As the war between the US, Israel, and Iran continues to escalate, a diplomatic initiative has emerged that has the potential to fundamentally alter the strategic situation. According to several reports citing US government sources, Washington has submitted a comprehensive 15-point plan to Iran for ending the conflict – not directly, but through an unusual channel: Pakistan.
At the heart of the proposal is a fundamental restructuring of Iran’s security architecture. The United States is demanding nothing less than the complete curtailment of Tehran’s key instruments of power: the ballistic missile program is to be drastically reduced, and its use restricted to pure self-defense.
The demands go even further in the nuclear sphere. Iran should not only renounce nuclear weapons – something Tehran has always emphasized – but also cease all uranium enrichment, hand over already enriched material to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and destroy key facilities such as Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan.
Washington is also demanding a change of course in regional policy. Support for armed groups in the Middle East should be completely halted, and militias should no longer be financed or equipped. At the same time, the US insists on keeping the Strait of Hormuz open as a “free navigation zone”—a point of global economic significance.
In return, Washington is offering to lift all sanctions and provide support for the development of a civilian nuclear program, for example at the Bushehr power plant. Furthermore, the constant threat of reimposing sanctions – a key source of distrust in previous agreements – will be eliminated.
However, it becomes clear at first glance that the positions are far apart. While the US is pushing for the structural dismantling of Iranian influence, Tehran is formulating its own conditions, which appear hardly compatible. These include compensation payments for attacks, the complete withdrawal of American troops from the Gulf region, and security guarantees from the US and Israel.
Another uncertainty lies in the political dimension of the offer. Should Washington actually be prepared to forgo regime change – as has been suggested by sources close to the White House – this would represent a remarkable shift in policy. At the same time, it remains unclear whether Israel would support such an approach.
The choice of Pakistan as mediator underscores the complexity of the situation. Islamabad maintains close ties with both sides, but itself operates in a geopolitically sensitive area of tension between China, the US, and the Islamic world.
Whether the proposal serves as a serious basis for negotiations or is merely a strategic signal remains unclear. Iran continues to deny direct talks with Washington and accuses the US of deliberately manipulating markets and oil prices with such claims.
One thing is certain: the presented plan reveals less of a compromise than Washington’s maximum objectives. In a situation where military escalation and economic pressure go hand in hand, diplomacy becomes a tool – not an alternative.
*
Furthermore, Tehran states its conditions for ending the war – the payment of compensation to Iran for the attack on it, the withdrawal of all American bases from the Persian Gulf, the lifting of all sanctions, and guarantees of non-aggression from the US and Israel.
As we can see, only one of these points agrees with the American proposals – the lifting of all sanctions.
