A senior White House official has cast doubt on the authenticity of Iran’s widely circulated ten-point ceasefire proposal, saying it does not reflect the framework agreed upon with the United States to end the ongoing conflict.
Speaking to AFP on condition of anonymity, the official stated that “the document circulating in the media is not the actual framework,” signaling a growing divergence between Washington and Iran over the terms of a potential truce.
Earlier, U.S. President Donald Trump had indicated a more optimistic stance, revealing that Washington had received a ten-point proposal from Tehran and describing it as a “viable basis for negotiation.”
However, details emerging from Tehran suggest a far more expansive set of demands. In a statement, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council outlined key provisions of the plan, including stricter control over navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, coordinated with Iranian armed forces, and a complete withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from regional bases.
The proposal also calls for ending military actions against Iran’s allied groups, lifting all sanctions, both primary and secondary, releasing frozen Iranian assets abroad, and paying full compensation to Tehran based on assessed damages.
Iran further insists that any agreement be formalized through a binding resolution by the United Nations Security Council, effectively elevating the deal to enforceable international law.
In a notable discrepancy, reports indicate that the Persian version of the proposal includes a clause on the “acceptance of enrichment,” a reference absent from the English-language versions distributed to international media, raising further questions about the consistency and intent of the plan.
The conflicting narratives highlight the fragility of ceasefire efforts and underscore the complexity of negotiations as both sides navigate political, military, and strategic pressures.
