Iran has spent six weeks refusing American ceasefire proposals, absorbing military strikes, and being accused of negotiating in bad faith. But this week, Tehran put its demands formally on the table — a 10-point plan delivered through Pakistani mediators that reveals the full scope of what Iran believes it would need to end this war.
The document, described by a US official who saw it as “maximalist,” is nonetheless being taken seriously by the mediators trying to bridge the two sides. Understanding what Iran is asking for is essential to understanding whether this conflict can be resolved at the negotiating table — or whether it heads toward a longer and more destructive phase.
How the Proposal Came Together
According to the Iranian state news agency IRNA, the Iranian response was discussed internally for two weeks before being sent to Pakistani mediators.
Iran’s state news agency reported that Tehran had conveyed its response via Islamabad. Iran rejected the proposed temporary ceasefire, putting forward instead a call for a permanent end to the hostilities. The Iranian proposal consisted of ten clauses, including an end to conflicts in the region, a protocol for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of sanctions, and reconstruction assistance.
The timing was calculated. Iran chose to submit its plan through Pakistani channels — not directly to the United States — in keeping with Tehran’s position that it has not acknowledged direct negotiations with Washington, even as officials have communicated through intermediary text channels.
What Iran Is Demanding
The 10-point plan can be understood through five broad categories of demands:
A permanent end to the war. This is Iran’s central condition and its main source of friction with the United States. Iran publicly rejected proposals for a temporary ceasefire, arguing it would give the US and Israel time to regroup and launch further attacks. Tehran pointed to the 12-day US-Israeli air conflict in June 2025, during which, it said, strikes continued even as diplomacy was underway.
A new legal framework for the Strait of Hormuz. A spokesman for Iran’s president said the Strait “will open when all the damage caused by the imposed war is compensated through a new legal regime, using a portion of the revenue from transit fees.” This is a significant departure from the pre-war status quo, in which the strait operated under existing international maritime law.
Lifting of economic sanctions. Iran has long maintained that Western sanctions amount to economic warfare. The 10-point plan makes sanctions relief a prerequisite for any agreement, not a reward for compliance after the fact.
Compensation for war damages. Iran has reportedly put the figure at $250 billion, a number that reflects not just the six weeks of active war but years of sanctions and prior military confrontations. The US has not engaged seriously with this demand.
An end to other regional conflicts. Iran’s plan reportedly links a Hormuz agreement to broader regional settlements — effectively asking for a resolution to the Lebanon conflict and other arenas where Iran-backed forces are engaged.
Why the US Says It Is Not Enough
A US official who saw the Iranian response called it “maximalist.” Trump told reporters Iran’s response was “significant” but “not good enough,” and said it was “highly unlikely” he would extend his deadline again.
The core US objections are also structural. Washington wants Iran to hand over its highly enriched uranium stockpile and commit to halting enrichment — conditions Iran has historically refused. The US also wants a temporary ceasefire first, to allow time for negotiations, rather than guaranteeing a permanent end to the war upfront as Iran demands.
Iran has rejected the temporary ceasefire approach based on a specific historical argument: the US and Israel launched the current war on February 28 while Washington was simultaneously holding negotiations with Iran. On the eve of the war, Oman — the mediator of those talks — had said a deal was “within reach.”
Tehran has said for years its nuclear program is for civilian purposes and it does not intend to build nuclear weapons, a position the UN nuclear watchdog has partly supported, noting Iran was not in a position to make a nuclear bomb at the time of the strikes.
The Mediators’ Assessment
The mediators — Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey — think that fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz and resolving Iran’s enriched uranium question could only happen under a final deal, not a temporary ceasefire. They are working on confidence-building measures that Iran could accept in exchange for partial Strait opening, and measures the US could take to give Iran guarantees that any ceasefire would actually hold.
Pakistan has been particularly active. Vice President Vance has been in contact with Pakistan’s army chief. The prospect of an in-person meeting between US and Iranian delegations in Islamabad has been discussed, though not confirmed.
The Trust Problem
At the heart of the impasse is a trust deficit that no single document can solve. Iran has made clear to mediators that it does not want to end up in a “Gaza or Lebanon situation” — where a ceasefire exists on paper but the US and Israel can attack again whenever they choose.
This fear is not abstract for Iran’s leadership. It has watched ceasefires in Lebanon repeatedly broken. It has seen agreements framed as ironclad dissolve under pressure. And it was attacked while negotiating — a moment its officials return to repeatedly in diplomatic communications.
The US, for its part, does not trust Iran to maintain any agreement without ironclad verification mechanisms — particularly on nuclear enrichment.
What Happens Next
The 10-point plan is not the end of negotiations. It is Iran’s opening counter-move in a diplomatic process that the mediators believe could yet produce a result, if both sides are willing to move toward the center.
Egyptian officials involved in the talks told reporters that Iran was open to a 45-day ceasefire that could guarantee a permanent end to the war, during which Iran would discuss opening the Strait of Hormuz — a formulation slightly different from a flat rejection of temporary arrangements, and one that mediators are working with.
What Iran wants is clear. What the US will accept is still being defined. And the distance between those two positions — measured in diplomacy, not miles — will determine how this war ends.
