...
By Sam Stevenson
Associate News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
President Donald Trump has described Iran's newly disclosed 10‑point peace proposal as a "workable basis on which to negotiate," as he announced a two‑week pause on U.S. airstrikes while talks continue.
While the White House says discussions are "very far along," the demands outlined by Iranian state‑linked media Nour News would require the U.S. to abandon or reverse several long‑standing military, legal, and diplomatic positions — making their full acceptance highly uncertain.
Newsweek has compiled a point‑by‑point breakdown of Iran's proposals, along with a rating of how likely they are to be accepted by Washington.
Read More on News
...
1. U.S. commitment to permanent non‑aggression towards Iran
Iran is seeking a binding pledge that the U.S. will never attack or threaten military force against the country.
The U.S. has historically avoided permanent non‑aggression agreements with adversarial states because they restrict deterrence and military flexibility, instead prioritizing deterrence doctrines that preserve freedom of military action.
Such pledges are especially unlikely in the Middle East, where U.S. presidents consistently insist on keeping "all options on the table."
Feasibility: 1/5
2. Recognition of Iran's control over the Strait of Hormuz
Iran's plan demands U.S. acceptance of Iranian authority over the Strait, a critical waterway through which around a fifth of global oil shipments pass in peacetime.
Washington has long treated the Strait as an international waterway and has repeatedly conducted freedom‑of‑navigation operations to challenge Iranian claims of control.
A formal U.S. endorsement of Iranian sovereignty over the passage would directly contradict decades of U.S. naval doctrine.
Feasibility: 1/5
3. Explicit U.S. acceptance of Iran's uranium enrichment program
Iran wants Washington to formally recognize its right to enrich uranium on its own territory. Enrichment has consistently been the central U.S. and Israeli concern in negotiations with Iran.
While past agreements tolerated limited enrichment under strict monitoring, outright acceptance — particularly amid ongoing conflict — would mark a significant departure from established U.S. policy.
Feasibility: 1/5
4. Removal of all primary U.S. sanctions
Primary sanctions bar U.S. entities from doing business with Iran and form the backbone of Washington's economic pressure.
While sanctions relief has featured in past talks, completely lifting all primary sanctions without enforceable compliance mechanisms would dramatically weaken U.S. leverage.
That makes full acceptance unlikely, though partial relief remains conceivable as part of a broader deal.
Feasibility: 2/5
5. Removal of all secondary sanctions
Secondary sanctions penalize foreign companies and governments for engaging with Iran, making them an even more powerful tool than primary sanctions.
Eliminating them would reopen Iran to global markets and reduce U.S. influence over allied policy — a step Washington has historically taken only under tightly defined nuclear agreements.
Feasibility: 1/5
6. Termination of UN Security Council resolutions targeting Iran
Iran is calling for an end to all UN Security Council measures related to its nuclear and military activities.
The U.S. cannot unilaterally end such resolutions, and it has traditionally supported multilateral mechanisms to constrain Tehran.
Achieving this would require consensus among permanent council members, making it diplomatically unrealistic in the short term.
Feasibility: 1/5
7. Ending all IAEA resolutions and nuclear oversight measures
The proposal also seeks removal of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolutions criticizing Iran's nuclear activity.
U.S. support for robust IAEA oversight is a core element of global non‑proliferation policy.
Washington has consistently framed inspections as non‑negotiable, making this demand fundamentally incompatible with U.S. objectives.
Feasibility: 1/5
8. U.S. compensation payments for war damage
Iran is seeking compensation for damage caused during the conflict. The U.S. does not compensate adversarial governments for wartime damage, particularly where responsibility and legality are contested.
Such payments would face overwhelming political and legal resistance domestically.
Feasibility: 1/5
9. Withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from the Middle East
Iran demands a U.S. military withdrawal from the region.
While Washington periodically scales down deployments, leaving as part of a concession to Tehran would conflict with security commitments to allies and longstanding regional strategy.
Feasibility: 2/5
10. Comprehensive regional ceasefire, including Israel‑Hezbollah hostilities
Iran is calling for a ceasefire across all related fronts, including between Israel and Hezbollah.
The U.S. does not negotiate ceasefires on Israel's behalf, and Israeli officials have already warned that the current understanding does not cover Lebanon.
Linking separate conflicts into one agreement limits U.S. flexibility and faces immediate political obstacles.
Feasibility: 2/5
What Happens Next
U.S. and Iranian negotiators will use the two‑week ceasefire window to test whether any of the proposal's terms can be softened into a narrower, enforceable agreement.
If talks falter or the Strait of Hormuz is closed once again, Washington has signaled that military action could quickly resume.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines