The past few hours have seen notable diplomatic activity led by several regional capitals, aimed at containing the escalating tension between Tehran and Washington and attempting to dissuade US President Donald Trump’s administration from proceeding with a military strike on Iran. These efforts come amid serious fears that the region could slide into a wide scale escalation that would threaten its stability and collective security.
From Cairo to Riyadh, passing through Doha, Abu Dhabi, and Ankara, contacts intensified with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and the US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, in an attempt to shape a negotiating track that could open a window for a political solution and spare the region the consequences of a military confrontation whose outcomes would be difficult to contain once ignited.
This accelerated diplomatic movement comes at an extremely sensitive moment, coinciding with a sharp escalation in US rhetoric. President Trump has warned that “time is running out”, cautioning Tehran that failure to swiftly engage in serious negotiations and reach an agreement on its nuclear programme would be met with a military response “far more severe” than previous strikes, alongside threats to deploy a large US naval force towards Iran.
Against this charged and uncertain backdrop, with all scenarios on the table, a central question remains. Can last minute diplomacy restrain the momentum towards escalation and defuse the crisis before the point of no return?
What are the US demands to step back from military action?
American media reports have revealed three main demands presented by the Trump administration to Iran, described as “stringent conditions” for stepping back from the option of potential military action. This was reported by The New York Times, citing American and European officials.
The first demand involves Iran fully halting all uranium enrichment activities. Although the Natanz and Fordow facilities, the two pillars of Iran’s enrichment programme, suffered severe damage during the twelve day war, making their restart unlikely in the near term, US concerns persist that Tehran could turn to smaller, covert sites that are difficult to detect in order to continue enrichment operations.
The newspaper notes that Iran’s possession of uranium enriched to 60 percent, a level close to that required for nuclear weapons production, could allow it to produce enough fuel for a limited number of nuclear warheads, should it succeed in accessing stockpiles buried under rubble following the attacks. So far, US and European intelligence agencies say there are no indications that Iran has been able to recover this uranium, at least in the near term.
The second demand focuses on imposing strict limits on the range and number of Iran’s ballistic missiles. In practical terms, this would strip Tehran of one of the most important remaining deterrence tools in its military arsenal.
Washington and its allies argue that such a step would limit Iran’s ability to strike deep inside Israeli territory if it were attacked by Tel Aviv. While US and European officials assess that an imminent Iranian attack on Israel appears unlikely at present, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hinted at the possibility of launching new strikes should Tehran move to rebuild its military capabilities.
The third demand centres on ending Iranian support for allied forces in the region, particularly in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, with a focus on cutting off funding and arms supplies to these factions. This condition is an extension of longstanding US demands, viewed as one of the main pillars of Iran’s influence beyond its borders.
The newspaper adds that Trump appears confident following what he views as early success in Venezuela, relying on direct threats of “regime overthrow” as a pressure tool aimed at deterring both the Iranian leadership and the Revolutionary Guard.
What stands out across these three demands, however, is the absence of any explicit or implicit reference to protecting protesters inside Iran from authoritarian abuses, despite this issue having previously been used as a political justification to market potential military action against Tehran.
Intense diplomatic movement
The past hours have witnessed intense regional diplomatic efforts to contain the crisis at this critical moment. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, during a phone call with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, affirmed the kingdom’s firm rejection of allowing its airspace or territory to be used in any military action against Iran, or in any attacks launched by any party.
The Crown Prince stressed Riyadh’s respect for Iran’s sovereignty and affirmed Saudi support for all efforts aimed at resolving disputes through political dialogue, in a way that enhances regional security and stability and prevents a slide into open confrontation.
In the same context, Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty led active diplomatic moves, holding a series of phone calls with officials in Iran, the United States, Qatar, and Oman to discuss developments amid rising regional tensions.
In his calls with his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi and US envoy Steve Witkoff, Abdelatty stressed the need to intensify efforts to reduce escalation and avoid dragging the region into new cycles of instability. He emphasised the importance of creating an appropriate climate for prioritising diplomatic solutions and reaching sustainable political settlements, foremost among them resuming US Iranian dialogue on the nuclear file in a manner that takes into account the interests of all parties.
These efforts were complemented by parallel Qatari and Emirati moves. Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani affirmed Doha’s full support for all de escalation efforts during contacts with Iranian officials.
Abu Dhabi also reiterated, in an official statement, its commitment not to allow its airspace, territory, or waters to be used in any hostile military actions against Iran, and its rejection of providing any logistical support in this regard. The statement underscored that dialogue, respect for state sovereignty, and adherence to international law represent the most effective foundations for addressing current crises and safeguarding regional security.
Tehran and the open door policy
Despite US military escalation, the extensive build up of military capabilities in regional waters, and the accompanying hardline political and media rhetoric, Tehran has sought to keep communication channels open with Washington under what is known as the open door policy.
Iran’s foreign minister indirectly reflected this approach in comments to journalists on the sidelines of the weekly cabinet meeting on Wednesday the 28th of the month.
While Araghchi denied any direct communication in recent days with US envoy Steve Witkoff, or that Iran had submitted a formal request for negotiations, he confirmed that mediation efforts remain ongoing. He said Iran is in contact with mediators through indirect channels, noting that several countries are playing a mediating role and conducting consultations in this context. He stressed that Tehran is engaging with these efforts “in good faith” in an attempt to contain the existing tension.
In a broader Iranian reading of the regional scene, Tehran believes there is near consensus across the region in rejecting any military threat, based on the conviction that any destabilisation would carry dangerous repercussions affecting the entire region. In this context, Araghchi warned that any military action, given the heavy US military presence in the region, would lead to regional instability and open the door to security challenges that would be difficult to contain.
At the same time, he sent reassuring messages to the American side, saying that Iran “still welcomes a fair nuclear agreement that guarantees Iran’s rights to peaceful nuclear technology and ensures the non possession of nuclear weapons”.
Trump’s demands in the balance
Political and media assessments indicate that rounds of talks held in recent days between Washington and Tehran, whether through indirect channels or mediators, have failed to produce a real breakthrough in the wall of mutual rigidity. Each side has remained attached to its negotiating ceilings and core demands, leaving the dialogue stuck in a holding pattern without tangible progress.
According to American and European estimates, the likelihood of Tehran responding positively to the three US demands remains fraught with complications. Regarding the first demand, full abandonment of uranium enrichment, The New York Times suggests this condition may be fundamentally unacceptable to Iran, though it could be subject to tactical workarounds, such as phased commitments to reduce enrichment levels or temporarily freeze them.
This option is reinforced by the difficulty of comprehensive US monitoring after the damage inflicted on nuclear facilities during the twelve day war, granting Tehran a margin of manoeuvre that allows it to maintain its nuclear project at a slower pace over a longer timeframe.
As for the second demand, restricting the range and number of ballistic missiles, this is viewed as a red line for Tehran, which sees these capabilities as its last strategic deterrent against any potential Israeli attack.
Accordingly, Iran is not expected to show real flexibility on this issue, aside from offering non binding political assurances, under mediator sponsorship, not to use these missiles against US or Israeli interests, particularly in light of Western assessments that rule out an imminent Iranian attack at this stage.
By contrast, the third demand, related to reducing or cutting support for Iran’s regional allies, may be the most amenable to limited, temporary accommodation. This is due to the severe economic pressures facing the country, which make continued resource drain through external arms a risk that could threaten the stability of the system itself, a message clearly reflected in recent waves of protest.
Can last minute diplomacy succeed?
Regional diplomatic efforts are driven by a firm conviction that the outbreak of a wide scale war would not be confined to the Iranian arena alone. Its repercussions would spill beyond geography to affect the security and stability of the entire region. This explains the intensity and speed of the current movement as a preemptive attempt to contain an explosion and protect collective regional interests.
Conversely, Tehran seeks to leverage the escalation card and the possibility of expanding the scope of its response if attacked by the United States, using it as indirect pressure on regional and international mediators to restrain Washington’s push towards a new military confrontation that could place its vital interests in the Middle East at serious and uncalculated risk.
In this context, some actors are betting on diplomacy’s ability to extract a degree of Iranian flexibility on the three US demands, offering Trump a politically marketable gain at home, in exchange for convincing the US administration that the cost of a military strike may outweigh its strategic returns.
As Israeli pressure continues to push Washington towards a military decision, the US choice remains contested within decision making circles and has yet to be finalised, despite the unprecedented military build up. The question therefore remains open. Can last minute diplomacy defuse the crisis before the fireball begins to roll and the region enters a path of unknown consequences?
