Iran’s top security official said Saturday that Tehran has sent its conditions for ending the seven-month war to Washington through Qatari mediators and is now awaiting a response from President Trump, as separate talks over reopening the Strait of Hormuz edged closer to a deal.
What Happened
“We remain in contact with the mediator Qatar, which has conveyed our conditions to Washington with the aim of ending the war. We are awaiting President Trump’s response,” Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told Al Jazeera in an exclusive interview. “Our conditions are an end to the war on all fronts, the release of our frozen funds and an end to the naval blockade,” Rezaei said, adding “it is in Washington’s interest to accept these conditions. Trump’s threats will not achieve any results. We are prepared for a decisive war.”
On the Strait of Hormuz specifically, Rezaei said Tehran had come within “a short step” of announcing an agreement with Oman before it was shelved, adding that a deal between the two countries remains ready but may require regional endorsement before being made public. That echoes the collapse of a planned Salalah meeting between Iran and Gulf Cooperation Council states earlier this month, postponed after Saudi Arabia reportedly asked for a delay and Oman’s foreign minister said it was called off “in the interests of consensus.”
Rezaei’s comments came the same weekend Iranian state broadcaster IRIB reported that Iran and Oman had reached a broader “understanding” on safe shipping through the strait, and as Pakistan’s Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi arrived in Tehran, though Iranian officials said the visit would focus on bilateral relations rather than mediation.
Why It Matters
Rezaei’s specific enumeration of Iran’s conditions, ending the war on all fronts rather than just the direct US-Iran fighting, releasing frozen funds, and lifting the naval blockade, provides the clearest public statement yet of what Tehran considers necessary for a resolution, offering Washington a concrete, if demanding, framework to evaluate.
The combination of a conciliatory diplomatic message with Rezaei’s warning that Iran is “prepared for a decisive war” reflects the dual-track posture Iran has maintained throughout much of the conflict, simultaneously signaling openness to negotiation while projecting continued willingness to fight if talks fail.
The reference to needing “regional endorsement” for the nearly finalized Oman deal underscores how thoroughly the broader war has entangled Gulf states in decisions that, on their face, concern only bilateral shipping arrangements between Iran and Oman, complicating what might otherwise be a more straightforward technical agreement.
Context and Background
Iran and Oman have spent months negotiating a framework for a temporary joint navigation corridor through the strait and a joint project to clear mines from the waterway, with the two countries’ foreign ministers describing “technical negotiations” continuing toward a permanent arrangement even as the broader political conditions for a full reopening remain contested.
The Salalah meeting’s collapse earlier this month came after months of alternating optimism and setback in the Iran-Oman-Gulf diplomatic track, with Iran previously saying geographic coordinates for a shipping route had been agreed upon, even as the IRGC separately insisted the strait’s full reopening “has nothing to do with the negotiations between Iran and Oman” and depends entirely on US concessions.
Iran’s conditions echo commitments made under the June memorandum of understanding, which called for a schedule to end sanctions, a compensation framework, and negotiations over frozen assets, an agreement that collapsed in July when fighting resumed and that Iranian officials have since accused the US of violating.
Analysis
Regional diplomacy analysts note that routing Iran’s conditions through Qatar, rather than through Oman, which has led the more technical Hormuz-specific negotiations, suggests Tehran may be using multiple simultaneous mediation channels to pursue different aspects of a broader settlement, with Qatar handling the political end-of-war conditions and Oman managing the narrower shipping arrangement.
Some foreign policy observers point to the specificity of Rezaei’s demands, particularly the call to end fighting “on all fronts,” as implicitly addressing the wider regional conflict involving Yemen, Lebanon, and Gulf states beyond the core US-Iran confrontation, a broader scope than earlier Iranian statements have typically specified.
Analysts caution that the pattern of near-finalized agreements repeatedly being shelved or requiring additional endorsement, as with both the June MOU and the current Oman deal, suggests structural obstacles beyond the immediate negotiating parties continue to prevent even agreed-upon frameworks from being implemented.
What Happens Next
Trump’s response to the conditions relayed through Qatar will be closely watched as the clearest indicator of whether this diplomatic channel can produce movement toward de-escalation. The fate of the nearly finalized Oman shipping agreement, and whether it can secure the regional endorsement Rezaei described as necessary, remains a key near-term test.
Continued parallel diplomatic activity, including Naqvi’s Tehran visit and ongoing Iran-Oman technical talks, will be watched for any signs of coordinated movement toward the broader settlement Rezaei described, even as Iran’s continued warnings of a “decisive war” suggest talks remain fragile.
