Washington's plan for ending the Iran war has 15 points, Tehran's has five, and each crosses the other side's red lines.
The details of the US proposal have not been made public, but it has been widely reported on. It's believed to be similar in many respects to proposals made before the current conflict began with Israeli and US air strikes on February 28.
White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt has told reporters that "there are elements of truth" in media reports on the 15 points.
In the competing plans, new elements are thought to include demands by both sides concerning the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping route for global supplies of oil, gas, and other commodities that Iran is currently blocking.
US Demands
The single most important US demand is one that US President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated. He also says that Iran has agreed to it.
“They’d like to make a deal,” he told reporters during an Oval Office event on March 24. “They’ve agreed they will never have a nuclear weapon.”
The United States and its allies, including Israel and major European nations, have been concerned about the prospect of Iran developing nuclear weapons for many years. Iran has always denied wishing to do so.
Even if this was true, Iran is now under new leadership and has come under intense US and Israeli attacks that launched two wars -- the first one being June last year. The intentions of Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, who has still not been seen since his appointment was announced on March 8, are inscrutable.
Likewise, it’s not entirely clear to what extent he or other players are currently calling the shots in Tehran, nor the degree to which senior Iranian officials are even able to communicate with each other amid ongoing air strikes that have killed so many top figures.
Trump said on March 25 that Iranian officials were "afraid" to admit they were communicating with US negotiators "because they figure they'll be killed by their own people."
The 15-point plan reportedly includes a 1-month cease-fire while details are worked out. The plan includes many other US demands, such as dismantling Iranian nuclear facilities, handing over enriched uranium stocks to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and agreeing not to enrich in the future.
Further points are said to put limits on Iran’s missile capabilities and an end to Iran’s support for regional proxy forces, such as Hezbollah, regarded as a terrorist organization by Washington.
While many of these were already US demands before the war, some, such as reopening the Strait of Hormuz and ending Iranian strikes on regional energy facilities, would be a response to Iran’s wartime actions since February 28.
In return, Iran would see sanctions lifted and get US assistance with a civilian nuclear power program.
“The reported parameters of the US proposal do not lack ambition: Sanctions relief in return for sweeping Iranian concessions,” Naysan Rafati, senior Iran analyst at the International Crisis Group, told RFE/RL.
“But if past is prelude, its feasibility would rest on the Islamic republic's willingness to fold under fire on what have long been its red lines. On the nuclear front, for example, Tehran has continued to insist on the right to uranium enrichment… It has also rejected the notion of negotiating over its missile program,” he added.
Iran’s Position
Iranian officials have not only said talks are not taking place, they’ve also mocked US statements on the matter, with military spokesman Ebrahim Zolfaqari saying that the Trump administration was “negotiating with itself.”
“No one like us will make a deal with you. Not now. Not ever,” he added in comments on March 25.
Meanwhile, some of Tehran’s demands contradict US positions.
Examples include recognition of Iran’s control or authority over the Strait of Hormuz, along with the right to charge passage fees, and the right to an unrestricted missile program.
The Iranian demands also clearly cross US red lines, demanding Washington close its military bases in the Persian Gulf, pay war reparations, and guarantee that it will not attack Iran again.
“For now, at least, the promise of economic relief and pain of continued strikes seem unlikely to prompt Iranian compromise on the scale Washington seeks,” said Rafati. “The regime as a whole doesn't yet see its wartime position as desperate enough to agree to the US terms.”
Fred Fleitz, vice chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Security, had a similar take.
“I think the biggest challenge is to get the Iranian regime to agree to anything. I think we're still in the process of getting them to agree to actually negotiate. I think we've made some progress with some initial queries, but we need to get an Iranian representative, sit down with the US or with an intermediary to start talking,” he told RFE/RL.
