Iran’s chief negotiator, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said on Wednesday, November 11, that Tehran had delivered a “clear and transparent” response to the United States outlining its demands, but that Washington had yet to provide an official or specific reply. Speaking to Al Jazeera, Ghalibaf stated that “the ball is now in the Americans’ court.”
The response, conveyed through Qatari mediation, reiterates conditions Tehran has insisted upon before further negotiations. Reported demands include an end to the US naval blockade, the lifting of oil sanctions, the release of frozen Iranian assets, war reparations, the withdrawal of US forces, an end to fighting across the region, and an end to threats and interference. Ghalibaf also emphasised that the Strait of Hormuz would not return to its pre war status, describing its future arrangements as part of the proposed understanding. Iran has compressed its original seven day implementation proposal into a two day timeline, under which Washington would take the required initial measures on the first day and Iran would reopen the strait on the second. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei described the shorter timetable as evidence of Iran’s good faith.
The Diplomatic Deadlock and the Trust Deficit
A core obstacle, according to Ghalibaf, is the absence of trust. He identified distrust of Washington and what he described as excessive US demands as the main barriers to agreement. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council secretary, Mohsen Rezaei, has been even more blunt, stating on November 3 that the US response was “not convincing” and that Washington must address and fulfil Iran’s conditions fully and explicitly.
The diplomatic track, mediated primarily by Qatar and Pakistan, remains active but fragile. Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman Majed Al Ansari said both sides were reviewing proposals and remained engaged in the process. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, meeting President Masoud Pezeshkian on the sidelines of COP31 in Antalya on November 11, showed the need to build on the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding reached in June. That framework had provided for steps towards reopening Hormuz and lifting the US blockade, but its implementation broke down, deepening the mistrust surrounding the latest proposals. Russia has also been drawn in as Ghalibaf said US officials had visited Moscow to ask President Vladimir Putin to facilitate direct negotiations, and that Tehran had subsequently conveyed its position to the Kremlin.
The Escalation Calculus
The likelihood of renewed major military action is difficult to assess because the signals from Washington remain contradictory. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on November 10 that sanctions and the naval blockade were working sufficiently well that Trump did not need to launch major combat operations. Trump has adopted a more conciliatory tone since the midterms, saying Gulf allies, including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait favoured diplomacy and that renewed strikes appeared unlikely.
At the same time, military options remain available. CNN reporters Zachary Cohen, Jim Sciutto and Tal Shalev reported on October 26, citing two US officials, that forces in the region could launch potentially major operations within 96 hours of receiving an order.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reportedly been pressing Trump to resume strikes. Yedioth Ahronoth, citing sources familiar with a weekend telephone call, described a confrontational exchange over Iran, with one source calling it “a screaming conversation from hell.” Netanyahu’s office rejected the account as “fake news,” while a senior Israeli official acknowledged the call but denied that it was difficult. The Financial Times has separately reported Netanyahu’s lobbying for renewed attacks and regional leaders’ efforts to persuade Trump to prioritise diplomacy. The competing pressures leave Trump balancing the prospect of further military action against diplomatic efforts and domestic demands to end the war.
What Escalation Could Look Like
If Trump authorises a new campaign, Iran has threatened retaliation beyond the Middle East. Rezaei warned this week that Tehran could target US bases in Europe if they were used in attacks on Iran, as well as distant island installations. Iran’s hardline newspaper Kayhan has listed US and NATO facilities in Britain, Italy, Greece, Romania, Albania and Cyprus, along with the joint US–British base on Diego Garcia, as potential targets.
A new round of fighting could therefore unfold on several fronts. US or Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure; Iranian attacks against US facilities and Israel; and further involvement by Iran aligned armed groups. Tehran’s threats against European facilities widen the declared scope of retaliation, although the locations it threatens are not necessarily targets it could successfully reach.
The humanitarian and economic consequences could be severe. Further attacks and restrictions in Hormuz could reduce already disrupted commercial traffic, drive up energy costs and deepen the shipping crisis. The strait’s economic importance makes it a powerful means of exerting pressure. UN Trade and Development estimates that it carries around one quarter of global seaborne oil trade and one third of global seaborne fertiliser trade. The conflict could also intensify diplomatic pressure on Russia and China, which Ghalibaf identified among the countries trying to bring the parties closer.
The View from Tehran
Ghalibaf has stressed that Iran does not want the war to continue but will respond to further attacks. He described the US naval blockade as “a brutal act of war under international law,” accusing it of obstructing food supplies, trade and healthcare, and presented Iran’s demands as minimum conditions for further negotiations.
Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei warned on November 4 that Washington’s hostility would not change through partisan shifts or Iranian concessions. Rezaei has likewise said Iran will not allow its enriched nuclear material to leave the country, reinforcing the distance between Tehran’s position and Washington’s demands.
Iran’s stated strategy is to establish what Ghalibaf calls sustainable deterrence, ending the current “no war, no peace” situation without necessarily relying on an agreement with Washington. Whether that approach helps prevent renewed major fighting or merely postpones it will depend on decisions in Tehran, Washington and Israel in the coming weeks.