Donald Trump abruptly cancelled planned strikes on Iran Thursday night, declaring that negotiations had been “brought to the highest level of Iranian leadership and approved.” The U-turn came after he had threatened to bomb the country “very hard” and seize the Kharg Island oil terminal. Trump said final points of a deal had been endorsed by all involved parties, including Israel and several Gulf states, and promised a signing ceremony might occur in Europe this weekend, with Vice-President JD Vance attending.

The reversal is the latest in a pattern of brinkmanship and retrenchment. Since the US-led war began on February 28, Trump has set and called off at least eight military deadlines. On Thursday morning, after two days of cross-border exchanges and the downing of an American helicopter, he vowed “bigger, more powerful” attacks and a takeover of Iran’s oil infrastructure. By evening, he was hailing a “great settlement” and an end to hostilities, a familiar cycle that has left both allies and adversaries uncertain of Washington’s intentions.

Tehran met Trump’s claims with flat denial. Foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Iran had reached “no final conclusion,” and state-linked media noted that Trump had declared an imminent deal 38 times in two months. Israel’s government confirmed talks with Washington but stressed it was not a party to the emerging memorandum. Gulf capitals, desperate for an end to the naval blockade that has paralysed Hormuz shipping, remained publicly cautious, with no independent corroboration of the supposed accord.

Markets reacted sharply: Brent crude fell over 3 per cent on hopes of eased Gulf tensions, and equities gained. Analysts view Trump’s oscillation between threats and diplomacy as coercive bargaining designed to force Tehran into concessions on its nuclear programme and missile support for proxies. Yet without Iranian confirmation, the proposed terms—a permanent nuclear ban and Strait of Hormuz reopening—remain uncertain. As the weekend approaches, the region balances between war weariness and the risk of fresh miscalculation.