Trump is already thinking about a deal with Iran: why talks about peace began before the end of the war

March 21, 2026 Axios reported that the Donald Trump administration has begun preliminary discussions on the next phase of the war and what potential peace talks with Iran might look like in principle. This is not about a finalized deal or even a direct negotiation track. It’s about preparing for the moment when the military phase begins to hit political constraints, oil prices, and ally pressure.

For the Israeli audience, the important thing here is not the formula of ‘peace talks’ itself, but the timing. Washington spoke about diplomacy not after silence, but right during the war. And this is already a signal: even if Israel and the US continue to pressure Iran, the White House understands that further discussions will have to include not only strikes but also conditions for exiting the conflict.

What exactly the Trump team is discussing

The date is already set, the outlines too

According to Axios, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are involved in the discussions. Sources claim that the White House is trying to preemptively answer two questions: who in Iran could be a working contact person and which country would be suitable as a mediator. It also states that American officials expect another two to three weeks of hostilities, despite Trump’s public words about the possibility of ‘winding down’ the war.

March 21, 2026 Reuters separately confirmed that Trump publicly spoke about the possibility of scaling down the war, but simultaneously linked this to the security of the Strait of Hormuz and whether other countries are willing to take on part of the burden. This is an important detail: diplomacy in the American logic is now not separate from the war, but as its possible continuation by other means.

American conditions appear as tough as possible

Axios writes that the US wants to see six commitments from Iran: a ban on the missile program for five years, zero uranium enrichment, decommissioning of reactors at facilities in Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow, strict external control over centrifuges and related equipment, agreements to limit missile arsenals in the region, and cessation of funding for proxy forces — from Hezbollah to the Houthis and Hamas.

From Israel’s perspective, this is almost an ideal set of demands. But the problem is that this is precisely why it seems difficult to implement. Axios directly notes: Iran has previously rejected a significant portion of such conditions, and there are no clear signs now that Tehran is ready to sharply change its position.

Why talks about peace guarantee nothing yet

Iran demands not a pause, but guarantees

According to Axios, Egypt and Qatar have conveyed to the US and Israel that Iran is interested in negotiations, but on very tough terms. Among Tehran’s demands are a ceasefire, guarantees that the war will not resume, and compensation.

On the same day, March 21, 2026, Reuters reported on a statement by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian after a conversation with Narendra Modi: ending the war requires an immediate cessation of what Tehran calls American-Israeli aggression, as well as guarantees against future attacks. This is no longer a diplomatic hint, but a publicly stated ceiling of Iran’s position at the start of any bargaining.

Trump, as Axios reports, does not rule out negotiations but does not want to accept Iran’s condition of a ceasefire now. The demand for reparations is considered almost hopeless in Washington, although one of the publication’s interlocutors suggests that part of the dispute could be packaged differently — for example, through the return of frozen Iranian assets. So there is room for words. There is almost no room for trust yet.

The Strait of Hormuz has become the center of the entire structure

Axios emphasizes that any agreement to end the war must include the restoration of normal operations in the Strait of Hormuz. March 21, 2026 Reuters reported that G7 foreign ministers supported security in Hormuz and declared their readiness to protect global energy supplies and maritime routes.

This is where the news ceases to be solely American-Iranian. For Israel, the issue of Hormuz is no longer abstract logistics but one of the key factors of external pressure on the war. The longer the strait remains under threat, the more the White House is pressured not only by military calculations but also by oil, inflation, G7 allies, and the entire global market. In this sense, NANews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency records a very simple shift: negotiations with Iran began to be discussed not because the parties suddenly matured for peace, but because the cost of continuing the war is becoming too high for too many players at once.

What this means for Israel

For Jerusalem, this whole story sounds ambiguous. On one hand, the very fact that the US is discussing a package that includes the Iranian nuclear program, missiles, and proxy networks looks advantageous for the Israeli position. On the other hand, it means that Washington is already thinking about the point where military tasks will have to be translated into a diplomatic format, which means bargaining, compromises, and formulations that do not always coincide with the Israeli understanding of ultimate security.

The main conclusion on March 21, 2026 sounds without much optimism. Yes, the US and Iran are looking for options through intermediaries. Yes, this may be the first sign that the parties at least mentally allow for an exit from the war. But between talks about negotiations and the actual cessation of hostilities in the Middle East, there is usually a long distance — with strikes, maneuvers, hardening positions, and attempts to pressure the opponent before entering diplomacy. Right now, everything looks exactly like that.