Trump Rejects Iran's Response to US Peace Proposal

On May 10, 2026, President Donald Trump posted five words on Truth Social that may have closed the door on weeks of painstaking diplomacy: "I don't like it — TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!" [1]. The object of his rejection was Iran's formal response to a US peace proposal meant to end a war that has killed thousands, closed the Strait of Hormuz, and sent global oil prices spiraling. Iran's reply, delivered through mediator Pakistan, was neither a flat rejection nor an acceptance — but a counter-framework that Tehran described as "realistic and positive" [2]. The distance between those two characterizations tells the story of a negotiation that may already be dead.

What Iran Actually Proposed

Iran's response built on a 14-point framework it had submitted in early May [3]. The plan, according to Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei, "exclusively focuses on ending the war and contains no issues related to the nuclear domain" [3]. Its core provisions included:

• An immediate, permanent ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon
• Withdrawal of US military forces from areas surrounding Iran
• Lifting the US naval blockade and sanctions within 30 days
• Release of billions in frozen Iranian assets
• Payment of war reparations for damages sustained
• A new multilateral mechanism for the Strait of Hormuz
• Guarantees of non-aggression against Iran [3][4]

The proposal's most significant feature was what it excluded: any discussion of Iran's nuclear program. Tehran insisted that enrichment and weapons-related questions belong to a second phase of negotiations, after hostilities have fully ceased [2]. An Iranian official characterized the response as a "clarification of Iranian views" on the US proposal rather than a binary yes or no [2].

What Washington Demanded

The US proposal, a nine-point plan delivered through Pakistan, demanded far more sweeping concessions [5]. Its central provisions included:

• Zero uranium enrichment for a minimum of 20 years — Iran had proposed a five-year moratorium, but Washington rejected this as insufficient [6]
• Surrender of Iran's estimated 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity [5]
• Full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping
• Restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile program
• Limits on Iran's support for armed groups across the region [7]

In exchange, the US offered phased sanctions relief and an end to its own naval blockade — but only after Iran met its obligations on enrichment and Hormuz [5].

The JCPOA Ghost: Why Iran Sees a Credibility Problem

The gap between the two positions becomes clearer when measured against the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which Trump withdrew from in 2018 despite Iranian compliance certified by the IAEA [8].

Under the JCPOA, Iran reduced its enriched uranium stockpile by 98%, capped enrichment at 3.67% (far below the 90% weapons-grade threshold), and limited centrifuges to 6,104 older-generation machines at two facilities [8]. In return, Iran received broad sanctions relief and reintegration into global oil markets. The deal had sunset clauses that would have gradually lifted restrictions on enrichment between 2026 and 2031.

Trump's current demands go substantially further: zero enrichment for 20 years, compared to the JCPOA's 3.67% cap for 15 years [6]. From Iran's perspective, this asks for deeper concessions than the deal the US itself broke. As the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace noted, "The U.S. cannot credibly offer sanctions relief after withdrawing from the previous agreement," which "makes Iran less willing to show flexibility on enrichment" [9].

This credibility gap is the structural fault line running beneath every round of US-Iran nuclear negotiations. Iran signed the JCPOA in 2015 and complied with its terms. The US unilaterally exited in 2018 and reimposed sanctions. From Tehran's vantage point, any sovereign government would demand stronger guarantees before agreeing to limit its nuclear program a second time — particularly when the first agreement's collapse led, ultimately, to war.

The Nuclear Clock: What the IAEA Data Shows

The stakes of this impasse are measured in kilograms and centrifuges. Before the June 2025 strikes, Iran had accumulated 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity — enough fissile material for roughly ten nuclear weapons if further processed to weapons-grade [10]. Technical estimates of Iran's breakout time — the period needed to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a single device — had compressed to as little as seven to ten days from existing stockpiles, down from twelve months in 2021 [10].

Two rounds of US-Israeli military strikes — Operation Midnight Hammer in June 2025 and Operation Epic Fury in February 2026 — targeted the Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan nuclear facilities [11]. These strikes degraded enrichment infrastructure and killed several nuclear scientists. But their effectiveness is contested.

A War on the Rocks analysis identified three limits of military force against Iran's nuclear program [12]. First, strikes cannot account for fissile material already produced or prevent its dispersal to concealed locations. After the strikes, the location of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile became uncertain, and IAEA inspectors "lost continuity of knowledge" over the material [12]. Second, Iran pre-delegated response authority to prevent decapitation from eliminating command structures. Third, the strikes foreclosed ongoing Geneva nuclear negotiations, eliminating diplomatic alternatives [12].

Iran terminated all IAEA access on February 28, 2026, the day the US-Israeli strikes began [10]. As of May 2026, inspectors have had no access to verify the status of Iran's declared nuclear materials for over eight months — a situation the IAEA described as "a matter of proliferation concern" [10].

The Economic Toll: Who Pays for This War

The war and accompanying sanctions have devastated Iran's economy — but the costs fall unevenly, and they extend well beyond Tehran.

Source: EIA / Reuters

Data as of May 1, 2026CSV

Iran's crude oil exports collapsed from 1.6 million barrels per day in early 2025 to barely 100,000 barrels per day during the June 2025 Twelve-Day War — a 94% drop [13]. By 2026, exports have recovered only to approximately 300,000 barrels per day, a fraction of the 2.5 million barrels Iran exported in 2017 before Trump's first round of maximum pressure sanctions [13].

Source: World Bank / Central Bank of Iran

Data as of Apr 1, 2026CSV

Iran's GDP contracted 2.7% in the fiscal year ending March 2026 [14]. The country's gross domestic product has fallen from roughly $600 billion in 2010 to an estimated $356 billion in 2025 [14]. Inflation has surpassed 100% as of early 2026, with food prices rising 99% year-on-year — a historical high [14]. The Iranian rial depreciated 44% against the dollar in early March 2026 alone [14].

The civilian impact is severe. According to Iran International, Iranian public anger has increasingly focused on economic hardship, with the middle class shrinking under sanctions pressure [15]. A ScienceDirect study documented how international sanctions have systematically reduced the size of Iran's middle class, with effects concentrated among urban professionals, small business owners, and salaried workers — populations with no influence over nuclear policy [16].

The economic damage is not confined to Iran. Brent crude is roughly $20 higher per barrel than pre-war levels, and US consumers are paying an average of $4.52 per gallon for gasoline, according to AAA [1]. The Strait of Hormuz closure disrupted approximately 20% of global oil trade, sending shockwaves through energy markets worldwide [7].

How the World Reads Iran's Response

Washington's characterization of Iran's reply as "totally unacceptable" is not universally shared among US allies and other major powers.

Russia has welcomed Iran's diplomatic efforts and offered to take custody of Iran's enriched uranium as part of a settlement. Foreign Minister Lavrov said Moscow had seen "no evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons" and offered to help broker a diplomatic solution [17]. Russia has consistently condemned the US-Israeli military operations as "a deliberate, premeditated, and unprovoked act of armed aggression" [17].

China opposed both the reimposition of sanctions and military strikes. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told his Israeli counterpart that the attacks came as negotiations had "made significant progress, including addressing Israel's security concerns" [17]. Beijing has called for an immediate cessation of military operations.

The EU has maintained a more cautious position. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the EU "consistently promoted diplomatic efforts aimed at addressing the nuclear and ballistic programmes through a negotiated solution" [17]. The UK, France, and Germany issued a joint statement calling for resumed negotiations [17].

Gulf states are divided. Saudi Arabia called for talks to "address all issues" and hopes for "comprehensive sustainable pacification" [18]. The UAE has been more hawkish — its ambassador to the US, Yousef al-Otaiba, said "a simple cease-fire isn't enough" and called for a "conclusive outcome" [18]. Oman, which has historically maintained ties with Tehran, was the only Arab Gulf state to directly criticize the US-Israeli attacks [18]. All six GCC states agree that the Strait of Hormuz must reopen as part of any deal [18].

The pattern across international reactions suggests that while few governments publicly endorse Iran's position, many view Washington's characterization as overly dismissive of a response that contained substantive, if incomplete, engagement.

If Diplomacy Fails: The Military Calculus

The Trump administration has already used military force against Iran twice — in June 2025 and February 2026. The question is whether a third round would achieve what the first two did not.

Military analysts are skeptical. Two campaigns successfully degraded enrichment infrastructure and eliminated key personnel, including Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps commander-in-chief and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei [11][12]. But as War on the Rocks assessed, the strikes made Iran's remaining fissile material "harder, not easier, to find" [12]. Iran dispersed its command structures and concealed nuclear materials, reducing the effectiveness of follow-on strikes.

Three escalation scenarios dominate US military planning [12]:

1. Continued aerial campaign: The lowest political cost option, requiring no ground forces, but offering diminishing returns against dispersed targets
2. Regime collapse: Potentially fragmenting control over nuclear materials — a proliferation risk rather than a solution
3. Regime survival and reconstitution: The most likely outcome, in which Iran rebuilds covertly while restricting all international verification

A cascading proliferation risk looms behind each scenario. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has stated plainly: "If [Iran] gets one, we have to get one" [12]. A failure to resolve Iran's nuclear status through diplomacy could trigger a regional arms race across the Middle East.

The Structural Pattern: Why These Talks Keep Failing

The current impasse follows a pattern visible across three decades of US-Iran nuclear diplomacy [9].

The 2013 interim deal and 2015 JCPOA succeeded through a formula: verifiable limits on enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief, with multilateral buy-in from China, Russia, and Europe. The framework worked because both sides accepted partial outcomes — Iran kept limited enrichment capability; the US accepted something short of zero enrichment.

That formula collapsed in 2018 when Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, demanding a "better deal" that addressed missiles and regional activities [8]. The 2022 Vienna talks came close to restoring the agreement but stalled over sequencing disputes and mutual trust deficits. By 2025, the diplomatic track gave way to military action.

The Carnegie Endowment identified several structural factors behind the recurring impasse [9]:

• Incompatible red lines: Iran treats enrichment as a matter of national sovereignty. The US demands its complete abandonment. These positions have no overlap.
• Domestic constraints on both sides: Iranian leadership "appears to be more wary of diplomacy than of war," while the US administration has shown limited interest in the details of international oversight [9].
• Military action during negotiations: The decision to strike "in the middle of negotiations (twice) has vitiated the credibility of diplomatic tools" [9].
• Verification breakdown: Rebuilding inspection trust after strikes on safeguarded IAEA facilities is, according to analysts, "nearly impossible" [9].

Rather than a comprehensive deal, some analysts now advocate a containment approach: Iran refrains from enrichment and stockpile excavation while the US exercises sanctions restraint — an informal arrangement that acknowledges maximalist positions from both sides make traditional diplomacy unworkable [9].

What Comes Next

The ceasefire, originally agreed on April 8 and extended multiple times since, remains technically in effect but increasingly fragile [7]. On May 4, Trump launched Operation Project Freedom, a US Navy mission to escort merchant ships through the Gulf — a move Iran views as a provocation [7]. On May 8, US and Iranian forces clashed near the Strait of Hormuz [19].

Pakistan, serving as mediator, has urged both sides to continue talking. But the fundamental equation has not changed: the US wants Iran's nuclear program eliminated before it will discuss sanctions relief; Iran wants sanctions lifted and the war ended before it will discuss its nuclear program. Neither side has offered the sequencing compromise that could bridge that gap.

The war that began on February 28, 2026, is now in its eleventh week. Oil prices remain elevated. The Strait of Hormuz remains contested. Iran's nuclear materials remain unaccounted for. And a five-word Truth Social post may have set the stage for what comes next.