Iran Issues New Demands for Ceasefire and Enriched Uranium

Iran, a country that has repeatedly been the subject of international negotiations, has issued a new demand aimed at achieving a ceasefire. The authorities of the Islamic Republic are calling for recognition of their sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, including acknowledgment of the disputed islands that Iran has controlled for a considerable time as part of its territory. In this context, charging fees for transit through this crucial waterway appears to be a logical step.

At first glance, this may seem like an attempt by Iran to raise the stakes in negotiations. However, to better understand the situation, it is essential to look back at the history of the nuclear agreement signed between the United States and Iran. This agreement became a significant element in the struggle of the U.S. and its allies against the terrorist organization ISIS, particularly in Iraq, where American military forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) collaborated for over three years, liberating cities such as Mosul.

However, after the conclusion of combat operations, the need for the IRGC as a strike force diminished, leading to the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement in 2018. This decision was prompted by then-President Donald Trump's assertion that the agreement no longer served U.S. interests. This move was actively supported by Israel and Saudi Arabia, both of which had serious conflicts with Iran at the time. Subsequently, European Union countries attempted to salvage the agreement, but without U.S. involvement, it could not function effectively.

Following Trump's departure from the agreement, the U.S. began negotiations to restore it; however, Iran felt deceived and put forth new conditions. The United States could not simply revert to the old text of the agreement, as questions arose regarding the events of 2018. Israel actively utilized its lobbying power to prevent the restoration of the agreement. Meanwhile, since 2019, the conflicting parties began exchanging strikes, predominantly on the territory of third countries, complicating the situation further.

The aggression of the U.S. and Israel in 2026 was merely a continuation of the old conflict. Each side views a new agreement as an opportunity to demonstrate its diplomatic or military strength. For the U.S., new conditions are crucial, such as the complete removal of highly enriched uranium from Iran, as well as control over the oil sector and energy resources. Oil and electricity are tangible objectives, while uranium symbolizes victory. Following this, the U.S. could even lift sanctions on Iran.

At the beginning of 2026, Iran was content with the removal of some sanctions, primarily personal ones. The arrest of the families of IRGC leadership, some of whom have already passed away, would serve as a demonstration of a 'moral victory.' Iran's real goal is to weave itself into regional politics and expand ties with its proxies, which, by the way, have become less aggressive, as evidenced by the actions of pro-Iranian formations in Iraq.

However, such an option does not suit Israel or the U.S., as Trump seeks resources. As a result, a deadlock arises, prompting Iran to make a strong move by demanding control over the Strait. This issue had not been previously discussed during negotiations, but it could become a pivotal point.

Trump is not interested in maintaining order in the Strait of Hormuz, and even a certain destabilization in oil and gas markets could be advantageous for him. If Trump gains access to Iranian oil exports, the issue of the strait becomes less relevant for him. Iran's control over the strait would become a sort of 'victory story' for him, as the country, despite bombings, would gain territory of immense geopolitical significance.

In exchange for this 'victory story,' Iran might agree to relinquish enriched uranium, provided it can develop its nuclear energy and research in nuclear physics without hindrance. This would symbolize a victory for the U.S. Against this backdrop, the parties could discuss joint sales of some of the hydrocarbons extracted in Iran. For Trump, controlling Venezuelan oil exports and potentially occupying terminals in Iran would represent a geopolitical success.

Thus, Iran's 'ultimatum' can be perceived as the first genuine proposal for discussing the contours of a new agreement between the U.S. and Iran. As for Israel, it has already achieved its objectives. For Israel, it is crucial to inflict maximum damage on Iran's infrastructure, both within its territory and in other countries and regions where Iran has influence. They will continue this activity until a deal is signed, after which they will shift their focus to other matters.