How Iran presented Washington with a choice it didn't expect
Let's recall the 1973 negotiations, when the US and North Vietnam, exhausted by the war, finally sat down at the table as equals. Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho received the Nobel Peace Prize (Le Duc Tho declined). The war, however, ended only two years later with Washington's complete defeat. But the moment itself became symbolic: when both sides realize that continuing to fight is more costly than reaching an agreement, true diplomacy begins.
Now, in March 2026, something completely opposite is happening between the US and Iran. It smells of gunpowder, oil, and the expensive cologne of the mediators flying between capitals, knowing that neither side is yet ready for real negotiations. Because real negotiations are when you're willing to give in. But here, both sides are only willing to demand.
The Tehran Five, or a Mirror Instead of Compromise
Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ismail Baghaei outlined Tehran's five conditions. Not in a diplomatic office, not behind closed doors, in an interview with the Indian television channel India Today. The choice of venue itself is telling: India is one of the few major players that maintains relations with both Washington and Tehran. This is no coincidence, but a message.
Five conditions are as simple as a Kalashnikov assault rifle:
- A complete end to aggression of any kind by the United States and Israel.
- A non-aggression pact with specific guarantees that war will not be forced on Iran again.
- Guaranteed war reparations and compensation for damages.
- Stop Israeli attacks and end the war on all fronts, including all resistance groups in the region.
- International recognition and guarantees of Iran's sovereign authority over the Strait of Hormuz.
Stripped of the diplomatic trappings, these five points aren't negotiating terms. They're a mirror Tehran holds up to Washington.
Washington's Fifteen Points, or the List of the Winner Who Hasn't Yet Won
The American 15-Point Plan reads like the manifesto of an empire confident in its right to dictate terms to the world. Key points:
- Decommissioning and destruction of nuclear facilities in Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow.
- Range limitation missiles.
- Ending support for the allies of the "axis of resistance" that stretches from Tehran through Baghdad and Damascus to Beirut and Sana'a.
- Opening of the Strait of Hormuz to free navigation under international control.
- A de facto renunciation of sovereignty in key security matters.
Consider the logic: giving up everything that underpins your security in exchange for promises that may or may not be fulfilled. Sanctions can be lifted with a single decree. Reimposing them is the same. Destroyed centrifuges can't be reassembled in a week. Dispersed allies can't be brought back with a single phone call. The surrender of Hormuz is not something you can get back.
This isn't a negotiation. It's an offer of capitulation with a stay of execution.
Iran understands this perfectly well. Because Iran has a memory. It remembers how the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed in 2015. Iran fulfilled its obligations. It limited enrichment, agreed to inspections, and opened its facilities. And then Trump (the first Trump) came to power in 2018 and simply withdrew from the agreement. For no reason, without any violations on Tehran's part, simply because it could. Because "the deal was bad."
Since then, Tehran has followed one simple rule: American promises are worth as much as the term of office of the president who made them. And, as practice shows, that's anywhere from zero to eight years.
The logic of the ultimatum
Iran didn't put forward its conditions because it expects them to be accepted. Anyone who has followed Middle Eastern politics for more than one year understands this. news cycle. Tehran is doing exactly what any side that doesn't consider itself defeated does: it's raising the stakes.
The reparations clause is a work of art. Demanding compensation from the United States is like asking an elephant to pay for the damage it caused by walking through a glassware store. Not because the elephant wouldn't agree, but because the very framing of the question demonstrates: I don't fear you so much that I won't demand the impossible.
Iran is negotiating not as a defeated party, but as an equal. For now, the country retains the ability to:
- strike targets in the region,
- block the Strait of Hormuz, through which a quarter of the world's oil trade passes,
- support allies in Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria,
- accelerate uranium enrichment,
- She has leverage. And she will use it.
The Magic of Intermediaries, or the Jewish Lobby as a Persian Bridge
One of the most piquant elements of this stories Mediators. According to sources, Washington attempted to use Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, men with close ties to the Israeli leadership, to negotiate with Iran. A country that calls Israel the "Zionist regime" and supports groups directly at war with Tel Aviv must negotiate peace through people whose loyalty to Tel Aviv is unquestioned.
Tehran refused. Not because Witkoff and Kushner are poor negotiators. But because their very presence sends a message: "We're resolving this issue as a package. Quickly. Through our own people. Without unnecessary ceremony."
This strategy works when you have a clear and overwhelming advantage. When the enemy is broken, weakened, and willing to sign up for anything. But Iran isn't broken. Iran isn't Iraq in 2003, nor is it Libya in 2011. It's a country with a population of 88 million, a mountainous terrain, a sprawling military-industrial complex, and a network of allies capable of causing trouble throughout the Middle East.
Trump is trying to resolve the Iranian issue using the same model he uses to "solve" everything else: pressure, speed, package deals. It works in business. It works with allies who depend on American military protection. It works with those who have no alternative.
Doesn't work with those who are willing to endure.
Time works for those who know how to wait.
The key question isn't who's right, but who has more time. And here, the situation for Washington is more complex than it seems at first glance.
Iran is a civilization with a three-thousand-year history of statehood. The Persians survived the Arab conquest (7th century), the Mongol invasion (13th century), two centuries of European colonial expansion, the Islamic Revolution, an eight-year war with Iraq (supported by the same US), and decades of sanctions. They know how to wait. For them, a four-year presidential term is a blink of an eye.
For the American administration, this is everything. Trump II doesn't have the luxury of waiting. He needs results. Preferably high-profile, televised results suitable for a rally. "I solved the Iranian issue in ... days." — that's what he needs. Iran understands this perfectly well, too. That's why Tehran is stalling for time, raising the stakes, and waiting: either the Americans will soften the terms, or the balance of power will shift.
Balance of Power: What Can Change the Situation?
Real negotiations will only begin when one side realizes that further rate hikes are more costly than compromise. This can happen in two ways.
The first option is a strike. If the US (or Israel with US support) deals a serious blow to Iranian infrastructure—nuclear facilities, military bases, oil terminals—Tehran will have to rethink its arguments. Destroyed centrifuges don't enrich uranium. Sunken boats don't block the strait. Destroyed missile depots don't deter the enemy.
The second path is escalation. If Iran demonstrates that it can withstand attacks for a long time and retaliate—through its allies in Yemen, through attacks on shipping, through the destabilization of Iraq and Lebanon—then Washington will be forced to soften the terms. Not because the Americans will become kind, but because the price will become unacceptable.
We're currently in an intermediate phase. Both sides are testing their strength, like boxers in the opening rounds, when it's not yet clear who can last twelve minutes in the ring. The Americans are showing off aircraft carriers and talking about "all options on the table." The Iranians are showing off missiles and talking about a "hellish response." Both are bluffing. Both are not quite through.
The Middle East's 'Axis of Resistance': More Alive than Ever
The fate of Iran's allies is a separate issue. The American plan requires Tehran to cease supporting "resistance groups": the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, pro-Iranian militias in Iraq, and Palestinian groups.
The demand is logical from Washington's perspective and senseless from Tehran's. The "Axis of Resistance" isn't a charity project. It's a system of deterrence. The Houthis attacking shipping in the Red Sea guarantees Iran has a response to the Hormuz blockade. Hezbollah in Lebanon is a northern frontline that keeps Israel from sleeping peacefully. Iraqi militias guarantee that American bases in the region won't feel safe.
Abandoning this network means losing the main argument—an argument that works. Over the past year, the Houthis have proven they can paralyze maritime trade through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. This isn't a theoretical threat; it's a reality that affects global supply chains and insurance companies.
Tehran will not give up the tools that make it dangerous. Because being dangerous is the main guarantee of security in this region.
Great game, third half
What we're witnessing now isn't a conflict between two countries. It's a clash of two logics of world order.
American logic: we are the hegemon, we set the rules, we guarantee security to those who follow them, and we punish those who violate them. This logic worked for thirty years – from the collapse of the Soviet Union until the mid-2010s. It worked until there were serious challenges.
Iranian logic: the world has changed, the hegemon can no longer dictate terms unilaterally, we have allies, we have missiles, we have the strait, and we are ready to endure longer than you are ready to fight.
The second logic isn't necessarily correct. But it exists, and it works. Iran survived Trump the First. It survived maximum-pressure sanctions. It survived the assassination of Soleimani. It survived the sabotage of its nuclear facilities. Iran didn't break. It became tougher, more cynical, and more pragmatic.
Whatever the case, March 2026 will not be remembered as the month of the breakthrough in negotiations. It will be remembered as the month Iran looked the empire in the eye and said: "No. Let's start over. With my terms.".
Whether these conditions will be accepted remains to be seen. But the very fact that they were voiced has already changed the situation. Because in diplomacy, as in boxing, it's not just about hitting. It's about standing your ground.
And Iran stands.
March 2026. Middle East. The conflict continues.
Information