In light of recent developments, Tehran is striving to establish its own definition of the "end of war," which extends beyond a mere ceasefire to include arrangements that ensure the non-recurrence of strikes, preserve deterrent tools, and link any settlement to issues of sovereignty, sanctions, and the security of the Strait of Hormuz.
Recent data indicates that Iran has not viewed the proposals relayed through intermediaries as a quick exit from combat but rather as negotiations concerning the very nature of the post-war landscape.
Details of the Situation
In his latest statement, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baqaei confirmed that Tehran has articulated its "positions and demands" in response to ceasefire proposals, noting that these demands are based on "national interests." He added that Iran's clear declaration of its demands "should not be interpreted as a sign of concession," but rather as an expression of confidence in defending its position.
He also pointed out that previous American plans, including a proposal consisting of 15 points, were rejected as they were deemed "excessive" or "inflated." He emphasized that negotiations are incompatible with threats and warnings of committing war crimes.
In this context, the Iranian news agency IRNA reported that Tehran has communicated its response to Pakistan regarding the American proposal to end the war, which included 10 points, among which was the rejection of a ceasefire, while emphasizing the need for a permanent end to the war, taking into account Iran's observations.
The Iranian demands include ending conflicts in the region, establishing a protocol for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, reconstruction, and lifting sanctions. This indicates that Tehran does not separate the security track from the political and economic tracks but seeks an agreement that addresses the war and its consequences simultaneously.
Background & Context
The picture became clearer with reports from Reuters citing a senior Iranian official, who confirmed that Tehran has set preconditions for any talks leading to "lasting peace" with the United States, including an immediate halt to strikes, guarantees against the recurrence of attacks, and compensation for damages. The official added that Iran rejects any ceasefire that is merely temporary and that any permanent agreement must allow it to impose fees on vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz based on the type of ship, its cargo, and prevailing conditions.
This development raises Iran's negotiating position from merely seeking a ceasefire to formulating permanent sovereign, security, and economic arrangements. This hardline stance is consistent with other official messages emanating from Tehran.
Impact & Consequences
In an interview with Al Jazeera Net, international relations professor Jawad Hayran Nia interprets these conditions as a direct result of a profound shift in the concept of Iranian deterrence. He notes that "Iranian deterrence before the war was based on proxy forces, missile capabilities, and latent nuclear capability," but this structure has faced significant shocks following the weakening of regional allies and the strikes that targeted part of its missile capabilities and nuclear facilities.
Consequently, Tehran has concluded that traditional deterrence in its previous form is no longer sufficient. Hayran Nia adds that Iran has pushed, in light of this conclusion, towards a "regionalization of the war," so that the confrontation is not limited to direct conflict with Israel but transforms into a struggle that demonstrates Tehran's ability to inflict damage on American military and non-military interests in the region.
Regional Significance
Political researcher Mohammed Bayat believes that "the Pandora's box has been opened, and the nightmare of regional war has been realized." He points out that Tehran, while insisting on its right to self-defense, understands that the issue is no longer merely a response to a military attack but has become about preventing the region from being drawn into a broader war targeting vital infrastructure in the Gulf and reshaping the balance of power there.
Therefore, Iran seeks to end this dangerous and complex war, but on conditions that preserve for it the minimum of strategic gains. Bayat adds that Tehran has two essential conditions for any potential end to the war: the first is to reach some form of agreement that prevents aggression, and the second is compensation for this "illegal aggression."
At the core of Bayat's argument, the "major knot" remains the security of the Strait of Hormuz, which could become an intractable issue if the fighting drags on. If the gap in disagreements is narrowed and points of commonality increased, achieving a permanent ceasefire may become possible.
Thus, it can be said that the Iranian position has become clearer than before. Tehran does not seek a temporary calm that rearranges the field against it, nor does it want to open the Strait of Hormuz separately from a broader basket that includes lifting sanctions, compensation, reconstruction, and security guarantees.
In conclusion, Tehran aims to protect its sensitive facilities from repeated targeting and keep its missile and drone programs outside any urgent concessions imposed under the pressure of war, meaning that ongoing negotiations are not merely about a ceasefire but about defining the meaning of "not being defeated" and the form of the balance that will follow the war.