Iran Rejects Temporary Ceasefire, Says It Has Already Laid Out Terms for Agreement
Senior Iranian official tells Drop Site that Trump is pushing for a deal but the new proposal is “detached from the realities on the ground.”
Drop Site’s journalism is free to read because thousands of readers choose to fund it. If our work matters to you, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today.
Tehran rejects any agreement for a temporary ceasefire to end the war with the U.S. and Israel, a senior Iranian official told Drop Site, saying that Iran would only accept an agreement that leads to a permanent end to the fighting. The official, who was not authorized to make public statements and spoke on condition of anonymity, said recent proposals for a temporary pause in exchange for resumption of full access to the Strait of Hormuz were “detached from the realities on the ground.”
In the face of new threats by President Donald Trump to escalate the war on Iran, Reuters reported Monday on a Pakistani-led framework to end the fighting that had been shared with both Washington and Tehran. The framework reportedly calls for a temporary ceasefire in exchange for a resumption of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, with 15-20 days given to reach a final settlement that would address Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions relief, and a regional framework for administering the strait.
The senior Iranian official who spoke with Drop Site confirmed that Tehran had received the proposal but reiterated that Iran rejects any agreement based on a temporary ceasefire. “It is our assessment that the Trump administration, owing to legal constraints within the United States concerning the prosecution of the war as well as the need to maintain control over financial markets, requires a short-term pause in the conflict,” said the official. He added that Iran would only accept an agreement that ended the war against Iran conclusively, and which could then be used as a basis for broader talks. The official also pointed to Iran’s February proposal in Geneva that included significant concessions on its nuclear program and a non-aggression pact as a basis for a permanent agreement.
“Our assessment indicates that this [new, temporary] proposal has been drafted solely on the basis of the mediators’ perception of the minimum demands of the parties for halting the war,” the official said. “Tehran does not consider a temporary ceasefire to be a logical course of action, inasmuch as the window for the United States’ exit from the conflict has already been delineated. Should the requisite political will exist, the parties are in a position to establish a permanent ceasefire and thereafter concentrate their efforts on diplomacy.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. An administration official speaking to CNN on Monday said Trump has yet to sign off on the proposal, and that it is “one of many ideas.”
Prior to the outbreak of the war, Tehran proposed unprecedented concessions on its nuclear program during February talks in Geneva that both UK and Omani participants considered sufficient for making progress towards a final agreement. In a dramatic intervention, Omani foreign minister Badr Albusaidi said in an interview with “Face the Nation” that a “peace deal is within our reach” and asked for more time to continue the talks. Shortly after that last round of negotiations, however, rather than engaging with the concessions, the U.S. and Israel launched a surprise attack on Tehran that included the assassination of the country’s head of state and many other senior officials.
Special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner were later accused by nuclear experts of failing to understand the significance of the technical concessions Iran was proposing in Geneva. Notably, while Iran brought a team of technical experts to the negotiations, Witkoff and Kushner did not.
The senior Iranian official who spoke to Drop Site indicated that the framework for negotiations in February could still serve as a basis for a durable agreement between Tehran and Washington. “The latest proposal put forward by Iran prior to the commencement of the unlawful US-Israeli war would fully address the United States’ concerns regarding nuclear weapons through a posture of maximum flexibility on the part of Iran, accompanied by extensive monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency,” he said.
As Drop Site has previously reported, Iran’s terms for permanently ending the war include a long-term guarantee that the U.S. and Israel will not attack Iran again and that any ceasefire also apply to Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine; reparations for the damages done to Iran during the war; sanctions relief; and that Iran retain control over the Strait of Hormuz.
On Easter morning, Trump posted a profanity-laced statement on Truth Social laying out a Tuesday deadline for Iran to capitulate to U.S. demands to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.”
Throughout the war, as global economic harm continues to mount, Trump has repeatedly claimed in public speeches and posts on Truth Social that Iran is “begging” for a deal, only to follow with threats to attack oil and infrastructure targets after Iranian denials.
Trump’s recent public statements regarding the Strait of Hormuz reflect a shifting timeline of deadlines and escalating warnings: an initial 48-hour ultimatum on March 21 to reopen the strait was paused on March 23 for “productive” talks—a claim Tehran rejected, labeling it “fake news” intended to manipulate markets. The deadline was later extended on March 26 by ten days, with Trump expanding his threats on March 30 to include oil wells, Kharg Island, and desalination plants . On April 1, he again claimed that Tehran was seeking a ceasefire, despite repeated Iranian denials, issued another 48-hour warning on April 4, and pushed the deadline once more.
“This threat isn’t new, and Iran has already made its position clear if such a crime were to happen,” the official said regarding Trump’s frequent threats. Iran has repeatedly said that it will retaliate to such attacks by targeting U.S.-linked infrastructure across the region—potentially including critical energy and water desalination facilities in both Israel and the Gulf Arab states.
The Pakistani framework, aimed at heading off the Tuesday deadline, was reportedly developed in the context of messages exchanged “all night long” between Pakistani army chief Asim Munir, Vice President J.D. Vance, Witkoff, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. The putative agreement would be known as the “Islamabad Accords,” providing a temporary end to the fighting and arrangements for final status talks in the future between the U.S. and Iran.
Yet the staged nature of the proposal would leave Iran open to future attacks by the U.S. and Israel—both of which have repeatedly used prior negotiations as a means to prepare assets for attacks against Iran, even targeting and killing negotiators themselves.
In late March, the Trump administration reportedly issued a 15-point plan for an agreement with Iran, including a 30-day ceasefire, the total dismantlement of the Iranian nuclear program, limits on Iran’s ballistic missile program, an end to Tehran’s support for armed resistance groups, and immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. That reported plan matched much of what Washington had demanded even before the war started and was dismissed as “extremely maximalist and unreasonable” by Iranian officials.
Amid a general lack of trust in Washington’s willingness or even ability to negotiate an agreement, Iran issued its own list of conditions for a peace deal—including guarantees that the war would not resume, an end to attacks in Lebanon, Gaza, and Iraq, reparations for war damages suffered during the fighting, and recognition of Iranian right to exercise authority over the Strait of Hormuz.
The issue of the strait has now become a core point of contention between the two sides. While the strategic waterway was open before the U.S.-Israeli attack, Iran has now managed to assert de facto sovereignty over it—controlling access to which ships may transit and even charging fees for passage to those that meet its criteria. Iran has also stated that ships associated with hostile countries will not be allowed to pass.
While an accumulating global oil shock has continued to build due to the disruption of energy shipments, the Iranian parliament has already passed measures aimed at normalizing its control of access to the strait going forward. The proposed Pakistani deal calls for opening the waterway immediately in exchange for a temporary end to the fighting—a proposal that Tehran said it rejects.
“The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for the establishment of a temporary ceasefire is not acceptable. Tehran has finalized a new mechanism for oversight, inspection, and secure navigation in the Strait and will shortly present it to the countries of the region for their participation. At present, Iran’s bilateral arrangements with various states have already established the necessary groundwork for the safe passage of a number of vessels, serving as a pilot project for the exercise of Iranian sovereignty,” the senior Iranian official told Drop Site.
The official added that Tehran would be willing to negotiate renewal of access to U.S.-linked ships as part of a broader peace agreement. “Naturally, the passage of vessels associated with the United States can constitute a subject for discussion between the parties within the framework of comprehensive Iran-United States negotiations, wherein a shared understanding on the matter may be reached,” he said.
Initially described as a short “excursion” that would be wrapped up within days, the war with Iran has increasingly come to look like a major quagmire for the Trump administration. In addition to asserting control over one of the world’s most vital maritime shipping routes, Iran has managed to maintain a steady rate of fire at Israel and the Gulf Arab states over more than a month of fighting—inflicting increasing damage as limited stocks of missile interceptors have been drained, and forcing the U.S. to transfer critical munitions from East Asia to the Middle East.
In addition to killing thousands of civilians, the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran has done tremendous damage to Iranian infrastructure, including recent attacks on universities, bridges, and petrochemical facilities.
In the face of repeated threats of regime change, and attempts to cause the dissolution of the country through attacks on civilian infrastructure and support for violent separatist groups, Iranian officials say that they have now prepared for a longer war of attrition and will not accept any agreement that merely serves as a pause to enable Israel and the U.S. to recover and prepare for future attacks.
The U.S. “appears to envisage the pursuit of the collapse of Iranian sovereignty by repeating this war-ceasefire cycle until the third year of [Trump’s] presidency,” the senior Iranian official told Drop Site. “For this reason, we consider it probable that President Trump may unilaterally declare a temporary ceasefire, in which event the Strait will continue to be administered by Iran through the new mechanism.”
The core issue here isn’t just “ceasefire vs. no ceasefire”—it’s credibility. After launching a surprise attack in the middle of active negotiations, the United States government and Israel have essentially burned whatever trust remained. Expecting Iran to accept a temporary pause under those conditions isn’t diplomacy—it’s asking them to expose themselves to the same playbook again.
What’s striking is how the public narrative from Donald Trump keeps insisting Iran is “begging” for a deal, while the actual reporting suggests Tehran already put forward terms months ago—including monitored nuclear limits and a non-aggression framework. If that’s accurate, then this isn’t about a lack of options—it’s about rejecting the ones that don’t fit maximalist demands.
A temporary ceasefire might stabilize oil markets and buy time politically, but from Iran’s perspective, it just resets the clock for another round of escalation. Without guarantees, it’s not de-escalation—it’s intermission.
At some point, either both sides negotiate a real end to the conflict, or this cycle of “talk, strike, pause, repeat” becomes the strategy itself—with everyone else, especially civilians and the global economy, paying the price.
Iran's position, and their proposed agreement, reflects the true reality of this war, i.e., Israel is the real issue. Consider:
1) This war was never about the nuclear issue, since Iran had already agreed to concessions -- then Israel launched the war forcing our government to join.
2) Iran is asking in their current proposal that the permanent cessation of war must include Lebanon, Gaza, and Iraq -- that's only because Israel is the aggressor in those countries, not us.
3) The "Islamabad Accords" is nonsense because the idiots in the Pakistan government are stooges for Israel and the U.S. -- and Iran knows that Israel will violate the temporary ceasefire and draw the U.S. into the war again.
Unless we sever our relations with Israel, there's no end to this war, or the wars in Lebanon, Gaza, and Iraq.
So I'm rooting, odd as it may seem, for the Iran proposal and not the U.S. /Israel one.