The indirect contacts between Iran and the United States continue alongside military activity on the ground, yet the conditions put forward by both sides indicate that reaching an agreement in the short term is quite difficult. The difference between Washington’s 15-point ceasefire plan and Tehran’s 5-point proposal stems not only from technical details, but also from the parties’ regional roles and expectations.
The United States’ 15-Point Ceasefire Plan
The plan presented by the United States constitutes a comprehensive restructuring framework rather than merely a ceasefire:
- A temporary (approximately 1 month) ceasefire.
- The suspension of uranium enrichment activities.
- The closure or limitation of nuclear facilities.
- Full and continuous access for the International Atomic Energy Agency.
- The rollback of the nuclear program.
- The limitation of the ballistic missile program (gradually).
- The termination of Iran’s support to proxy forces (e.g., Hezbollah).
- The reduction of regional military activities.
- The end of threats against the United States and its allies.
- The opening of the Strait of Hormuz to international maritime traffic.
- The provision of maritime security through international mechanisms.
- The gradual lifting of sanctions.
- The initiation of economic integration.
- Limited support for civilian nuclear energy (under supervision).
- A long-term roadmap leading to a final agreement.
This plan’s basic logic is clear: while Iran’s military and strategic capacity is limited, economic relief is provided in return.
Iran’s 5-Point Ceasefire Conditions
Iran’s proposal, on the other hand, is shorter but much harsher and more direct:
- The complete cessation of all military operations and attacks.
- The end of assassinations and targeted attacks.
- The provision of binding security guarantees against future attacks.
- The payment of compensation for the damages caused by the war.
- The recognition of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.
These provisions, especially the last two, are quite challenging for Washington. Because these demands imply not only security but also political and strategic acceptance.
Reality on the Ground: Diplomacy and Military Pressure Simultaneously
The plan prepared by the United States essentially presents a framework aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear and military capacity. In this context, issues such as stopping uranium enrichment, opening nuclear facilities to international inspection, restricting the ballistic missile program, and ending support for regional proxy actors stand out. In return, Washington offers the gradual easing of sanctions and the reintegration of Iran into the global economic system. Keeping the Strait of Hormuz open to international maritime traffic also draws attention as one of the critical elements of the plan.
Iran’s proposal, however, includes a shorter but clearer political framework. The Tehran administration demands the complete end of hostilities, the cessation of targeted attacks and assassinations, guarantees to prevent similar interventions in the future, and compensation for the damages caused by the war. In addition, the recognition of control over the Strait of Hormuz stands out as one of the most striking elements of Iran’s proposal.
The main difference between these two approaches lies in the priorities of the parties. While the United States prioritizes limiting Iran’s military and nuclear capacity, Iran places emphasis on security guarantees and sovereignty. This situation emerges as the most important factor explaining why the negotiation process is not progressing.
Developments on the ground also directly affect the diplomatic process. Israel’s airstrikes in different regions of Iran and its operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon show that the tension is not limited to the diplomatic level. The responses given by Iran-backed elements increase the risk of the conflict spreading on a regional scale.
The United States’ military deployment to the region is another notable development. While the Washington administration states that the negotiation process continues, it is also trying to strengthen its deterrence by increasing its military presence. This situation points to a strategy in which diplomacy is conducted together with military pressure.
The economic dimension of the crisis is particularly felt in energy markets. The tension in the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s influence over this route lead to fluctuations in global oil prices. Although short-term ceasefire expectations temporarily reduce prices, the general trend shows that uncertainty continues to exert pressure on the markets.
The stance of international actors may also be decisive in the course of the process. Calls for dialogue by countries such as Türkiye, Egypt, and China stand out as efforts to prevent the crisis from turning into a wider conflict. However, the lack of trust between the parties makes it difficult for these initiatives to produce concrete results in the short term.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the proposals put forward by Iran and the United States reflect not only a search for a ceasefire but also a struggle over how regional power balances will be shaped. The current situation points to a period in which the parties maintain their positions and developments on the ground continue to determine the diplomatic process.
For this reason, in the coming period, military and political developments are expected to continue directly influencing each other.
- “US Draft Plan Sets 15 Conditions for Iran Ceasefire Talks.” Diplomat, 26 March 2026. Accessed 26 March 2026.
- “Iran War: Tehran Sets Own Terms to End War, Rejects US Plan.” Deutsche Welle, 26 March 2026. Accessed 26 March 2026.
- “Iran Rejects US Ceasefire Plan, Issues Own Demands as Strikes Land Across Middle East.” South China Morning Post, 26 March 2026. Accessed 26 March 2026.
- “Iran Rejects US Peace Proposal, Lists Strait of Hormuz Among Ceasefire Conditions.” The Indian Express, 26 March 2026. Accessed 26 March 2026.
