President Donald Trump’s declaration that the war with Iran is essentially over — and that a deal could be signed within days — has produced a striking split-screen: jubilation in markets, skepticism in Tehran, and starkly different framing across partisan media.

Liberal-leaning outlets focus on the gap between Trump’s triumphal rhetoric and the still‑unfinished negotiations. CNBC notes that Trump insists the U.S. has “just made a great settlement of the war with Iran,” subject to final paperwork and with a signing expected “over the next few days,” even as Iranian state media says Tehran has not approved any text for a memorandum of understanding.¹ The Guardian similarly stresses that Trump “claimed” Washington and Tehran were on the verge of a peace agreement, but Iran’s foreign ministry said “no final conclusion” had been reached and warned that “any news from Trump on this matter should be dismissed” until confirmed in Tehran.² Another Guardian piece frames this as “another day, another claim of imminent peace deal with Iran,” highlighting that Trump has “claimed dozens of times to be close to an agreement” without one materializing.³

Conservative outlets, by contrast, foreground a narrative of hard‑won leverage and diplomatic success. The Washington Examiner reports that Trump “called off impending strikes on Iran due to the state of negotiations,” quoting his claim that discussions with Iran have been brought to “the highest level of Iranian leadership and approved.”⁴ A follow‑up Examiner story emphasizes his optimism that a deal “could be signed as early as this weekend in Europe,” portraying recent U.S. strikes as the pressure that convinced Iran to negotiate and quoting his assertion that “they’ve taken a pounding … and they want to make the deal a lot more than I do.”⁵ The Epoch Times echoes this framing, headlining that the United States is “close” to a deal that will be signed “in the coming days” and noting Trump’s claim that Iranian leader Mojtaba Khamenei has approved it.⁶

On the economic front, both sides agree markets are betting on de‑escalation. CNBC reports that “oil prices fell” on hopes of a U.S.–Iran deal even as Tehran pushed back on Trump’s narrative,¹ and that investors see the Iran war “nears final whistle” as stocks surge and crude plunges.⁷ The Washington Times, from the right, likewise highlights that U.S. stocks saw their “best day in two months” and oil prices fell after Trump called off his threat to bomb Iran, “raising hopes for a potential deal that could get the global flow of oil going again.”⁸

Where the perspectives most sharply diverge is on credibility and risk. Liberal coverage repeatedly invokes Trump’s long record of premature “deal is near” proclamations and points to Iranian denials as evidence that Washington is overselling a fragile framework.²³ Conservative outlets largely sidestep Tehran’s pushback, treating Trump’s version as the operative reality and crediting his threat of force for bringing Iran to the table.⁴⁵

Analytically, both narratives omit key vulnerabilities. Trump’s allies underplay the risk that repeated public victory laps without a signed text could weaken U.S. leverage if talks stall again. His critics, meanwhile, give less weight to the fact that even a modest memorandum — such as the 60‑day framework with demining of the Strait of Hormuz and a 15‑ to 20‑year uranium enrichment “lockout” envisioned by negotiators⁹ — would represent a significant shift in regional risk and nuclear timelines. The common ground, for now, is narrow: all sides acknowledge that a draft exists, that hostilities have been paused, and that global markets are already pricing in peace. Whether that peace is real or illusory will depend less on the headlines than on what — if anything — gets signed next week.