Far from reaching a deal': Iran says it wouldn't tolerate 'excessive demands' of US

The proposed agreement is an attempt to stop the war between Iran and the United States. It is also meant to prevent a fresh escalation after recent military strikes. The draft has been under negotiation for eight days, with mediators trying to narrow the gap between both governments.

The central mechanism is conditional diplomacy. Iran says Washington must meet its demands before the Strait of Hormuz can reopen. The senior Iranian official also said nuclear negotiations could begin only after those conditions were fulfilled. This links wider security, shipping access, and nuclear discussions in one negotiating process.

The talks remain unsettled. Qatar is carrying messages and proposals between the sides, while Iran rejects what it calls excessive US demands. At the same time, limited US strikes and Iranian threats of retaliation are raising the cost of failure. Further progress depends on whether mediators can turn the draft into terms both governments accept.

The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow sea passage between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. It is a crucial route for ships carrying oil, gas, and other goods from Gulf states to global markets. Its location makes it strategically important, especially during a conflict involving Iran and the United States.

Iran's senior official said Tehran's conditions must be met if Washington wants Hormuz reopened. That turns access to the waterway into a bargaining tool. If passage is restricted, ships may face delays, higher risks, or rerouting. The pressure can reach beyond the two countries because energy markets and international shipping depend on reliable transit.

The article does not specify exactly how the strait is being closed or what Iran's conditions include. It does show that reopening is tied to broader negotiations and to future nuclear talks. The waterway therefore functions as both a security issue and a source of diplomatic leverage.

The article does not give a percentage for the Strait of Hormuz's share of world energy flows. Established energy-market estimates generally put the amount at about one-fifth of global petroleum liquids trade and roughly one-fifth of globally traded liquefied natural gas. Exact shares vary by year and by whether the measure counts production, consumption, or seaborne trade.

That scale explains why the strait matters far beyond Iran and the United States. A disruption would affect a major corridor used by energy exporters in the Gulf. Buyers, ship operators, and governments would all watch the passage because even a temporary interruption could reduce available supply or increase transport uncertainty.

The current article gives no precise closure duration or traffic volume. It does show Iran making reopening a condition of diplomacy. Because the waterway carries such a large share of global energy trade, continued restrictions could intensify economic pressure and make negotiations more urgent.

If the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, the first effects would likely be disruption and uncertainty in global energy markets. Ships carrying oil and gas could be delayed, rerouted, or kept away from the area. Buyers would compete for fewer available cargoes, while transport and insurance costs could rise.

The key mechanism is reduced supply through a route that carries a large share of global energy trade. Lower immediate availability can lift oil and gas prices. Rerouting may take longer and cost more, while some exporters may have limited alternative routes. Those pressures can reach fuel users, industries, and governments far from the Gulf.

The article does not state that prices have already risen or quantify any supply loss. It does establish that Iran is linking reopening to negotiations. If the dispute continues, energy markets could face deeper uncertainty, and pressure for mediation could increase. These consequences are established economic risks, not reported outcomes in the article.

Qatar and other mediators are serving as communication channels between Washington and Tehran. Their role matters because the two sides remain far from a deal, yet both are still reviewing possible terms. Mediation can keep negotiations alive when direct trust is weak and military tensions are high.

Qatari mediators travelled to Tehran on Monday night to discuss a draft US-Iran agreement. Qatar's foreign ministry spokesperson said both countries remained committed to mediation and were reviewing proposals from intermediaries. The Qatari delegation later returned to Doha, but talks continued between the sides.

The mediators are trying to bridge differences, not impose a settlement. Their work focuses on narrowing gaps and carrying proposals between the governments. The outcome remains uncertain because Iran rejects excessive US demands and attaches conditions to Hormuz and nuclear talks. Continued mediation offers a channel for de-escalation, but it has not yet produced an agreement.

Iran is connecting nuclear negotiations to the broader security dispute because it wants its immediate conditions addressed first. The senior Iranian official said nuclear talks could begin only after those conditions were fulfilled. The article links those demands to reopening the Strait of Hormuz and opposing what Tehran calls excessive US demands.

The mechanism is sequencing. Iran is using access to a vital waterway and the prospect of nuclear discussions as negotiating leverage. It is also warning that any fresh US strikes would bring a forceful response within the region and beyond. These positions make military restraint and diplomatic concessions part of the same bargaining process.

The United States, meanwhile, carried out limited defensive strikes on Qeshm Island. Iran then claimed it shot down US and Lucas drones near Hormuz. The article does not reveal the detailed terms of Iran's conditions. It shows that progress on nuclear talks depends on resolving the wider confrontation first.

Military action and control of a vital waterway can change the balance at a negotiating table. Limited strikes may demonstrate reach or deter attacks without immediately restarting major combat. Threats of retaliation warn the other side that escalation will carry costs. Control over Hormuz adds pressure through shipping and energy disruption.

The article gives a concrete example. The United States described overnight strikes on Qeshm Island as defensive, targeting surface-to-air missile systems allegedly used against American assets. A US official said the action appeared limited. Iran's IRGC then claimed it had shot down one US MQ-9 drone and two Lucas drones near Hormuz.

These moves create leverage but also danger. Iran says it will respond forcefully to fresh US strikes, while its Parliament speaker placed responsibility for preventing escalation on Washington. The article does not show that these tactics produced a deal. They may instead harden positions unless mediators can convert pressure into restraint and negotiated terms.