Iranian official said Tehran was ready to open the strait, the vital energy waterway that has been largely blocked since the war began in late February, within two days, as long as Washington agreed to its list of demands. Those demands, as described in reporting, included lifting the American naval blockade on Iranian ports and meeting other Iranian conditions, and the Iranian plan was described as a seven-step proposal that had not changed in substance but could now begin more quickly than previously suggested, within two days rather than a week. Foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei was reported as confirming that timing, while stressing that the plan’s conditions remained in place.
That offer, if it is accurately reported, helps explain why oil markets reacted so strongly on Monday. Brent crude futures settled down by about seven point six percent, or eight dollars and sixty-six cents, to about one hundred and four dollars and seventy-seven cents a barrel, after falling by more than seven percent during the day on optimism about a possible end to the eight-month conflict. Trump himself linked the fall to the prospect of a settlement, writing that oil prices were dropping like a rock, down almost ten dollars a barrel, and arguing that the fall showed people believed war would be avoided. Market movements are not proof of a deal, and they can reverse quickly, as they did in early trading on Tuesday after reports of strikes on Qeshm Island, but they do show how sensitive energy prices have become to every signal about Hormuz, and how much political weight the administration attaches to fuel prices in the final days of a campaign.
The American and Iranian positions still contain a fundamental gap that the reported offer does not close. Washington, according to Vance, requires a firm, verifiable commitment that Iran will not rebuild its nuclear programme, which the administration says it has already destroyed. Tehran, according to its own statements, requires the lifting of the blockade and the meeting of its demands before it will reopen the strait and move toward a broader settlement. Those are not the same condition, and neither side has publicly accepted the other’s framing. The Qatari draft, with its three-day sequence of confidence-building measures, is an attempt to bridge that gap step by step, rather than to resolve it in a single agreement, and its success will depend on whether both sides are willing to take a first step without a guarantee about the last step.
Pressure for War, Warnings Against It, and an Allegation to Attribute
Not everyone in the region, or in Washington, is pushing in the same direction as the diplomacy described above, and this section reports allegations as allegations, with their sources attributed. According to two regional officials and a third person familiar with the matter, speaking to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were discussing classified briefings, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is pushing for another wave of strikes on Iran after Tuesday’s midterm elections. The same reporting says Netanyahu pressed for strikes during a call with Trump over the weekend, and that Trump would not commit to taking military action during that call. Trump himself told reporters on Sunday that he and Netanyahu had a very good call the previous day, without confirming the account of pressure for strikes.
The reporting also offers a possible motive, attributed to the officials, for that alleged pressure. It says a return to full-scale war with Iran could help Netanyahu form an emergency government after he and his far-right allies lost their parliamentary majority in elections held last week in Israel. That motive is an interpretation offered by the officials, not a statement by Netanyahu himself, and it should be read as such. Other American allies in the Middle East, according to a third regional official, are warning against more strikes, saying they would destabilise the region and could lead Iran-allied Houthi rebels in Yemen to step up attacks on Saudi Arabia and Red Sea shipping, and could draw in Iran-backed militias in Iraq. Those warnings, like the allegation about Netanyahu, come from officials who spoke anonymously, and they reflect the competing pressures on Trump from different partners in the region.
Separate commentary, which should not be confused with official reporting, has added to the noise around the decision. Commentator Tucker Carlson wrote on social media that Netanyahu was pushing Trump so hard that the United States might be within days of a nuclear strike on Iran, targeting a facility at Pickaxe Mountain, and that Trump could decide by 7 November, while also noting that Trump was hesitating and listening to Vance, who argues a deal can be made. That claim, about a nuclear strike, is not supported by official statements reviewed for this article, and it is reported here only to make clear that it is circulating and that it is distinct from the attributed reporting about conventional strikes. Trump did say on Monday night that the United States could strike Pickaxe Mountain’s suspected nuclear facility within an hour if necessary, but that statement, on its own, does not confirm a plan for a nuclear weapon, and no official has confirmed such a plan.
What to Watch After the Election
The question that will dominate the days after the midterm elections is whether the diplomatic signals of Monday represent a genuine opening or a tactical pause before a resumption of force. Several factors point in different directions, and honest reporting must hold them together rather than choosing one. On the diplomatic side, there are indirect talks through Qatari mediators, a reported Iranian offer to reopen Hormuz within two days under conditions, a fall in oil prices on deal optimism, and statements from both Trump and Vance expressing optimism without a deadline. On the military side, there are limited strikes reported on Qeshm Island on Monday itself, Trump’s own statement about the ability to strike Pickaxe Mountain within an hour, and the attributed reporting that Netanyahu is pressing for post-election strikes, with Trump not committing during their weekend call.
For American voters, the stakes of that choice are tangible. The war with Iran has lasted about eight months, has cost American taxpayers at least forty-seven billion dollars according to one figure cited in coverage, and has contributed to higher fuel prices that have become a central issue in the midterm campaign. A settlement that reopened Hormuz and reduced energy prices would be politically valuable to the administration, and would also be valuable to consumers and to shipping companies. A return to full-scale war would carry very different costs, in lives, in money, and in regional stability, and would test the administration’s claim that it prefers a diplomatic solution. The fact that both outcomes remain possible, even after a day of optimistic statements, is itself a measure of how unsettled the situation remains.
The next steps, as reported, are further talks this week, with mediators continuing to seek responses from both Washington and Tehran to a draft agreement. Whether those talks produce a sequence of confidence-building measures, a direct negotiation, or a breakdown will become clearer only when officials on either side confirm what has been agreed, if anything, in public. Until then, the most accurate summary is the one this article has tried to maintain: progress has been claimed, optimism has been expressed, an offer on Hormuz has been reported under conditions, pressure for war has been alleged and attributed, and no deal has yet been announced. That summary is less satisfying than a simple story of peace or war, but it is the summary the evidence currently supports.
Sources
USN reviewed reporting from multiple outlets for this story. Read more from Philstar (https://www.philstar.com/world/2026/11/02/2567541/us-signals-progress-talks-iran-avert-renewed-war), The Hindu BusinessLine (https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/world/trump-says-iran-wants-deal-more-than-ever-as-us-weighs-next-move/article71659258.ece) and The New Indian Express (https://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2026/Nov/03/us-signals-progress-in-iran-talks-to-avert-flare-up).