By Laurence Norman
The U.S. and Iran are both pushing maximalist demands as the possibility of a new round of diplomacy emerges.
Among other things, the U.S. wants:
-- Dismantlement of Iran's nuclear facilities
-- Zero nuclear enrichment
-- Missile constraints
-- Guaranteed free and safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz
-- An end to Iran's proxy support in the region
Iran is demanding a guarantee it won't be attacked again and:
-- Full sanctions relief
-- Compensation for the war
-- A new payment system for the Strait of Hormuz
-- The removal of U.S. bases in the region
The demands are incompatible. Negotiations could very well lead to failure, as they did in the spring of 2025 and earlier this year. Nonetheless, the fundamental question if the two sides do meet is not how far apart they are. It is whether either or both of them feels the costs of the war are too high to carry on.
The answer to that might be no. President Trump is amassing ground troops near Iran. Tehran's grip on the Strait of Hormuz is exacting a major cost on energy prices and the global economy.
But ultimately, if both sides do want out of the war, there are ways to get an agreement despite their conflicting demands.
Iran in negotiations over the past decade has dropped or sidelined its initial requirements for a deal. For years, it sought a trial for the killing of one of its top generals on Trump's orders, and large-scale compensation for the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal. That deal allowed continued Iranian domestic enrichment that for years Washington swore it wouldn't accept.
One route to a cease-fire deal would be to return to some of the ideas discussed in Geneva in February-those included a pause for several years on Iranian enrichment and a regional nonaggression pact in return for some sanctions relief. Any drawdown on sanctions would be phased in as Iran frees up the strait.
Other issues-around Iran's nuclear capability and the future of the strait-could be kicked down the road. Whether subsequent talks happen or a protracted cessation of hostilities takes hold, tensions would ease.
There is already a hint of that possibility in the American demands. Washington wants a deal to constrain Iranian missile range and numbers, but the details, the proposal says, can be negotiated later.
That would allow Trump to declare victory, saying Iran's military threat has been degraded, it won't be enriching and the war is over. In turn, it would give Iran leeway to say that it forced the Americans to back down and the regime survived.
Still, the odds of a deal look narrow. Israel may balk against such a minimalist outcome. But if both sides are seeking an off-ramp, the upfront maximalist demands are probably expendable.
"The U.S. began the conflict with several demands-a decisive end to Iran's nuclear weapons program...the strict limitation of Iran's missile program, the end to Iranian support for regional proxies, and some form of leniency toward protesters in Iran," said Michael Singh, a former U.S. National Security Council official focused on Iran. "It is possible that the U.S. will continue to insist that a deal satisfy all of these requirements, but it is also possible that a more minimalist cease-fire could precede a follow-on negotiation that addresses that fuller agenda."
This item is part of a Wall Street Journal live coverage event. The full stream can be found by searching P/WSJL (WSJ Live Coverage).
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
March 25, 2026 06:10 ET (10:10 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Comments