Donald Trump announced that the war with Iran is over. "Today we ended the war with Iran," the American president said, stressing that Iran's commitment not to develop nuclear weapons made up "95 percent" of the negotiations. It sounds like an end - but from Tehran came an entirely different tone right away.

According to the announcements, the preliminary agreement - reportedly called the "Islamabad Agreement", mediated by Qatar and Pakistan - contains several key points. A full opening of the Strait of Hormuz to maritime trade with no levies and a return to volume within 30 days, an urgent lifting of the American naval blockade of Iranian ports, a 60-day ceasefire that also covers the clashes in Lebanon, and an Iranian commitment to enrich uranium at home under the supervision of UN inspectors.

On paper, it's a comprehensive package. The problem is that Iran did not sign it. Spokesman Esmail Baghaei rejected it as "speculative" and "nothing finished yet", accusing Washington of making "excessive demands" and "new conditions", and saying Tehran will not back down from its "red lines".

Here lies the difference between an announcement and an agreement. Trump wants a signature, Iran wants its frozen assets now, and Washington offers them in instalments - conditional on obedience. When one side celebrates an ending and the other says nothing is finished, the truth usually sits somewhere in the middle, in the fine print no one reads at a press conference.

Still, something has moved. The open conflict began at the end of February with American-Israeli strikes, after which Iran blocked the strait and disrupted a fifth of the world's oil supply. The price of oil fell by 4.4 percent right after Trump's statement - which shows that the markets, unlike the politicians, don't wait for a signature to react. For a region that has survived enough "finished" wars, scepticism isn't cynicism - it's experience.