Iran Says It Sent Truce Terms to US via Qatar

Iran has conveyed a formal set of conditions to the United States through Qatari mediators aimed at ending the war between the two countries, Tehran’s top security official said, signaling that indirect diplomacy remains active even as both sides prepare for the possibility of a wider conflict.

“We remain in contact with the mediator Qatar, which has conveyed our conditions to Washington with the aim of ending the war. We are awaiting President [Donald] Trump’s response,” Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, told Al Jazeera in an exclusive interview published on 19 September 2026.

The Conditions

Rezaei, who took over the security council post about a month ago, said Iran’s terms are threefold: “an end to the war on all fronts, the release of our frozen funds and an end to the naval blockade.”

He said Qatar and Pakistan have been working to re-establish negotiations since the two countries’ memorandum of understanding (MoU) expired in August. “It is in Washington’s interest to accept these conditions. Trump’s threats will not achieve any results. We are prepared for a decisive war,” he said.

China’s Xinhua news agency, which first reported the statement in its original Chinese-language coverage, noted that Trump had posted several messages on social media on 14 September defending his Iran policy. The US president said he was “open” to negotiating with Iran while claiming the US is helping oil transport through the Strait of Hormuz and that countries should provide the US “escort compensation” for its naval presence.

A Familiar Two-Sided Message

Rezaei did not rule out a new US strike against Iran, calling the possibility “very much on the cards” based on Tehran’s military assessments, while insisting his country was ready. He said Iran had recently test-fired a multi-warhead anti-ship missile near a US vessel or aircraft carrier, and that the intensity of any future Iranian response would encompass US bases in the region as well as US commercial interests.

Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi, reporting from Tehran, described the remarks as part of the “two-sided, twofold message” Iran has maintained throughout the conflict — combining openness to diplomacy with continued war preparations. “On the one hand, readiness for diplomatic engagement … on the other hand, he’s talking about preparation for a decisive war,” Asadi said.

David Des Roches, a former Pentagon director of Arabian Peninsula affairs, told Al Jazeera that Washington was unlikely to view the terms as a serious opening. “At first glance, probably not serious; they would be viewed as surrender,” he said. But he pointed to Iran’s apparent abandonment of an earlier demand for war reparations as a sign of movement: “The first thing you notice is that he’s dropped the demand for reparations, which the Iranians had made at one point.”

Nuclear Question Left Open

On the nuclear file, Press TV, Iran’s state broadcaster, reported that Rezaei said Tehran has not decided to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty even though the US and Israeli attacks would give it grounds to do so. “We have not yet made a decision in this regard, but this issue depends on US behavior,” he said.

Rezaei reaffirmed Iran’s commitment to the anti-nuclear fatwa issued by the former Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini, saying the country’s doctrine remains unchanged. “But we do not know what will happen in the future,” he added. Press TV reported that his remarks followed a US-led push at the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran’s case to the United Nations Security Council over alleged non-compliance.

The framing differs by audience: Iran’s state media emphasizes the continuity of the no-weapons doctrine as reassurance, while Western analysts highlight the possibility of NPT withdrawal as a threat. Both readings are consistent with Rezaei’s actual words.

Background: A Collapsed Deal

The statement lands against the backdrop of the 2026 Iran war. The Islamabad Memorandum, brokered primarily by Pakistan with Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt facilitating, was signed remotely by Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on 17 June 2026. Its 14 points provided for an end to military strikes, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping toll-free for 60 days, an end to the US naval blockade, and a promised $300 billion reconstruction fund alongside the release of frozen Iranian assets.

The framework left major questions unanswered, including Iran’s nuclear program, its uranium stockpiles, its ballistic missile program and its network of regional allies. The deal unraveled after Iran struck commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz in early July; Trump declared the MoU “over” on 8 July, the US struck Iran, and Tehran suspended its commitments on 18 July. The 60-day deadline for a final deal passed on 17 August with nothing agreed, and Washington announced a new sanctions campaign the following day.

Escalation has continued through September. According to the Institute for the Study of War, Iran has pursued a regional campaign targeting US naval forces, attacking US bases in Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain, and disrupting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. ISW assessed that Iranian decision-makers, dominated by a hardline faction, are “not satisfied with the current status of the war” and appear intent on changing its trajectory through military force.

Analysis: A Window, Not a Breakthrough

The exchange of terms through mediators is best understood as a probe rather than a diplomatic breakthrough. The conditions Rezaei listed — a full ceasefire, unfrozen assets and an end to the naval blockade — touch exactly the issues that the Islamabad Memorandum left unresolved or contested, and they represent Iran’s maximum opening position rather than a compromise.

The most significant signal, as Des Roches noted, is what is absent: the earlier demand for war reparations. Dropping it suggests Tehran is searching for a formula that allows Washington to claim a victory while giving Iran tangible economic relief. That is a familiar pattern in this conflict, and it may not be enough. Any deal that leaves Iran’s nuclear program, missile arsenal or regional alliances untouched would replicate the very gaps that sank the June agreement.

The military dimension is equally important. Rezaei’s readiness to discuss a “decisive war” alongside diplomacy mirrors Iran’s broader strategy of pairing negotiation with pressure. Iran’s targeting of US naval assets and its threats to regional bases are designed to raise the cost of continued confrontation — a lever Tehran will not surrender while talks remain unanchored. With the US maintaining a substantial naval presence in the region and a new American strike openly discussed by both sides, the space for miscalculation is wide.

Nor is the nuclear file close to resolution. Rezaei’s refusal to rule out NPT withdrawal keeps a latent escalation path open, and the IAEA referral adds a multilateral layer that Iran can use to frame its position as a response to external pressure rather than a choice of its own.

What to Watch

The immediate question is whether Trump responds at all, and if so, in what form. A public dismissal would reinforce the pattern of collapsed diplomacy; a quieter channel through Doha or Islamabad would keep the window open.

Two factors will shape what follows. First, whether Iran’s conditions are treated as a starting point for bargaining or as a demand for surrender. Second, whether the nuclear question can be addressed within a broader settlement, or whether it remains deferred — as it was in June. Until one of those questions is answered, the war will continue to be fought on two tracks at once: at the negotiating table, and on the waters and bases of the Gulf.