Qatar emerges as key broker in US-Iran frozen funds dispute

The cadence of Trump’s remarks about Iran belongs less to the world of foreign policy than to the culture that shaped him long before politics did: New York real estate, tabloid combat, and public brinkmanship treated as performance art.

The comparison that comes closest may not come from diplomacy at all, but from David Mamet’s Glengarry Glen Ross, that ruthless portrait of American real-estate sales culture, where power belongs not to the wisest man in the room, but to the most psychologically relentless.

In the film’s most famous scene appears Blake, the sleek corporate predator whose confidence and aggression are treated as forms of intelligence. He does not simply sell real estate. He sells power, status, and the fantasy of invulnerability itself.

Trump comes from that exact culture, though he did not invent it. He emerged from it.

It is difficult to understand Trump’s approach to Iran through the traditional frameworks of Republican foreign policy because Trump does not instinctively speak that language. He speaks the language of the deal, more specifically, the language of the New York deal.

To diplomats, consistency creates stability and ambiguity introduces risk. For Trump, unpredictability is leverage. Negotiation is a psychological contest in which pressure, timing, perception, and dominance become instruments of power.

One week, a deal appears close. The next, Tehran faces catastrophic consequences if it refuses American demands. To conventional policymakers, the reversals can appear chaotic. But those familiar with the culture of aggressive American salesmanship recognize the game: create urgency, destabilize expectations, project strength, keep the other side uncertain.

But Trump’s instincts are tied not only to commerce, but to performance.

The United States is approaching the 2026 FIFA World Cup, one of the largest international spectacles ever hosted on American soil. Beginning next June, the tournament will unfold across multiple cities before a global audience measured not in millions, but billions.

That context may help explain the curious patience embedded in some of his recent remarks on Iran.

In a Truth Social post on Sunday, Trump insisted negotiators should “not rush into a deal” because “time is on our side.” Pressure on Iran, he wrote, would remain in place until an agreement was “reached, certified, and signed.”

In other words: “get them to sign on the line which is dotted.”

The negotiations with Iran may therefore be less about immediate resolution than about the management of instability until after the World Cup final, a spectacle Trump instinctively understands.

A regional escalation or collapsing diplomatic process in the weeks leading up to the tournament would threaten precisely the atmosphere Trump values most: the image of American strength, prosperity, and control.

This does not mean the negotiations are insincere or a deal is impossible. But it does suggest observers should be cautious about interpreting every public signal as evidence of imminent breakthrough or collapse.

He is not fundamentally opposed to negotiation with Iran. On the contrary, he appears deeply attracted to the possibility of a grand bargain. What he seeks, however, is not simply a workable agreement, but a visible triumph dramatic enough to dominate headlines and simple enough to market politically.

This may be the most distinctly American dimension of Trump’s foreign policy: the belief that geopolitical success must also function as branding. Trump wants ownership of the moment as much as he wants a deal. He wants the image of resolution itself: Iran returning to the table, concessions publicly framed as victories, history compressed into a photograph.

But history rarely cooperates with theatrical instincts. Foreign policy does not bend as easily as commercial real-estate negotiation because nations are not distressed assets waiting to be restructured.

The Islamic Republic measures survival differently: absorbing pressure can itself become a form of victory.

Salesmanship can generate headlines, pressure, and even temporary breakthroughs. But there are crises in which personality eventually collides with structure. That may be the clearest lesson of Trump’s long and unfinished confrontation with Tehran.

The art of the deal becomes far more complicated when the other side sees the conflict as a question of historical survival, when the only thing both sides have in common is a profound sense of mistrust.

Whether there will be a hostile takeover after the World Cup remains unclear. But one does not need to be a geopolitical genius to recognize the underlying logic of pressure if one understands the culture from which Trump emerged.

As Blake says in Glengarry Glen Ross, “The only thing that counts in this life is to get them to sign on the line which is dotted.”

The pressure comes as parliament prepares to elect its new presidium on Monday.

An unusually blunt report published Sunday by the semi-official Iran Labour News Agency (ILNA) described what it called “organized destruction,” media pressure campaigns and coordinated text-message attacks targeting Ghalibaf ahead of the vote.

A lawmaker interviewed by ILNA, Rouhollah Lak Aliabadi, accused political rivals of orchestrating text-message campaigns against Ghalibaf in an effort to influence members of parliament before the leadership vote.

He said opponents were portraying support for negotiations as a form of surrender or deviation from revolutionary principles, even though decisions regarding diplomacy ultimately rest with Iran’s top leadership.

The attacks reflect broader tensions inside Iran’s conservative establishment as indirect negotiations with Washington appear to be gaining momentum.

US President Donald Trump struck a cautiously optimistic tone over the weekend, saying negotiators should “not rush into a deal” because “time is on our side,” while administration officials indicated progress had been made on the outlines of a possible agreement.

At the same time, officials and media outlets close to the Revolutionary Guards have emphasized deep skepticism toward Washington, insisting major disagreements remain unresolved and warning against excessive optimism.

Among the most contentious issues are restrictions affecting the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions relief, the future of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile and the sequencing of commitments by both sides.

The growing attacks on Ghalibaf suggest hardliners fear that even a limited diplomatic breakthrough could shift the balance of power within the Islamic Republic toward figures advocating a more controlled and pragmatic form of engagement with the West.

A similar dynamic is also visible in Washington, where prominent Republican hawks and conservative commentators have begun warning against any agreement they believe would leave Iran’s military or nuclear infrastructure substantially intact.

Senator Ted Cruz has been among those signaling concern that the administration may be softening its position, while Democratic critics such as Senator Chris Murphy argue the war failed to achieve its objectives and ultimately left Tehran in a stronger position.

According to the source, the release of these specific funds in Qatar is a strict precondition for the initial Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) stage.

Tehran has insisted that actual, guaranteed access to this $12 billion must be granted during this first phase before any preliminary diplomatic understanding can move forward, the source said.

The source emphasized that this $12 billion represents only the immediate tranche required to initiate the diplomatic roadmap, and is not the only capital Iran is claiming.

Tehran's broader negotiating position is that all of its frozen assets globally must be unfrozen and fully released as part of any eventual comprehensive agreement, according to the source.

Earlier in the day, IRGC-linked Tasnim News reported that differences between Iran and the United States over one or two clauses of a possible memorandum of understanding remained unresolved.

Tasnim also reported on Sunday that Iran has insisted any initial memorandum of understanding with the United States should include the release of at least part of its frozen assets in the first step.

The report said Tehran had stressed that the released funds must be accessible to Iran.

It added that Washington had sought in recent weeks to link the release of the assets to a possible final nuclear agreement.

Iran wants part of the funds released at the start of any MOU and a mechanism set for releasing the rest during negotiations, according to the report.

Later in the day, Tasnim said US obstruction of some clauses in a potential agreement with Iran, including the release of Tehran’s blocked assets, was still continuing.

Accordingly, there is still a possibility that the agreement could be canceled, Tasnim's report added.

In April, Reuters reported that Washington had agreed to release $6 billion in frozen Iranian assets held in Qatar and other banks.
The funds, linked to Iranian oil sales to South Korea, were moved to Qatari accounts under a 2023 prisoner swap but remained restricted to humanitarian use under US oversight, according to the report.

The latest signs of movement followed a flurry of regional diplomacy involving Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and Bahrain, as several Middle Eastern leaders urged Washington to accept a deal and prevent a renewed escalation.

Trump said in a Truth Social post that an agreement involving the United States, Iran and several regional countries had been “largely negotiated” and was awaiting finalization.

“Final aspects and details of the Deal are currently being discussed, and will be announced shortly,” Trump said, adding that “the Strait of Hormuz will be opened.”

Trump said the statement followed what he called a “very good call” with leaders from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and Bahrain concerning Iran and “a Memorandum of Understanding pertaining to peace.”

He also said he had spoken separately with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, describing that call as having gone “very well.”

Trump's remarks came after Iran submitted a revised proposal to the United States through Pakistani mediators to end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, with a US response expected by Sunday, Reuters reported citing two Pakistani sources familiar with the negotiations.

Several Middle Eastern leaders involved in Trump’s call urged him to accept a deal with Iran, Axios reported citing a source briefed on the call. A regional source said the message from Arab and Muslim leaders was: “Please stop the war for the benefit of the whole region.”

Reuters separately reported citing a Pakistani security official briefed on Pakistani army chief Asim Munir’s visit to Tehran that an MoU was being “fine-tuned” to end the US-Iran war.

The official said Munir’s visit had made “significant progress” on points discussed in the Islamabad talks, describing the interim deal as “fairly comprehensive to terminate the war,” while cautioning: “It is never over till it is done.”

The Pakistani military said in a statement Saturday that negotiations conducted during Munir’s visit, after he returned to Islamabad as a mediator, had produced “encouraging progress toward a final understanding.”

'A deal very far and very close'

In Tehran, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said the parties were finalizing a 14-point memorandum of understanding that would create a temporary framework for diplomacy.

Parliament Speaker and head of Iran’s negotiating team, Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, recently appointed Baghaei as the team’s spokesman.

Speaking on state television Saturday, Baghaei stressed that “Iran’s focus at this stage is on ending the war.”

Under the proposed arrangement, he said, Iran and the United States would spend 30 to 60 days after signing the memorandum negotiating the details of the most contentious issues, including Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions relief, the release of frozen Iranian assets and disputes over the Strait of Hormuz.

Baghaei nevertheless cautioned against assuming a breakthrough was imminent. “It cannot be said that an agreement is near,” he said, adding that the differences between Tehran and Washington are “so deep and extensive” that no one can expect several rounds of meetings over a few weeks or months to necessarily produce results.

In a phrase that quickly circulated across Iranian media and social platforms, Baghaei summarized the uncertainty surrounding the talks by saying: “The agreement is both very far and very close.”

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also struck a cautious tone Saturday, saying “some progress” had been made in talks on Iran and suggesting there could be news soon, while warning that no breakthrough was certain.

“There may be news later today. I don’t have news at this very moment, but there might be some news a little later today,” Rubio told reporters in New Delhi. “There may not be. I hope there will be, but I’m not sure yet.”

He added that there was “a chance” the United States could have something to say “whether it’s later today, tomorrow, in a couple days,” but said the issue needed to be solved “one way or another.”

The Financial Times reported citing mediators and people briefed on the talks that the United States and Iran were close to extending their ceasefire by 60 days under a framework that would gradually reopen the Strait of Hormuz and launch discussions over Tehran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile.

'Collapse of talks still likely'

Despite these cautiously positive signals, skepticism remains widespread in both political circles and the Iranian public.

Fada-Hossein Maleki, a member of the Iranian parliament’s National Security Committee who attended Saturday’s meeting between Asim Munir and Ghalibaf, accused Washington of undermining the talks.

In comments to the Iranian Students News Agency, Maleki claimed that both Iranian and Pakistani officials agreed that the United States itself had created many of the obstacles threatening the negotiations.

He specifically accused US envoy Steve Witkoff of providing “unrealistic reports” to Trump, saying Trump’s social media posts based on those reports had “created sensitivity in Iran and even upset our Pakistani friends.”

According to Iran’s state news agency IRNA, the process “could collapse at any moment because of America’s maximalist approaches.”

The IRGC-linked Fars news agency reported citing a source close to the Iranian negotiating team that talks would fail unless the United States showed flexibility.

The source said Tehran would not discuss its nuclear program at this stage and would make any such talks conditional on US confidence-building measures.

Fars reported that the release of Iran’s blocked funds was among Tehran’s main conditions for starting negotiations, while rules for ship passage through the Strait of Hormuz remained another point of dispute.

Despite Washington accepting some of Tehran’s positions, the three issues remain unresolved and Iran is preparing other options, Fars reported citing the source.

Talks will fail, war will resume: poll

Public opinion inside Iran also appears deeply pessimistic about the prospects for a lasting agreement.

In an online poll conducted by the conservative Iranian website Tabnak, nearly 70 percent of more than 110,000 respondents predicted that no agreement would ultimately be reached and that the war would resume.

Trump kept the military option on the table Saturday, saying it was a “solid 50/50” whether the sides would reach an agreement or the US would “blow them to kingdom come.”

“I think one of two things will happen: either I hit them harder than they have ever been hit, or we are going to sign a deal that is good,” Trump said.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Friday morning that despite growing speculation surrounding the talks, “no significant progress” had been made.

Diplomatic sources say discussions have focused on a possible memorandum of understanding envisioned as a first step toward broader negotiations, including over Iran’s nuclear program.

The proposed framework would reportedly seek to stabilize the ceasefire and establish mechanisms for managing shipping and navigation disputes in the Strait of Hormuz.

Such an arrangement could provide both sides with temporary political breathing room while reducing pressure on global energy markets already shaken by weeks of conflict and shipping disruptions.

But neither Tehran nor Washington has ruled out military escalation if negotiations collapse before an agreement is finalized.

The Trump administration was preparing on Friday for a fresh round of military strikes against Iran, CBS reported citing sources familiar with the planning, even as indirect diplomacy continues.

The fragility of the process was also underscored Friday by continued attacks from Iranian hardliners who argue the ceasefire itself represented a strategic mistake.

Tehran University lecturer Mohammad Sadegh Koushki said in an interview with the IPTV program Zoom, affiliated with the Fararu website, that Iran had halted military operations just as it had gained the upper hand.

“It’s like a football team that is up by a goal and can score one or two more,” he said. “The momentum of battle was brought to a screeching halt under the name of negotiations and a ceasefire.”

Koushki dismissed the idea that Iran’s conflict with the United States could ultimately be resolved through diplomacy, arguing that years of negotiations had only resulted in greater sanctions and pressure.

Similar arguments appeared across hardline political circles Friday. MP Alireza Salimi said Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz was “not negotiable” and that Tehran alone would define and enforce the strait’s “new rules.”

Diplomatic activity nevertheless appeared to intensify throughout Friday as Pakistani Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi returned to Tehran, with CBS citing a senior Pakistani official as saying his meetings had helped negotiations move “in an important direction,” prompting Pakistan’s Field Marshal Asim Munir to join the mediation effort.

Reuters also reported that a Qatari negotiating team arrived in Tehran in coordination with the United States to help secure an agreement aimed at ending the war and resolving outstanding disputes.

Still, similar moments of optimism earlier in 2025 and again in early 2026 ultimately collapsed into waves of US and Israeli strikes on Iran, leaving deep skepticism about the durability of diplomacy.

In a widely circulated post on X, establishment academic Foad Izadi argued that Washington had paid too little a cost for the conflict to abandon long-term pressure on Iran.

“The cycle of attack, ceasefire, negotiation and attack will repeat,” Izadi wrote, warning against rapid concessions or reopening the Strait of Hormuz too quickly.

The remarks reflected broader hardline skepticism toward the diplomatic push even as intensified mediation efforts suggested Tehran and Washington may still see a narrow path toward a limited deal.