Duelling demands: the US vs Iran

Before we could get clarity on who was lying about the existence (or not) of US-Iran peace talks, the two foes started publicly trading conditions amongst the missiles.

So… what is each side now demanding?

America’s mooted 15-point plan is now circulating among newsrooms after reportedly getting delivered to the Iranians via Pakistan. The White House is only saying these media reports reflect “elements” of the truth, but it seems the truth all looks something like this:

This US plan demands that Iran…

• i) Reopen the Strait of Hormuz

• ii) Limit its ballistic missile inventory and range

• iii) Use missiles only for self-defence only

• iv) Dismantle all nuclear capabilities and facilities

• v) Pledge never to seek nukes

• vi) End any uranium enrichment on Iranian soil

• vii) Hand its uranium over to the UN watchdog (IAEA)

• viii) Decommission its underground sites at Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz

• ix) Commit to total nuclear transparency and inspections

• x) End the policy of supporting proxy terrorist groups (Hezbollah, Hamas, etc)

• xi) End the practice of supporting these groups (finance, arms etc), and

• xii) Declare an end to this war.

In return, the US is offering to…

• xiii) Remove sanctions on Iran

• xiv) Help Iran with nuclear energy via its sole plant (Bushehr), and

• xv) End the UN-endorsed snap-back sanctions on Iran.

Some intriguing things about that list?

First, the nuclear angle goes way beyond the Obama-era JCPOA constraints, which allowed Iran to maintain a nuclear program within certain guardrails. Trump always criticised JCPOA, and will (politically at least) need something beyond JCPOA-lite.

Second, all that focus on missiles is familiar — the region fears Iran’s missiles both as a delivery method for nukes, but also as a conventional weapon to re-shape the region: eg, it’s now hit regional targets to raise global costs and end this war on its own terms.

But third, all that traditional focus on missiles seemingly comes at the expense of any mention of drones, which have now helped Iran spook its neighbours, fry regional energy assets, and shut the Strait (with more units reportedly now en route from Putin).

And fourth, the unsexy UN technicalities can make those snap-back sanctions easy to skip, but it’s worth recalling it was these same sanctions that ‘snapped back’ into place in October after Iran accumulated a massive stockpile of uranium enriched to 40x the levels you’d need for peaceful purposes. Iran’s economy then collapsed, unrest ensued, and a brutal crackdown then wedged the door open for the current war. So ditching these sanctions is a real sweetener for Iran.

Now for Iran’s 5 conditions, including…

• i) A complete halt to US and Israeli aggression and assassinations

• ii) Concrete guarantees against any future attacks

• iii) Full payment of US and Israeli war reparations

• iv) An end to the war for all ‘resistance groups’ (Hezbollah et al), and

• v) Recognition of Iran’s legal rights over Hormuz.

Some intriguing things about that list?

First, that ‘resistance group’ demand really tries to link this war to Israel-Hezbollah — ie, rather than abandon Hezbollah per US demands, Iran is trying to preserve the group as its most valuable strategic asset, billions and decades in the making. This demand might also drive a wedge between Israel (which wants Hezbollah gone) and the US (which wants Hormuz reopened).

Second, look at what’s missing from Iran’s list: zero mention of any arms or nuclear programs? It’s trying to frame these talks around what the US and Israel must surrender, while leaving its own nuclear and missile programs off the table as non-negotiable (for now).

Most official channels also omit any reference to earlier demands the US must close its bases in the region. Our best guess is the regime is quietly side-lining that extra-maximalist demand so it can keep projecting defiance in a way that doesn’t immediately end the dialogue, thus helping it buy time and shift blame.