The initial noises were positive. Conversations that I had with figures involved in those negotiations were optimistic that the sides were drawing close to a provisional agreement, although some obvious and significant gaps remained.
Notably, one issue that wasn't discussed was Iran's ballistic missile programme - which alarmed the Israelis because of the threat those missiles pose to them.
US and Israel strike Iran - follow latest
On Friday morning, Oman's foreign minister Badr Albusaidi, who has mediated several rounds of talks, including those in Geneva, flew to Washington at short notice to brief US vice president JD Vance in person.
Albusaidi then gave two extremely rare interviews on US television to explain what was on the table. It was a desperate and honest attempt to keep the sides talking.
But there were already signs that things were unravelling.
Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, sent an email to embassy staff on Friday morning warning them that if they wanted to leave the country they "must do so TODAY".
It had an air of unplanned urgency, rather than a controlled diplomatic evacuation.
Perhaps they had just learnt something was imminent. Maybe Netanyahu, who has always been deeply sceptical of negotiations, had already decided to attack.
British diplomats were relocated from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as they were during the 12 Day War last June. Western embassies and military outposts around the region were emptied of non-essential staff.
Then late on Friday evening I started to hear word of a possible attack overnight. From my own experience of multiple Middle East wars, it's very hard to pick out the truth from a wall of noise, but the signs were clearly bleak.
The cork is now out of the bottle.
President Trump, with the help of Israel, is going for regime change. It's all or nothing.
Iran's ability to respond might be limited, following the attack on its ballistic missile sites last summer, but already strikes have been reported across the Middle East, not just Israel.
The Iranian regime won't roll over; they will die fighting and will drag the region into a wider conflict if needs be.
The US commander in chief - who came to power as an arch opponent of the US's so-called "forever wars" - has set out ambitious and extensive goals for his attack against the Islamic Republic, saying he plans to prevent this "wicked, radical dictatorship" from threatening the United States.
But he is not in complete control of events.
Mr Trump is gambling that overwhelming US military firepower from the air - rather than boots on the ground - will be enough to destroy the Iranian regime. Tehran's military may have been degraded by previous US and Israeli strikes, but they are showing no sign of rolling over.
It retains the ability to inflict significant harm against Israel as well as US forces in the region - and is already fighting back.
The scale of that retaliation and how much the US and Israel can withstand the counterattacks will be a fundamental indicator to track.
Mr Trump has prepared his country for the potential for American service men and women to be killed, saying in his video address "we may have casualties. That happens in war".
He has calculated that any pain the US side suffers is worthwhile to end the threat posed by Iran.
And he spelt out these objectives - a move that could come back to haunt him if they are not achieved.
Chief among these war goals is a vow to prevent Iran from ever having nuclear weapons. But the US president has also pledged to destroy Iran's missile capabilities and to "annihilate" its navy.
He issued an ultimatum to all members of the Iranian armed forces and security services from the Republican Guard to the police, telling them to lay down their weapons "or face certain death".
There is no indication that the Iranian security forces are about to betray the regime.
The fact that Iran is now retaliating by launching missiles against Israel is a clear sign that Tehran has not been cowed by Mr Trump's opening salvo and is ready to fight.
Even if the regime is toppled, the next moment of peril is what comes next.
The US president made clear that he wants the Iranian people to step up and "take over your government".
But, again, he does not have the ability to control what that would look like and whether what comes next is better than what he seeks to destroy.
The history of wars in the Middle East shows that no plan by either side survives first contact with the enemy.
Words including "Zionist war criminal", "Stop the Genocide" and "Free Palestine" were sprayed in red paint on the bronze statue in Parliament Square in Westminster in the early hours of Friday.
Caspar San Giorgio, 38, of no fixed address, was arrested shortly after 4am on Friday, police said.
He was taken into custody and charged at 3.50am on Saturday.
He was remanded and is due to appear at Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court.
San Giorgio was also arrested on suspicion of supporting Palestine Action, which is a proscribed organisation, under the Terrorism Act, the Metropolitan Police said on Friday.
The statue was cordoned off and work to clean it began on Friday.
Further graffiti read "Never again is Now" and "Globalise the Intifada".
The 42nd president became the first sitting or former president to testify before members of Congress in more than 40 years, as he faced the House Oversight Committee in their investigation into the paedophile financier.
In a video posted on X, Mr Clinton stated that he had ended his brief acquaintance with Epstein years before his crimes came to light.
"Though I never witnessed during our limited interactions any indication with what was truly going on, I offered the little I do know in the hopes that it would help prevent anything like this from ever happening again."
Mr Clinton has denied wrongdoing and expressed regret for his association with Epstein.
He targeted Republicans for making his wife Hillary testify the day before, even though Mrs Clinton repeatedly stated she didn't know Epstein, and never went to his island or his properties.
Her husband said her subpoena was "simply not right".
He continued: "I had no idea of the crimes Epstein was committing. No matter how many photos they show of me, I have two things that, at the end of the day, matter far more than any interpretation of 20-year-old photos.
"I know what I saw, and more importantly, what I didn't see. And I know what I did, and more importantly, what I didn't do. I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong."
Mr Clinton said he never would have flown on his plane if he had any inkling of what was going on and would've turned him in personally if he knew.
"Even with 20/20 hindsight, I saw nothing that ever gave me real pause."
Mr Clinton was questioned for more than six hours and was also asked about a picture of him in a jacuzzi released as part of the Epstein files.
A person in the room for the deposition said Mr Clinton didn't know who he was pictured with and said he didn't have sex with them.
Mr Clinton also repeatedly said during questioning that he never visited Epstein's private island.
"When the video of my testimony today is released, I hope it will motivate everyone to go in front of Congress to say what they know," he said.
"I hope it will motivate the justice department to finally release all the files and to ensure that this never happens again. The survivors deserve that."
Read more:
Politics are laced through the Epstein affair - and why listening to the victims is so vital
The Epstein committee shouldn't be defined by politics - but it is hard to avoid
What Sky News has uncovered about Clinton and Epstein's relationship
His hearing took place behind closed doors in Chappaqua, New York state, but Democrats and Republicans on the House Oversight Committee offered some indication of proceedings throughout the day.
Democratic representative Suhas Subramanyam told Sky News' US correspondent James Matthews that Mr Clinton generally "answered all of our questions" and had been thorough in his answers.
Republican representative James Comer said Mr Clinton told the committee that incumbent president Donald Trump "has never said anything to make me think he was involved", but Democratic counterpart Robert Garcia said Mr Clinton brought up "additional information about discussions with President Trump".
Democrats also say a "new precedent" has been set with Mr Clinton's testimony, as they continue to ramp up pressure for Mr Trump to testify.
Mr Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein, and says he used to be friends with the convicted sex offender but cut that off before he was accused of sexual abuse.
And yet, at a lectern outside the venue where she'd just been questioning a former president, Republican Nancy Mace told the media this: "Epstein victims have exonerated President Trump. This is a trope, a rabbit hole that you guys have been going down, but he's been exonerated over and over again by Epstein victims."
Which is news to many survivors. I asked Rep Mace when survivors had told her the president is exonerated because they had only ever told me they wanted to see him questioned by her committee. She replied: "I've never heard that from a single victim."
Anna Paulina Luna, her Republican colleague on the House Oversight Committee, has expressed similar views that Epstein survivors see the president as being in the clear.
You have to wonder at the extent of their research.
Dani Bensky, an Epstein survivor, told Sky News: "Trump has certainly not been exonerated. There is evidence, and there are investigative leads that need to be looked into. Just because a survivor doesn't raise a hand in a group setting, doesn't mean that they didn't experience or witness harm. It means that safety and defamation are extremely real fears.
"To suggest Trump is exonerated is an insult to survivors and speaks to the continued failures of the DoJ [Department of Justice] to follow the investigative leads that are in front of them."
Jess Michaels, an Epstein survivor, posted on Threads: "Rep Luna did not meet with all 1200+ victims from an over 30-year time span. WE, as a collective, have not cleared President Trump of wrongdoing. He IS a person of interest. He should testify.
"Signed ~ an Epstein survivor."
They are two women among many who hold a similar view. It's clear that Epstein survivors want questions asked of Donald Trump, a former friend of Jeffrey Epstein, who is featured in the files.
To state that they have exonerated him is simply wrong and risks undermining their pursuit of justice.
It also feeds the theory - whether it's true or not - that Republicans are providing cover for their president at the expense of a proper and full investigation.
👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈
Politics are laced through the Epstein affair. The transcripts of the Clinton interviews, when they are released, will reflect the truth of their testimony. It will also provide proper context for the closing statement of Republican chair James Comer, who said that former president Bill Clinton had "exonerated" President Trump as he "has no information that President Trump did anything wrong, and that President Trump never said anything to Clinton to make him think that he was involved with Epstein".
Read more:
Trump's furious response to AI developer Anthropic
Hillary Clinton attacks line of questioning over Epstein
Notwithstanding that, Democrats dispute the Republicans' characterisation of Clinton's evidence, the notion that Trump is exonerated because he didn't confess to an old foe is simply absurd.
The calls for the current president to appear before the House Oversight Committee didn't end when Clinton left the room.
Donald Trump emphatically denies any knowledge of, or involvement in, Jeffrey Epstein's criminal behaviour.
Inclusion in the Epstein files is no indication of guilt.