The first condition calls for the United States to abandon threats and what Tehran considers insults against the Iranian nation.
Iran’s second demand is considerably broader. Tehran wants the United States to permanently halt what it describes as military aggression against Iran and Iranian allies throughout the region, including Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen and Iraq.
The remaining conditions target the American military presence and Washington’s economic pressure campaign.
Iran is demanding that the United States end its naval blockade, pull naval and air forces away from Iran, compensate Tehran for damages that Iranian officials attribute to the two wars, remove U.S. sanctions and release Iranian assets that remain blocked.
Zolghadr stated the six demands as follows:
“Never, and in no language, threaten Iran or insult the sanctities of this nation”; “Permanently end the war and aggression against Iran and Iran’s allies in Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen and Iraq”; “Lift the naval blockade and withdraw its military forces (naval and air) from around Iran”; “Pay in full, without any reduction, the damages caused to Iran by the two wars of aggression and imposition”; “Lift the unjust and illegal sanctions against the Iranian nation”; and “Unconditionally release the blocked and stolen assets of the Iranian people.”
The Iranian official portrayed the demands as a reflection of public sentiment inside the country, saying they had been repeatedly voiced during months of confrontation.
Zolghadr added that these “are the demands of the Iranian people, which they have loudly proclaimed during 160 days of steadfast presence in the field and in the streets,” and that “The Supreme National Security Council will never back down, whether in war or in negotiations.”
The statement underscores just how difficult the diplomatic path forward could become. Rather than presenting the reopening of Hormuz as a simple maritime arrangement, Tehran is tying the issue to a much larger dispute involving sanctions, military deployments, compensation and America’s broader regional strategy.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps also backed the position.
IRGC spokesperson Hossein Mohebbi said, “Whenever the United States accepts Iran’s conditions, the Strait of Hormuz will certainly be reopened,” while indicating that the issue should be viewed separately from the ongoing discussions between Iran and Oman.
That distinction is important because Tehran and Muscat have continued working on a possible temporary arrangement for commercial traffic even as negotiations with Washington remain frozen.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed that Tehran is not currently holding direct negotiations with the United States. Instead, messages are being transmitted through intermediaries.
At the same time, Araghchi said discussions with Oman regarding transit through the Strait of Hormuz were nearing completion.
“We’re almost very close to the result,” Araghchi said regarding the temporary route.
The apparent progress with Oman offers a potential opening for shipping, but it does not amount to a full reopening of the strategic waterway. Iranian officials continue to insist that broader conditions must also be resolved, including compensation over what Tehran characterizes as American violations of an earlier June memorandum.
The June memorandum was intended to establish a framework for continued negotiations toward a permanent settlement. It also included arrangements concerning the Strait of Hormuz and other regional disputes.
That framework ultimately failed before the 60-day period expired, contributing to a renewed escalation in hostilities late last month.
President Donald Trump subsequently paused additional planned strikes while indicating that another round of talks was expected to begin this week. But despite those expectations, there has been little indication of a major breakthrough in recent days.
The result is a diplomatic standoff with enormous consequences far beyond Washington and Tehran.
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most important maritime energy corridors, meaning continued restrictions can have consequences for oil markets, shipping companies and countries dependent on Gulf energy exports. The waterway has already become a major flashpoint in the broader conflict.
For the Trump administration, Iran’s six conditions could prove difficult to accept. Tehran is effectively demanding changes that go well beyond simply allowing commercial vessels to transit the strait.
Iran, meanwhile, appears determined to use access to Hormuz as leverage in negotiations.
That leaves the temporary Iran-Oman route as one of the few signs of possible movement. Reports indicate that Tehran and Muscat have been working toward an arrangement governing passage through the waterway, although significant questions about security and implementation remain.
For now, the central question is whether the two sides can separate the immediate need to restore commercial shipping from the much larger political and military confrontation.
If they cannot, the Strait of Hormuz could remain at the center of the crisis — and Tehran’s latest demands suggest Iran has no intention of giving up that leverage without extracting major concessions from Washington.
