Iran Presents 14-Point Response to U.S. War Proposal
Iran has submitted a 14-point response to the U.S. proposal to end the conflict that began with U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran on February 28, with a demand to resolve all issues and end the war within 30 days, instead of observing a two-month ceasefire as the U.S. had proposed.
Objective Facts
Iran has submitted a 14-point response to the U.S. proposal to end the conflict that began with U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran on February 28, according to the semi-official Tasnim news agency and the state-owned media organization Press TV. An Iranian official said Friday that the document had been handed to Pakistan, but did not disclose its terms. The plan includes a demand to resolve all issues and end the war within 30 days, instead of observing a two-month ceasefire, with other demands including guarantees against future military aggression, the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iran's periphery, an end to the naval blockade, the release of frozen Iranian assets, payment of reparations, the lifting of sanctions, an end to fighting in Lebanon, and a new mechanism governing the Strait of Hormuz. President Trump on Saturday said he is reviewing the new proposal, but stated he "can't imagine that it would be acceptable in that they have not yet paid a big enough price". Iranian officials contend that Tehran believed its latest proposal to shelve nuclear talks for a later stage was a significant shift aimed at facilitating an agreement, while Washington has repeatedly said it will not end the war without a deal that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, revealing the central impasse in negotiations.
Deep Dive
Iran has put forward a 14-point counterproposal that would force the war onto a far shorter clock than Washington appears to prefer, while demanding a rollback of U.S. military pressure around the country, carried through Pakistani mediators and reported by Iranian outlets including Tasnim, Fars and Press TV, calling for all issues to be resolved within 30 days rather than a two-month ceasefire. This proposal reflects both the reality that the war has caused the biggest disruption ever to global energy supplies, roiled global markets and raised worries about the possibility of a wider global economic downturn, and Iran's strategic assessment that it has leverage sufficient to demand rapid resolution. The core impasse is structural: At the heart of the impasse lies a fundamental clash over sequencing and scope, as Washington's nine-point framework is built around a two-month ceasefire designed to stabilise the battlefield and create space for structured negotiations, but Tehran has rejected the idea of a temporary pause, arguing that such arrangements merely defer conflict rather than resolve it, instead pushing for a compressed 30-day timetable to settle all major issues and secure what it describes as a "permanent end" to the war across all fronts, including the parallel theatre in Lebanon. The hard lines suggest both movement and deadlock at once: Iran has put a structure on the table, but it is one built around demands the U.S. is unlikely to accept without major concessions, and Trump said on May 2 that he was reviewing the proposal, but that he could not imagine it being acceptable, and said Iran had not yet "paid a big enough price" for its actions over the past 47 years. For Iran, the decoupling strategy represents a tactical shift—Tehran believed its latest proposal to shelve nuclear talks for a later stage was a significant shift, with future talks then held on curbs to Iran's nuclear program in return for the lifting of sanctions, with Iran demanding Washington recognize its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, even if it agrees to suspend its nuclear program, and "Under this framework, negotiations over the more complicated nuclear issue have been moved to the final stage to create a more conducive atmosphere". Yet this move addresses the form of negotiation, not Trump's substance: his administration insists that nuclear capability must be the centerpiece of any agreement. The next critical juncture will determine whether either side modifies core demands. Diplomacy does not happen in a vacuum, and the current efforts to review a peace framework are occurring alongside an intensification of kinetic action—as the US considers the Iranian proposal, Israel continues to pound Lebanon, with military activity in Lebanon occurring simultaneously with the diplomatic outreach from Tehran, where in regional conflicts military pressure is often used as a tool to force a partner to the negotiating table or to weaken their leverage during discussions, and the strikes in Lebanon complicate the 14-point plan by introducing immediate, volatile variables that a paper agreement cannot easily resolve, if the military escalation in Lebanon continues to intensify, the window for a diplomatic breakthrough narrows. The proposal's success depends on whether Trump views the offer as meeting his threshold for acceptable Iranian concessions, and whether Iran can sustain its negotiating position amid the war's ongoing economic costs.
Regional Perspective
Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs, Kazem Gharibabadi, confirmed that Tehran's recent diplomatic proposal to the United States, presented via Pakistan as a mediator, is intended to "permanently end the imposed war" and bring a resolution to the ongoing tensions between the two countries, with remarks coming in a gathering of foreign diplomats and ambassadors based in Tehran, where Gharibabadi emphasised Iran's preparedness for both diplomatic negotiations and any potential military aggression, and stated "Iran has always believed in interest-based diplomacy to resolve existing issues and has played its part". The Iranian framing positions the proposal as representing Tehran's commitment to resolution while maintaining deterrent capability—a dual-track messaging strategy intended for international consumption. Gharibabadi noted that while Tehran is prepared to engage diplomatically, it maintains deep distrust toward the United States, questioning its commitment to honest and meaningful dialogue, saying "Iran is ready for both paths in order to ensure its national interests and security, and in any case, it will always maintain its pessimism and distrust of America and its honesty in the path of diplomacy". This language reflects Iranian domestic political constraints—the need to appear diplomatically engaged for international audiences while signaling to the Iranian public and security establishment that Tehran is not capitulating. Regional and international media covering the proposal emphasize Iran's apparent willingness to sequence negotiations, with senior Iranian officials, including deputy foreign minister Kazem Gharibabadi, suggesting that Tehran is willing to decouple the immediate ceasefire from the longer-standing dispute over its nuclear programme, with both sides first agreeing to mutual non-aggression guarantees, bringing an end to active hostilities involving the US and Israel, and only in a later phase would negotiations turn to limits on Iran's nuclear activities. However, for Trump, Iran's nuclear capability is the heart of the issue, which is not something to be pushed aside for later, as he has made it clear that any deal worth signing must bring uranium enrichment to a full stop. Regional analysts note this represents a fundamental incompatibility in negotiating approach: Iran offers a sequenced resolution, while the U.S. insists on simultaneous addressing of all core issues. The divergence explains why, despite diplomatic activity and both sides claiming openness to negotiation, the fundamental positions remain far apart.