Oil steadies as Trump floats Iran talks; Tehran denies

@media only screen and (min-width: 0px) and (min-height: 0px) { div[id^="wrapper-sevio-e97c3304-a262-4b2a-8dd5-796490b4dc7c"] { width: 320px; height: 100px; } } @media only screen and (min-width: 728px) and (min-height: 0px) { div[id^="wrapper-sevio-e97c3304-a262-4b2a-8dd5-796490b4dc7c"] { width: 728px; height: 90px; } }

window.sevioads = window.sevioads || []; var sevioads_preferences = []; sevioads_preferences[0] = {}; sevioads_preferences[0].zone = "e97c3304-a262-4b2a-8dd5-796490b4dc7c"; sevioads_preferences[0].adType = "banner"; sevioads_preferences[0].inventoryId = "17b11a0e-c9a7-4ab0-9788-1941464500f3"; sevioads_preferences[0].accountId = "ad82357c-af89-4cb2-ad76-470425cadd81"; sevioads.push(sevioads_preferences);

Trump Iran talks possible; Iran denies seeking talks

Trump said it’s possible he could talk to Iran, while Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi publicly denied that Tehran is seeking negotiations, as reported by The Associated Press. Araghchi has framed a deep trust deficit and the context of war as barriers to direct engagement. The initial U.S. signal therefore collides with Iran’s insistence that it is not asking to open talks.

This divergence defines the early contours of the possible Trump–Iran talks narrative. With each side signaling a different baseline, any movement would likely depend on verifiable steps that reduce uncertainty. Absent that, rhetoric may harden rather than converge.

White House notes tentative openness but no timeline

A senior white house official said Iran’s new potential leadership has suggested some openness to talks, while cautioning that military operations continue and that Trump is only eventually willing to engage, leaving the timing unclear. The implication is that any exploratory diplomacy would run alongside ongoing security actions.

Tehran’s public line has not shifted despite that signal. “We have not asked for negotiations,” said Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister.

War Powers Act oversight and escalation risks explained

In Congress, debate over presidential war powers has intensified, with the House recently rejecting a measure to constrain authorities related to Iran. The scrutiny centers on whether operations proceed without explicit authorization and how far executive discretion should extend.

Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, presidents are expected to consult Congress when introducing U.S. forces into hostilities and to seek authorization for sustained military action. The framework matters here because prolonged operations can trigger procedural deadlines and reporting obligations that influence strategy as much as politics.

Strategic assessments caution against assuming coercion will yield quick diplomacy. Robert Pape’s view is that bombing campaigns produce unpredictable retaliation and do not guarantee political concessions, and the National Intelligence Council has assessed that even leadership decapitation is unlikely to produce regime change on its own.