American source says 'the Iranians went too far', i24NEWS reports

• The debate is not only about the steps themselves, but also about the order of actions within the deal
• The Iranians are adding new demands on the issue

Negotiations of this kind have a long record of breaking down not over the core bargain but over sequencing, and the attribution to an unnamed 'American source' via an Israeli outlet is itself the tell: sourcing of this type has historically served as a pressure instrument in the back half of talks, where each side tests whether public blame moves the other. The two substantive points, new demands and dispute over the order of actions, describe the classic late-stage failure mode in sanctions-for-constraints diplomacy, where the party that moves first fears the other will pocket the concession, and episodes structured this way have tended to resolve through either a choreographed simultaneous step or a collapse back to escalation. The form to watch is whether the other side confirms the framing, whether the leak hardens into an official position or is walked back within days, and whether backchannels stay open, since in past rounds of these talks public friction has coexisted with continued private contact. The transmission channel, when talks of this kind break down, runs through the crude risk premium, tanker insurance and freight rates, and Gulf producer spreads rather than through any direct supply loss, so the distinction that matters is between rhetorical positioning and an actual halt to the negotiating track. As a single-sourced leak rather than a formal statement, the signal is directional and prone to reversal.