Tehran analyst says market psychology fueling US-Iran deal speculation

By Akhtar Pathan

TEHRAN, Iran (MNTV) — Tehran-based journalist Mohammad John Hussain is warning audiences to treat repeated claims of an imminent Iran-United States agreement with caution, arguing that many reports of a breakthrough are driven more by speculation, market psychology and political narratives than by verified developments.

For weeks, headlines and social media posts have claimed that a deal between Tehran and Washington was only “24 to 48 hours away.” In some versions of the story, the agreement was described as already finalized, with only a ceremonial signing remaining.

Yet despite the constant predictions, no comprehensive agreement has emerged.

“These claims have been circulating for a month,” Hussain said in a lengthy analysis examining the political messaging, market reactions and competing interpretations surrounding the negotiations. “You’ve been hearing them since April 7th, repeated daily in different forms, suggesting that something is about to happen.”

According to Hussain, the cycle has created an atmosphere in which every rumor is treated as confirmation that a breakthrough is imminent, even when the underlying facts remain unclear.

‘Confirmation bias’ and political narratives

Hussain argues that much of the public reaction to the Iran-U.S. talks can be explained through what psychologists call “confirmation bias” — the tendency to interpret new information in ways that reinforce existing beliefs.

“That error is called confirmation bias,” he said. “You form a belief first, and then you start looking for evidence to support it.”

He compared the phenomenon to a person who already believes someone is dishonest and ignores all evidence to the contrary until a single mistake appears, which is then treated as proof the original assumption was correct.

Hussain also pointed to what he described as the “sharpshooter fallacy,” a logical error in which random events are retroactively interpreted as part of a deliberate pattern.

“It is like firing many shots at a target and then drawing a circle around the area where most bullets landed,” he said. “The rest of the shots are ignored.”

In his view, many commentators discussing the negotiations are selectively highlighting information that supports their preferred narrative while dismissing contradictory evidence.

“Right now, many claims are being made without substance,” he said. “Some are based on individual opinions, some on political agendas, and others are attempts to shape a narrative.”

Washington’s mixed signals

Part of the uncertainty, Hussain said, comes from constantly shifting messaging from Washington.

“At different times, there are claims about Iran going nuclear, regime change, elimination of leadership, and then negotiations with leadership,” he said. “At one point, it was said that regime change was not the goal.”

He also referenced discussions surrounding “Project Freedom” linked to the Strait of Hormuz, followed later by reports suggesting the initiative had been quietly scaled back or abandoned.

According to Hussain, one explanation circulating in regional media is that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait declined to allow the use of their bases, contributing to the project’s collapse.

Hussain said the conflicting narratives have reinforced public confusion over whether Washington is preparing for confrontation or compromise.

“The current messaging suggests that if Iran agrees to what is being proposed, then a major escalation will be avoided,” he said. “But if it does not agree, then military action could follow with higher intensity than before.”

Iran’s position: Talks are not a deal

Hussain stressed that Tehran’s public position differs significantly from many Western media reports portraying an agreement as imminent.

Reports from outlets such as Axios have suggested that a deal may be “just around the corner,” with expectations of progress within days. Iran, however, appears to be framing the process differently.

“Iran maintains that discussions are not the same as a finalized deal,” Hussain said.

He pointed to ongoing backchannel negotiations and references to a reported “14-point plan,” while emphasizing that no confirmed comprehensive agreement has yet been announced.

According to Hussain, Iranian officials appear to be approaching the process in stages. Initial discussions focus on practical issues such as blockades, maritime access and regional security, while broader matters — including sanctions relief and nuclear negotiations — would come later.

“The meaning of ‘deal’ itself is unclear,” he said. “A deal could mean a full agreement ready for signing, or it could simply mean partial understandings.”

That ambiguity, he argued, allows commentators to repeatedly predict imminent breakthroughs while later redefining what they meant if negotiations stall.

“Iran has stated that without certain conditions being met — such as lifting of U.S. naval blockade — it will not proceed to full negotiations,” Hussain said.

Lebanon, regional tensions and the risk of escalation

Complicating the diplomatic picture are ongoing regional tensions, particularly in Lebanon.

Hussain referenced reports of Israeli strikes in Beirut’s Dahiyeh district, the first major incidents since a previous ceasefire. “There is debate over whether this is escalation or coordinated signaling,” he said, “but it adds to the overall tension.”

The broader regional situation, he argued, makes it difficult to interpret any single development as evidence that diplomacy is definitively succeeding or collapsing.

“At this stage, talks may be ongoing, but there is no confirmed comprehensive agreement covering all issues such as sanctions, nuclear concerns and regional conflicts,” Hussain said.

Oil markets and the politics of rumors

One of Hussain’s strongest warnings centered on the financial impact of repeated reports about an imminent agreement.

“There is also a market dimension,” he said.

According to Hussain, large movements in crude oil trading and contract activity have coincided with major reports about the negotiations. In some cases, oil prices reacted sharply to rumors, triggering gains and losses within hours.

“This raises concerns about speculation and possible manipulation based on information flow,” he said.

He argued that in such an environment, political narratives can influence not only public opinion but also financial markets, creating incentives for dramatic headlines and exaggerated predictions.

“In this environment, narratives can influence both public perception and financial behavior,” Hussain said. “That is why sudden claims of ‘deal within 48 hours’ should be treated cautiously unless backed by verified developments.”

For now, he believes the situation remains unresolved despite weeks of confident predictions.

“So when people say ‘the deal is done,’” Hussain said, “it is important to ask: what exactly do they mean, and what is the evidence behind it?”