As war and diplomacy intertwine over the Persian Gulf, Trump faces a difficult choice. Iran has offered a highly strategic "ceasefire first, nuclear talks later" proposal, attempting to redefine the order of negotiations. US Secretary of State Rubio bluntly calls it a "delaying tactic." Beneath the waves of the Strait of Hormuz, the shadow of nuclear war looms large, alongside soaring oil prices. In this game, who will concede first?

I. New Variables in the US-Iran Stalemate

On April 27, 2026, US President Trump and his team of senior national security advisors held a crucial meeting, focusing on a new proposal from Iran aimed at resolving the current conflict. The ongoing stalemate between the US and Iran has not only exacerbated regional security tensions but also significantly impacted global energy supplies—the disruption of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz has directly driven up international oil prices. According to reports from Washington and Dubai that day, the meeting took place at a delicate moment marked by alternating military standoffs and diplomatic probing between the two sides.

II. Iran's New Proposal: Ceasefire First, Nuclear Issue Later

Just hours before Trump met with his advisors, Iranian sources revealed Tehran's latest negotiating strategy. According to this proposal, Iran suggested temporarily suspending discussions on its nuclear program until the state of war is completely over and the shipping disputes in the Gulf region are resolved. In other words, Tehran wants to treat the nuclear issue as a follow-up topic, to be addressed after the military confrontation subsides. However, this prioritization is unlikely to satisfy Washington. The core position of the US government remains: the nuclear issue must be at the beginning of all negotiations, and any delay could buy Iran crucial time for a breakthrough in nuclear technology.

III. The US's Vigilance: Rubio Directly Admits "Delaying Tactics"

In an interview with Fox News, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio made no secret of his skepticism towards Iran's proposal. He believes that Iran's condition of a ceasefire before nuclear talks is essentially an attempt to buy more time to consolidate its negotiating position or advance its nuclear capabilities. Rubio emphasized, "We cannot let them succeed." He further pointed out that the Iranians are highly talented and experienced negotiators, and therefore the U.S. must ensure that any agreement ultimately reached will effectively prevent Iran from accelerating its path to nuclear weapons at any time. These remarks clearly convey Washington's distrust of Tehran's motives for negotiating.

IV. Frequent Diplomatic Travel: Araghchi's Visits to Multiple Countries

Despite Trump's abrupt cancellation of the US delegation's trip over the weekend, preventing the planned face-to-face diplomatic contact in Islamabad, Pakistan, efforts to bridge the differences have not been completely halted. According to sources in Pakistan, the mediator, remote communication continues. Iranian Foreign Minister Araqchi has been unusually active during this period: he traveled to and from Islamabad twice and visited Oman and Russia. In Moscow, Araqchi met with Russian President Putin and received verbal support from his longtime ally. Araqchi told the media that Trump's initiative to initiate negotiations stems precisely from the fact that the US has so far failed to achieve any of its predetermined objectives in the conflict.

V. The concept of phased negotiations: from ceasefire to shipping lanes to the nuclear issue

A senior Iranian source, speaking on condition of anonymity, detailed the framework of the proposal Araghchi brought to Islamabad. The proposal envisions negotiations proceeding in several phases. The first step demands an end to the US-Israel military action against Iran, along with credible assurances from Washington that it will not wage war again. Following this, negotiators will address the US blockade of Iran and the issue of passage through the Strait of Hormuz—Iran's intention is to ensure the strait is reopened and placed under its effective control. Only when these conditions are met will the negotiations proceed to the third phase, discussing other long-standing disputes, including Iran's nuclear program. Notably, Tehran still hopes the US will recognize, in some form, Iran's right to conduct uranium enrichment activities for so-called peaceful purposes.

VI. America's concerns: Trump neither rejects nor readily believes.

Meanwhile, Dow Jones Newswires, citing US officials, reported that Trump and his national security team are generally skeptical of Iran's proposal regarding the Strait of Hormuz. Although Trump did not outright reject the proposal during discussions with aides Monday morning, he clearly expressed two core concerns: whether Iran would act in good faith, and whether Tehran would be willing to meet his key demands—a complete halt to nuclear enrichment activities and a solemn commitment never to develop nuclear weapons. US officials stated that Washington will continue negotiations with Iran, and the White House may issue a formal response and present its counter-proposals in the coming days. It is worth noting that Trump had previously threatened to resume bombing operations against Iran if he determined that negotiations aimed at ending the war were futile. However, a growing view is forming within the US government that Trump's true objective is to avoid renewed military conflict. A White House spokesperson reiterated that the US will not conduct negotiations through the media, and any information released through unofficial channels should be considered speculation.

VII. Oil Price Reaction: Tensions Push Up Market

International oil prices rebounded on Monday as significant differences remain between the warring parties over core issues such as Iran's nuclear ambitions and the right of passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Brent crude futures for June delivery hit a two-week high. This volatility in the energy market directly reflects investors' continued concerns about the risk of an escalation of the US-Iran conflict or shipping disruptions.

VIII. Conclusion: A Glimmer of Hope and Numerous Obstacles in the Stalemate

In summary, the current diplomatic maneuvering between the US and Iran presents a complex and fragile situation. Iran has proposed a phased negotiation plan with a clear structure but a sequence of events extremely unfavorable to the US, attempting to make a ceasefire and the lifting of sanctions prerequisites for discussing the nuclear issue. The US, however, is highly wary of Iran's delaying tactics and insists that the nuclear issue must be resolved as a priority. Although neither side outwardly rejects continued dialogue, the gap between their positions remains profound. The fate of the Strait of Hormuz, the recognition of uranium enrichment rights, and the alternating threats of war and peace will all determine the ultimate direction of this game. In the coming days, the White House's official response will be a key juncture in observing whether the situation will de-escalate or escalate further.

Frequently Asked Questions

Question 1: What is the core logic behind Iran's proposed "phased negotiations" plan? Why does Iran insist on leaving the nuclear issue for final discussion?

A: Iran's core logic is "security for nuclear rights." Tehran believes that the current US-Israeli military action against Iran and the US-led naval blockade are the most pressing threats to Iran's national security. Therefore, Iran hopes to achieve a ceasefire, obtain political guarantees from the US that it will not wage war again, and lift the blockade and reopen the Strait of Hormuz before discussing the nuclear issue. In Iran's view, if even basic security and freedom of navigation cannot be guaranteed, then discussing the nuclear issue is just wishful thinking. Furthermore, placing the nuclear issue as a final stage also allows Iran to retain bargaining chips such as the right to enrich uranium, avoiding being forced to make significant concessions when it is at a military disadvantage.

Question 2: What exactly did US Secretary of State Rubio mean by "Iran is trying to stall for time"? Is there any basis for this concern?

A: Rubio's concern refers to the possibility that Iran might use the negotiation process to secretly advance its nuclear weapons development amidst the protracted negotiations aimed at restoring peace. This concern is not unfounded. Historically, Iran has repeatedly used lengthy negotiations to alleviate international sanctions pressure while simultaneously keeping its nuclear arsenal running. From a technical perspective, Iran's nuclear capability accumulation is a gradual process; every additional month gained could shorten its "breakthrough time" (the minimum time required to manufacture a nuclear weapon). Therefore, the US fears that if it accepts the "ceasefire first, nuclear talks later" approach, Iran could use the "window of opportunity" between the ceasefire and the nuclear talks to continue its enrichment activities under the guise of peaceful use, thereby substantially approaching the nuclear weapons threshold.

Question 3: Araghchi made a series of visits to Pakistan, Oman, and Russia. What roles did these countries play in the US-Iran conflict?

A: These three countries play different but complementary roles in mediation and support. Pakistan, the host country for the face-to-face negotiations originally planned by Trump, is also a key member of the Islamic world possessing nuclear weapons. Its delicate relationship with both Iran and the Gulf states makes it suitable as a channel for indirect communication between the US and Iran. Oman, a traditional neutral mediator in the Gulf region, has historically acted as a bridge in secret US-Iran dialogues. Its geographical location and diplomatic credibility make it an ideal intermediary for information exchange between the two sides. Russia, a key military and political ally of Iran, saw Araghchi's visit to Russia both to garner verbal support from Putin to bolster his negotiating position and to send a signal to the US through Russia, while ensuring that Russia's interests (such as arms supplies and energy cooperation) would not be marginalized should an agreement be reached between the US and Iran.

Question 4: Why did Iran's proposal regarding the Strait of Hormuz directly lead to a rise in oil prices? What are the key points of contention regarding the right of passage through this strait?

A: The Strait of Hormuz is the world's most important oil shipping chokepoint, handling approximately one-fifth of the world's seaborne oil. Iran has previously threatened or actually interfered with navigation through the strait due to US sanctions, causing significant oil price fluctuations. Iran's recent proposal to "reopen the strait and bring it under its own control" is seen by the US as tantamount to demanding that the US recognize Iran's de facto control over this international waterway—a direct conflict with the principle of "innocent passage" upheld by international law. Market concerns lie in the fact that even if Iran promises to open it, once it gains control, it could close it again at any time under the pretext of "security" or "breakdown of nuclear talks," thus using the strait as a geopolitical weapon. This uncertainty itself is a catalyst for oil prices.

Question 5: Trump threatens to resume bombing on the one hand, while on the other hand, reports indicate that his "real goal is to avoid resuming hostilities." This seems contradictory. How should we understand the true intentions of the US government?

A: This is actually a classic "brinkmanship" negotiation tactic. The Trump administration knew that if it showed eagerness to reach an agreement or fear of military escalation, Iran would become more assertive in negotiations. Therefore, Trump's public stance of "bombing if talks fail" was intended to exert maximum pressure on Tehran, forcing Iran to make concessions on the nuclear issue and control of the Strait of Hormuz. However, the US government was also keenly aware that if large-scale bombing were to actually resume, the US would be bogged down in another Middle East quagmire, not only wasting huge amounts of military spending and political capital, but also potentially triggering a full-scale retaliation by Iranian proxy forces against US military bases and Israel. Therefore, Trump's real goal was to force Iran to sign an agreement that met the core demands of the US through maximum pressure, without waging war. This "verbal sword" was more in line with his short-term political interests than actual weapons, but if Iran continued to refuse to compromise, the risk of accidental conflict would not disappear.

At 09:58 Beijing time, Brent crude oil futures for June delivery were trading at $108.62 per barrel.