US President Donald Trump has rejected Iran’s latest peace proposal, signalling that diplomatic efforts to end the confrontation between Washington and Tehran remain stalled. The offer, quietly conveyed through Pakistani mediators, was intended to break the deadlock after weeks of escalating tension. But Trump said yesterday that he was “not satisfied” with the terms, arguing that Iran continues to demand concessions the United States cannot accept. While talks are technically ongoing, his remarks made clear that the gap between the two sides remains substantial and possibly widening.
Either Iran agrees to a comprehensive deal on American conditions, Trump said, or the United States will resort to overwhelming force. His warning that Washington could “blast the hell out of them and finish them forever” underscored how precarious the diplomatic track has become. Far from signalling a breakthrough, the latest proposal appears to have hardened positions in Washington, reinforcing the administration’s preference for a maximalist outcome rather than an incremental settlement.
Iran’s revised offer does suggest some tactical flexibility. Earlier demands that the United States first lift its blockade around the Strait of Hormuz before any Iranian concessions have, according to reports, been softened. Instead, Tehran has proposed simultaneous negotiations covering both maritime restrictions and its nuclear programme, with sanctions relief forming the core incentive. In theory, this sequencing could have created space for compromise. In practice, however, it has failed to shift the White House position. Trump has dismissed the proposal as inadequate, pointing to what he described as confusion and infighting within Iran’s leadership as an additional obstacle to meaningful negotiations.
The president has repeatedly stressed that any deal must be permanent and enforceable, explicitly rejecting short-term arrangements that could unravel. “We’re not leaving early and then having the problem arise again,” he said, signalling a clear aversion to interim fixes.
This hardline diplomatic stance is unfolding alongside a contentious legal debate in Washington. Under the War Powers Resolution, the president is required to seek congressional authorisation within 60 days of deploying American forces into hostilities. That deadline expired on May 1. Trump, however, has dismissed the requirement, arguing that it does not apply in the current case. In letters to congressional leaders, he claimed that the two-week ceasefire he ordered on April 7 effectively paused—or even terminated—the conflict, thereby halting the legal clock.
The administration’s argument is highly contested. Trump maintains that the absence of sustained exchanges of fire since the ceasefire means the statutory trigger for congressional approval no longer applies. Critics, however, point to incidents such as a US strike on an Iranian-flagged vessel on April 19, arguing that hostilities have not truly ceased. The White House position closely mirrors that of Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has also argued that the ceasefire resets the War Powers timeline.
More broadly, Trump has shown little regard for the legislation itself, describing it as unconstitutional and historically irrelevant. He has claimed — inaccurately — that previous presidents neither sought nor were bound by its provisions. In reality, Congress has authorised extended military operations on multiple occasions, including during the Gulf War and in Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration has also been careful to avoid describing the confrontation as a “war”, instead using terms such as “military operation” or “excursion”, language that appears designed to sidestep the law’s requirements.
Within the Republican Party, unease is beginning to surface. As the conflict passed the 60-day mark, several lawmakers have questioned both the legal justification and the broader strategy. Senator Susan Collins broke ranks to support a Democratic-led resolution aimed at halting the operation, emphasising that the War Powers deadline is a binding requirement, not a suggestion. Others, including Lisa Murkowski, have warned that they may force a vote compelling the administration to outline clear exit conditions.
A group of Republican senators—including Josh Hawley, Todd Young and John Curtis—have also demanded a formal legal explanation for continuing hostilities without congressional approval. Their intervention reflects a broader concern that the executive branch may be stretching its authority at a politically sensitive moment, with midterm elections approaching and economic pressures mounting.
Those economic pressures are already intensifying. The disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has sent oil prices surging and rattled international markets. The US Treasury has warned that any payments to Iran for safe passage through the strait could trigger severe sanctions, further complicating commercial shipping and insurance.
Democrats have responded with sharp criticism. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, along with Jeanne Shaheen and Tim Kaine, has condemned the operation as an “illegal war”, rejecting the administration’s claim that a ceasefire suspends the War Powers clock. Legal experts and civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have reinforced that view, arguing that the law contains no provision for such a pause.
Despite the White House insistence that hostilities have effectively ceased, the reality remains far more complex. Tens of thousands of US troops are still deployed across the region, and naval patrols continue to enforce a tense maritime standoff. Iran’s latest proposal, rather than easing tensions, has exposed the limits of diplomacy at a moment when legal disputes, political divisions and economic shocks are all converging — raising the risk that the conflict could harden into a prolonged and unpredictable confrontation.