US Demanded Immediate Hormuz Reopening; Iran Insists on Final Peace Deal First, NYT Reports
Published on Reflecto News | World News | Diplomacy & Energy Security
The fundamental disagreement that derailed high-stakes US-Iran negotiations in Islamabad centered on the Strait of Hormuz, with the United States demanding immediate reopening to all maritime traffic while Iran insisted it would not fully reopen the strategic waterway until a permanent peace agreement is in place, according to two Iranian officials familiar with the talks who spoke to The New York Times on condition of anonymity .
The divide proved insurmountable during nearly 21 hours of direct negotiations, which ended with Vice President JD Vance departing Pakistan empty-handed and Iran declaring it has no plans for another round of talks .
Two Irreconcilable Positions
The core dispute over the Strait of Hormuz reflects fundamentally different strategic calculations between Washington and Tehran.
| Aspect | US Position | Iranian Position |
|---|---|---|
| Timing | Immediate reopening without delay | Only after permanent peace agreement |
| Conditions | Unconditional | Part of comprehensive final deal |
| Control | Freedom of navigation under international law | Continued Iranian regulatory role |
| Military vessels | Right of transit | Explicitly excluded; will be met with force |
Sources: The New York Times, Iranian officials, multiple news reports
The US position, articulated by Vice President JD Vance and backed by President Donald Trump, was that the ceasefire announced on April 7 was explicitly conditioned on Iran’s agreement to the “COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING” of the strait. From Washington’s perspective, Iran’s continued restrictions on shipping represented a violation of the truce’s core terms .
Iran’s position, articulated by its negotiating team led by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, was that the strait would only fully reopen as part of a comprehensive final peace agreement. Tehran views its control over the waterway — through which approximately 20 percent of the world’s oil passes — as its primary source of leverage in negotiations and is unwilling to surrender that leverage before securing concrete concessions from Washington .
Why the Strait Is the Central Issue
The Strait of Hormuz is not merely a geographic chokepoint — it is the economic heart of the conflict and the most tangible expression of Iran’s strategic leverage.
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Global oil passing through daily | ~20% |
| Global LNG passing through | Significant portion |
| Pre-war daily vessel transits | 130-140 |
| Current daily transits | ~10-15 (90% below normal) |
| Stranded vessels | ~800-1,000 |
| Stranded oil (barrels) | ~172 million |
| Oil price impact | Elevated near $100/barrel |
Sources: Kpler, Lloyd’s List, S&P Global, multiple reports
The waterway’s continued restriction has caused the biggest disruption to global energy supplies in decades. Approximately 800 vessels remain stranded in the Gulf, and oil prices remain elevated near $100 per barrel, contributing to inflationary pressures worldwide .
For the United States, reopening the strait is a strategic imperative — a way to demonstrate that Iran’s leverage has been broken and that the international community will not be held hostage by Tehran’s threats. For Iran, maintaining control of the strait is a matter of survival — a way to ensure that it has a seat at the table and that its interests are respected in any final agreement .
The Ceasefire Condition: Trump’s Ultimatum
President Trump’s announcement of the two-week ceasefire on April 7 was explicit in its terms. The president stated that the suspension of military action was conditioned on Iran’s agreement to the “COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz” .
| Ceasefire Element | Details |
|---|---|
| Announced | April 7, 2026 |
| Duration | Two weeks |
| Core condition | Iran must reopen strait “completely, immediately, and safely” |
| Current status | Condition not met; Iran maintains restrictions |
| Time remaining | Approximately one week |
From Washington’s perspective, Iran’s refusal to fully reopen the strait — and its insistence on linking reopening to a final peace agreement — represents a violation of the ceasefire’s core terms. Iranian officials, however, argue that the ceasefire was always intended as a temporary pause, not a permanent resolution, and that the strait’s status must be addressed as part of a comprehensive final agreement .
Iran’s Counter-Proposal: A Phased Approach
While Iran refused to fully reopen the strait immediately, the Iranian officials who spoke to The New York Times indicated that Tehran did propose a phased approach. This would have involved gradually increasing traffic through the waterway as progress was made on other issues, with full reopening only upon conclusion of a final peace agreement .
The US rejected this approach, insisting on immediate and complete reopening without conditions .
Iran’s phased proposal was rooted in a strategic calculus: maintain leverage throughout the negotiation process. By keeping the strait partially restricted, Iran ensures that it has something to offer — and something to take away — as talks progress. Immediate and unconditional reopening would have removed that leverage before any concrete US concessions were secured .
The Nuclear Dimension: Enrichment and Stockpiles
While the strait was the primary obstacle, the Iranian officials also confirmed that nuclear issues remained contentious. The United States demanded that Iran surrender its stockpile of enriched uranium — estimated at more than 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, along with additional stockpiles at lower enrichment levels .
| Nuclear Demand | US Position | Iranian Position |
|---|---|---|
| Enriched uranium stockpile | Surrender and remove from Iran | Retain as sovereign property |
| Enrichment activities | Complete cessation | Right to enrich for civilian purposes |
| Verification | Robust IAEA inspections | Limited access; national security concerns |
Sources: Multiple news reports, Iranian officials
Iran rejected this demand, which it framed as an infringement on its sovereign rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iranian officials have consistently maintained that the country’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only and that it has the right to enrich uranium for civilian use .
The Lebanon Factor: A Separate Disagreement
The Iranian officials also confirmed that the scope of any ceasefire regarding Lebanon remained a point of contention. Iran insisted that a comprehensive agreement must include a ceasefire in Lebanon, where Hezbollah has been engaged in intense cross-border fighting with Israel .
| Party | Position on Lebanon |
|---|---|
| Iran | Ceasefire must include Lebanon; Hezbollah is “inseparable part” of agreement |
| United States | Lebanon not included in current ceasefire |
| Israel | Ceasefire “does not include Lebanon” |
This disagreement remains unresolved. Israel has continued military operations against Hezbollah throughout the ceasefire period, and Hezbollah has continued rocket and missile attacks on Israeli territory .
The Aftermath: No Deal, No New Talks
Following the collapse of the talks, Vice President Vance departed Pakistan without an agreement. Iran has since announced that it has no plans for another round of negotiations, citing “excessive American demands” .
“The United States flew their Vice President halfway across the world to Islamabad. They demanded everything they couldn’t achieve through war. Iran said no. The talks are over.” — Iranian Foreign Ministry Statement
The two-week ceasefire remains in effect, but its future is uncertain. With no further negotiations scheduled and both sides hardening their positions, the risk of a return to full-scale hostilities increases with each passing day .
What Comes Next: A Diplomatic Standoff
As the ceasefire clock ticks down, several scenarios are possible:
| Scenario | Likelihood | Implications |
|---|---|---|
| Ceasefire extended without deal | Possible | Temporary pause continues, but underlying issues unresolved |
| US makes concessions on strait | Unlikely | Would be seen as backing down from core demand |
| Iran makes concessions on strait | Unlikely | Would surrender primary leverage |
| Return to full-scale war | Elevated | Both sides preparing for potential conflict |
| Third-party mediation | Possible | China, Russia, or others could attempt to bridge gap |
The Iranian officials’ account, as reported by The New York Times, confirms that the Strait of Hormuz was the central obstacle to a deal — and that neither side was willing to blink. The US demanded immediate reopening without conditions. Iran insisted on a final peace agreement first. Neither position gave way.
For now, the strait remains largely restricted, the ceasefire remains fragile, and the world waits to see whether diplomacy can be revived — or whether the region will slide back into war.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What did the US demand regarding the Strait of Hormuz?
The United States demanded that Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz to all maritime traffic immediately, without delay, and without conditions. The US viewed this as a core condition of the ceasefire announced on April 7 .
2. What was Iran’s position on the strait?
Iran insisted that the strait would not fully reopen until a permanent peace agreement is in place. Tehran proposed a phased approach — gradually increasing traffic as progress was made — but refused immediate, unconditional reopening .
3. Why is the strait so important to both sides?
For the US, reopening the strait demonstrates that Iran’s leverage has been broken and that the international community will not be held hostage. For Iran, maintaining control of the strait is its primary source of leverage in negotiations .
4. Did Iran propose any compromise on the strait?
According to Iranian officials who spoke to The New York Times, Iran proposed a phased approach that would have gradually increased traffic as progress was made on other issues. The US rejected this approach .
5. What other issues were discussed?
The US also demanded that Iran surrender its stockpile of enriched uranium and end its enrichment program. Iran rejected these demands, citing its right to enrich for civilian purposes under the NPT .
6. Was Lebanon discussed during the talks?
Yes. Iran insisted that a comprehensive agreement must include a ceasefire in Lebanon, where Hezbollah has been fighting Israel. The US and Israel have rejected this position .
7. What happens now?
No further negotiations are currently planned. The two-week ceasefire remains in effect but its future is uncertain. Both sides have hardened their positions, and the risk of a return to full-scale war has increased .
Stay informed with Reflecto News – Your trusted source for breaking diplomatic and energy security intelligence. Subscribe for real-time updates on the US-Iran crisis and the future of the Strait of Hormuz.