Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian publicly outlined Iran’s conditions for ending the war on March 12, 2026, demanding reparations for the damage inflicted on the country and binding guarantees that the United States and Israel would not attack Iran again. The demands set the stage for what is expected to be a protracted and difficult diplomatic process.
Iran’s Terms
Speaking in a nationally televised address — reportedly from an undisclosed location due to ongoing security threats — Pezeshkian laid out two principal conditions:
Reparations: Iran demanded financial compensation for the extensive damage caused by two weeks of sustained bombing. Pezeshkian stated that the destruction of civilian infrastructure, military installations, and energy facilities, along with the loss of life including the supreme leader, required “full accountability and material restitution.”
Security Guarantees: Iran demanded legally binding guarantees from both the United States and Israel that they would not launch future military operations against Iran. Pezeshkian called for these guarantees to be enshrined in an international agreement, potentially backed by the United Nations Security Council.
Diplomatic Context
The demands were widely interpreted as an opening negotiating position rather than final terms. However, the nature of the conditions — particularly the call for reparations — suggested that Iran was prepared for a long negotiation and was not seeking an immediate ceasefire at any cost.
Pezeshkian’s role in the negotiations reflected the complex power dynamics within the Iranian system. While the supreme leader holds ultimate authority over war and peace, the president traditionally manages foreign relations and diplomatic engagement. The recent appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as supreme leader appeared to have given Pezeshkian latitude to lead the diplomatic effort.
International Response
The demands drew mixed reactions internationally. Russia and China, which had been providing intelligence support to Iran, publicly supported Iran’s right to seek reparations and security guarantees. Both nations offered to participate in any mediation process.
Western governments were more cautious. While some European diplomats privately acknowledged that Iran’s conditions were not entirely unreasonable given the scale of the attacks, the US and Israel showed no immediate inclination to engage with the terms as presented.
US Position
The US administration rejected the demand for reparations, with officials stating that the military operation had been a justified response to Iranian threats and aggression. However, some American diplomats privately indicated that a discussion of security guarantees — in exchange for verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear program and missile capabilities — could form the basis of future negotiations.
Obstacles to Peace
Several factors complicated the diplomatic picture:
- The ongoing military operations, with neither side willing to agree to a ceasefire before negotiations
- Israel’s refusal to engage with the new Iranian supreme leader, whom it had declared a military target
- The domestic political pressures on all parties, which made concessions difficult
- The involvement of Russia and China, whose support for Iran gave Tehran less incentive to accept unfavorable terms
Pezeshkian’s Position
Masoud Pezeshkian, who won Iran’s presidential election in 2024 on a platform that included engagement with the international community, found himself in an extraordinarily difficult position. The reformist-leaning president was tasked with negotiating an end to a war he did not initiate, while operating under a new hardline supreme leader whose primary constituency was the IRGC.
Analysts noted that Pezeshkian’s public articulation of terms may have been coordinated with the new supreme leader, suggesting at least some alignment between the civilian government and the religious-military establishment on the broad contours of a diplomatic approach.
Humanitarian Appeal
Pezeshkian’s address also included an appeal to the international community to facilitate humanitarian aid to Iran, where the bombing campaign had caused significant damage to civilian infrastructure including hospitals, power plants, and water systems. Iran’s Health Ministry reported mounting civilian casualties, adding urgency to the diplomatic efforts.