Iranian officials rejected a ceasefire proposal from the United States during a Monday briefing. The ceasefire plan triggered immediate political reactions across diplomatic channels. Moreover, authorities framed the proposal as incompatible with national security priorities. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei addressed reported American conditions delivered through intermediaries. Additionally, he explained that the ceasefire plan included multiple political and military requirements. According to officials, the proposal focused heavily on nuclear activity and defense capabilities.
Iranian authorities firmly opposed any restrictions placed on nuclear development under the ceasefire plan. They also dismissed limitations on missile programs. Consequently, officials argued that such terms would weaken long-term defensive stability. In addition, negotiators examined reported demands related to the Strait of Hormuz. The ceasefire plan allegedly called for changes to maritime restrictions in the region. However, Iranian representatives rejected any external influence over strategic waterways.
Iranian officials raised the issue of compensation for infrastructure damage. They linked this demand to recent escalations and cross-border incidents. As a result, they insisted that financial accountability must remain part of any agreement framework. Baghaei criticized several provisions as unrealistic and inconsistent with diplomatic practice. He added that Iran would not accept unilateral terms without binding guarantees. At the same time, he emphasized the importance of protecting national rights.
He referred to remarks made by U.S. President Donald Trump regarding potential targeting of infrastructure. Iranian officials described such statements as counterproductive to dialogue. Therefore, they argued that pressure-based negotiation undermines diplomatic progress. In contrast, Iran maintained that meaningful diplomacy cannot coexist with military threats. Officials stressed that constructive engagement requires mutual respect and legal assurances. Likewise, they said that ultimatums reduce the likelihood of agreement.
Additionally, the Foreign Ministry criticized the International Atomic Energy Agency for its response to recent incidents. Officials claimed the agency failed to condemn attacks on nuclear-related facilities. As a result, they argued that silence could normalize future incidents. Meanwhile, Baghaei warned about alleged false flag operations attributed to foreign actors. He urged international observers to evaluate information carefully. Consequently, he stated that misinformation could further escalate regional tensions.
Officials confirmed that Iran prepared a structured response through intermediary channels. They emphasized that future communication would reflect national interests. Ultimately, they reiterated that the ceasefire plan remains unacceptable in its current form. The ceasefire plan continues to dominate diplomatic discussions between the parties. Furthermore, officials reiterated that the ceasefire plan cannot proceed without guarantees and mutual conditions. In addition, they stressed that the ceasefire plan must address sovereignty and security concerns before any progress can occur.