Iran has formally responded to the latest U.S. ceasefire proposal via Pakistani mediators, signaling guarded interest in ending the war but insisting that any agreement must go beyond a temporary truce to a “permanent end to the conflict on all fronts” and explicitly rejecting Washington’s attempt to fold long‑term nuclear concessions into an urgent war‑stopping deal. The reply, reported Sunday by Iranian state media and regional outlets, comes as Iranian drones and missiles continue to target Gulf shipping and as President Donald Trump accuses Tehran of “playing games,” underscoring how diplomacy and low‑level warfare are now running in parallel.
What Tehran says it wants
Iranian state television reported Sunday that Tehran has “delivered its response” to the latest U.S. plan through Pakistani intermediaries and that its priority is a permanent cessation of hostilities, not another short‑term pause.
According to state media summaries cited by CBS and Al Jazeera, Iran’s reply stresses:
- Ending the war “on all fronts,” including in Lebanon, where Israeli strikes have continued.
- Ensuring the security of commercial shipping, including in the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran has been firing drones and missiles at vessels it claims are linked to the U.S. and its allies.
- Sequencing talks so that an immediate ceasefire and security guarantees come first, with the nuclear program to be discussed only in a later phase.
Al Jazeera, summarizing comments from Iranian officials and lawmakers, says Tehran has set a “very firm red line”: it will not negotiate away its uranium enrichment under fire and does not accept U.S. demands for a sweeping rollback of its nuclear activities as the price of stopping the war.
The U.S. proposal Tehran is answering
Washington’s latest initiative is built around a 14‑point plan delivered earlier this month, according to U.S. media and Al Jazeera.
Under that offer, Iran would be required to:
- Commit not to develop a nuclear weapon.
- Halt all uranium enrichment for at least 12 years.
- Surrender about 440 kilograms (970 pounds) of uranium enriched to 60%, material that experts say could be converted relatively quickly to weapons‑grade levels.
- Accept arrangements to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and end attacks on shipping.
In return, the U.S. and its partners would:
- Stop offensive operations and move from a fragile ceasefire to a formal end to hostilities.
- Facilitate some degree of sanctions relief and unfreezing of Iranian assets, though public reports suggest this part of the proposal is less detailed than the nuclear demands.
President Trump has promoted the plan on Truth Social, calling it “a great deal for Iran if they take it” and warning that Tehran faces “intensified military action” if it does not.
Iran’s red lines: war first, nuclear program later
Tehran’s answer, as far as is publicly known, effectively flips that sequencing.
Al Jazeera’s Tehran correspondents report that Iranian officials insist they are not negotiating their nuclear program at this stage and want talks to focus instead on:
- Ending U.S. and Israeli strikes “across all fronts,” including Iran itself, Lebanon, and Syria.
- Securing UN Security Council guarantees against future attacks.
- Lifting or easing sanctions that have battered Iran’s economy.
- Establishing a new protocol for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, where recent clashes have brought U.S. and Iranian forces dangerously close.
Only once those conditions are met, Iranian officials suggest, would Tehran be prepared to discuss its nuclear program in detail.
Analyst Negar Mortazavi told Al Jazeera that Iran might show more flexibility on nuclear issues after the conflict ends, perhaps by accepting stronger inspections or limits on stockpiles, but is highly unlikely to ship out enriched uranium directly to the U.S. or halt enrichment entirely for 12 years.
Iranian lawmaker Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesman for the parliament’s foreign policy and national security committee, dismissed the U.S. document as “more an American wish‑list than reality.” Parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf mocked U.S. claims that a deal was close, quipping on social media that “Operation ‘Trust Me Bro’ failed.”
Mediators in the middle: Pakistan and Qatar
Pakistan has emerged as the primary channel for exchanging proposals, with its diplomats relaying messages between Tehran and Washington. CBS says Iran’s response was delivered to Pakistani intermediaries on Sunday, though neither side has disclosed the full text.
Qatar is playing a parallel role.
- Its prime minister met Trump’s Middle East envoy and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Florida last week, then flew out amid reports that talks focused on the Iran war and possible ceasefire terms.
- On Sunday, Qatari officials publicly urged Iran not to use the Strait of Hormuz as leverage, warning that weaponizing such a critical waterway would deepen the crisis rather than end it.
These overlapping mediation efforts reflect how the war has become both a regional security crisis and a test of diplomatic architecture stretching from the Gulf to Washington.
Clashes at sea and “nominal” ceasefire
Iran’s reply comes amid continuing clashes that have strained what both governments still describe — at least formally — as a ceasefire.
- AP reports that on Sunday, the British military said a commercial ship caught fire off the coast of Qatar after being hit by an “unknown projectile,” shortly after Iranian‑launched drones were tracked heading toward Gulf waters.
- In recent days, Iranian missiles and drones have targeted ships linked to the U.S. and Gulf states, while American warplanes have struck Iranian military infrastructure near the Strait of Hormuz.
- Earlier this week, Iran’s Khatam al‑Anbiya central command claimed the U.S. attacked an Iranian oil tanker and another vessel near the strait, saying Iranian forces “returned fire” on U.S. warships.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baqaei has described the current situation as a “nominal ceasefire”, accusing the U.S. of having “crossed the point of no return” with its strikes while stopping short of declaring the truce dead.
Trump, for his part, insists the ceasefire is still in effect even as he threatens “tougher” action if Iran does not accept the U.S. plan quickly.
Washington’s reaction: “playing games”
As of Sunday afternoon, the White House had not issued a detailed public response to Iran’s reply.
But speaking to reporters and in social‑media posts over the weekend, Trump said Tehran was “playing games” with the ceasefire plan and suggested Iran’s leaders were stalling in hopes of wringing more concessions while drones and missiles continued to fly.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright told CBS he expected a response from Iran “very soon,” citing “growing economic pressure” on Tehran, and argued that the U.S. offer was generous compared with what Iran would face if fighting escalated.
From Tehran, analysts interviewed by Al Jazeera see a different dynamic: they say Iran has been consistent in seeking a comprehensive package, ending the war, lifting key sanctions, and securing guarantees, and has little reason to trust a U.S. administration that walked away from the 2015 nuclear deal.
Political scientist Chris Featherstone told the network that “the Iranians have been resolute in maintaining their positions with minimal concessions,” and that from Washington’s perspective “Iran must make substantial compromises,” but sees “little inclination [in Tehran] to concede significantly, likely due to a lack of trust in the Trump administration’s commitment to uphold its agreements.”
What happens next
For now, both sides appear to be testing whether they can edge toward a framework without publicly backing down on core demands.
Analyst Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group told Al Jazeera that “both parties will either need to make difficult concessions or leave core disagreements ambiguous if they wish to finalize a framework agreement.”
- For the U.S., that could mean easing its insistence on rapid, far‑reaching nuclear concessions in exchange for a ceasefire.
- For Iran, it could involve accepting more intrusive inspections or limits on its regional activities without the full sanctions relief and guarantees it is currently demanding.
In the meantime, the war is playing out on two tracks: diplomats and mediators swapping documents in Islamabad and Doha, and missiles and drones criss‑crossing the skies over the Gulf, Lebanon, and the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran’s response to the U.S. ceasefire proposal does not close that gap. It does, however, make clear that Tehran wants any deal to be more than a pause, and that it is not yet ready to trade away its most sensitive nuclear assets to make that happen.
