For months, President Donald Trump has been telling Americans that negotiations with Iran are progressing, that a deal is within reach, and that everything will eventually fall into place.

At some point, however, optimism stops sounding reassuring and starts sounding disconnected from reality.

That is where we are now.

To be fair, diplomacy is rarely linear. Negotiations involving decades of hostility, competing regional interests, sanctions, military pressure, and nuclear ambitions are never resolved overnight. Anyone expecting a breakthrough in a matter of days is misunderstanding the nature of international diplomacy.

Yet the administration continues to project confidence that seems increasingly out of step with events unfolding on the ground.

Reports indicate that indirect talks between Washington and Tehran have produced some movement. Negotiators appear to be discussing language for a preliminary memorandum of understanding. That’s meaningful progress. But it is not the comprehensive agreement Trump has repeatedly suggested is just around the corner.

The gap between those two realities matters.

While the White House speaks of momentum, messages coming from Tehran are noticeably more cautious. Iranian officials have shown little urgency, and some reports suggest communication has stalled entirely at various points amid broader regional tensions. Meanwhile, attacks and counterattacks continue throughout the region, raising legitimate questions about whether the current situation even qualifies as a meaningful ceasefire.

This is what makes the administration’s messaging so frustrating.

Americans are being told that diplomatic success is imminent while evidence suggests the process remains fragile, uncertain, and far from complete. That does not mean negotiations are failing. It means they are unfolding exactly as difficult negotiations usually do: slowly.

The administration also faces a credibility problem of its own making.

Officials continue describing the conflict as a decisive victory. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently defended that position by pointing to damage inflicted on Iran’s military capabilities and infrastructure. From the administration’s perspective, those achievements constitute success.

But if victory has already been achieved, why does Washington still appear locked in a prolonged struggle to secure its political objectives?

That contradiction has become increasingly difficult to ignore.

As a Democrat, I disagreed with many aspects of Trump’s approach to Iran long before the current conflict. At the same time, evaluating the present situation should not be reduced to partisan reflexes. The reality is that anyone occupying the Oval Office would face enormous challenges trying to negotiate a durable agreement under these circumstances.

The problem is not that diplomacy is taking time.

The problem is that the public is being led to believe that diplomacy should not take time.

History suggests otherwise.

The 2015 nuclear agreement negotiated during the Obama administration required years of groundwork and nearly two years of intensive negotiations before a final framework emerged. Whatever one’s opinion of that deal, it demonstrated a simple truth: major agreements with Iran are extraordinarily difficult to achieve.

Even Rubio appears to recognize this reality. He recently acknowledged that resolving technical issues surrounding nuclear restrictions, inspections, uranium enrichment, and verification mechanisms could take months of expert-level negotiations.

That assessment sounds realistic.

The president’s repeated suggestions that a breakthrough could arrive any day do not.

There is also the question of leverage.

Iran has demonstrated its ability to disrupt regional commerce and energy markets, particularly through threats involving the Strait of Hormuz. That creates pressure not only on Washington but also on allies and trading partners whose economies depend on stability in the region.

As a result, negotiations are unlikely to be a simple exercise in American demands followed by Iranian concessions. Both sides possess tools they can use to prolong the standoff.

That reality may be uncomfortable, but pretending otherwise does not make it disappear.

The stakes extend far beyond diplomatic talking points.

The conflict continues to affect Gulf nations caught between competing powers. Global energy markets remain vulnerable. Consumers continue feeling the impact of higher fuel costs. Businesses are watching closely for signs of disruption that could ripple throughout the broader economy.

Those concerns are real, and they help explain why the administration is eager to project confidence.

Urgency is understandable.

Wishful thinking is not.

If a durable agreement eventually emerges, it will almost certainly come through painstaking negotiations, technical discussions, incremental compromises, and countless hours of work that never make headlines. There is nothing glamorous about that process, but it is often how meaningful diplomatic progress is achieved.

The administration would be better served by preparing Americans for that reality instead of repeatedly suggesting that a historic breakthrough is perpetually just one weekend away.

The irony is hard to miss.

The “boring” diplomacy that political leaders often dismiss may ultimately be the only path to the outcome everyone claims to want.

And the longer this drags on, the more obvious that becomes.