Why Trump's revived 15-Point Iran plan unlikely to satisfy Tehran

A proposed 15-point framework for ending the ongoing conflict with Iran, referenced by Donald Trump, is facing scepticism from diplomats as questions grow over its viability and substance.

According to officials briefed on the matter, the United States has sent Iran a 15-point plan aimed at ending the conflict, now in its fourth week, reports the Guardian.

The proposal was reportedly delivered via Pakistan, underscoring the Trump administration's urgency to find an offramp amid mounting economic consequences.

However, uncertainty surrounds the initiative. It remains unclear how widely the plan has been circulated among Iranian officials, whether Tehran is willing to accept it as a basis for negotiations, and whether Israel, currently conducting joint military operations with the United States against Iran, supports the proposal.

The New York Times did not see a copy of the plan, but the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive details, shared some of its broad outlines, saying that it addresses Iran's ballistic missile and nuclear programme.

Diplomats note that the latest proposal closely resembles a framework first introduced during nuclear talks in May 2025, which ultimately collapsed following Israeli airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Sources suggest the current plan may largely be a reworked version of that earlier proposal, raising questions about its viability.

Trump claimed earlier this week that "very good and productive" discussions had taken place and announced a five-day delay in planned US strikes on Iran's energy infrastructure to allow time for potential agreement. Iranian officials, however, denied any direct or backchannel negotiations, acknowledging only indirect contacts regarding a possible resumption of talks.

Tehran has accused Washington of exaggerating progress for strategic reasons, including calming financial markets.

The original 2025 proposal contained stringent conditions previously rejected by Iran. These included restrictions on how sanctions relief funds could be used, particularly prohibiting investment in ballistic missile development. It also called for Iran to export and dilute its uranium stockpiles, dismantle enrichment facilities within a month, and render centrifuges inoperable.

In return, the United States offered to lift nuclear-related sanctions but not those tied to human rights concerns. It also proposed assistance in developing a civilian nuclear programme, including an externally located fuel facility under international monitoring.

The plan further envisioned a regional uranium enrichment consortium involving Iran, the US, and Gulf states such as the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, potentially managed by an external authority.

Since then, developments have complicated the diplomatic landscape. Iran's nuclear infrastructure has reportedly been heavily damaged by US airstrikes, while multiple rounds of talks in 2026 have failed to yield a breakthrough.

Any renewed negotiations, possibly hosted in Islamabad, are expected to hinge on key Iranian demands, including guarantees against future US military action. Broader regional concerns, such as maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz and non-aggression assurances for Gulf states, are also likely to feature prominently.

Shehbaz Sharif has confirmed Pakistan's willingness to facilitate talks, with reports suggesting US Vice President JD Vance may attend, potentially easing tensions given his perceived caution about military escalation.

Meanwhile, divisions among Western allies are becoming more pronounced. At an upcoming G7 foreign ministers' meeting in Paris, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is expected to face criticism from counterparts in France, Germany, Italy, the UK, Canada and Japan.

Those countries have collectively voiced opposition to the US-led military campaign, describing it as unlawful and unnecessary. While reaffirming their commitment to regional stability and freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, they argue that any intervention should only follow a ceasefire agreement.

With the scope of negotiations expanding beyond nuclear issues and the conflict continuing to escalate, diplomats warn that reaching a comprehensive deal may now be more difficult than ever.