It has been nearly three months since the first bombs fell on Iran, yet the region remains trapped in a state of suspended animation. As the fragile ceasefire brokered by Pakistan on 8 April enters its seventh week, the tempo of negotiations has shifted from desperate to frantic. A revised peace proposal, painstakingly drafted by Pakistan and Qatar, with critical input from Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Egypt has emerged as a serious attempt to break the deadlock.
The draft is intended to serve as a bridge between Washington’s demand for verifiable guarantees on Iran’s nuclear programme and Tehran’s insistence on concrete economic relief and a permanent end to hostilities on all fronts. However, instead of smoothing the path to peace, the document has reportedly triggered a raw and public rupture between the two most powerful leaders of the Western alliance.
The central premise of the new proposal is a shift in sequencing. Rather than attempting to resolve all outstanding disputes, the fate of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, the status of the Strait of Hormuz, the future of Iran’s missile programme in a single megadeal, the mediators have proposed a staged approach. Under the envisioned framework, the warring parties would sign a “letter of intent”, a one‑page memorandum that would formalise a ceasefire and launch a 30‑day negotiation period dedicated to the nuclear file and the reopening of the strategic waterway. An Arab official familiar with the talks told Axios that the latest effort seeks clearer Iranian commitments on its nuclear programme and more specific US assurances on how frozen Iranian funds would be gradually released.
Iran has not shifted from its position that any final agreement must include a permanent end to the war, including a cessation of Israeli strikes on Lebanon, the lifting of the US naval blockade, and the release of its frozen assets. Tehran has said that it is reviewing the latest draft.
Behind the scenes, the peace push has triggered what multiple sources describe as a “lengthy and difficult” telephone conversation between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The call, held on Tuesday evening, laid bare the diverging strategic priorities of the two allies. According to a US source briefed on the discussion, Trump told Netanyahu that mediators were working on a “letter of intent” that would formally end the war and initiate a 30‑day negotiating period. Netanyahu, however, was apoplectic. A US source quoted by Axios said the Israeli leader’s “hair was on fire” after the call.
Netanyahu remains deeply skeptical of the talks and has consistently urged Trump to resume the war, arguing that a delay only benefits Iran by allowing it to rebuild its military infrastructure and political capital. He believes that only a sustained military campaign can degrade Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. Trump, by contrast, has indicated a willingness to give diplomacy a chance, telling reporters on Wednesday: “The only question is do we go and finish it up or are they gonna be signing a document. Let’s see what happens.” The friction was palpable, and the White House and the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office both declined to comment on the record, a sure sign of deep unease.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei confirmed on Wednesday that the United States’ views had been received through Pakistani channels and were “under review”. Baghaei stressed that Tehran’s focus remains on its original 14‑point proposal, which demands a comprehensive end to the war, a halt to what it terms “maritime piracy” against Iranian shipping, and the release of frozen assets. The Iranian position has not softened. Indeed, the latest reports from within the country suggest that the Supreme Leader has issued a directive that Iran’s stockpile of near weapons grade uranium should not be shipped abroad, a move that directly contradicts one of Washington’s core demands.
Tehran’s negotiators have also emphasised that any meaningful agreement must include a lasting ceasefire in Lebanon, a point of contention given Israel’s continuing strikes on Hezbollah. Pakistan’s Interior Minister, Mohsin Naqvi, made his second visit to Tehran in less than a week, meeting with President Masoud Pezeshkian and other senior officials to facilitate the exchange of messages. According to state media, Pezeshkian reiterated Iran’s appreciation for Pakistan’s good offices.
The revised proposal is the product of an unusually broad coalition of mediators. Pakistan has been the official channel from the start, hosting the only direct talks between US and Iranian officials in April. Qatar, however, has played an increasingly active role behind the scenes, leveraging its contacts with senior IRGC commanders. Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Egypt have also provided input, each driven by a shared fear that a collapse of the ceasefire would reignite a wider regional war.
Trump, while granting diplomacy a stay of execution, has warned that the war could resume “very quickly” if Iran does not provide “100 per cent good answers”. He has also publicly dismissed speculation that the upcoming US midterm elections might influence his decision making, saying: “You never think, ‘Oh, the midterms, I’m in a hurry. I’m in no hurry.” Netanyahu, for his part, is reportedly seeking a face to face meeting in Washington in the coming weeks, an encounter that may determine whether the alliance can survive the strain.