US–Iran talks: What to know as Trump threatens fresh strikes

Dubai: US President Donald Trump has warned that fresh military strikes on Iran remain firmly on the table, declaring he would act if Tehran “misbehaves,” even as both sides continue to exchange draft proposals to end the war. The blunt threat underscores the fragile and contradictory moment in the conflict: a ceasefire is technically holding, negotiations are ongoing, yet the risk of escalation is as real as ever.

“If they misbehave, if they do something bad — we’ll see. It’s a possibility that could happen, certainly,” Trump told reporters on Saturday, making clear that diplomacy is being pursued alongside active military planning. The remarks came as Iran submitted a new 14-point framework proposal that seeks a rapid reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, an end to the US naval blockade, and a permanent halt to the war — before any substantive negotiations on its nuclear programme begin.

But Washington remains unconvinced. Trump, who has already rejected earlier proposals, said he would review the latest offer while signalling it may fall short, deepening a high-stakes standoff where talks and threats now move in parallel.

The result is a negotiation that looks active on the surface but remains fundamentally stuck. Washington is pressing for a deal that tackles Iran’s nuclear programme first, while Tehran is demanding that the war end and restrictions be lifted before it makes any such concessions. Between those positions lies the strategic choke point of the Strait of Hormuz — now both a bargaining chip and a flashpoint.

Latest proposal

Iran’s latest proposal reflects that approach. It calls for the reopening of the strait, the lifting of sanctions, and an end to the US naval blockade within a month, followed only later by negotiations on nuclear limits. For Washington, that sequencing is a non-starter, with officials insisting any agreement must first ensure Iran cannot move closer to a nuclear weapon.

That gap has left diplomacy and deterrence running side by side. The US continues to tighten financial and maritime pressure, while Iran signals it is prepared for both negotiation and confrontation. With neither side willing to move first, the question now is not just what either wants — but who blinks.

What’s driving the standoff, and where could it go next?

What’s the current situation? Are the US and Iran at war or in talks?

It’s both — uneasily.

The United States and Iran are under a fragile ceasefire that began after the US Israel strikes on Iran, but negotiations to end the conflict are stalled.

At the same time, Donald Trump has openly warned that fresh military strikes remain an option, saying he could act if Iran “misbehaves.”

So right now:

No active large-scale fighting

No peace deal either

Real risk of escalation

What did Trump say — and why does it matter?

Trump’s message was blunt: Diplomacy is still on the table, but so is force.

He said new strikes are “certainly a possibility,” even as he reviews Iran’s latest proposal.

This matters because it shows his strategy:

Pressure first (military + blockade)

Talk later (on US terms)

It also signals that the ceasefire is conditional, not stable.

What is Iran’s new 14-point proposal?

Iran has sent a detailed proposal — reportedly via Pakistan — that flips the usual negotiation order.

Key elements include:

Reopen the Strait of Hormuz

End the US naval blockade

Lift sanctions and release frozen assets

US troop pullback from nearby regions

Compensation for war damage

End the conflict across Iran and Lebanon

Crucially:

Iran wants all this before serious nuclear negotiations begin.

Why is that a problem for the US?

Because Washington wants the exact opposite.

The US position is:

No deal without strict nuclear limits first

Iran must give up or severely restrict enriched uranium

Prevent any path to a nuclear weapon

This creates a core deadlock:

Iran: End war first, then discuss nuclear issue

US: Solve nuclear issue first, then end war

What’s happening with Iran’s nuclear programme?

This is the heart of the conflict.

Iran insists its programme is peaceful, but:

It has large stockpiles of enriched uranium

Some enriched close to weapons-grade levels

Total reserves could theoretically support multiple nuclear weapons

The US demands:

Full halt to enrichment

Long-term restrictions (up to 20 years)

Iran refuses, citing its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Why is the Strait of Hormuz such a big deal?

Because it’s one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints.

Roughly:

20% of global oil supply passes through it

Key route for gas, food, and industrial goods

Right now:

Traffic has dropped sharply

Ships are avoiding the route

Some vessels have been seized or turned back

This has pushed oil prices ~50% higher than prewar levels.

Is Iran really charging ships to pass?

Iran claims it has begun collecting tolls — but:

No independent verification

The US rejects it outright

US officials argue:

Hormuz is international water

No country can legally charge for passage

Washington has warned shipping firms they could face sanctions if they pay Iran — through cash, crypto, or even indirect means.

What is the US naval blockade doing?

The US has imposed a blockade on Iranian ports, led by forces under United States Central Command.

Effects include:

Dozens of ships turned away

Iranian oil exports restricted

Major pressure on Iran’s economy

The idea: Cut revenue and force Iran back to the table.

Iran, meanwhile, calls it “piracy.”

Who has the upper hand right now?

Honestly? Neither.

The US has:

Military dominance

Financial pressure tools (sanctions, blockade)

Iran has:

Control over Hormuz access

Ability to disrupt global energy flows

High tolerance for prolonged standoffs

That’s why this feels stuck:

each side has leverage — but not enough to break the deadlock.

Why are talks moving so slowly?

It’s partly about strategy and partly about style.

Trump prefers fast, pressure-driven deals

Iran’s leadership is known for slow, layered negotiations

Add deep mistrust and conflicting goals, and you get:

Repeated proposals

Rejections

No convergence

What role is Pakistan playing?

Pakistan has emerged as a key intermediary:

Hosting talks in Islamabad

Relaying proposals between both sides

But even mediation hasn’t broken the impasse so far.

What happens next?

There are three realistic paths:

1. Breakthrough (least likely right now)

A compromise on sequencing—Hormuz + nuclear issues together

2. Continued stalemate (most likely)

Ceasefire holds

Talks drag on

Economic pressure builds

3. Escalation (real risk)

US resumes strikes

Iran retaliates in Hormuz or via proxies

Global energy shock intensifies

Why should the world care?

Because this isn’t just a regional conflict.

It directly affects:

Global oil prices

Shipping and supply chains

Inflation worldwide

Energy security in Europe and Asia

In short, Hormuz has become what many analysts describe as:

A bargaining table enforced by gunboats.