On March 26, U.S. President Trump stated that negotiations between the United States and Iran were progressing “very smoothly.” He announced an extension of the deadline for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz until April 6 and suspended attacks on Iranian energy facilities. He warned that if Iran refused to accept the U.S.-proposed 15-point ceasefire plan, it would face “the most terrible consequences.”
During a cabinet meeting, Trump reiterated that the U.S. is engaged in substantive negotiations with Iran, noting that Iran had allowed 10 oil tankers to pass through the Strait of Hormuz as a gesture of goodwill, some of which were flying the Pakistani flag to demonstrate a willingness to cooperate.
However, Reuters quoted a senior Iranian official as saying that Iran had responded to the U.S. 15-point peace proposal via Pakistan, with the initial assessment being that it was “unilateral and unfair.” The official noted that the proposal primarily served the interests of the United States and Israel and lacked a basis for consensus.
Nevertheless, the official also emphasized that the door to diplomacy remains open; as long as the U.S. demonstrates a more pragmatic and fair attitude, the two sides may still find a path forward. Iran has put forward several conditions, including an end to assassinations and aggression, guarantees that war will not recur, war reparations, and the cessation of conflict on all fronts—particularly regarding operations against pro-Iranian armed groups in the region.
At the same time, Iran reaffirmed its legitimate right to sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz and expressed skepticism regarding U.S. intentions, suggesting that the U.S. negotiations may be aimed at projecting an image of peace, lowering oil prices, and buying time to prepare for a possible ground operation in southern Iran.
Commentary:
In this round of negotiations, the differences between the two sides reflect deep-seated mistrust: the U.S. emphasizes substantive negotiations and threatens consequences, while Iran questions U.S. intentions and demands fairer terms. This mutual distrust makes it difficult to reach a ceasefire quickly. However, Iran’s apparent strong dissatisfaction during this round of negotiations is likely a tactic to secure more favorable bargaining leverage. Given the long-term sanctions and military pressure, Iran faces significant economic and military constraints; therefore, a pragmatic strategy might be to acknowledge its strategic limitations and halt the war in exchange for breathing room.
At present, although both sides have demonstrated a willingness to negotiate, given the gap in interests and the lack of trust, achieving a genuine ceasefire may still take time. Whether Iran can balance its national interests through a pragmatic strategy will be the key to the success or failure of future negotiations.