Iran has announced the core contents of the ten-point plan submitted to the United States, including full compensation for Iran's losses, lifting of sanctions, etc. Will the United States accept it?

The United States will not accept the core contents of Iran's announced ten-point plan as a basis for negotiation. The demands, which reportedly include full compensation for losses and a complete lifting of sanctions without verifiable reciprocal steps on Iran's nuclear program and regional activities, represent a maximalist opening position rather than a viable diplomatic proposal. Washington's policy, consistent across administrations, is anchored in the principle of "compliance for compliance," where sanctions relief is directly and verifiably exchanged for concrete, permanent constraints on Iran's nuclear ambitions and, increasingly, concessions on other security concerns. Accepting a plan framed as compensation for losses would fundamentally invert this negotiating framework, effectively legitimizing Iran's grievances as the starting point and requiring the U.S. to pay to re-enter an agreement it originally helped craft. This is a politically untenable proposition domestically and would be seen as rewarding escalation, given the context of Iran's advanced uranium enrichment and support for regional proxies.

The mechanics of the plan's contents reveal its primary function as a political instrument rather than a practical blueprint. By publicly announcing demands that are knowingly unacceptable to the other party, Iran achieves several tactical objectives. It shifts the public diplomatic onus onto the United States to reject what Iran can frame as a reasonable offer, appealing to international audiences weary of the prolonged standoff. Internally, it serves to demonstrate governmental resolve to hardline constituencies, reinforcing the narrative that the West is fundamentally unwilling to grant Iran its rightful economic and strategic autonomy. Furthermore, it acts as a stalling mechanism, allowing Iran to continue its nuclear advancement—now measured in weeks from breakout to weapons-grade material—while portraying itself as the party actively seeking a diplomatic resolution. The inclusion of expansive demands like compensation effectively ensures the proposal's rejection, which Iran can then use to justify further acceleration of its program.

For the U.S., the path forward remains a return to the original scope of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), albeit with complications that did not exist in 2015. The Biden administration's stated goal has been a mutual return to compliance with the nuclear deal, but subsequent expansions of Iran's nuclear infrastructure and knowledge, along with its provision of drones to Russia and ongoing regional tensions, have altered the calculus. Any viable agreement would now necessitate addressing a more advanced nuclear program, likely requiring longer duration constraints and more intrusive monitoring. While a full lifting of sanctions is conceivable as an end-state within a restored JCPOA framework, it would be phased and conditioned on Iran reversing its nuclear steps. The concept of direct financial compensation for losses, however, falls entirely outside any conceivable U.S. negotiating position, as it would constitute a political and financial concession with no precedent.

Ultimately, the announcement is best understood as a hardening of Iran's diplomatic posture, reflecting the diminished prospects for a swift return to the 2015 agreement under the current regional and domestic conditions in both countries. The U.S. response will be to dismiss the plan's core demands while reiterating its openness to serious, structured negotiations based on the established principles of reciprocity. The impasse is likely to persist, with Iran continuing to incrementally advance its nuclear capabilities and the U.S. maintaining and enforcing sanctions, while both sides maneuver for diplomatic advantage and prepare for a prolonged period of managed confrontation. The ten-point plan, therefore, does not break the deadlock but rather formalizes the significant gap between the two sides' fundamental requirements for any new understanding.

References

Related Questions