Diplomacy to end the Iran war has stalled more than a month into a fragile ceasefire, with Washington and Tehran divided over core elements of a deal.
US President Donald Trump had expected a response within 48 hours of a one-page, 14-point memorandum being presented last Wednesday, but when Iran eventually delivered its formal response – routed through Pakistan and arriving four days late – he called it “totally unacceptable”.
Tehran described its reply as a serious counter-offer but the delay reinforced Washington's view that it is slowing the process rather than moving towards closure.
“I don’t like it,” Mr Trump said, accusing Iran of “playing games” and arguing that earlier diplomatic efforts had strengthened Tehran, giving it what he described as a “major and very powerful new lease on life”.
While the full Iranian text has not been published, media reports and state-affiliated outlets highlight a broad set of demands, including an immediate end to hostilities, sweeping sanctions relief, release of frozen assets and guarantees against renewed strikes.
The Wall Street Journal has reported that Iran may be willing to soften parts of its nuclear position, including limited concessions on enrichment within a phased arrangement.
Iranian spokesman
Iranian messaging has also expanded beyond the nuclear file. Reports suggest proposals touching on maritime authority in the Gulf, including a potential role in managing transit through the Strait of Hormuz under certain conditions.
The semi-official Tasnim news agency described the approach as centred on “the lifting of US sanctions, an end to the war on all fronts and Iranian management of the Strait of Hormuz if certain commitments are fulfilled by the US”.
Officials in Tehran have also pushed for negotiations framed around ending the wider regional conflict rather than a narrowly defined ceasefire.
On Monday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said Iran would use military action and diplomacy as needed.
“We will fight whenever necessary and use the weapon of diplomacy whenever we see fit to realise the interests of the Iranian nation,” he said. “The satisfaction of others is not important to us.”
The Strait of Hormuz has emerged as a central pressure point. Regional actors including Qatar have warned against its use as a “pressure card”, or bargaining chip, citing risks to global energy and food supply chains. The disruption has contributed directly to oil market volatility and higher shipping insurance costs.
The current phase follows a period of leak-driven diplomacy, when drafts and documents were circulated before any formal consensus. Expectations of imminent progress repeatedly outpaced political reality. What was framed as narrowing gaps has instead become a contest over timing and sequencing, with both sides seeking to lock in advantage before committing.
Fault lines
On the ground, the fragile ceasefire is being tested by continued but contained incidents. Iran has launched drone attacks across parts of the Gulf, while a cargo vessel travelling from the UAE to Qatar was struck and caught fire. Kuwait and the UAE have reported intercepting drones. No casualties were reported.
At the same time, there have been two flare-ups in the past week and substantial US military assets remain deployed across the region, including 20 warships operating near the Strait of Hormuz, reinforcing deterrence while underscoring how quickly escalation could spiral if talks collapse.
US officials argue that internal fragmentation within Iran is slowing negotiations, with wartime conditions strengthening the role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps alongside formal political institutions. The White House says this makes it harder to identify a single negotiating centre of gravity capable of making rapid concessions.
Iran, meanwhile, continues to insist on a broader settlement tied to regional security rather than a narrowly defined ceasefire. That divergence has become a defining fault line of the talks.
A US and Gulf-drafted UN Security Council resolution is also nearing a potential vote in New York, while Mr Trump is scheduled to travel to China this week, where he is expected to press the Iran file in parallel diplomatic channels.
For now, diplomacy is reacting to more than directing events. Mediation channels remain open but strained, and the ceasefire holds only in the narrowest sense. The result is a stand-off shaped by urgency on one side and delay on the other, with a narrowing margin in which any misstep could undo both.
