Tehran is trying to shift the center of gravity in negotiations with Washington. According to U.S. and regional sources, Iran has presented the United States with a new proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and end the war, postponing the nuclear issue to a later stage.

In other words, the Iranian side is proposing a separation between the immediate crisis and the deeper strategic problem. First, reopen the maritime artery of the Persian Gulf. First, lift the U.S. blockade that is strangling Iranian oil exports. First, extend the ceasefire or agree on a more permanent end to hostilities. Only later should substantive discussions begin on uranium enrichment, stockpiles of enriched material, and the future shape of the nuclear program.

On the surface, the proposal appears to be a realistic way out of a dangerous deadlock. In essence, however, it places Donald Trump before a difficult dilemma: accept a fast de-escalation package that would reopen the Strait and reduce the risk of a broader energy crisis, or maintain the blockade, preserving his main leverage over Tehran until it makes concessions on the nuclear front.

The Tehran proposal

The Iranian plan, as described by people familiar with the contacts, was conveyed to the U.S. side via Pakistani mediators. Its core idea is simple: the Strait of Hormuz and the naval blockade should be treated as separate from U.S. nuclear demands.

Washington is demanding two structural concessions from Iran: suspension of uranium enrichment for at least a decade and removal of enriched uranium stockpiles from the country. From the outset, these were among Trump’s central war objectives—not merely to temporarily limit Iran’s capabilities, but to strip Tehran of the material and time that could bring it close again to a nuclear threshold.

Iran’s proposal does not address these demands. It postpones them. It suggests lifting the blockade and restoring maritime traffic first, with nuclear negotiations to follow in a second phase.

This is precisely where the problem lies for Washington. If Trump lifts the blockade and accepts an end to the war before securing nuclear concessions, he will have removed his strongest leverage. Tehran would gain time, partial economic relief, and enter future talks under far less pressure.

The White House dilemma

Trump is expected to review the Iranian impasse in a Situation Room meeting with his national security and foreign policy team. The question is not simply whether negotiations will occur, but what kind of negotiation is possible when both sides disagree even on the sequence of issues.

The U.S. logic is that the blockade must continue until Tehran yields on the nuclear issue. Trump himself suggested in a Fox News interview that he sees the blockade as a tool of time pressure, likening Iran’s oil system to a pipeline that could “burst from within” if it cannot export.

Tehran, by contrast, is trying to break exactly this mechanism. It wants to remove Washington’s ability to tie the reopening of the Strait to nuclear concessions. It seeks first to restore economic breathing space—then negotiate.

This is not a technical detail. It is a battle over sequencing. And in diplomacy, sequence often matters more than substance.

Deadlock after Islamabad

The crisis deepened after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s visit to Pakistan. The White House had hinted that Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner might meet him in Islamabad. The Iranians did not commit.

Trump canceled the trip. The signal was clear: Washington will not chase negotiations at any cost.

This also matters symbolically. Trump does not want to appear as a president seeking an exit from war at any price, but as one who “holds the cards.” The White House emphasized that any deal must serve American interests and prevent Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Behind this stance lies concern that a limited Hormuz deal could be framed by Tehran as strategic survival—and by Trump’s critics as premature concession.

Internal divisions in Iran

One of the most revealing elements of the proposal is that Iran itself appears divided. Araghchi reportedly told mediators from Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar that there is no full consensus within Iran’s leadership on what can be offered.

Some factions recognize the unsustainable cost of blockade and war. Others view nuclear concessions as strategic defeat.

The Hormuz proposal reflects a compromise: offer something globally valuable—reopening a key energy chokepoint—without touching the politically sensitive nuclear issue.

Hormuz as leverage and trap

The Strait of Hormuz is not just geography. It is the mechanism by which a regional conflict becomes global. A large share of Persian Gulf energy flows through it, affecting prices, shipping, insurance, and inflation risks worldwide.

Tehran knows this is its strongest card. Washington knows it cannot allow Iran to use it as leverage without nuclear concessions.

Here lies the paradox: both sides want the Strait open—but disagree on the price.

If Trump accepts Iran’s framework, Tehran proves it can create a crisis, manage it, and return to talks without abandoning its strategic core. If he rejects it, pressure continues—but so does the risk of escalation, energy disruption, or military confrontation.

Moscow watching

Araghchi’s planned visit to Moscow to meet Vladimir Putin adds another layer. Iran seeks to show it is not isolated and has alternative partners.

For Russia, any crisis that absorbs U.S. attention and resources—especially amid the Ukraine war—is strategically useful.

The meeting signals Iran’s attempt to internationalize pressure on Washington and link the Hormuz crisis to broader geopolitical tensions.

Gains and losses

For Iran, the plan offers clear benefits: economic relief without immediate nuclear concessions, and a shift of focus toward global energy stability.

For Trump, it’s more complex. A Hormuz deal could stabilize markets and end a costly conflict—but leave the nuclear issue unresolved and weaken U.S. leverage.

The real choice is not simply war vs. peace. It is between fast de-escalation with an unresolved nuclear issue, or sustained pressure with higher risks.

What’s really at stake

Iran is seeking a way out—but not surrender. It wants to stop economic bleeding, reopen Hormuz, and keep the nuclear issue alive for later negotiation.

Trump, by contrast, wants to convert current pressure into decisive nuclear concessions.

This makes the next phase critical. If Washington rejects the proposal, the crisis may escalate. If it accepts it without nuclear concessions, Tehran will have succeeded in separating immediate de-escalation from long-term strategy.

And that is where the negotiation will ultimately be decided—not in whether both sides want a deal, but in who pays the political and strategic cost first.