Iran Says US Has Responded to Its Latest Peace Proposal

Iran says US has responded to its – Iranian state media reported that the United States has provided a reply to Tehran’s recent peace offer, according to Tasnim news agency. The response, transmitted through Pakistan, is currently under scrutiny by Iran’s foreign ministry. However, Washington has not officially acknowledged the reply, leaving the status of the proposal uncertain. Despite this, President Donald Trump expressed his dissatisfaction with the plan during an interview with Israel’s Kan News on Sunday, stating that it did not meet his expectations.

The 14-Point Plan’s Terms

Tehran’s 14-point peace initiative includes several key demands aimed at easing tensions with Washington. Among them, Iran requested that U.S. forces withdraw from proximity to its borders, terminate the naval blockade on its ports, and halt all hostilities, including Israel’s military operations in Lebanon. The plan also proposed a 30-day deadline for reaching an agreement between the two nations. State-linked Iranian outlets emphasized that the proposal urged both sides to prioritize “ending the war” over extending the current ceasefire, which has been in place since the conflict began in February.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, noted that “at this stage, we do not have nuclear negotiations” as a central condition for the proposal. This aligns with Washington’s insistence on securing a nuclear deal as part of broader diplomatic efforts. While Iran has consistently denied seeking nuclear weapons and asserted its program is for peaceful purposes, the country remains the only non-nuclear-armed state to enrich uranium to near weapons-grade levels. This detail has been a point of contention in past discussions with the U.S.

Trump’s Stance on the Proposal

Trump, during a social media post, described the proposal as “unacceptable” and criticized Iran for not paying a “big enough price” for its actions over the past four decades. He framed the conflict as a continuation of Iran’s aggression, despite the ceasefire that took effect on 8 April. The president also highlighted the ongoing naval blockade of Iranian ports as a symbol of the war’s persistence. In a separate statement, Trump announced that the U.S. would assist ships trapped in the Strait of Hormuz under a new initiative dubbed “Project Freedom.” The plan, set to begin on Monday, aims to ensure the safe passage of vessels through the critical waterway.

During remarks in Palm Beach, Florida, Trump reiterated his position that the war had been “terminated” since the ceasefire, thereby suspending the 60-day congressional deadline for authorizing military action. This argument is based on the legal requirement for a U.S. president to secure legislative approval within 60 days of declaring hostilities. Trump’s timeline calculations placed Friday as the 60th day since he formally notified Congress of strikes against Iran on 2 March, two days after the U.S. and Israel launched their joint attacks. By law, the president must obtain Congress’s backing within this period or face the obligation to cease hostilities.

Strait of Hormuz and Military Operations

The Strait of Hormuz, a vital maritime passage, has been a focal point of Iran’s strategic actions. Since the war escalated in February, Iran has restricted the movement of ships through the strait, disrupting global trade and raising concerns about regional stability. In response, Trump pledged to help nations whose vessels were stranded in the area, claiming that the U.S. would facilitate their safe departure. This initiative, however, has been met with skepticism, as Iran’s actions continue to challenge international shipping routes.

Trump’s remarks also touched on the possibility of resuming military strikes against Iran. When asked about the potential for targeting sites within Iran, the president indicated that it “was a possibility” if Iran “misbehaved.” He added that the decision would depend on the situation, with no immediate plans to withdraw completely from the conflict. “We’re not leaving,” he stated, asserting that the U.S. would “do it, so nobody has to go back in two years or five years.” This declaration underscores his commitment to maintaining pressure on Iran, even as diplomatic channels remain open.

Political Reactions and Congressional Concerns

Trump’s latest comments come amid growing unease among U.S. lawmakers, particularly within his own Republican party, over the prolonged nature of the conflict. Some members of Congress have criticized the war as costly and complex, with unclear objectives. Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, a prominent Republican, called for the Trump administration to begin reducing its military presence in the region and argued that legislative approval would be necessary to sustain the campaign.

Trump’s position on the 60-day deadline has drawn scrutiny, as it could allow the administration to bypass Congress if the ceasefire is considered the conflict’s end. This legal maneuver has been a recurring strategy, with the president previously using similar arguments to justify military actions. Critics, however, argue that the blockade and ongoing hostilities demonstrate that the war is far from over, challenging the notion that it has been “terminated.” The debate over the ceasefire’s effectiveness highlights the tension between diplomatic efforts and military escalation.

Historical Context and Nuclear Ambitions

The 47-year reference in Trump’s remarks traces back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which marked the beginning of Iran’s rivalry with the U.S. This historical context reinforces Trump’s view that Iran’s actions are part of a long-standing pattern of aggression. The proposal, however, does not address this legacy directly but instead focuses on immediate concessions. Iranian officials have yet to confirm whether the U.S. response includes any acknowledgment of their nuclear program, which remains a critical point of negotiation.

Despite Iran’s repeated assertions that its nuclear program is peaceful, the country’s enrichment of uranium to near weapons-grade levels has raised alarms. This capability, combined with its geopolitical stance, has been a sticking point in past U.S. negotiations. Trump’s emphasis on Iran’s nuclear ambitions suggests that the peace proposal may not be sufficient to satisfy Washington’s demands. The president’s statement on social media, where he wrote, “I don’t really want to do it,” reflects his frustration with the prolonged conflict and the need for Iran to demonstrate accountability.

Conclusion: A Balancing Act

The exchange between Iran and the U.S. highlights the precarious balance between diplomacy and military action. While Tehran has made a formal offer to ease tensions, the U.S. response appears to reflect skepticism. Trump’s continued insistence on the blockade and his readiness to use force indicate that the administration is prepared to escalate pressure if necessary. For Iran, the proposal represents an opportunity to avoid further conflict, but it also underscores the challenges of proving its commitment to peaceful nuclear development.

As the situation unfolds, the outcome of this diplomatic effort will depend on how the U.S. interprets the proposal’s terms and whether it aligns with its strategic goals. The 30-day window for agreement could determine whether the conflict transitions into a more stable phase or continues to escalate. Meanwhile, the political landscape in Washington remains divided, with some lawmakers urging a more measured approach and others supporting the administration’s aggressive stance. This dynamic underscores the complexity of the U.S.-Iran relationship, where each step forward is shadowed by the risk of renewed hostilities.