iscover
As the history of most conflicts goes, peace deals, finalising wars and coming to common ground between fighting nations are long, drawn-out processes. All too often, these processes are characterised by broken promises and agreements falling through; the recent US–Iran conflict is no different.
As of June 2026, US President Donald Trump has declared in nearly 40 separate announcements that a peace deal with Iran was imminent, close, or in the works.
Within about one week of the conflict initially starting on 28 February, President Trump insisted that the war would be over “very soon”.
Hours after this, he posted on Truth Social, saying, “If Iran does anything that stops the flow of oil within the Strait of Hormuz, they will be hit by the United States of America 20 times harder than they have been hit thus far.”
In the midst of conflict in April, he said that America will “bomb the sh-t out of them [Iran]” if a peace deal wasn’t signed.
Since then, there have been proclamations promising “we will get a deal in the next day or two”; that peace has been “largely negotiated”; and that Iran is “dying to make a deal”.
Associate professor at the University of Sydney’s United States Studies Centre, David Smith, told SBS earlier this month that repeated claims of peace within this conflict have been announced in attempts to settle global markets and appeal to President Trump’s “domestic political audience”.
“It’s happened too many times. The first few times, people thought maybe there was a deal close, but now that Trump says it so frequently, people just don’t seem to believe it anymore,” Smith said on 11 June.
“I don’t think that even his supporters believe anymore that there is a deal just around the corner.”
The deal currently in place
A 14-point memorandum of understanding between Iran and the US was signed by President Trump at the G7 Summit last week, with peace seeming imminent as long as all parties maintained the conditions of the agreement.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong supported the peace negotiations, saying in a press statement on 17 June: “Australia welcomes the agreement between the United States and Iran and continues to encourage all parties to pursue a durable and lasting peace through dialogue and diplomacy.”
“The Albanese government’s number one priority will always be the safety and security of Australians,” Minister Wong said.
However, she noted that “the security situation across the Middle East could deteriorate rapidly with little warning”, when announcing an easing of travels advice (from “Do not travel” to “Reconsider your need to travel”) to some countries in the Middle East.
The actual implementation of the MOU clauses, such as an end to sanctions, the free passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and the cessation of conflicts “on all fronts” (including Lebanon), is critical for the deal to stick and peace to be achieved.
Why are peace talks such off-and-on strenuous ordeals?
Phillipp Kastner, senior lecturer in international law at the University of Western Australia, identified four factors that he said are critical for successful peace talks: commitment from all actors, serious and intentional effort, well-planned timing, and acknowledgement of the long process it takes to achieve peace.
Writing for The Conversation in reference to African conflict, he said “peace is a process, and it requires significant commitment”.
Importantly, he said: “It’s often thought that no fighting means peace, and that an agreement will end violence and suffering almost instantly.”
“This is rarely true. An agreement is only one small step in an often long process.”
In the context of the US–Iran war, the longstanding distrust, follies and political structures at play make the outcome of legitimate peace complicated in a highly fluid and ever-changing environment.
Specifically, when nuclear weapons, global oil supplies and historic differences surround the conflict, coming to agreeable and committed terms is not an easy feat.
Domestic and regional politics further complicate global diplomacy, with lasting peace requiring resolving multiple interconnected disputes simultaneously.
The impact in Australia
Welcoming the agreement, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in a statement last week that “the longer this war goes on, the greater the impact will be”.
“While full recovery will take time, restoring this vital trade corridor [the Strait of Hormuz] is essential to easing pressure on energy prices and economies, including in our region” Prime Minister Albanese said.
“Australia now has more fuel in its reserves than ever and we will continue to work hard to ensure we have adequate supply.”
With Australia receiving around 20 per cent of its oil through the region, the opening of the passage will hopefully see cost-of-living pressures facing Australians across the country decrease.
An analysis by the Australian Institute of International Affairs in January this year predicted that a continued and escalated conflict between the US and Iran would be a less-than-ideal situation for Australia, with the US shifting focus from the Indo-Pacific, economic insecurity, and regional instability all being likely outcomes of prolonged warfare.
“We will continue to do all we can to shield Australians from the worst impacts of this conflict,” Prime Minister Albanese said.
Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make Defence Connect a preferred news source on Google.
Click here to add Defence Connect as a preferred news source.