President Donald Trump yesterday rejected Iran’s latest proposal to end the war, escalating fears that the conflict could slide into another dangerous phase. Writing on Truth Social, Trump dismissed the Iranian offer, conveyed through Pakistani intermediaries, as “TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE”.
For latest news and analyses on Middle East, visit: Yello! Middle East
The rejection underlined how far apart Washington and Tehran remain despite weeks of indirect diplomacy, military signalling and growing international pressure to de-escalate. Far from moving towards peace, both sides now appear to be negotiating towards entirely different end goals, making the crisis increasingly unstable.
At the centre of the deadlock is a basic mismatch in expectations. Trump wants a deal that decisively curbs Iran’s nuclear ambitions and allows him to claim strategic victory. Iran, meanwhile, is trying to shape the postwar balance of power in the region while preserving the core pillars of its military and nuclear infrastructure. That gap is becoming harder to bridge
The United States had earlier presented Iran with a one-page, 14-point memorandum outlining Washington’s demands. The proposal called for a halt to Iranian uranium enrichment for up to 20 years, the transfer of Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile abroad, the dismantling of key nuclear facilities and the immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. In return, the US offered sanctions relief and an eventual pathway towards economic normalisation.
Tehran’s response pushed back firmly on several of those conditions. Iran demanded an immediate end to the war across all fronts, guarantees against future attacks and the lifting of the US naval blockade around Iranian ports.
On the nuclear issue, Tehran proposed a shorter enrichment freeze, suggested diluting part of its highly enriched uranium stockpile while exporting the remainder and categorically refused to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure.
Iranian officials were reportedly hoping for a 30-day pause in fighting that would allow negotiations to continue under calmer conditions. But President Masoud Pezeshkian insisted that talks could not be interpreted as “surrender or retreat”. That position reflects a broader Iranian calculation.
Tehran appears determined to preserve its strategic capabilities while negotiating de-escalation. Israeli and American objectives, however, increasingly go much further than simply ending the current fighting.
Trump himself hinted at that divide after reviewing Iran’s proposal. He said the war was not necessarily over and claimed that only “around 70 per cent” of US objectives had been achieved. The remark suggested Washington may still be considering additional military action if diplomacy stalls.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu struck an even harder tone. He argued that the conflict could not truly end while Iran retained its enrichment programme, ballistic missile arsenal and regional proxy network.
In Israeli strategic thinking, the issue is no longer just about preventing an Iranian nuclear bomb. It is increasingly about rolling back Iran’s long-term regional power projection altogether. That is a far bigger demand than anything Tehran currently appears willing to concede.
Trump also spoke with Netanyahu shortly after receiving the Iranian response, highlighting how tightly linked the diplomatic track remains with Israeli military calculations. The coordination is significant because Israeli pressure continues to shape Washington’s negotiating posture even as Trump publicly emphasises his desire to end the war.
Behind the diplomacy, military signalling is intensifying once again. Statements from commanders in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy and aerospace divisions, issued around the same time Tehran submitted its proposal, appeared aimed at deterring a fresh round of strikes. Iranian officials increasingly believe that Washington and Israel may be using negotiations primarily to strengthen their leverage before another escalation cycle.
The nuclear issue remains the emotional and political core of the confrontation. Trump frequently refers to Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile as “nuclear dust”, though his administration’s messaging has often appeared inconsistent.
At times, Trump has argued that American strikes have already crippled Iran’s nuclear ambitions. At other moments, he has warned that the United States would attack again if anyone attempted to move or access the uranium stockpiles buried deep underground.
Netanyahu has taken a more uncompromising position, insisting that the conflict is not over until Iran’s enriched uranium is physically removed and its enrichment sites dismantled entirely. But achieving that objective militarily would likely require a massive and prolonged ground operation, something Washington appears reluctant to undertake.
Meanwhile, the economic war surrounding the Strait of Hormuz continues to deepen the crisis. Iran’s blockade of the strategic waterway has rattled international energy markets for months. Tehran has demanded that commercial vessels coordinate with Iranian forces and pay transit fees, while the United States has responded with a naval blockade aimed at choking off Iranian oil exports.
Washington believes economic pressure will eventually force Tehran into concessions. But intelligence assessments reportedly suggest Iran may be able to endure the blockade far longer than expected by redirecting oil for domestic use and relying on informal trade networks.
Efforts to secure international shipping have also stumbled. Trump briefly launched “Project Freedom”, an initiative designed to escort commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, but the effort was quickly paused after Saudi Arabia reportedly refused to allow US forces to use its territory and airspace. Britain and France are now trying to assemble a multinational maritime security force to protect shipping routes, though Iran has warned that any such deployment would face a “decisive and immediate response”.
The wider geopolitical consequences are becoming increasingly severe. Trump faces mounting pressure to stabilise the crisis before his upcoming meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing. China maintains close ties with Iran and has been pressing for de-escalation amid fears of prolonged disruption to global energy supplies. At the same time, the conflict has diverted significant American military resources away from Asia, fuelling concerns among analysts about Washington’s ability to simultaneously manage tensions involving Taiwan.
Across the region, the fragile ceasefire is already showing signs of collapse. Iranian drone attacks targeting Gulf states and commercial shipping have continued intermittently, while US naval forces have struck Iranian coastal positions after coming under attack.
Israel, meanwhile, continues lower-intensity strikes against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon.
For now, both Washington and Tehran still appear convinced that additional pressure could improve their negotiating position. That belief may prove dangerously miscalculated. The crisis is no longer simply about ending a war. It is increasingly about defining the regional order that emerges after it. And on that question, the United States, Israel and Iran remain profoundly divided.