ConflictClarifier

2026伊朗-海湾危机追踪
CC
Events Archive
strikeMar 25, 2026

Obstacles to ending war come into focus as US and Iran outline starkly different demands

Summary

Obstacles to ending war come into focus as US and Iran outline starkly different demands By Jennifer Hansler, Kylie Atwood, Tal Shalev, CNN (CNN) — Almost exactly one month ago, US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner met indirectly with the Iranians in Geneva as the Trump administration continued to claim diplomacy was its preferred option. Two days later, the US and Israel launched their war against Iran. Now, the United States is again seeking to return to talks after President Donald Trump’s about face on Monday when he announced the two countries were negotiating an end to the conflict –- but there are significant hurdles on the path back to the negotiating table despite public optimism voiced by the White House. Gulf and European allies are closely watching and growing concerned about the lack of momentum towards negotiations to end the conflict or even put a ceasefire into place, multiple sources told CNN. Although there are efforts underway to try to arrange a meeting between the two sides, sources say such a gathering is unlikely to take place soon given the wide gap between the two countries’ demands. The specter of continued military action by the US and Israel looms large over potential discussions. Meanwhile, Tehran perceives itself to possess a key tool that it did not have prior to the outbreak of the war: virtual control over the Strait of Hormuz. “The very basics must be agreed on before the two sides board and take off for negotiations,” one regional source, told CNN adding that Iranians have now given “a maximum no to a maximalist offer.” Earlier this week, the US conveyed, via Pakistan, a 15-point list of demands for Iran. Many of the demands echo those made by the US before the war began: Iran committing to no nuclear weapons, the US taking possession of Iran’s highly enriched uranium, limits on Tehran’s defense capabilities, and an end of Iran’s support for proxies. If that is truly the US’ position, “there is no world where there’ll be successful negotiations,” Nate Swanson, a former career US government official who served as director for Iran at the National Security Council, told CNN. The other key player in the war, Israel, is concerned that the US may declare a one-month ceasefire in order to facilitate negotiations with Iran, two Israeli sources told CNN. However, the country remains skeptical about the prospect of a breakthrough, according to one of the sources. “The maximum Iran might be willing to give does not meet the minimum the US is demanding,” the source said, adding that Israel views several elements of the US framework as “positive and good for Israel” -– in particular those regarding Iran’s nuclear program and the activities of its regional proxies. However, another Israeli source said that in the long run, Israel is wary that an eventual ceasefire agreement will not address all of its concerns, particularly regarding Iran’s ballistic missile program and proxy activities around the region. Swanson said Iran likely perceives Trump is taking the same stance as before – offering capitulation or escalation – and it does not appear that Iran is taking the prospect of diplomacy seriously. Tehran, he said, is putting out “an equally as audacious and unrealistic proposal.” On Wednesday, an Iranian official outlined the country’s own list of demands, according to state-run media outlet Press TV. They include a complete halt to “aggression and assassinations,” establishment of concrete mechanisms to ensure the war on Iran does not resume, guaranteed and clearly defined payment of war damages and reparations, an end to military operations across all fronts and for all Iranian proxies throughout the region, and a guarantee that Iran can exercise sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. No sign of a viable agreement Tehran’s ability to snarl the key waterway, despite US progress degrading Iran’s military capabilities, has caused the price of fuel to skyrocket and set global markets on edge. It is also a potential edge for Iran in future negotiations, and sources say none of the interlocutors sending messages between the two sides or the Trump administration are now able to convey what the contours of a viable agreement might look like. Some Gulf nations and other US allies would like to see an immediate halt to fighting and an opening of the strait, but others want a grander deal to be reached. UAE’s Ambassador to the US Yousef Al Otaiba wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Wednesday saying that a ceasefire is not enough right now, advocating for an overall agreement to be struck. “A simple cease-fire isn’t enough. We need a conclusive outcome that addresses Iran’s full range of threats: nuclear capabilities, missiles, drones, terror proxies and blockades of international sea lanes,” Otaiba wrote. “Strait of Hormuz is a new tool for them in a way we haven’t seen before,” said Swanson, who is now at the Atlantic Council, noting that Iran likes to serve as “tollbooth operator” for the passage. Iranian officials have continued to maintain they are not in negotiations with the US, but Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi did acknowledge an exchange of messages between the two countries through mediators. “The fact that messages are being sent and we respond with warnings or state our positions is not called negotiation or dialogue; it is an exchange of messages,” he said on the state-run Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting network. “In these messages, ideas were raised that have been conveyed to top authorities, and if a position needs to be taken, they will announce it,” Araghchi said Wednesday. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, meanwhile, insisted on Wednesday that “talks continue” and “they are productive.” Trump administration officials are working to arrange a meeting in Pakistan this weekend to discuss an off ramp to the war, two senior administration officials told CNN. The current plans have Vice President JD Vance traveling to the country, possibly alongside other top Trump officials. Iranian representatives have let the Trump administration know it does not want to re-enter negotiations with Witkoff and Kushner and would prefer to engage with Vance, two regional sources said. Trump on Tuesday said Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Kushner and Witkoff are currently leading negotiations with Iran. Officials cautioned that the timing of a potential trip is fluid, as is the location and who may attend. Turkey has also been suggested as a potential location for the talks, two sources familiar with the matter said, as some officials raise security concerns about holding a meeting in Pakistan. Both Pakistan and Turkey have served as intermediaries between the US and Iran. Amid the flurry of back and forth about potential talks this weekend, Gulf allies are privately urging the Trump administration against ramping up the war by putting boots on the ground to occupy Kharg Island or remove Iran’s highly enriched uranium, a senior Gulf official said, citing concerns that a US occupation of the island would result in high casualties, likely trigger Iranian retaliation against regional infrastructure, and prolong the conflict. Still, the potential for further US military action is looming. Approximately 1,000 US soldiers with the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division are expecting to deploy in coming days to the Middle East, according to two sources familiar with the matter, adding to the growing military firepower in the region as the Trump administration says it is in talks with Iran to end the conflict. Leavitt warned Wednesday that if “Iran fails to accept the reality of the current moment,” Trump “is prepared to unleash hell.” CNN’s Alayna Treene, Kristen Holmes, Kevin Liptak and Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed reporting. The-CNN-Wire ™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Actors involved

USIranIsrael

Sources

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran