Tehran Rejects U.S. Ceasefire Plan, Pushing Five Demands as Hormuz Closure Roils Oil Markets

A proposal carried in secret

Oil prices dipped on the first whisper of a peace plan. In Tehran, the answer was already no.

In recent days, Pakistani officials have shuttled a 15-point U.S. ceasefire proposal to Iran’s leadership, outlining a sweeping package to halt the 2026 war, roll back key parts of Tehran’s nuclear program and reopen the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping. Iranian state media quickly dismissed the offer as “excessive” and unacceptable, and announced five broad conditions of its own that U.S. officials say are nonstarters.

The clash between Washington’s secretive 15-point plan and Tehran’s five demands offers the clearest look yet at how far apart the two sides remain, even as the conflict threatens global energy supplies and puts intense political pressure on President Donald Trump at home. It also underscores a deeper dispute over who controls the narrow waterway that carries roughly one-fifth of the world’s seaborne oil.

The United States has not publicly released the ceasefire proposal. Details have emerged through Pakistani and other regional officials involved in passing messages between the two governments. The White House has acknowledged that media descriptions of the plan have “elements of truth” but insists some accounts “were not entirely factual,” and it has refused to confirm the document point by point.

Still, officials familiar with the talks describe the U.S. offer as a comprehensive attempt to convert battlefield gains into long-sought strategic concessions.

What the U.S. plan would seek

According to those accounts, the 15-point plan promises phased sanctions relief if Iran agrees to a broad rollback of its nuclear activities, including halting work that could be tied to weapons and transferring enriched uranium out of the country. The proposal also calls for limits on Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal and curbs on its support for armed groups across the Middle East, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and militias in Iraq and Yemen.

Other provisions focus on ending hostilities and stabilizing the critical shipping lanes that have been at the center of the crisis. The plan envisions steps to fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz—where Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has effectively halted tanker traffic since late February—as well as some form of monitoring or security arrangements to protect commercial vessels.

“The president is pursuing every avenue to protect American interests, end Iran’s aggression and bring stability to the region,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters this week.

She said discussions were “ongoing” and “productive” but declined to provide specifics.

Tehran’s position: messages, not talks

In Tehran, officials have rejected the idea that any talks are underway at all.

“No negotiations have happened with the enemy, and we do not plan on any negotiations,” Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in a televised interview, using the term Iranian leaders apply to the United States. He described what is taking place instead as an “exchange of messages” through intermediaries.

Iran’s response, delivered through state broadcaster IRIB and the English-language channel Press TV, sets out five broad conditions for any end to the conflict.

Iran’s five conditions

1. A halt to attacks: Iran says the United States, Israel and allied forces must stop strikes on Iranian territory and on pro-Iranian groups in Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere, including what Tehran calls the “killings of its officials.” The war began Feb. 28 when coordinated U.S. and Israeli strikes hit Iranian military and political targets, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior figures.

2. Guarantees against another campaign: Tehran is seeking mechanisms to prevent a repeat of the current offensive—language foreign diplomats interpret as a demand for security guarantees that Washington has rarely been willing to provide.

3. Compensation for damage: Iran wants reparations for strikes it says hit gas installations, desalination plants and export terminals, as well as damage in Lebanon and Iraq.

4. A full end to hostilities: Iranian officials say they will not accept a short-term tactical pause, insisting any deal must amount to a complete stop to the war.

5. Recognition of “sovereignty” over the Strait of Hormuz: Iran’s most contentious demand is that its “exercise of sovereignty” over Hormuz be recognized. Since the initial strikes, the Revolutionary Guard has declared that no ship may pass through the narrow channel at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, effectively closing a key energy artery.

The Hormuz dispute and international law

That last condition goes far beyond the battlefield. Legally, the Strait of Hormuz is treated as an international waterway between Iran and Oman. Many countries rely on the principle of transit passage, rooted in the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, to justify unimpeded navigation. The United States is not a party to the convention but has long insisted that ships have a right to pass.

U.S. and European officials say privately that granting Iran explicit recognition as gatekeeper would risk legitimizing the closure of a global chokepoint and could set precedents for other strategic straits. It also collides with a U.N. Security Council resolution adopted March 11 condemning what it called Iran’s “egregious attacks” on Gulf states and commercial shipping in Hormuz.

Pakistan’s role as intermediary

Pakistan has emerged as a central player in the diplomatic effort. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has spoken with both Iranian and U.S. leaders, calling Iran a “neighboring brotherly country” and urging urgent de-escalation. Pakistani officials say they have relayed the U.S. proposal to Tehran and offered to host in-person talks on Pakistani soil.

So far, neither side has publicly accepted that offer. Washington continues air and missile strikes on Iranian military assets, particularly along the coast near Hormuz. Iran continues to target U.S. bases in the region and infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, while maintaining its blockade on shipping.

Economic shock and political pressure

The war’s economic impact is rippling worldwide. The closure of Hormuz has sharply limited oil and gas exports from Gulf producers. Fuel and fertilizer prices have climbed, raising concerns about food costs in import-dependent countries. Oil traders briefly drove prices down after early reports of the 15-point plan—even as Iranian officials rejected it on television—underscoring how markets are reacting to headlines more than to the details of dueling offers.

In the United States, Trump faces growing unease over the conflict. An AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll this month found a majority of Americans believe U.S. action against Iran has gone too far. High gasoline prices have made the war a potential political liability in an election year.

“They want to make a deal so badly,” Trump told donors at a recent fundraiser in Washington, referring to Iran’s leaders, “but they’re afraid to say it because they figure they’ll be killed by their own people — and by us.” His remarks drew criticism from opponents and added to questions about how the administration is framing the talks.

In Tehran, the new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, son of the slain ayatollah, has signaled little interest in compromise. He has vowed that no oil will flow through Hormuz to countries Iran considers enemies until its demands are addressed.

What a narrower deal could look like

For now, the U.S. 15-point proposal and Iran’s five conditions look less like a bridge to peace than rival victory terms. Diplomats and analysts say any eventual settlement is likely to be narrower: reopening Hormuz under some form of international supervision and arranging a verifiable halt to the most damaging attacks, while leaving deeper disputes over missiles, proxy forces and reparations to drawn-out negotiations.

Until both sides move off their opening positions, the messages moving through Islamabad may be the only lines of communication in a war that has already redrawn the map of Middle East security—and left the world’s main oil artery hostage to decisions in Washington and Tehran.