On Tuesday, the conflict between the U.S. and Iran reached its 123rd day. Confusion arose after Iran declared there would be no negotiations with the U.S. in Doha, even as it confirmed it is sending an expert delegation this week to negotiate the release of its frozen assets under a previous agreement with Washington.
Despite the announcement of a 60-day road map, the current scenario appears to represent a ‘Catch-22’ situation: a paradoxical, circular dilemma in which resolution is hindered by mutually dependent or contradictory conditions. In such cases, addressing one aspect of the problem requires resolving another first, rendering a solution unattainable.
The term was coined by author Joseph Heller in his 1961 satirical novel Catch-22. In the book, World War II pilots could be excused from dangerous missions only if they were declared insane. However, asking to be excused demonstrated a rational concern for one’s safety, which proved the pilot was actually sane—meaning they had to keep flying.
US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff is traveling to Doha, Qatar, today, after President Donald Trump said yesterday that his country and Iran would meet there.
“The fact that US representatives are traveling to Qatar has nothing to do with the Iranian delegation’s visit, which is being conducted to follow up on (the agreement),” Baghaei told reporters Monday.
Regardless of how Iran describes the visit, the simultaneous presence of expert delegations from Tehran and Washington in Doha following the weekend’s tensions is significant and cannot be overlooked.
Iranian negotiators’ attempts to distance themselves from any talks may also be a tactic to ease domestic pressure from hardline factions, which have repeatedly accused them of conceding too much and of appearing overly accommodating to the US.
Framing the visit as focused on securing the release of funds – rather than negotiations – could be another way to relieve that pressure.
The MOU basically kicked the can down the road, leaving most details to be sorted later. But two weeks into the 60 days allocated for negotiating the final deal, there is little sign of progress on several of the most important issues.
One clause in the MOU has created the potential for a catch-22 situation. It stipulates that further negotiations will only start once the issues of Iran’s frozen assets, US sanctions on Iranian oil, Strait of Hormuz traffic, the US blockade of Iranian ports, and fighting between the two countries (and in Lebanon) have been dealt with. So even agreeing on a sequence remains difficult.
While Tehran said yesterday that half of its frozen assets held in Qatar will be returned, US officials have said no such assets have yet been released. And Iran continues to insist ships must have its permission to transit the strait via designated routes, but a growing number of vessels are using an alternative route hugging the Omani coastline. Substantive talks discussing Iran’s nuclear program haven’t begun yet.
Undoubtedly, there have been frequent reminders of this truce’s fragility. US and Iranian forces were consistently exchanging strikes over the weekend after the Islamic Republic attacked two ships transiting through the strait.
That – again – impacted marine traffic in the narrow waterway, which had substantially increased last week, though it remains well below pre-war levels. Meanwhile, fighting between Hezbollah militants and Israeli forces has continued in southern Lebanon, despite agreements aimed at curbing the violence there.
On evaluating the movements of the gold futures on daily charts since June 17, when the MOU kicked off the 60-day road map for negotiating the final deal, gold futures experienced a sharp recovery from the day’s tested low at $4,237.64, before hitting the day’s high at $4,403.50 on that day.
And, despite attempting to hold the key support at $4,124.19 between June 19-23, 2026, gold futures continued their slide on June 24, pierced not only this support at $4,124.19, pierced the next support at $4,036 – a support tested by the gold futures on November 18, 2025, before advent of bullish voyage that ended on January 29, 2026 when the gold futures tested a record peak.
On June 25, 2026, gold futures tried to defend the tested lows on June 24 and found some reversal due to short-covering. After the selling during the last five trading sessions, gold futures tried to sustain above the key support at $4,035.38 on June 26, despite testing the day’s low at $3,994.77.
On Monday, after testing the day’s high at $4,02.74, gold futures tested the day’s low at $4,012, before closing the day at $4,039.40, just above the key support at $4,035.38.
On Tuesday, after opening the day at $4,028.92, tested the day’s high at $4,051.40, and day’s low at $3,958.57, gold futures are trading at $4,040.60, just trying to defend the key support at $4,035.38, signalling weakness, as trading much below the 9 EMA ($4,113.82) which has already come below the 200 EMA ($4,300.74), formed a “Bearish Crossover”.
prices are on track for their biggest quarterly decline since April 2013, having fallen roughly 24% from their late-January all-time high near $5,589/oz, with the Gold Futures August contract trading at $4,031.70 today.
The selloff has been driven by a tightening vice of dollar strength and rising U.S. rate-hike expectations. The futures are near a 13-month high, as investors reprice Federal Reserve policy in the wake of hawkish signals tied to persistent inflation pressures stemming from the Middle East conflict.
Gold, which pays no yield, is acutely sensitive to the prospect of higher real rates, and the metal has now shed more than 6% year-to-date after briefly slipping below the key $4,000/oz psychological level for the first time since November 2025 on June 24.
Options markets are flashing an unusually bearish signal. For the first time since 2016, gold’s put/call skew has turned positive, meaning traders are now paying more for downside protection than upside exposure.
***
Disclaimer: Readers are advised to take any position in gold at their own risk, as this analysis is based solely on observations.
