EXPLAINED: White House and Iran Set Ceasefire Conditions That Can’t Be Reconciled
Trump and Tehran have outlined competing conditions to end the war, but their demands amount to opposing ultimatums, making a negotiated ceasefire highly unlikely.
Kyiv Post
75
4 min čtení
0 zobrazení
The US administration and Iran have both put forward conditions for ending the war in the Middle East – but the two sets of demands are fundamentally incompatible, raising doubts that any upcoming negotiations can succeed.
Trump has proposed a 15-point plan addressing Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, while Tehran has responded with sweeping demands that would require a complete reversal of US policy in the region.
Even if talks take place, diplomats and officials say the gap between the two positions amounts to competing ultimatums rather than a basis for compromise.
What the White House wants
According to The New York Times report published on Tuesday, March 24, the White House sent Iran a 15-point proposal via intermediaries, outlining conditions to end the war.
The plan reportedly includes restrictions on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, as well as reopening key maritime routes, including the Strait of Hormuz.
US and Israeli leaders have repeatedly stated that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, while ongoing military operations continue alongside diplomatic outreach.
The proposal is seen as a framework for negotiations, with the Trump administration seeking concessions that Iran has now refused to make.
What Iran demands
Iran has set significantly higher conditions for any ceasefire, according to reporting by The Wall Street Journal.
Tehran is demanding the closure of all US military bases in the Gulf region, full lifting of sanctions, and reparations for attacks carried out during the war.
It also insists on retaining its missile program without limitations and seeks guarantees that hostilities will not resume, along with an end to Israeli assaults on allied groups such as Hezbollah and its invasion of southern Lebanon.
Iran has also proposed a new arrangement for the Strait of Hormuz that would allow it to collect transit fees from passing ships.
A US official described these demands as “unrealistic,” with analysts warning they would require Washington to abandon core strategic objectives.
Why the demands don’t overlap
At their core, the two positions contradict each other.
The Trump administration is pushing to limit Iran’s military capabilities and regional influence, while Iran is demanding recognition of those same capabilities and an expansion of its leverage.
Washington wants constraints on missiles and nuclear activity; Tehran refuses any such limits.
The US seeks to secure maritime routes; Iran wants to control them.
The US aims to maintain its regional military presence; Iran demands its removal.
These positions leave little room for negotiation.
Talks clouded by mistrust
Even the possibility of talks remains uncertain.
According to Axios, Iran has told mediators it no longer trusts US diplomatic outreach, citing previous instances where negotiations coincided with military strikes.
Trump Administration officials in the White House and the Pentagon, meanwhile, have signaled that military pressure will continue regardless of diplomatic efforts.
“We negotiate with bombs,” US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said, underscoring Washington’s dual-track approach.
The White House is pushing for in-person talks in Pakistan, but both sides remain cautious, with Iran suspecting the process could be a pretext for further escalation.
What this means for a ceasefire
The current diplomatic track appears less like a negotiation and more like an exchange of maximalist demands.
Both sides are seeking concessions the other is unlikely to accept, while continuing military operations in parallel.
As a result, even if talks begin, they are unlikely to produce a ceasefire in the near term.
Instead, officials expect the war to continue for weeks – or longer – as the leaders in both Washington and Tehran test whether pressure on the battlefield can shift the terms at the negotiating table.
Yuliia Zavadska is a news writer at Kyiv Post. She has experience in breaking news coverage, fact-checking, and digital journalism, with a focus on fast, accurate reporting and clear storytelling. Before joining Kyiv Post, she worked as a news feed editor for several leading Ukrainian media outlets.
