Multiple outlets review claims by US President Donald Trump that a negotiated arrangement with Iran can support “peace” after he previously framed the US conflict as necessary because Iran would not negotiate. The analysis pieces argue that the central risk is the gap between Trump’s earlier war aims and what a negotiated settlement could deliver. Sources note that critics contend the US cannot directly “defeat or control” Iran, which raises questions about the durability of any terms that depend on Iranian compliance. They also point to the challenge of maintaining negotiations in a context of longstanding regional tensions and contested Iranian policy goals. The articles collectively emphasize that uncertainty over enforcement and verification is likely to be a major factor in whether any proposed peace can prevent renewed hostilities. While the pieces focus on dangers and limitations identified by commentators, they do not present a single agreed mechanism for how those terms would address Iran’s strategic position. Overall, the reporting centers on the credibility and stability of Trump’s peace framework given Iran’s continued capacity to influence its posture.