Resolution criteria:
Resolves YES if the statements from the specific dates in March, marked with *** are credibly proven false in reputable media. Resolves NO if they are credibly confirmed. If there is no relevant new information will resolve NO or N/A.
Essentials:
Talks held with relevant Iranian representatives including Trump and his close circle.
Iran giving a big present to the US.
The statements of Donald Trump:
[Saturday 21 March] On Saturday, Trump said Iran had a 48-hour deadline to open the Strait of Hormuz or the US would "hit and obliterate" power plants.
But on Monday, Trump postponed the deadline for five days, [to Saturday 28 or Sunday 29] saying Iran has "one more chance" and *** that the US and Iran have held talks on the "complete and total resolution of hostilities" in the Middle East ***.
On Monday 23 March Trump claimed *** the US was talking with an unnamed Iranian leader *** who he described as "the man who I believe is the most respected and the leader" and was "very reasonable". But Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran's speaker of parliament stated that "no negotiations" were under way, and that the announcement was "fake news" intended "to manipulate the financial and oil markets".
On Tuesday 24 Trump said that *** Iran gave him a "very big present" related to the Strait of Hormuz, *** boosting his belief that he was talking to the right people in Tehran.
[Tuesday 24 March] U.S. President Donald Trump has extended his deadline for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, saying the U.S. will hold off striking power plants in the country for five days. *** Trump later told reporters that U.S. envoys have been holding talks with a “respected” Iranian leader. ***
Trump says Iran 'wants to make a deal' to end the war | AP News
[24 March] Trump: *** Well, he’s involved in them. JD is involved and Marco is involved. Jared Kushner is involved—very smart guy. And I’m involved. ***
[24 March] Trump on Iran: *** They gave us a present today. And it was a very big present worth a tremendous amount of money and I'm not going to tell you what that present is but it was a very significant prize. It said to me that we are dealing with the right people. ***
Are the U.S. and Iran Actually Talking? Live Updates
"As per Iranian Government request... I am pausing the period of Energy Plant destruction by 10 Days to Monday, April 6, 2026, at 8 P.M., Eastern Time," Trump said in a post on Truth Social.
Trump says he will pause attacks on Iran's energy plants | Reuters
The doubt about talks:
"I'm very sceptical (about the talks) because trust has been completely destroyed and the positions of the warring parties are further apart than ever," David Khalfa, a Middle East specialist at the Jean-Jaures Foundation, a Paris-based think-tank, told AFP.
There is also another possible reading of the whole sequence: Trump is buying time again before sending in US ground troops to try to open up the Strait of Hormuz or seize Iranian oil assets.
Trump's supposed talks with Iran: What do we know? - France 24
Trump also held out the possibility of a resolution to the war — though Iranian officials denied there were negotiations.
Trump says Iran 'wants to make a deal' to end the war | AP News
Update 2026-03-29 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): As of the creator's latest assessment, there is no credible evidence that Trump lied about the two main claims. The creator notes the statements feel more like "bullshitting" and "exaggeration" rather than outright lies, which would lean toward a NO or N/A resolution under the current criteria.
Update 2026-04-15 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator's preliminary analysis suggests the most likely resolution framing is "misleading/exaggerated based on indirect contacts" rather than outright lying. Key points:
There were indirect contacts via intermediaries, which Iran acknowledged
Iran denied direct negotiations, which Trump may have implied
The distinction between direct vs. indirect talks is central to resolution
Pure lying assessed at moderately likely (50–70%)
The creator leans toward this being exaggeration/misleading rather than a clear lie, which would point toward NO or N/A under current criteria
1,000People are also trading
Some preliminary analysis:
There were indirect contacts via intermediaries - The Guardian
Iran has incentives to deny talks publicly during conflict
Historical mistrust and signaling games are strong
Trump could mean:
Direct talks → likely false
Indirect talks via intermediaries → actually true
And indeed:
There were messages and proposals via intermediaries - ABC Nieuws
Iran explicitly acknowledged that—but denied direct negotiations
Pure “lying”: moderately likely (e.g. 50–70%)
More precise conclusion:
→ Highest probability is “misleading/exaggerated based on indirect contacts”
Just a random analysis:
By the way, Trump also said that in his opinion, Iran does not resist at all and "begs" for a deal. Tehran would probably disagree with this.
It's just stupid war propaganda, the reality is completely different.
So what is he aiming at with this rhetoric?
It is probably just a message to his own voters, perhaps allies in the region. But such messages are terribly stupid and do not reflect even a fraction of reality. In the end, it seems rather ridiculous and counterproductive anyway. I can't say what exactly Trump is trying to do.
https://www.irozhlas.cz/zpravy-svet/usa-trump-utok-iran_2604050640_ula
[March 29] President Trump: “I would only say that we're doing extremely well in that negotiation. But you never know with Iran, because we negotiate with them, and then we always have to blow them up.”
At the moment there is no credible evidence that Trump lied about the two main claims, see below. It feels more like "bullshitting" and "exaggeration", but not an outright untruth.
Note: I would have much more fun if lies were exposed, so I think I'm relatively objective here.
See below. I'll wait!
ChatGPT about this statement - I would count this as NO:
[24 March] Trump on Iran: *** They gave us a present today. And it was a very big present worth a tremendous amount of money and I'm not going to tell you what that present is but it was a very significant prize. It said to me that we are dealing with the right people. ***
No clear public evidence, as of 24 March, for the truth of the underlying claim that Iran had in fact delivered a specific “present” of the sort Trump implied. The statement was reported, but its veracity was unproven at the time.
Trump did say it on 24 March 2026. Reuters reported that day that he claimed Iran had made a major energy-related concession, said it was not nuclear-related, and suggested it might involve the Strait of Hormuz.
But on that date, there was not solid independent confirmation of what the “present” actually was. Reuters said Trump declined to provide details, and AP characterized the matter as confusion surrounding the talks and Trump’s oil-related hint, not a verified concession.
A few days later, the picture became somewhat clearer: Reuters reported on 26 March that Trump indicated the “present” was Iran allowing 10 oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz as a goodwill gesture. That is evidence that Trump later attached a concrete meaning to the claim, but it does not show that the claim was independently verified on 24 March itself.
ChatGPT about this statement - I would count this as NO:
[24 March] Trump: *** Well, he’s involved in them. JD is involved and Marco is involved. Jared Kushner is involved—very smart guy. And I’m involved. ***
Only weakly, and mostly second-hand.
Reuters story said a Pakistani official and another source told Reuters that JD Vance, Witkoff, and Kushner were expected to meet Iranian officials in Islamabad that week.
Reuters also reported that a European official said there had been no direct U.S.-Iran negotiations, though Egypt, Pakistan, and Gulf states were relaying messages.
What cuts against the claim:
Reuters explicitly noted there was “no immediate confirmation that talks had taken place as described by Trump.”
Iran’s parliament speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf publicly said no negotiations had been held with the U.S.
The White House did not confirm the reported Islamabad meeting; Karoline Leavitt said speculation about meetings should not be treated as final unless formally announced.
@gpt4 Not hostile at all. Just very curious. My biggest worry is that this might be a situation that will only be clarified years later when historians access the archives. I would hate to resolve N/A.
Did research and clarified the criteria. They are still the same though.
Put resolution date on 30 april.
1) define credible (I'd say there's credible evidence now)
2) by April 2?
2 is more important
@hidetzugu Agree that this needs more work. First attempt:
Valid for the first time he said it.
Will have to research deadlines.