The discrepancy between the version of events presented by Trump and Tehran on Sunday is a reflection of what this war is about five months on more than either side will admit publicly.

The American president had threatened to declare a strike overnight, but after talks with Iran and unspecified governments in the region, he said the outline of an agreement was being developed and that a strike was not necessary. Washington had agreed to cancel the attack, with the caveat of being able to make a quick deal, and had directed his own officials to get to work, Trump wrote. That "bargain," Trump said in his tweet, included the complete opening of the Strait of Hormuz and the end of the nuclear threat posed by Iran since the conflict started.

Iran didn't take long to bring it down. The Mehr news agency, citing Iranian military sources, said the American president's version was just another lie. The Revolutionary Guards-backed Fars was even more emphatic, claiming there was no agreement whatsoever, and that the strait would remain closed to all ships unless they coordinated with the Guards' navy while America remained hostile. State media in Tehran didn't go half way they made fun of the retreat, that it was simply another case of "talk-talk" and then "back-talk-talk".

That mockery is important because it's not the first time the two sides have provided conflicting interpretations of the same moment. Trump's past promises were of understandings he later abandoned, and the trend has begun in capitals on the periphery that take each new announcement with a grain of salt.

The reasons behind the climbdown seem less mysterious than the deal itself. Saudi Arabia's own state news agency reported that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman called Trump on Saturday, urging him to de-escalate so as to leave room for diplomacy. The crown prince went so far as to ask Washington point-blank what he was up to, in another account relayed to Axios. Meanwhile, Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi was also busy on the phones with Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia about the threat of the conflict going further, Iranian state media reported.

Israeli television added that Araghchi had agreed to a compromise brokered by Qatar and agreed that tankers would pass through Iranian waters and leave through Omani waters, with Oman demanding assurances that it would be met this time by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and not just by diplomats. Transit fees, long the biggest sticking point in these talks, were not accompanied by a figure. Within hours, Iran's negotiating team challenged that account as unfounded.

The Israeli government has been conspicuously silent about this, in particular. The only high-profile official to speak out publicly was Energy Minister Eli Cohen, who spoke with Army Radio and emphasized the need for Israel to strike any fresh Iranian steps on its nuclear or missile programs, even if a nuclear deal is reached. He also claimed that Iran's failure to attack Israeli territory directly was proof that Israeli deterrence was working, even if other nations with American troops were doing it. Iran's acting defense minister made a counter claim, saying that America's threats were psychological warfare but that Tehran was taking them seriously and preparing itself.

Behind the diplomatic stage are a host of stark economic truths. It transports between 17 million and 20 million barrels of crude and condensate per day, about a fifth of the world's consumption, as well as about a fifth of global trade in liquified natural gas (LNG), that no other route could handle without years of pipeline construction.It's that single corridor that makes every move in this negotiation more of a market mover than most of the G20 summits. As the war escalated and tanker traffic lessened, Brent rose by more than 20 percent in a month to more than $87 per barrel in the spring of 2012. At the height of the fighting, the price of war-risk insurance can have been quoted as high as 8 to 10 percent of a ship's value, which used to cost just a fraction of a percent of the actual value of the vessel. Rather than cheap transits, however, even those brokers who believe a political solution is possible are cautioning shippers against relaxing premiums any time soon, whatever the announcement in Washington or Tehran, because underwriters want to see months of calm before they relax premiums.

So put these two conflicting claims into the context of the backdrop. A ceasefire as announced in a presidential social media post, undermined in a matter of hours by a foreign ministry-linked news agency, signals shipping insurers, refiners and Gulf governments that the underlying situation has not changed: only the rhetoric. American citizens were warned to be prepared to evacuate with "immediate or short notice" as the strike was being called off from Washington's embassies around the region on Saturday. It is far more truthful than either leader's declaration, and perhaps the best indication of the situation on the ground: officials are still wavering both sides over a war they haven't fully agreed to end.

The main problem within Iran is the disagreement among hardliners in the Revolutionary Guards and those seeking a workable deal with Washington, perhaps more significant than what is happening between Washington and Tehran. If the Guards' navy fails to abide by any transit agreement negotiated by Araghchi's ministry, then it is of little use.If the Guards' navy does not respect any transit agreement negotiated by Araghchi's ministry, it means nothing, as Oman is said to have required before signing up. Until this internal leeway is found, this cycle of announcement, denial, mockery, and repeat will continue to determine the world's valuation of risk along one of its most important trade routes.