talking

United States President Donald Trump is insistent that “productive” negotiations have taken place with Iran to end the war he launched with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu almost a month ago. The major problem with that narrative is that Iran’s top officials have repeatedly denied it.

Amid the fog of war and the propaganda being pushed by all sides, it is hard to know who to believe. But an analysis of what each side has to gain from any negotiations – and a potential end to the conflict – could bring more clarity.

Trump’s comments that there were “major points of agreement” after “very good” talks with an unnamed “top” Iranian figure came as stock markets opened in the US for the start of the trading week. The five-day deadline he gave for a positive response from Iran also happens to coincide with the end of the trading week.

Many have cynically noted that timing, especially as it comes after a two-week period in which oil prices have fluctuated in line with events in the Middle East, leading to a high of about $120 a barrel last week.

Trump’s talk of negotiations may also give time for more US troops to arrive in the Middle East, if Washington decides to conduct some form of ground invasion of Iranian territory.

Among those questioning Trump’s motives was the man believed by some to be the senior Iranian official Trump was referencing: the Iranian parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

“No negotiations have been held with the US, and fakenews is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped,” Ghalibaf wrote on social media.

The impact on stock markets and oil prices is not just relevant to the US and Trump, but also to Iran. However, for Tehran, the benefit comes in the damage the war is doing to the US and global economies.

The Iranian state wants the US to feel economic pain from the war, as a means of deterrence for any future Israeli or US attack on Iran.

Therefore, as much as it is in the US interest to play up talk of negotiations in order to calm the markets, it is also in Iran’s interest to downplay any talk to do the exact opposite, and not give the Trump administration any breathing space.

US benefits?

Consequently, both sides have their own narratives on negotiations, and public comments will do little to inform us as to whether those negotiations are really taking place, or in what form they may be.

That instead leads us into what each side has to gain from negotiations, and an actual end to the war at the current stage.

Trump appears to have underestimated the consequences of the conflict that he launched with Netanyahu on February 28, and the ability of the Iranian state to withstand the attacks against it without collapsing.

“They weren’t supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East … Nobody expected that,” he said last week, adding that even “the greatest experts” didn’t believe that.

Leaving aside that experts – including US intelligence officials – had repeatedly made those warnings, reality has now made Trump aware of the consequences he had previously ignored.

While some allies and supporters may continue to push him to plough on with the conflict, Trump has previously shown himself amenable to cutting deals to extricate himself from difficult situations, and it is not far-fetched to see the benefits of doing so in this instance.

The US president has already ordered his government to issue temporary sanctions waivers on some Iranian oil, in an effort to calm oil prices. This is the first time Iran has lifted sanctions on any Iranian oil since 2019, and it will not be lost on Iran that the waivers have come as a result of their policy to expand the conflict to the wider Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquified natural gas transits.

The war was already unpopular in the US – and now even more so, as consumers see the impact on petrol prices and potentially other areas of the economy, all in the run-up to congressional elections later this year, in which Trump’s Republicans are likely to do poorly.

Trump, therefore, has the options of extending this war – and suffering the economic and political cost, or ending it – and facing the criticism that he was unable to finish what he termed as a “short-term excursion”.

The Iranian perspective

But whatever Trump wants to do, the decision is not totally in his hands. Iran, attacked for the second time in less than a year, now appears to have less of an incentive to end the war without the establishment of an effective deterrent to another in the future.

Gone are the days of the telegraphed attacks on US assets and the slow climb up the escalation ladder. From the outset of the current war, it was clear that Iran had changed its tactics and was not as interested in restraint.

It is now arguably in the Iranian state’s benefit to drag out the conflict and inflict more suffering on the region, if it wants to ensure its survival.

There may also be a belief that interceptor stocks in Israel are running low, allowing Iran to strike targets more effectively. The thinking – particularly among the hardliners who now appear to be in the ascendancy in Iran – will be that now is not the time to stop, and allow those interceptor stocks to replenish.

And yet, Iran is suffering. More than 1,500 people have been killed across the country, according to the government. Infrastructure has been heavily damaged, and the power grid could be next. Relations with Gulf neighbours have nosedived, and, after repeated Iranian attacks, are unlikely to return to their previous levels after the conflict.

More moderate voices in Iran will look at that and think that things could easily get worse. They can argue that some form of deterrence has been achieved, and that the time is now ripe to talk. And if they can get some concessions – such as a promise of no future attacks, or greater authority in the Strait of Hormuz – they may decide that the time is right to make a deal.

England’s last-gasp defeat by France will have their fans discussing certain moments for years to come, but their indiscipline throughout the Six Nations came to the fore once again – particularly at the end of both halves in Paris.

Leading 27-17 with half-time looming, Ellis Genge was sin-binned after referee Nika Amashukeli ruled the prop had dragged down a maul, soon after two quick penalties had handed momentum back to France.

“After those three penalties in less than two minutes, England then conceded 21 points including that penalty try,” former Wales and Lions captain Sam Warburton said on BBC Rugby Special.

“Then with 14 men they conceded another 14 points, so that is 21 points in that period. It was a really crucial two minutes that they got wrong.”

Then in the dying moments of normal time with England 46-45 ahead, the referee gave France the option of a penalty kick from either of two positions, following infringements by Trevor Davison and Maro Itoje.

Thomas Ramos made no mistake to secure the title for France. Speaking on Rugby Special, former Scotland captain John Barclay said that short spell will be one England will regret.

“In the final two minutes after Tommy Freeman scored, France had a player in the sin-bin. When England look at how they managed this period, they had the game in their hands and threw it away.

“It was a really disappointing end for England. It will be a really tough debriefing on how they manage those crucial moments in the final bit of the game.

“Across the championship they are the top for penalties conceded, with eight yellows and one red, and the damage it did to them – they conceded 63 points with a player off the pitch.”

Despite the miserable weather, it wasn’t quite a storm in Dublin on Thursday, but one is quietly brewing for Saturday night when James ‘Jazza’ Dickens puts his WBA super-featherweight world title on the line against Anthony Cacace in the city’s 3 Arena.

As is the way, there were no bold statements or gimmicks from either at Thursday’s final press conference as their no-frills approach to the fight game ensured the exchanges were complimentary rather than confrontational.

Described as Cinderella Man v Cinderella Man, the pair have travelled rough terrain to get here and that is what sets this up perfectly.

Both have had their setbacks in boxing, with 34-year-old Dickens falling short in world title fights at super-bantamweight and featherweight before getting his hands on the gold when upgraded from the ‘interim’ title he won against Albert Batyrgaziev last summer.

Cacace, 37, endured years of disappointment before stopping Joe Cordina for the IBF version in May 2024, opting to vacate in order to face Leigh Wood in Nottingham last year.

“Until that first bell, all of this [build-up] is just nonsense and we have to sit here and talk,” said Liverpool’s Dickens.

“We just like to fight, but this is part of the business. I think we both just want to get in there and get the respect, throw some punches and shake hands after.”

Cacace is cut from the same cloth, with the Belfast man fully aware of what it has taken the champion to get here considering he has travelled a similar road.

“There is no point sitting here and saying ‘I’m going to do this and that’ because we are fighters and one punch can change everything,” Cacace said.

“I know Jazza has a big heart, same as me. We’re pretty similar in terms of career, so I fully respect Jazza for what he’s done in his career. He’s here for the same reason as me – to put food on the table for his family and that’s the bottom line.”

Ireland are, just about, in with a chance of the title after overcoming a gutsy Wales with a 27-17 victory in Dublin.

But their title hopes hinge on them beating Scotland and relying on out-of-form England beating France in Paris.

Ireland did not hit the heights they had reached in dismantling England two weeks earlier, digging deep for the bonus-point win they needed to keep them in the title conversation.

Wales gave a good account of themselves, and Rhys Carre can look back with pride after a spectacular solo try that saw the prop rumble over the line after a run that started outside the Ireland 22.

“Defensively, Wales were so much better and so much more physical compared to round one,” Sam Warburton told Rugby Special. “They were blown away against England but now they are competitive. They have not won in Dublin since 2012, it was always a tall order but they did well.

“They have found their centre combination, and the front five provided so much of a platform with their ball carrying and hits in defence.

“I was worried they were going to become the 30-point whipping boys but they have turned it around after round one, and I am very pleased.”

Improved performances since the 48-7 defeat by England in round one give Wales some hope of ending their run of 15 consecutive Six Nations losses in their final fixture, although they will host an Italy side buoyed by its historic win over England.