#特朗普再下最后通牒

10-Point Plan or 15-Point Plan? Is There Still a Chance for the United States and Iran to Shake Hands and Achieve Peace?
In the Middle East, as the conflict that began at the end of February 2026 enters its 39th day, indirect diplomatic channels between the United States and Iran remain active. Through Pakistani mediation, Washington presented Tehran with a 15-point framework, while Tehran rejected it as excessive and countered with its own 10-point proposal. What do the differences between these two documents reveal, and can the parties truly reach a lasting peace?
Background of the Diplomacy
The administration of US President Donald Trump, seeking to reduce the economic and strategic costs of the conflict, conveyed a comprehensive proposal to Iran via Pakistan in mid-March 2026. According to reports from major outlets including The New York Times, Bloomberg, and others, the initial offer aimed to open the door to negotiations through a temporary one-month ceasefire. Iran, drawing on past negotiation experiences, viewed temporary measures as insufficient and insisted on a permanent end to the war. By early April 2026, Iran delivered its 10-point response through the same Pakistani channel. US officials described the Iranian reply as overly ambitious, while President Trump called it “significant but not sufficient.”
The US 15-Point Proposal: Focused on Nuclear and Regional Security
The American framework primarily seeks to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program and limit its regional influence. Key elements include:
Deactivation and dismantling of nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow,
Complete prohibition of uranium enrichment activities on Iranian soil,
Transfer of existing stockpiles of 60% enriched uranium to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
Commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons and full access for the IAEA,
Restrictions on the range and quantity of ballistic missile programs,
Cessation of financial and military support to regional proxy groups (such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis),
Immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international commercial traffic.
In return, the proposal envisions gradual lifting of sanctions and other economic incentives. It calls for a one-month ceasefire to launch talks, followed by the signing of a comprehensive “grand agreement.”
Iran’s 10-Point Counter-Proposal: Emphasizing Permanent Peace and Security Guarantees
Iran described the US offer as unrealistic and one-sided. Its 10-point document prioritizes a lasting solution over any temporary pause. Prominent demands include:
Permanent end to the war and guarantees against future attacks,
Halt to all Israeli strikes against Iran and its regional allies (particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon),
Compensation for material damages and support for reconstruction,
Lifting of all sanctions,
Recognition of Iranian sovereignty in the Strait of Hormuz and establishment of joint protocols for safe passage (with some reports mentioning potential transit fees),
Ending all regional conflicts and creating stability mechanisms.
Iran has stated that, once these conditions are met, it would lift restrictions on the strait and contribute to the resumption of commercial shipping.
Current Situation and Risks
As of the first week of April 2026, the talks appear to have reached an impasse, yet diplomacy has not fully stalled. President Trump has issued a concrete deadline for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, warning of broad operations against civilian infrastructure if unmet. Iran has responded with limited retaliatory actions while reiterating that it will accept nothing short of a permanent peace. Regional players, including Pakistan as well as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, continue efforts to keep mediation channels alive.
Economic pressures weigh heavily on both sides. Rising oil prices are affecting global markets, Iran’s economy has suffered severely from sanctions and conflict, and the prolonged war is generating political and financial costs for the United States.
Is There Still a Chance for Peace?
Yes, but the window is narrow and highly conditional. History shows multiple instances where the United States and Iran sat at the table, only for deep mistrust to derail agreements. Current obstacles include:
Iran’s emphasis on a “trust deficit,” recalling past negotiations that ended in renewed strikes,
The US firm red lines on nuclear capabilities and proxy support,
Regional dynamics, including Israel’s security concerns and the balance among Gulf states.
Nevertheless, opportunities exist. Neither side can afford the full costs of an all-out war. Trusted intermediaries like Pakistan continue to carry messages. If Iran shows flexibility on nuclear transparency and proxy policies, and the United States offers credible security guarantees and sanctions relief, the 15-point and 10-point texts could evolve into a balanced middle-ground document.
In conclusion, the question of whether a 10-point or 15-point plan will prevail may be answered with “neither.” A realistic peace requires a new synthesis that protects each side’s core interests while advancing shared goals. As long as diplomatic channels stay open, hope remains. However, time is short, and military risks grow with each passing day. The future of the Middle East will depend on the steps taken at the negotiating table in the coming weeks.