Iran has formally responded to the United States 15-point proposal to resolve the West Asia conflict, according to sources cited by Tasnim News Agency, the Iranian state-affiliated news outlet. The response was transmitted via intermediaries and Tehran is now awaiting a reply from Washington. The development confirms that the diplomatic back channel that has been building since Monday is operational in both directions, with substantive positions now on the table from both sides.
The response, however, comes with conditions that are sweeping in scope, a warning about American intentions that signals deep Iranian distrust of the negotiating process, and an insistence on Hormuz that directly addresses the single most consequential economic dimension of the entire conflict.
Iran’s Formal Conditions
According to the Tasnim source and corroborating reporting from N12, Iran’s response to the US proposal lays out the following conditions for any agreement.
First, the crimes and acts of terrorism on the part of the enemy must be ended. This is Iran’s framing of the American and Israeli military strikes against Iranian territory, nuclear facilities, and military infrastructure since the conflict began on February 28, 2026. By characterising these strikes as crimes and terrorism, Iran is establishing a moral and legal framing for any agreement that implicitly demands an acknowledgement of wrongdoing from the other side.
Second, real conditions must be created so that the war does not recur. Iran is not asking for a temporary ceasefire or a pause. It is demanding structural guarantees that the conflict cannot restart once an agreement is reached. This condition implies a permanent cessation of hostilities framework rather than the one-month ceasefire that Israeli media reported Washington was seeking.
Third, compensation must be made for the damages and losses caused in the war and this must be clearly guaranteed. Iran is demanding reparations. This is one of the most significant and potentially most difficult conditions in Tehran’s response. The scale of destruction caused by US and Israeli strikes on Iranian infrastructure, nuclear facilities, and military assets since late February has been enormous. Iran’s demand for compensation for those losses introduces a financial dimension to the negotiations that goes far beyond a simple ceasefire agreement.
Fourth, the war must be ended on all fronts and with all the resistance groups that participated in the campaign throughout the region. This condition explicitly includes Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Iraqi militia groups, and any other Iranian-aligned proxy forces that have been active in the conflict since it began. Iran is insisting that any ceasefire must be comprehensive and regional, not limited to direct US-Iran or Israel-Iran hostilities. This condition directly complicates the negotiating picture because it requires coordination with and commitments about multiple non-state actors across several sovereign territories simultaneously.
Fifth, Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz is a natural and legal right of Iran and will remain so. This is the condition that will receive the most immediate attention in global commodity markets. Iran is not offering to reopen Hormuz as a concession or as part of a deal. It is asserting that its control of the strait is a legal right that exists independently of any agreement and will continue to exist after any agreement. Iran is therefore separating the Hormuz question from the ceasefire question in a way that is likely to frustrate American and global efforts to use Hormuz reopening as the primary economic incentive for Iran to agree to a deal.
Sixth, the fulfilment of the other side’s commitments must be ensured and recognised. Iran wants verification mechanisms. It is not willing to accept American promises without a framework that guarantees those promises are kept. Given Tehran’s stated distrust of US intentions, this condition signals that Iran will insist on some form of international monitoring or guarantor arrangement before implementing any agreement.
Seventh, these conditions are in addition to the demands presented to the other side in the second round of negotiations in Geneva. This is a critical detail that has received insufficient attention in initial reporting. Iran has confirmed that there have been at least two rounds of negotiations, with a second round having taken place in Geneva. The conditions listed above are supplementary to whatever was already discussed in Geneva, meaning the full scope of Iran’s demands is broader than what has been publicly disclosed in today’s response.
The Deception Accusation
The most diplomatically significant element of Iran’s response is not its list of conditions but its characterisation of the negotiating process itself. The Tasnim source stated explicitly that Iran distrusts US intentions and that Tehran views the negotiations as a deception aimed at shaping global opinion, keeping oil prices low, and buying time for potential further military action.
This is an extraordinary accusation to make simultaneously with confirming that Iran has responded to the US proposal and is awaiting a reply. Iran is engaging with the diplomatic process while publicly accusing the United States of using that same process dishonestly. The dual message is both a negotiating tactic and a genuine expression of Iranian strategic calculation.
The three specific purposes Iran attributes to American deception are illuminating. Shaping global opinion means Iran believes the US is using the appearance of diplomacy to position itself favourably in the international narrative around the conflict, making America appear as the party seeking peace regardless of whether peace is actually Washington’s objective. Keeping oil prices low means Iran understands that every diplomatic signal of de-escalation pushes crude prices down, reducing the economic pain that the Hormuz closure is inflicting on the global economy and reducing the leverage that disrupted oil supply gives Tehran. Buying time for potential further military action is the most alarming of the three, suggesting Iran’s intelligence assessment is that the United States may be using the negotiating window to prepare for additional strikes rather than to genuinely pursue a settlement.
The Geneva Revelation
The reference to a second round of negotiations in Geneva is the detail most buried in today’s reporting and potentially the most significant. The existence of a Geneva negotiating track confirms that the diplomacy around this conflict is substantially more advanced than the public narrative of back channel contacts and the Islamabad meeting has suggested. Two rounds of structured negotiations in Geneva implies a process with an agenda, a secretariat, and a substantive exchange of positions that goes well beyond preliminary contacts.
The fact that Iran’s response to the 15-point US proposal adds conditions on top of what was already discussed in Geneva means the negotiating parties are working from a more developed shared understanding of the issues than either side has publicly acknowledged. This is simultaneously encouraging, because it means real diplomacy is happening, and concerning, because Iran’s additional demands suggest the gap between the two sides’ positions remains substantial.
What This Means for Markets
Iran’s response, with its sweeping conditions and its characterisation of US negotiations as deception, is likely to be read by commodity markets as a signal that a quick resolution is not imminent. The Hormuz condition in particular, asserting Iranian legal control of the strait as non-negotiable, removes what many market participants had assumed would be the primary deliverable of any agreement: a clear commitment to reopen the strait as part of a ceasefire deal.
Iran is now saying that Hormuz reopening is not a concession it is offering. It is a decision Iran will make independently, on its own timeline, based on its own assessment of whether its conditions have been met. This framing gives Iran maximum leverage over the global energy situation while simultaneously removing the most powerful incentive the United States has to offer: the economic relief that Hormuz reopening would provide to the entire global economy.
For Indian markets, which have been absorbing the full economic impact of the Hormuz closure through elevated crude prices, a weakening rupee, and FII outflows, Iran’s response suggests the relief rally that began on Tuesday and Wednesday may face a correction as the market processes the true complexity of the negotiating position.
Where Things Stand
The diplomatic picture as of March 26, 2026 is substantially more complex than the simple ceasefire hope narrative that drove markets higher earlier this week. Iran has responded to the US 15-point proposal. Tehran is awaiting a US reply. The conditions Iran has laid out are extensive, include reparations, require comprehensive regional ceasefire including all proxy groups, assert permanent Iranian control of Hormuz, and reference additional demands from a previously undisclosed second round of Geneva negotiations. And Iran has publicly accused the US of using the diplomatic process as a deception.
The war is not over. The diplomacy is real but difficult. The distance between where the two sides are today and a comprehensive agreement that satisfies Iran’s conditions while meeting US and Israeli security objectives is substantial.
Business Upturn will update this article as the US responds to Iran’s conditions and as the diplomatic situation develops.
This article is based on reporting from Tasnim News Agency and N12 as of March 26, 2026. All geopolitical assessments are analytical in nature. Business Upturn will continue to update coverage as the situation develops.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice.