Trump's bold move: Secret US peace plan for Iran via Pak army chief Asim Munir

The United States has quietly submitted a sweeping peace proposal to Iran through an unusual diplomatic channel: Pakistan’s army chief, Syed Asim Munir. With direct  negotiations nearly impossible after weeks of intense fighting, Washington appears to be  testing whether an intermediary can deliver a deal that would halt the rapidly escalating war in the Middle East.

The framework, in effect, attempts to translate military pressure into a diplomatic outcome. Yet the scale of the concessions demanded from Tehran makes it clear that this is not a conventional peace offer but a maximalist settlement.

At the heart of the plan lies a complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear programme. Tehran will have to abandon enrichment, dismantle its nuclear facilities such as Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow and commit to never pursuing nuclear weapons again. The country would also have to hand over its existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium under a strict timetable agreed jointly by the United States, Israel and Iran.

In addition, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency would be granted unrestricted access to every record and facility linked to Iran’s nuclear programme. This goes far beyond earlier arrangements such as the 2015 nuclear deal and would effectively eliminate Tehran’s ability to retain even a latent nuclear capability.

Moreover, the US wants Iran to permanently stop the funding, arming and direction of its proxy militias across the Middle East that have defined its foreign policy for decades. Also, there will be strict limits on the number and range of Iran’s ballistic missiles, which can only be used for defensive purposes.

Iran would be required to formally guarantee that the Strait of Hormuz remains permanently open as a free international waterway. Given how often the strait has been used as a strategic threat during past crises, this demand alone signals how deeply Washington wants to reshape the balance of power in the Gulf.

In return, the United States is offering sweeping incentives. All international sanctions imposed on Iran would be lifted. Tehran would also receive assistance in developing a strictly civilian nuclear programme centred on the Bushehr power plant, along with guarantees that the long-feared “snapback” of United Nations sanctions would be permanently removed. In essence, the deal offers economic normalisation and limited civilian nuclear cooperation in exchange for the complete dismantling of Iran’s strategic leverage.

The diplomatic effort is being driven personally by Donald Trump, who has publicly expressed confidence that a deal is possible. The negotiating team includes JD Vance, Marco Rubio, as well as long-time Trump allies Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. But even within this framework, a curious diplomatic dynamic has emerged.

Iranian representatives, according to regional sources, have quietly indicated that they would prefer to deal directly with Vance rather than the broader American team. Tehran’s distrust of Witkoff and Kushner appears to stem from the collapse of earlier talks that preceded the recent military strikes. Vance, by contrast, is seen in Tehran as more open to ending the conflict quickly. The White House has rejected any such preference, insisting that the composition of the negotiating team is entirely Trump’s decision.

Inside Iran, however, the political situation is becoming even more complicated. The replacement for senior national security adviser Ali Larijani who was assassinated by Israel, Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, is widely regarded as part of the most hard-line faction within the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. His appointment suggests that the military establishment is tightening its grip at precisely the moment when the United States is demanding far-reaching concessions.

That creates a fundamental contradiction. On the one hand, the scale of the military pressure and the promise of sanctions relief provide Iran with a clear incentive to consider negotiations. On the other hand, the internal consolidation of hardliners makes it politically far more difficult for Tehran to accept a deal that would dismantle the very tools that have defined its regional power.

Yet the plan offers Iran a clear economic exit from isolation, but it also demands the abandonment of the nuclear and regional strategy that has shaped its identity for decades. That is precisely why, despite the diplomatic opening, the road to a settlement still looks extremely uncertain.