In my opinion, the ongoing war between the United States, Israel, and Iran has now reached a critical diplomatic phase. Through indirect talks facilitated by intermediaries, both Washington and Tehran have clearly laid out their core demands and counter-proposals. The Trump administration has put forward a comprehensive set of security guarantees it expects in return for sanctions relief, while Iran has responded with a combination of firm rejections and reasonable, reciprocal offers.
A sustainable ceasefire and lasting agreement will only be possible through compromise from both sides. In my view, for this conflict to end, the United States must play a decisive role — not just in negotiating with Iran, but also by pressuring Israel to accept a realistic framework that addresses legitimate Iranian security concerns and stops further escalation. The positions below represent what I believe are the current red lines and areas of flexibility that could form the basis of a negotiated end to the war.
USA Points (Trump Administration’s 15-Point Proposal)
The US proposal focuses on long-term security guarantees in exchange for sanctions relief. Key demands include:
- Complete dismantling or severe rollback of Iran’s nuclear program, including shutdown of key facilities (Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan), permanent halt to uranium enrichment on Iranian soil, and handover of all enriched uranium stockpiles to the IAEA.
- Iran’s approach:
- Readiness to implement enhanced IAEA monitoring and verification to provide maximum transparency and build international confidence that the program remains exclusively peaceful.
- Willingness to downblend or reduce portions of its higher-enriched uranium stockpile to lower levels suitable for civilian reactor fuel, as a confidence-building measure.
- Acceptance of temporary limits or pauses on enrichment activities for a defined period, provided these are reciprocal and linked to verifiable sanctions relief and security guarantees.
- Opposition to the permanent closure or dismantling of facilities, as this would irreversibly damage Iran’s legitimate nuclear infrastructure and set a dangerous precedent against its sovereign rights.
- Major restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile and drone programs, including limits on range, numbers, and capabilities.
- Iran’s approach:
- Willingness to discuss confidence-building measures, such as greater transparency regarding missile tests and launches.
- Readiness to consider voluntary limitations on the range of certain missile systems for a defined period, provided these are reciprocal and accompanied by credible security guarantees.
- Acceptance of restrictions on the proliferation of missile and drone technology to non-state actors.
- Opposition to any externally imposed caps on the quantity or qualitative capabilities of its arsenal, arguing that such demands would severely undermine Iran’s right to self-defense.
- Cessation of Iranian support for regional proxies (Hezbollah, Houthis, Iraqi militias) and an end to attacks on neighboring countries’ infrastructure.
- Iran’s approach:
- Readiness to engage in reciprocal regional de-escalation, including reduced support for proxy activities, provided there is a simultaneous halt to Israeli aggression, illegal occupations, and military strikes across the region.
- Willingness to discuss mutual restraint agreements on civilian infrastructure, matched by equivalent commitments from Israel and the United States.
- Opposition to any one-sided demand that forces Iran to abandon its allies while Israeli aggression continues unchecked.
- Full reopening and secure international access to the Strait of Hormuz, with no future weaponization.
- Iran’s approach:
- Commitment to keeping the Strait of Hormuz open for peaceful commercial navigation in line with international maritime law.
- Willingness to provide security assurances and confidence-building measures to guarantee safe passage.
- Opposition to any permanent restriction on its defensive capabilities or “no weaponization” clauses that would compromise Iran’s sovereignty.
- Stronger IAEA monitoring and commitments never to pursue nuclear weapons.
- Iran’s approach:
- Readiness to accept enhanced and temporary IAEA monitoring for a defined period, provided it is reciprocal and linked to sanctions relief.
- Willingness to issue a political declaration reaffirming its peaceful nuclear intentions.
- Opposition to any permanent legal commitment or “never pursue” clause that discriminates against Iran and undermines the NPT.
In return, the United States offers the full lifting of nuclear-related sanctions, possible civilian nuclear assistance, and removal of the sanctions “snapback” mechanism. This would enable Iran to resume oil exports, access frozen assets, and achieve greater economic stability.
Iran Points
- Immediate and complete halt to all US and Israeli attacks, including assassinations of Iranian officials and leaders.
- Concrete international mechanisms and guarantees to ensure the war is not resumed or reimposed on Iran.
- Payment of full reparations for damages caused by the conflict.
- End to hostilities on all fronts, including against Iran’s regional “resistance” groups.
- Formal international recognition of Iran’s sovereignty and control over the Strait of Hormuz.
In my opinion, a viable path to ending the US-Iran war exists if both sides show flexibility on their maximum demands and focus on reciprocal, time-bound compromises. Iran has demonstrated willingness to offer enhanced transparency, temporary limitations, and regional de-escalation, as long as these are matched by genuine security guarantees and an end to Israeli aggression.
For any agreement to succeed and last, the United States must exert strong pressure on Israel to accept the framework and halt its military campaign. Without American leverage over Israel to restrain further strikes and accommodate reasonable Iranian concerns, the cycle of escalation will likely continue. A balanced deal that respects Iran’s sovereignty while addressing legitimate regional security fears can bring this costly conflict to an end and open the door to long-term stability in West Asia.
Disclaimer: This Post represents my personal opinion on what should serve as the final draft framework for ending the current war between the United States and Iran. It is based on the latest publicly available information regarding the positions of the involved parties as of March 31, 2026.
While the approaches and demands of different nations may vary, the points outlined above capture the core crust of the ongoing negotiations. A balanced, reciprocal agreement along these lines offers a realistic and practical path to cease hostilities, protect sovereignty, and achieve long-term regional stability. Ultimately, political will and mutual compromise will determine whether this opportunity for peace is seized.