US-Iran talks: Will Trump accept Tehran’s 14-point deal as talks stall?

Dubai: Iran has put forward a sweeping new 14-point proposal to end the war with the United States, setting up a high-stakes decision for President Donald Trump on whether to accept a deal or risk renewed escalation.

The plan, delivered via Pakistan, seeks a rapid end to hostilities, the lifting of sanctions, and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz — a vital artery for global energy flows. But it also postpones negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme, a key US demand, setting up a direct clash over priorities at a time when tensions remain high despite a fragile ceasefire.

Trump has already cast doubt on the proposal, saying Iran has “not yet paid a big enough price” and warning that fresh military strikes remain an option if Tehran “misbehaves.” The remarks underscore a stark reality: even as diplomacy continues, the risk of escalation has not receded.

At its core, the proposal flips the negotiation order — seeking a permanent end to the war first, while pushing the most contentious issue, Iran’s nuclear programme, to a later stage. That approach lies at the heart of the current deadlock.

Iran’s latest offer is not just a peace plan but an attempt to reset the terms of the talks. It calls for a permanent end to the conflict within 30 days, guarantees against future US or Israeli attacks, the withdrawal of US forces from around Iran, and the lifting of sanctions alongside the release of billions of dollars in frozen assets. It also seeks compensation for war damage and an end to hostilities across all fronts, including Lebanon.

A key element of the proposal is a new mechanism to manage shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which handles a significant share of the world’s oil and gas flows. Control over the narrow waterway has emerged as one of the most contentious issues in the conflict, with both sides using it as leverage.

Crucially, Tehran wants these steps agreed before entering substantive negotiations on its nuclear programme, including its right to uranium enrichment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Washington, however, has made curbs on Iran’s nuclear activities a red line, insisting that no deal can proceed without firm guarantees that Tehran cannot move closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

That fundamental disagreement has left negotiations stuck despite weeks of indirect talks. Since the ceasefire came into effect on April 8 following US-Israeli strikes on Iran, both sides have exchanged multiple proposals but failed to reach a breakthrough.

The standoff has been further complicated by continued tensions at sea. Despite the ceasefire, both sides have intercepted and seized vessels in and around the Strait of Hormuz, pointing to an ongoing shadow conflict that threatens global energy supplies. Oil prices remain elevated, reflecting market anxiety over prolonged disruption.

The United States has also maintained a naval blockade on Iranian ports, targeting Tehran’s oil revenues and increasing economic pressure. Iran, in turn, has tightened its grip over access to the strait, effectively choking maritime traffic and raising fears of a wider energy crisis.

Analysts say the two sides remain far apart on the core issues of nuclear enrichment and control of the Strait of Hormuz, leaving little room for a quick breakthrough. While there are signs that Iran may have slightly softened some positions, the central demands on both sides remain largely unchanged.

Mistrust continues to be a major obstacle. Tehran remains wary of Washington’s intentions after years of sanctions and military pressure, while the Trump administration has shown little willingness to ease its stance without significant concessions.

Even so, neither side appears ready to walk away from negotiations entirely. The economic and strategic costs of a prolonged conflict — from disrupted shipping routes to rising global energy prices — have created incentives to keep talking, even as positions harden.

For now, Iran’s 14-point proposal may have reopened a diplomatic window, but it has not resolved the central question driving the crisis: whether either side is willing to compromise first — or whether the conflict is drifting back toward escalation.