EXCLUSIVE: Iranian Official Outlines Latest Proposal to End the U.S. War as Trump Weighs New Strikes
The framework would defer nuclear enrichment talks until there is a deal to end the war and open the Strait of Hormuz, a senior Iranian official told Drop Site.
Reader support is what makes Drop Site possible. Without it, this journalism wouldn’t exist. If you’re able, please consider making a tax-deductible donation or upgrading to a paid subscription today.
Iran has submitted its latest proposal to mediators to negotiate an end to the U.S. war, a senior Iranian official told Drop Site News, amid ongoing threats from the White House and reporting that the Trump administration may be preparing to escalate militarily as soon as this weekend. The senior Iranian official revealed details of Tehran’s ongoing talks with the Trump administration through regional mediators, and outlined Iran’s latest proposal for a diplomatic resolution.
The official said that Tehran put forward a set of terms as a framework for a deal, including the provisional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz—contingent on an end to the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports, the release of billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets, and a plan to compensate Iran for damages incurred in the war. The official, who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to publicly comment, also stated that the Iranian framework would require an agreement to permanently end the war first, followed by immediate negotiations to reach a deal over the nuclear program.
“Today, the mediators stated that Trump appears seriously interested in declaring an end to the war,” the official said, though they offered mixed signals on whether he would respond positively to Tehran’s latest terms.
But, he cautioned, there are still significant differences between the two sides, reiterating that Iran had made plans to launch retaliatory strikes if the U.S. and Israel resume attacks. “Since the American side insists on conducting the discussions solely within the framework of the nuclear issue, no meaningful progress was achieved regarding the proposals exchanged prior to the mediators’ visit.”
In the midst of the talks, Trump is reportedly weighing further strikes against Iran—a tactic he has used multiple times in the negotiations. On Friday, he met with War Secretary Pete Hegseth and senior national security officials in the Oval Office, with Axios reporting that Trump is “seriously considering launching new strikes against Iran barring a last-minute breakthrough in negotiations.” Later in the day, he posted on Truth Social that he would not be attending his son’s wedding and would remain in Washington, D.C. over the long weekend due to “circumstances pertaining to Government, and my love for the United States of America.”
That issue of sequencing the end of the war and the nuclear negotiations remains a major point of contention, the Iranian official said. In its latest proposal, Iran has offered to dilute its nuclear material under supervision while agreeing to limits on its uranium enrichment capacity.
But President Donald Trump has staked the U.S. campaign against Iran on eliminating Iran’s “ability to create a nuclear weapon,” a red line that the White House continues to maintain. Trump “made his red lines abundantly clear,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told CBS News, “Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon, and they cannot keep their enriched uranium.” No intelligence assessment has ever concluded that Iran was close to developing a nuclear weapon.
Iran believes that Trump himself, who has shifted between wild threats to destroy Iran and declarations of victory, is a major wild card in achieving any deal. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told the UN chief on Friday that the White House’s “excessive demands” were the main barrier to a deal.
“The personal political decision of Trump remains a serious obstacle to achieving peace. In his message to the Pakistani side, he expressed a willingness to end the war, but after the Pakistani delegation arrived in Tehran today, he again adopted different positions in the exchanged messages,” the Iranian official said. “Due to the lack of constructive engagement from the American side, no draft text has yet been produced.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Two-Track Deal
The negotiations have been divided into two separate tracks, the official said, with one track focused on concluding an agreement declaring the end of the war, and the second related to the dispute over the Iranian nuclear program.
The Iranian framework outlines a proposal where—following an initial agreement to officially end the war and an announcement of an end to the U.S. naval blockade on Iranian ports—Iran would temporarily reopen the Strait of Hormuz and waive transit fees. “This arrangement will remain in place until the new governance regime for Hormuz, which Iran will announce soon, is finalized,” the Iranian official added. The official reported that this formula had been agreed to by Iran in response to the destructive impact of the conflict on global energy and food markets and requests for relief from regional, European, and Asian countries.
In exchange, the U.S. would have to agree to release part of Iran’s frozen assets, as well as to create an international mechanism involving the U.S. and other countries that participated in the war to compensate Iran for losses. The Iranian position also mandates an end to the war across the region, particularly in Lebanon where Israel has continued to carry out a massive military assault despite a nominal ceasefire.
After the conclusion of the agreement to end the war, as part of a subsequent negotiation on the nuclear file, Iran also laid out terms that would include commitments to not develop a nuclear weapon. In exchange, Iran would ask for recognition of its nuclear enrichment rights, which would remain limited for several years under the agreement.
“Iran will voluntarily suspend enrichment above 3.6% for a period of 10 years. Existing uranium enriched above 20% will be diluted inside Iran with the participation of mediators and will be used domestically for peaceful purposes,” the Iranian official said. In regards to an Iranian commitment to not develop a nuclear weapon, “This will be a binding prerequisite in our view, provided that the country’s official rights are recognized, and it will be explicitly included in the formal texts of the nuclear agreement.
Many of the details about enrichment levels and rights guaranteed to Iran under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons stick closely to previous Iranian proposals before the war, as well as the 2015 nuclear agreement successfully negotiated between Washington and Tehran.
The Trump administration, the official said, has indicated that it wants a deal on the nuclear program and ending the war to occur simultaneously. “In [the Trump administration’s] messages, they have conditioned the release of any financial resources on the outcome of the nuclear negotiations. This is not acceptable to us,” the Iranian official said.
“We consider the full lifting of sanctions to be a reasonable outcome in exchange for a successful conclusion to the nuclear negotiations. Our blocked assets must be released immediately for the reconstruction of the country in return for the official declaration ending the war,” the official added. “They have explicitly rejected both the requested amount and the proposed mechanism for our access to the financial resources.”
Over the past several days, as Trump has threatened a resumption of strikes, regional countries have been engaged in intense shuttle diplomacy between Iran and the U.S. After the U.S. submitted its most recent proposal earlier this week, Trump said, “If we don’t get the right answers, it goes very quickly. We’re all ready to go.” The talks between Washington and Tehran are being officially mediated by Pakistan, though other countries, including China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are playing supporting roles in formulating an agreement.
“Our proposals have been agreed upon by all consulted parties, including the direct mediating countries and other regional actors informed about the negotiation process,” the official said. “This framework is considered practically implementable.”
In the meantime, the Iranian government is preparing itself to escalate in the event that Trump resumes bombing.
“Our current assessment is that Trump’s expressed willingness to reach an agreement to end the war is not fully reliable. Therefore, the Iranian side will maintain full readiness to defend the country in the event of war,” the official said. “According to the higher level policies that have been adopted, if war begins, Iran will also target American interests outside the West Asia region, and all countries hosting such bases within Iran’s operational range may also become targets.”
Pressuring Iran
The U.S. strategy for pressuring Iran—after several weeks of U.S.-Israeli airstrikes carried out during Operation Epic Fury failed to topple the government or force it to capitulate—has pivoted to blockading Iranian ports and attempting to halt its energy sales. China is the major buyer of Iranian oil accounting for roughly 90% of its imports.
Early in the war, the U.S. granted temporary waivers allowing Iranian oil already at sea to be sold free of sanctions to delay the economic impact of the blockade of the Strait. As the war has dragged on, and de facto Iranian control over the strait has become more established, Asian and European countries have increasingly revived diplomatic contacts with Iran, after previously taking part in a U.S.-led campaign to isolate Tehran.
“China is now using the situation for their own benefit and enjoying watching America expend its military assets and munitions, they will do nothing to stop it,” said Mohammed Sani, an Iranian analyst based in Tehran. “It seems that other countries in Europe and Asia have also started to accept the reality of the situation, including South Korea, Japan, France, Spain. Before, they were waiting for a U.S. operation to open to it, but now they are coming to Iran one by one to negotiate directly, accepting Iranian control, and are no longer counting on a U.S. military operation.”
Tasnim News Agency, an Iranian news outlet linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), reported earlier this month that the U.S. had again granted waivers for the sale of oil, which U.S. officials denied.
The Iranian official who spoke to Drop Site stated that an agreement had been reached to resume some Iranian oil sales to Beijing, though no such deal has been made public.
“We have sold part of our oil to China through pre-sales, and the transfer of the purchased volume has already begun,” the official said. “The American side, according to its bilateral discussions with Beijing, is expected not to create any obstacles for the transportation of this oil by Chinese tankers.”
Following a visit to China last week that failed to win support from Beijing to pressure Iran to end the standoff on American terms, Trump told Fox News that Chinese President Xi Jinping had told him, “I would love to be a help, if I can be of any help whatsoever,” while adding that despite promising not to sell military equipment to Iran, “They buy a lot of their oil there, and they’d like to keep doing that.”
Looming Threats
Despite the ongoing talks between the U.S. and Iran, there is a serious threat of renewed war. In a recent phone conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Axios reported, Trump stated that he was leaning towards resuming attacks against Iran, including a final wave of “decisive” wave of attacks.
Trump has repeatedly expressed his preference for a speedy end to his deeply unpopular and costly war against Iran, threatening to hit Iranian energy infrastructure—an objective which has been repeatedly encouraged by Israel. At the same time he is facing increased pressure from Senate Republicans over the economic impact of the war in an election year.
Iranian analysts linked to the IRGC who spoke to Drop Site have stated that in the event of a renewed war, Iran is preparing to launch a wide-ranging offensive that would not stick to a limited timeframe, and would also escalate to involve targeting regional infrastructure critical to the global economy, as well as U.S. bases and naval assets within range of the Iranian coast. The Bab al-Mandab strait near Yemen, which has so far remained off limits during the current war, would also likely be targeted in a new round—adding another level of strain to the global economy.
“If they go for a war of infrastructure, Iran will go for acts of reprisal and not only bomb energy zones in the southern rings of the Persian Gulf, but also shut down the Bab al-Mandab strait. The global economy will be pushed into devastation, including the U.S. economy,” said Mostafa Khoshchesm, a security analyst close to the IRGC. “They tried it before the ceasefire—they hit many bridges, scientific centers, research centers, universities, and hospitals. The Iranians stood firm, not only the Iranian armed forces but the Iranian people, the government. Everyone stood firm. They’ve already tested this and they know this will not be possible. The Iranians will not surrender.”
The U.S. and Israel have also continued to replenish their depleted assets in the region. But, Khoshchesm stated, the Iranian view is that despite the level of U.S. force deployed, having weathered the first confrontation and maintained its missile and drone capabilities, Tehran ultimately maintains escalation dominance in the standoff. He stated that Iran will not concede by force to any U.S. demands and would even consider escalating the confrontation themselves based on what happens.
“There will be no agreement if Donald Trump insists on his maximalist approach, where he wants everything,” Khoshchesm said. “There are many in Iran who believe that this war should be wrapped up once and for all. There are many who are demanding the armed forces for a preemptive attack on U.S. ships and other bases in the region. They believe rightly that Iran has the upper hand and should use this upper hand to finish up everything right now and should not leave anything for the future.”
Other Iranian analysts also predicted that a new war would mean increased Iranian attacks on Gulf Arab states who aligned themselves with the U.S. and Israel—particularly the United Arab Emirates. Iran and the UAE have traded strikes even since the April 8 ceasefire. The UAE, which has closely tied itself to Israel during the war, reportedly targeted Iran in the hours following the ceasefire, hitting an oil storage facility on Lavan Island. Earlier this month, a drone allegedly launched by pro-Iranian militia groups impacted near the Barakah nuclear facility in the U.A.E, in what the country called an “unprovoked terrorist attack.”
“In Iran everyone is waiting for a new round, because given the positions of Iran and the Americans they believe the chance of a deal is very low. It seems that they want to try their luck another time, but the result will be the same, except that this time Iran will respond more aggressively than before,” said Sani.
In addition to expected coordination with Ansarallah to shut down the Bab al-Mandab, Sani said that Iran would heavily target economic interests and infrastructure in the UAE specifically.
While several regional countries that helped facilitate U.S. attacks have since made agreements with Iran to not cooperate in future offensives in exchange for being spared from targeting in a new war, the UAE has publicly been doubling down on its relationship with Israel since the ceasefire. Israeli military assets were deployed on Emirati territory during the war, while the country was also visited by top-level Israeli political and military officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in contacts revealed by the Israeli government.
“The UAE is looking for trouble, they are building defenses around refineries to save them from drone attacks and preparing themselves for a new round. They want to follow this path to the end, to stand beside Israel and become a second Israel in the region,” Sani said.
Following the failed attempt to win Chinese support for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. faces an increasingly limited set of options for how to proceed—especially given what Sani described as the new reality of Iranian control over the waterway.
“The only country that refuses to accept this reality is the U.S., but they will have to accept it soon—either before or after a new round of war. They have only one way forward: to come along with Iran and ask for the Strait to be opened through diplomacy.… Eventually they will realize like other countries that there is no military option to open the Strait, and that the U.S. needs to reach an agreement with Iran.”
Which side in this conflict has shown the most consistency and restraint in both negotiations and past response to recent attacks and long-term, hostile sanctions? Considering Iran's diplomatic efforts to avoid harm to civilians and the USA and Israeli's seeming intent to endanger civilians and key civilian structures, like schools, hospitals and infrastructure, with threats to do irreparable harm, while acting against a nation that caused no harm to the USA mainland. It seems that destructive behaviors from Iran are mainly against a whole region that is innocent of causing harm, with destructive force confined to, nations in the Arab republics where USA bases have been established and are used to attack Iran. This understanding is clear to people and governments around the world, it is clear that Iran is the force to trust and should be the one to set terms that are consistent, reliable and in the best interest of the region. They are the least likely to change their minds the next day and do something that puts peace and people at risk. Trump and his "mind" and "feelings" are not reliable. Israel certainly is not. Either the three nations, USA, Iran and Israel, turn negotiations fully over to the UN to decide or the USA must accept peace terms to Iran's better judgement. and reliability.
This article exposes the core truth Washington keeps trying to bury: the U.S. isn’t “negotiating” with Iran—it’s stalling for time while clinging to a fantasy of military leverage that no longer exists. Iran is putting forward concrete, verifiable steps. The U.S. answer is the same tired imperial reflex: demand everything, concede nothing, and threaten more violence when reality intrudes.
Trump’s erratic lurching between ceasefire whispers and “decisive strikes” isn’t strategy; it’s the pathology of a government that can’t admit it lost the initiative months ago. Every regional actor—Pakistan, China, Europe, the Gulf states—has already adjusted to the new balance of power. Only Washington is still pretending that the Strait of Hormuz can be pried open by force or that Iran can be coerced into surrendering its sovereignty.
The sequencing dispute isn’t a technicality. It’s the whole story. Iran wants the war ended before nuclear talks. The U.S. wants nuclear capitulation before ending the war. One side is offering a path out; the other is demanding a trophy.
If Trump chooses escalation over a workable diplomatic framework, it won’t be a “last wave” of strikes—it will be a deliberate choice to detonate the global economy and widen a war with no strategic endpoint. And the article makes one thing brutally clear: Iran is prepared for that scenario in a way the U.S. is not.
The danger isn’t Iran’s terms. The danger is an American political class so intoxicated by its own mythology that it would rather burn the region down than acknowledge the limits of its power.