An abnormal situation continues to unfold across the Gulf region, marked by escalating speculation regarding a possible ceasefire framework, reopening plans for the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, and broader negotiations concerning Iran’s nuclear program and regional security arrangements. Amidst this backdrop, Iranian officials, including Baghaei, have reaffirmed Tehran’s stance that the future management of the Strait of Hormuz “must be decided by Iran and Oman,” emphasizing its joint regional responsibility.

Adding to the diplomatic tension, former U.S. President Donald Trump publicly outlined what he termed “non-negotiable terms” via a Truth Social post after an intense session. His demands included that “Iran must agree that they will never have a Nuclear Weapon or Bomb,” the “Hormuz Strait must be immediately open, no tolls, for unrestricted shipping traffic, in both directions,” and that “All water mines (bombs), if any, will be terminated.” Trump further asserted that an “amazing and unprecedented Naval Blockade” would be lifted, allowing ships to return home, and that enriched material, or “Nuclear Dust,” would be unearthed and destroyed by the United States, with “No money…exchanged, until further notice.”

However, these maximalist demands were met with a sharp pushback from Iran. Ebrahim Azizi, head of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, unequivocally stated that Iran, “as the victor on the ground, sets the terms: cash for cash, credit for credit, nothing for nothing — and that applies only to issues actually under negotiation, not to his fantasies.” Iranian sources described Trump’s claims about a deal as “a mix of truth and lies,” suggesting an attempt to project a fabricated victory while the agreement remained in its final stages of approval in Iran. Azizi had previously laid out Iran’s red lines: “the right to enrich uranium, possession of enriched uranium, authority over the Strait of Hormuz, and the removal of sanctions,” characterizing Trump’s approach as alternating between threats and appeals for an agreement in a bid to escape a “strategic deadlock.”

Despite massive bombardment, Iran has largely prevailed and remained standing in the ongoing conflict. Its military infrastructure, including a significant portion of its ballistic missile arsenal, remains intact. Learning from the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran spent decades constructing hardened underground missile facilities, extensive tunnel networks, and so-called “missile cities.” These strategic investments were designed to protect and enable the rapid deployment of its arsenal even under heavy attack, enhancing its resilience against foreign aggression.

The conflict has also significantly impacted U.S. military resources. The United States expended a substantial amount of its missile defense assets, particularly expensive THAAD interceptors costing millions of dollars each, leading to considerable consumption of stockpiles during large-scale defensive operations. This expenditure contributes to Trump’s repeated complaints about the transfer of military equipment to Ukraine. Faced with these limitations, Trump essentially had three options: walk away and allow Iran to control the Strait of Hormuz, negotiate and agree to some of Iran’s demands, or relaunch and escalate the war.

Option one was deemed unlikely, as it would effectively acknowledge Iran as the dominant regional power controlling one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints, through which approximately one-fifth of globally traded oil passes. Option three, returning to war, also presented significant problems, given the already expended U.S. military resources, repeated attacks on regional bases, and the fact that Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz is not considered an existential threat to the United States itself. Consequently, negotiation emerged as the most viable path forward.

One version of the proposed U.S.-Iran peace framework currently under discussion reportedly includes several key elements. These comprise a substantial $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran, envisioned as an international investment fund facilitated by the United States as part of a final agreement, addressing Iran’s demands for war-related compensation and reparations. Additionally, the Strait of Hormuz would remain open to international shipping, with all mines and other maritime obstacles removed within 30 days. Crucially, U.S. restrictions and blockade measures on Iranian oil exports would be lifted, allowing Iran to re-enter global energy markets.

Further elements of the framework suggest Iran would agree not to pursue a nuclear weapon, with discussions commencing regarding uranium enrichment levels, stockpiles, and disposal mechanisms. The United States would also discuss sanctions relief and broader financial measures, alongside the expansion of humanitarian assistance and the flow of civilian goods into Iran. A broader settlement could potentially include efforts to end the Israel-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon, highlighting the interconnectedness of regional security issues.

However, significant questions persist regarding the practical implementation of any such deal. A major obstacle remains Iran’s deep-seated distrust of the United States, stemming from concerns that previous agreements were abandoned or altered. Compounding this, Israel has accelerated military operations and expanded activities in southern Lebanon, with observers suggesting this could be an attempt to establish stronger positions before a potential ceasefire. Others argue that delays in formal negotiations might be granting all sides additional time to improve their military standing before a final agreement is reached.

Serious questions about enforcement also loom large. Even if a ceasefire is signed, there is no guarantee that all parties will respect it, given historical instances of accusations of violations, retaliatory strikes, and disputes over legitimate targets between Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Until any agreement is formally negotiated, signed, and implemented, Iran continues to exert influence over the Strait of Hormuz, U.S. restrictions on Iranian oil remain a major issue, uncertainty continues to affect global energy markets, and exchanges of fire between Israel and Hezbollah are likely to persist.