#特朗普再下最后通牒 Based on currently available public information, the “Ten-Point Plan” proposed by the two sides of Iran and the “15-Point Plan” proposed by the United States have fundamental disagreements on their core demands. In the short term, the likelihood of achieving a comprehensive “handshake and peace” is low. The specific analysis is as follows:

1 Core Disagreements Are Hard to Reconcile
Nuclear issue: The United States requires Iran to completely dismantle its nuclear facilities, give up uranium enrichment capability, and accept strict international nuclear inspections. In the “Ten-Point Plan,” Iran does not explicitly mention the nuclear issue; its actual position is to retain nuclear capability as a strategic deterrent. On this issue, there is virtually no room for compromise between the two sides.
Strait of Hormuz: The United States insists on freedom of navigation through the strait and opposes Iran setting transit rules or charging fees. Iran, in turn, emphasizes sovereignty over the strait and proposes ensuring safe passage through a charging mechanism. The two sides have a vastly different understanding regarding control of the strait.
Regional proxy issue: The United States demands that Iran stop supporting regional allies such as Hezbollah and the Houthis, while Iran demands a comprehensive ceasefire, including stopping military actions against its allies. The positions of the two sides on this issue are directly at odds with each other.
2 Lack of Mutual Trust and Execution Mechanism Issues
Iran believes the United States is “talking while fighting,” with military strikes continuing, and it doubts the sincerity of the U.S. side in negotiations. The United States is concerned that Iran may rearm or expand its proxy network during a ceasefire period. The two sides lack a basic foundation of mutual trust.
Even if a temporary ceasefire is reached, the two sides still disagree on execution mechanisms and supervision methods, making it difficult to establish an effective safeguard mechanism to ensure the agreement is implemented.
3 Realistic Constraints
Domestic political pressure in the United States (such as upcoming midterm elections and rising oil prices affecting people’s lives) gives it motivation to push negotiations, but it is difficult for it to give up its core demands. Although Iran suffers losses at the tactical level, it maintains initiative at the strategic level and is unwilling to accept an alliance made “under the walls.”
The regional situation is complex. The stances and actions of regional countries such as Israel and Saudi Arabia will also affect the progress of U.S.-Iran negotiations, increasing the difficulty of reaching an agreement.
In summary, in the short term, the two sides—U.S. and Iran—are more likely to reach limited ceasefires or partial compromises to ease conflicts and the energy crisis. However, achieving a comprehensive “handshake and peace” requires both sides to make substantive concessions on core interests; based on the current situation, this possibility appears low.