Iran Sets Steep Ceasefire Terms, Rejecting Trump's 15-Point Nuclear Proposal

Tehran has responded to Washington's ceasefire proposal with a list of demands so far-reaching that they appear designed to reset the terms of engagement entirely. According to Israeli media Channel 12, Iran's conditions for halting hostilities with the United States and Israel include formal control of the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world's most critical shipping lanes—the closure of all American military bases throughout the Persian Gulf, financial reparations for war losses, security guarantees against future military action, the lifting of all international sanctions, and a refusal to negotiate any limits on its ballistic missile program.

The Trump administration had offered its own framework just days earlier: a 15-point proposal centered on nuclear disarmament. The plan calls for Iran to dismantle its existing nuclear capabilities, commit to never pursuing weapons, cease all uranium enrichment, hand over roughly 450 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and allow full IAEA access and oversight of its nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordo. It also demands that Iran abandon what the proposal terms its regional proxy "paradigm"—the funding, direction, and arming of armed groups across the Middle East—and accept limits on its missile program, with any future missile use restricted to self-defense. Critically, the American proposal insists the Strait of Hormuz remain open as a free maritime corridor.

The gap between these two positions is not a matter of negotiating room. Iran's demand for formal control of the Strait of Hormuz directly contradicts the American requirement that it function as an open waterway. More provocatively, Iran is reportedly proposing to collect fees from vessels transiting the route—a move that would give Tehran leverage over global shipping and energy markets. The two sides are not haggling over percentages; they are arguing over fundamental control of strategic geography.

Tehran's hardened stance reflects a broader refusal to treat these talks as a conventional negotiation. Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for Iran's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, dismissed Trump's claim of having had a "good and productive conversation" with Iranian officials, countering simply that "the battle continues." Mohsen Rezaei, Iran's military adviser, went further, issuing an explicit threat: if the United States attacks Iranian infrastructure, the response would not be proportional but escalatory. "Our response will no longer be an eye for an eye, but a head for an eye, limbs for an eye," he said. "We will paralyse you and sink your ships in the Gulf." He added that the war cannot end unless sanctions are lifted, damages are paid, and guarantees are provided against future attacks—conditions that echo Tehran's formal ceasefire demands.

The current military posture underscores how far the conflict has already escalated. On February 28, the United States and Israel launched joint airstrikes on Iran in an operation the Americans called "Operation Epic Fury" and the Israelis termed "Operation Roaring Lion." Iran responded by attacking American military bases across the Middle East—in the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia—in what it designated "Operation True Promise IV." The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps framed the retaliation as strikes against "American-Zionist terrorists" and American military positions.

What emerges from this sequence is a negotiation that has not yet begun in any conventional sense. The Trump administration has presented a detailed nuclear and regional security framework. Iran has responded not with counterproposals on those terms but with demands that would fundamentally alter the regional balance of power in its favor. Tehran's insistence on controlling the Strait of Hormuz, closing American bases, and refusing to limit its missile arsenal suggests it views the current military stalemate not as a crisis requiring compromise but as leverage to extract concessions that reshape the regional order. Rezaei's warning that "the final deadlines for saving America are approaching" and that Trump has limited time to "rescue the United States from this quagmire" frames the conflict not as a problem to be solved through negotiation but as a test of American resolve and staying power. Whether either side sees a path from this position to an actual ceasefire remains unclear.