WASHINGTON / TEHRAN : The United States has conveyed a set of far-reaching conditions to Iran aimed at preventing a direct military confrontation, according to reporting by The New York Times and officials familiar with the diplomatic exchanges. The demands, delivered through indirect channels, outline what Washington says are minimum requirements for halting potential U.S. or allied military operations targeting Iran.
The conditions focus on Iran’s nuclear program, its missile capabilities, and its regional network of allied armed groups. U.S. officials argue that these three areas together form the core of Iran’s military deterrence and power projection strategy across the Middle East.
Nuclear Enrichment at the Center of U.S. Concerns
The first and most consequential demand calls for a permanent end to uranium enrichment at all Iranian facilities. This would go significantly beyond the limits set under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which allowed Iran to enrich uranium at low levels under international monitoring.
Since the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, Iran has steadily expanded its nuclear activities. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports indicate that Iran is now enriching uranium to levels far exceeding civilian requirements and has accumulated stockpiles that could, if further processed, shorten the time needed to produce weapons-grade material.
Washington maintains that a complete halt to enrichment is necessary to remove what it describes as an imminent proliferation risk. Iranian officials, however, have consistently stated that enrichment is a sovereign right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and have rejected any proposal that eliminates it entirely.
Restrictions on Ballistic Missile Capabilities
The second U.S. demand seeks strict limits on the number, range, and development of long-range ballistic missiles, particularly those controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). American and allied intelligence agencies assess that Iran possesses the largest missile arsenal in the Middle East, including systems capable of reaching U.S. military bases, Israel, and parts of Europe.
Iran has long argued that its missile program is defensive in nature and non-negotiable, especially given its lack of a modern air force and its experience during the Iran-Iraq War. Previous negotiations, including the JCPOA talks, deliberately excluded missile issues due to Tehran’s firm opposition.
U.S. officials now contend that missiles are inseparable from Iran’s nuclear and regional posture, asserting that limits are required to reduce the risk of rapid escalation and long-range strikes.
Ending Support for Regional Armed Groups
The third demand addresses Iran’s support for armed groups across the Middle East, including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthi movement in Yemen. Washington accuses Tehran of providing funding, weapons, training, and intelligence to these groups, which the U.S. designates as destabilizing forces and, in some cases, terrorist organizations.
Iran characterizes these groups as legitimate resistance movements and denies exercising direct operational control over them. Nonetheless, U.S. officials view Iran’s regional alliances as a central element of its strategic influence and a direct threat to U.S. partners, particularly Israel and Gulf Arab states.
Ending all such support would represent a fundamental shift in Iran’s regional policy, effectively dismantling what analysts describe as Tehran’s “forward defense” strategy.
Diplomatic Impasse and Strategic Calculations
Taken together, the three demands would require Iran to abandon core components of its national security framework. Iranian leaders across the political spectrum have signaled that such conditions are unacceptable, viewing them as equivalent to surrender rather than negotiation.
U.S. officials have not publicly detailed timelines or specific enforcement mechanisms but have indicated that failure to meet these conditions could result in military action, potentially in coordination with regional allies. At the same time, Washington continues to emphasize that it prefers a diplomatic resolution and that the demands are intended to prevent escalation rather than provoke it.
As of now, indirect diplomatic channels remain open, but no formal talks have been announced. With both sides holding firm positions, the situation remains fluid, and regional actors are closely monitoring developments for signs of either renewed negotiations or a shift toward military confrontation.
——— End of Article ———
