Tehran Rejects ‘Excessive’ U.S. Demands as Iran Formulates Independent Ceasefire Response

Tehran labels U.S. ceasefire demands "excessive" and formulates its own response via intermediaries. Read about the latest diplomatic moves in the 2026 Iran war.

By: AXL Media

Published: Apr 6, 2026, 6:38 AM EDT

Source: Information for this report was sourced from Reuters

The Formalization of Iranian Diplomatic Requirements

The Iranian Foreign Ministry has announced that it has successfully completed its own framework for a potential ceasefire, marking a shift from reactive diplomacy to a proactive assertion of its strategic needs. During a press conference in Tehran, spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei confirmed that these positions have already been transmitted through established intermediary channels. By formulating its own responses, the Iranian government is attempting to regain the diplomatic initiative in a conflict that has seen a month of intensifying military exchanges across the Middle East.

Rejection of the U.S. Fifteen-Point Plan

A central component of the current diplomatic impasse is Tehran's firm rejection of earlier American proposals, specifically a 15-point plan that Iranian officials labeled as "excessive." Baghaei stated that these previous demands did not align with Iran's legitimate national interests and were viewed as an overreach by Washington. This rejection underscores the deep ideological and strategic divide between the two nations, as Iran seeks a resolution that acknowledges its regional influence and defensive posture rather than a plan that imposes strict external constraints.

Negotiation Stance Amid Infrastructure Threats

The Iranian spokesperson was explicit in stating that Tehran considers ongoing negotiations to be fundamentally "incompatible with ultimatums and threats." This is a direct reference to recent statements from President Donald Trump, who has threatened to target Iranian power plants and bridges if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened by a Tuesday deadline. Baghaei argued that such threats constitute a willingness to commit "war crimes" and suggested that diplomacy cannot function effectively when one party is under the immediate threat of total infrastructure destruction.