Iran War: Words devalued, threat of final blow

After issuing the second ultimatum (25 March 25 to 6 April 2025) to Iran, President Donald J Trump released 15-point plan with his apparent willingness to bring diplomacy back to the table. His 15 point plan demands the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear facilities, limits on missile inventory and the programme, and an end to support for regional allies.

On its face, the offer appears to open a door to de escalation. But in Tehran, the reaction has been cold. Iranian officials dismiss the overture as excessive and maximalist, insisting it was an exchange of messages through a third party, not a negotiation.

Iran’s skepticism is the product of a decade long trail of American withdrawals, broken understandings, and strikes launched when diplomacy seemed most promising. For Iran, the question seems to be not whether the 15 point plan is acceptable, understandably-it is not, but whether any promise would survive Trump’s own decision-making under Israeli duress or the next administration.

Washington’s credibility gap begins with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In 2015, Iran accepted intrusive inspections and rolled back its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief, a deal endorsed by the UN Security Council. Three years later, President Trump unilaterally walked out of the agreement, calling it ‘horrible’ and ‘one sided’, in complete disregard for the rule based order. USA’s European allies and the IAEA confirmed Iran was complying. The withdrawal was the result of Israel’s choice that signaled any future agreement could be undone by a change of administration.

Israel played a key role in scuttling the deal. Benjamin Netanyahu’s high pitched opposition to the JCPOA, including his 2015 address to Congress, helped build the coalition that enabled Trump to repudiate it. As the USA walked out of the JCPOA, Iran resumed uranium enrichment. When the Biden administration later attempted to revive the accord, Tehran demanded guarantees that no future President could again walk away. That guarantee was never offered.

The US withdrawal from the JCPOA devalued its words creating a serious trust deficit in diplomacy, and subsequent military actions made it insoluble. In June 2025, Israel launched a preemptive strike on Iran. A 12 day war (June 13 to 24, 2025) erupted between Iran and Israel. The US joined Israel’s war, attacking Iran’s nuclear sites at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow on June 24, 2025-facilities that was under IAEA monitoring. The strikes came while diplomatic channels were working.

A similar pattern repeated before the US and Israel started the war in February 2026. The US and Iran were engaged in quiet back channel discussions. On February 28, 2026, while discussions were progressing, American and Israeli strikes killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at his office in Tehran. The blow was inflicted when Iran believed it was negotiating in good faith.

From Tehran’s perspective, the sequence is unmistakable: talks are used either as cover to prepare for war or are abandoned when military action becomes convenient. As one analysis notes, “President Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran was fueled by allies like Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.” Diplomacy was never Trump and Netanyahu’s preferred track to solve the problem.

Now, as the Trump administration presented its 15 point proposal, a new report underscores the same pattern to strike. On March 26, 2026, Axios reported citing US officials, that President Trump has extended the second ultimatum till April 6, 2026 and Pentagon is preparing military options for a “final blow”, involving the use of ground forces and massive bombing. While threat could be part of maximum pressure tactic, a ‘dramatic military escalation’ is feared if there is no progress in talks on US-Israeli terms.

Options reportedly include invading important islands such as Kharg, Larak, and Abu Musa and blockade of ships carrying Iranian oil.
The reported planning for a ‘final blow’ confirms what Iran has long suspected-diplomacy is a ploy to buy time for strike. Some US officials believe a ‘show of overwhelming force’ would give Washington greater leverage in negotiations, a logic that from Tehran’s perspective, makes any diplomatic engagement feel like a prelude to coercion rather than a genuine intention for de-escalation.

The-15 point proposal represents the American vision for ending the conflict that it started on February 28, 2026. But to Iranians, it’s an ‘instrument of surrender’.

Nuclear disarmament: The US demands the dismantling of all nuclear facilities; a permanent commitment to never develop nuclear weapons; handover of enriched uranium to the USA; and an end to all enrichment within Iran. Under the JCPOA, Iran accepted limits and complied. The US still withdrew. Now Washington demands elimination, not just caps. Israel, besides dismantling of all nuclear facilities, wants dismemberment of Iran like Syria and Libya.

Military restrictions: The proposal limits Iran’s missile range and number, dismantles missile and drone manufacturing factories, and reopens the Strait of Hormuz to unrestricted passage. These demands are a blow to Iran’s defensive posture-its missile programme, the primary deterrence, and the Strait is its only strategic leverage over global energy markets.

Regional realignment: The US demands an end to support for Iran’s allies-Hezbollah, Hamas, Iraqi and Syrian militias and the Houthis. It is a demand that Iran abandons the network of allies it has built over the decades. For Tehran, they are strategic partners adding weight to deterrence.

Conditional sanctions relief: The US offers to remove sanctions and end the UN reimposition mechanism, but only after Iran meets all other demands, and possibly, ‘all other demands will be never ending demands’ like Iraq from 1991 to 2003. Crucially, there is no guaranteed mechanism to prevent sanctions from being unilaterally reimposed, exactly what happened after the JCPOA.

The missing element: What the 15 point plan does not include is any guarantee that the US will abide by its own commitments. No congressional ratification. No multilateral enforcement. No provision preventing a future President from withdrawing. The US demands irreversible Iranian concessions in exchange for reversible American promises.

That focus on durability is a symptom of the trust deficit. When a country demands “concrete mechanisms” to prevent war’s reimposition, it is saying it no longer believes in promises alone. The central question remains: Who will guarantee against future US and Israeli attacks where the US and Israel defy all international norms?

The United States cannot guarantee itself. American commitments have proven reversible. The JCPOA was endorsed by the UN Security Council; the USSA still torn it up. Back channel talks were progressing; strikes still came. Now, as the Pentagon reportedly readies plans for a ground invasion, carpet bombing of Tehran and naval blockade, the message it transmits, Washington speaks of diplomacy with bad intention in mind.

If diplomacy stalls, the contemplated trajectory is grim. A ground invasion would draw in Iranian backed militias across the region. The Strait of Hormuz, through which one fifth of global oil passes, would become the frontline. The reported planning to seize Iranian islands and blockade oil shipments suggests that the US is not merely contemplating escalation but actively preparing for it. The ripple effect of the Strait of Hormuz will reach the shores of nations across the oceans.

In international relations, the phrase ‘words devalued’, describes a country whose promises have been so consistently broken that its negotiating partners must assume any agreement is provisional. That is where the United States now stands with Iran.

Iran’s reluctance to enter direct talks is not because it prefers war. It is because the past decade has taught its leadership that American commitments are contingent on Israel’s preferences, and the ever present option of military action. The Pentagon’s threat of ‘final blow’ while White House talks about diplomacy only reinforces that lesson. Until the United States offers durability-multilateral guarantees, congressional ratification, verifiable pauses in strikes, the trust deficit will remain.

The United States has presented its terms for peace. But peace cannot be built on broken promises, devalued trust and the principle of ‘might is right’. Iran hears not an offer, but an echo. Each American assurance is weighed against a deal dismantled, backchannel betrayed, a supreme leader assassinated while talks were underway, and now, a reported Pentagon plan for a ‘final blow’. From Iran’s perspective, the trust deficit is engraved into every clause of the US Israel 15 point plan and into every pronounced military option.

Without negotiation, the region faces a catastrophic future. Diplomacy remains the only escape. If the United States truly seeks a negotiated end, it must answer a simple question: why should Iran believe any agreement signed today will be honoured tomorrow? If not, then the United States is merely buying time to inflict catastrophe not only on Iran, but on its Middle Eastern allies as well.

* Mohammad Abdur Razzak (safera690@gmail.com), a retired Commodore of Bangladesh Navy, is a security analyst.

* The view expressed here are the author's own