Iran has proposed reopening the Strait of Hormuz within seven days and restarting negotiations with the United States over its nuclear program, provided Washington agrees to several conditions. Tehran wants the U.S. to end its naval blockade of Iranian ports, remove restrictions on Iranian oil exports, and maintain a ceasefire that also covers Lebanon.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi outlined the proposal Friday outside the U.N. Security Council. He said the seven-day period would begin immediately after the United States accepts the plan.
According to Araghchi, the initial measures would take roughly four to five days, with the Strait of Hormuz reopening on the sixth day. Talks between Iran and the U.S. would then resume on the seventh day to negotiate a broader nuclear agreement.
The Strait of Hormuz has become Iran's most important source of leverage. Before the war, roughly one-fifth of the world's traded oil and gas passed through the waterway. Disruptions there have affected international energy markets and created political difficulties for President Donald Trump and Republicans ahead of the November midterm elections.
The White House has said that American officials are engaged in constructive discussions with mediators regarding the conflict. It also said the United States is helping maintain significant oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz.
There was no immediate response from Gulf Arab governments. However, a person familiar with the discussions told The Associated Press that Saudi Arabia remained doubtful about Iran's latest proposal.
Proposal Similar to an Earlier Failed Agreement
The new plan, which Qatar presented to Washington, closely resembles an agreement reached in June, although the proposed timeline is much shorter. That earlier arrangement included a 60-day interim period but soon broke down after Iran resumed attacks on shipping in the strait.
President Trump has indicated that he is not under pressure to reach an agreement, despite high oil prices contributing to inflation. In Iran, meanwhile, questions remain over whether powerful hard-line security officials would support compromises advocated by President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Araghchi.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, said Trump could become more flexible if he believes the proposal could provide political advantages before the midterm elections while also helping lower fuel prices.
At the same time, Parsi pointed to significant mistrust, particularly concerns that Iran could use an agreement mainly to gain time to export more oil and reduce economic pressure.
Diplomatic Contacts Increase
There have been additional indications that diplomatic efforts may be gaining momentum. Iranian President Pezeshkian met Qatar's prime minister early Friday. Qatar has played a central role in mediating between Iran and the United States, including during indirect discussions at the United Nations this week.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday that Washington would be willing to exchange ideas and messages if an opportunity arose.
Nevertheless, repeated failures to reach an agreement have left both sides deeply suspicious of each other. The United States and Israel have attacked Iran twice while nuclear negotiations were underway, while Washington and Tehran have each accused the other of violating the June arrangement.
Iran analyst Hamidreza Azizi of the International Crisis Group said Tehran may already believe Trump is unlikely to accept the proposal. He argued that Iran could be attempting to demonstrate that it was willing to pursue diplomacy, while portraying the United States as the side that disrupted negotiations through military action.
Araghchi also said Friday that more than 5,000 people in Iran had been killed during the nearly seven-month U.S.-Israeli war.
Uncertainty Over Yemen
The proposed ceasefire would cover Lebanon, where Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah have largely maintained a truce. It remains uncertain whether the arrangement would also address the renewed fighting involving Yemen's Iran-backed Houthi rebels and Saudi Arabia.
Iran may believe that the Houthis' increased ability to threaten the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, another major global shipping route, could increase pressure on Trump to accept an agreement.
During the U.N. General Assembly, Araghchi met with his Saudi counterpart as Iranian officials held discussions with representatives of several countries involved in military confrontations with Tehran over the past year.
The Saudi government reportedly remained skeptical of the latest proposal, particularly following increased Houthi attacks.
Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states had previously supported renewed negotiations during the summer. According to the person familiar with the discussions, they had been prepared to accept an arrangement allowing Iran a temporary role in managing the Strait of Hormuz.
However, Saudi calculations changed after the Houthis captured strategic territory along Yemen's Red Sea coast and a major Saudi pipeline was attacked.
Earlier in September, Gulf leaders were expected to meet in Oman to discuss a developing agreement between Oman and Iran concerning the Strait of Hormuz. The meeting was canceled after Saudi Arabia requested changes to the proposed arrangement. Iran accepted only some of those amendments.
Divisions Emerge Within Iran
Although Iran's leadership has attempted to present a united front, disagreements have emerged over the country's approach to the war and negotiations. Some hard-line figures favor continuing or intensifying the conflict in an effort to obtain greater concessions from Washington. They have criticized Pezeshkian and Araghchi for pursuing diplomacy.
Hard-line lawmaker Ebrahim Rezaei criticized meetings with what he called the country's “aggressor enemy,” describing them as a sign of weakness. Iran's Assembly of Experts, the body of Shiite clerics responsible for appointing the supreme leader, declared that resistance remained the only option.
Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, who previously served as a chief negotiator in talks with Washington, offered an unusually direct acknowledgment that Iran's leadership faces internal disagreement.
He described one side as advocating war without providing a clear path to ending the conflict successfully, while another side risks underestimating Iran's own capabilities.
Qalibaf warned that pursuing either extreme could damage the country — one by keeping Iran trapped in a continuing crisis and the other, in his view, by allowing national resources and dignity to be surrendered to its adversaries.