US, Iran and mediators discuss terms for a 45-day ceasefire

[Twiglets1]

As reported by Axios, the U.S., Iran and a group of regional mediators are discussing the terms for a potential 45-day ceasefire that could lead to a permanent end to the war, according to four U.S., Israeli and regional sources with knowledge of the talks.

Four sources with knowledge of the diplomatic efforts said the negotiations are taking place through Pakistani, Egyptian and Turkish mediators and also through text messages sent between Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff and Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

• A U.S. official said the Trump administration gave Iran several proposals in recent days, but so far Iranian officials hadn't accepted them.
• The sources said the mediators are discussing with the parties the terms for two-phased deal; the first phase would a potential 45-day ceasefire during which a permanent end to the war would be negotiated.
• The ceasefire could be extended if more time were needed for talks, one of the sources said.
• The second phase would be an agreement on ending the war.
• The sources said mediators think that fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz and a solution for Iran's highly enriched Uranium — either through its removal from the country or dilution — could only be a result of a final deal.
• These two issues are Iran's main bargaining chips in the negotiations and the Iranians will not agree to fully give up on them for only 45 days of ceasefire, two of the sources said.
• The mediators want to see whether Iran could take partial step on both issues in the first phase of the deal. They are also working on steps the Trump administration could take to give Iran guarantees that the ceasefire will not be temporary and that the war will not resume.

www.axios.com/2026/04/06/iran-war-us-tehran-ceasefire-talks

You may be struggling with the logic @RoyalImpatience because the IRGC aren't actually very logical. How does it help them to upset lots of other countries they aren't at war with? Yet they don't seem to care how many countries they upset.

Re the US attacking the small boats, I just Googled it and found an interesting article on the subject from Fox News dated April 16th:

The U.S. is preparing to take on Iran’s fast-attack boats using a playbook it already has tested in another theater — lethal strikes on small vessels tied to drug trafficking networks in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific.

Since September 2025, U.S. forces have conducted dozens of deadly strikes on suspected drug-trafficking vessels, part of a broader military campaign targeting cartel-linked networks. The U.S. campaign against drug-trafficking boats offers a glimpse of how American forces handle small, fast-moving targets at sea.

Officials now suggest similar tactics could be used against Iranian vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.

www.foxnews.com/politics/us-eyes-iran-fast-boats-kill-tactics-tested-venezuela-drug-boat-strikes

From the article above:

U.S. forces rely heavily on surveillance — tracking movements from the coastline and identifying potential threats before they reach open water.

That’s where the comparison to drug-boat operations begins to make sense.

U.S. forces are likely monitoring Iran’s coastline closely, allowing them to detect and potentially strike fast boats as they mobilize.

In some cases, that could mean hitting boats before they ever reach the shipping lanes.

However, there are difficulties with doing this according to Farzin Nadimi, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

"These boats are vulnerable to air power, but they are also armed and can use tactics to limit that vulnerability," said Nadimi.

@Twiglets1 yes I know re illogical Iran 😀

This all defies logic I guess.
That's very interesting re the small boats , hopefully the USA can just get rid of them I guess there are hundreds and people just won't want to man then if they get blown up. The irg copied force them but that sort of thing does start to lose good will.

The good news is that the peace talks appear to be going ahead in Pakistan as planned.

"My Representatives are going to Islamabad, Pakistan - They will be there tomorrow evening, for Negotiations," Trump writes on social media.

"We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran," he adds.

Apparently there are so many nooks and crannies they can appear from.

Maybe the USA is in surveillance mode so they can watch where they are Coming from
I expect they are doing all they can to watch that coast to eliminate threats at some point if necessary

Yes, I don't think the Iran small boats have been a high priority up until now. But they could become a high priority, depending on if the peace talks are productive or not.

Al Jazeera - Pakistan is expecting Iranians to arrive for talks

What we understand is that the Iranians will most probably be coming to the talks because of the preparations that are under way here in Islamabad.

There is unprecedented security; 20,000 security personnel have been deployed, and large parts of the city have been completely sealed off.

Within the last 24 hours, we have heard reports of additional US aircraft, including the C-17 Globemaster that landed at Nur Khan airport, and that would suggest that the bulletproof vehicles, as well as the security team, are already on the ground.

Two hotels that have been requisitioned by the state have been sealed off as well, and so Islamabad is expecting delegates to start arriving.

There is anticipation that the Iranians will also participate, despite what you hear as the toughening of rhetoric between the two countries, that, of course, is casting a shadow, but the expectation is that the second round will indeed take place.

www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/4/20/iran-war-live-tehran-slams-uss-piracy-after-ship-seizure-vows-response

Al Jazeera reported a hour ago that they have been speaking to Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security Committee, on the prospect of talks with the US.

The lawmaker, who is a former IRGC commander, said Iran has decided to continue talks with the US, but this “does not mean to negotiate at any cost” and to accept any “approach the other party practises”.

Iran has set red lines, and these “must be observed”, he said.

When asked whether Iran will send a team to Islamabad, Aziz suggested that it depends on whether Tehran receives positive signs.

(that's a yes then).

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/4/20/iran-war-live-tehran-slams-uss-piracy-after-ship-seizure-vows-response

Their logic is that they were attacked by the U.S when they were already at the negotiating table and had agreed to a plan for the enriched uranium. They already had an agreement with Obama which Trump ripped up. Negotiating with Trump clearly doesn't work.

They have control over the Strait and the ability to do enormous damage to the world economy - which they've done. Prices exploding causes political damage to Trump and leads US citizens to agitate against the war. Most of their ships capable of transporting oil have been destroyed by the US so there isn't that much to gain for them by using it. Controlling the Strait but issuing tolls would have made them millions per day and been one of the largest sources of money that they had. Controlling the strait by allowing their friendly countries (like China) through for an enormous fee but blocking their unfriendly countries made sense. It boosted their coffers but caused huge damage to the teconomy and put huge political pressure on the USA. It worked well, Trump couldn't get it re-opened and suffered politically.

They're continuing to put pressure on the strait because it's their main method of getting some US concessions. Yes it causes some financial damage to them but it causes larger financial damage to the world economy which will be their only method of pressuring the US.

Iran's control over the Straight isn't looking so good for them now @ilovepuppies2019

Very foreseeable that the US wouldn't allow Iran to go unchallenging for long with their attempt to blackmail the world ... yet all I saw on MN was people crowing about the fact the US should have foreseen that Iran would react with a blockade.

Not sure why those same people are silent on Iran not foreseeing that the US would react to Iran's blockade with their own blockade that would hurt Iran, but oh well.

The US absolutely should have forseen the blockade, yes. Iran signposted and warned the world that this was coming. All the evidence suggests that Trump's advisors warned him him that Iran would blockade the Strait. That they allowed this to happen is just unbelievable.

The death, enormous civilan casualities, huge loss of infastructure, cost, likely famine to vulnerable countries.... all of it was avoidable. Iran was negotiating. They already had an agreement with Obama. Trump has achieved nothing. The same outcomes were possible with negotiation and Trump has killed thousands of civilians, thrown millions into poverty and guaranteed a future generation of terrorists. The lack of foresight, stupidity and arrogance that it takes for Trump to get the US and the world into this position is hard to believe.

Noone was crowing about the outcome. Most people are quite horrified about the loss of civilian life and baffled that Trump and Netanyahu could get us here.

It's hard to know what Iran 'should' have forseen. Their leader and most of their Government have been killed. Given that the USA are a world leader and have one of the largest and best funded militaries in the world and are supposedly on the side of the peace loving people of the world, I have much higher expectations of their capabilities, yes. Iran is a violent regime run with far fewer resources and many people living in poverty. They've also been bomed for the better part of 6 weeks. I don't expect a regime with a large number of terrorists to behave as we might expect. I do expect the leader of the USA to act in calm, consistent manner which achieves peaceful outcomes and doesn't involve threatening war crimes. That's far too much to expect of Trump.

This war has been a diaster which is brought suffering to millions for no gain.

The point has been made repeatedly that the US should have foreseen the blockade.

Shouldn't Iran equally have foreseen how the US would react to them blockading the Straight of Hormuz?

Iran 'positively reviewing' participation in peace talks

Iran is reconsidering its withdrawal from a proposed second round of direct peace talks with the US, a senior Iranian official has told Reuters.

The source praised Pakistan's "positive" efforts in trying to end the US naval blockade of ships exiting and entering Iranian talks, the news agency reported.

This would ensure that Iran can participate in the next round of talk, with Tehran now "positively reviewing its participation in peace talks", the official said.

However, they added that no final decision has been made yet.

https://news.sky.com/story/iran-war-latest-trump-blockade-strait-of-hormuz-lebanon-13509565

Iran could have foreseen that the world wouldn't indefinitely allow it to do lots of things they are evil. Had they just been normal and kind and getting on with growing their country end helping people not lining their own pockets we wouldn't be here.

The main problems in the world are not coming from democracies are they

No. Democracies can be flawed but I’m still grateful to live in one.

Surprise, surprise… after days of game playing & denials, the Telegraph report that Iran is ready to send a team to Islamabad for another round of negotiations with the US.

Yeah that didn't work well for Iran in the past either though. When Mossadegh dared to nationalise Iran's own oil, the British set up a naval blockade to stop Iran exporting it and the USA and UK helped overthrow him via a coup.

The west was very happy with Shah Pahlavi, up until the early 1970s when he increased the price of oil and helped Iran gain greater control of its own oil production and pricing. Then guess what, he gets overthrown in 1979. Khomeini was aided into power partly through Jimmy Carter's cackhanded naivety. He was sold this idea of Khomeini being a Gandhi figure in Iran 😆

Khomeini turned around and rebuked the west for their interventionism and sent a strong message that western interventions would not be tolerated. Iran immediately started funding Shia militant groups around the middle east at this point to strengthen their position. During the Iran-Iraq war, the USA supported Saddam Hussein in an effort to bring down the Iranian regime. Which didn't work...

Bill Clinton made some headway in building a better relationship with Iran under its leadership under Khatami. During this period, the US government finally publicly acknowledged its involvement in the 1953 coup. Shortly after 9/11, Iran actually helped the USA in their fight against the Taliban as it was a mutual enemy. However, the IRGC had been undermined the relationship Khatami was building with Clinton by funding regional militias, hence Bush including Iran within his definition of an Axis of Evil. Relations soured during Bush's presidency.

The JCPOA was forged during an era where the Obama administration and Iran under Rouhani made concerted efforts to foster a better relationship. Again, IRGC actions undermined the diplomatic processes however it was the closest Iran and the USA had come to building a better relationship with one another.

Then Trump came along...

The thing is, regardless of whether Iran plays nice or not, its relationship with the west is down to the whims of a few key figures. Generally the pattern has been that Iran has responded better to diplomacy than aggression.

One of the biggest factors against longterm stability (aside from US policy) has been the IRGC.

One tactic to remove power from the IRGC is to help foster an environment where they find it hard to recruit - at the moment it is one of the best paths to social and economic mobility within Iran. It offers salary, housing and benefits that are virtually unmatched by the private sector within iran. Its other appeal is a strong sense of nationalism and social status (many leaders within iran had a background working in the IRGC). Now imagine a world where sanctions are less severe in Iran, the private sector has more wealth, private companies are able to offer salaries, compensation and benefits that are either on par or exceed what the IRGC is offering and in return you don't have to risk your life or independence - suddenly the IRGC would find it much harder to recruit.

Also bear in mind that the majority of people in Iran have repeatedly voted for progressive candidates and are not backing hardliners. I don't think the average Iranian citizen would want to join the IRGC if alternative stable economic routes were available.

I strongly believe that the best way to remove power from the IRGC is to build stronger relationships with progressive figures within the Iranian regime such as Khatami, Rouhani and Pezeshkian and to lift economic sanctions. Over time, the need for a body such as the IRGC and the appetite for it would erode.

What is most definitely not working is Trump's current "negotiating" approach. Launching a war shortly after a series of negotiations where Iran was willing to make concessions and was negotiating in good faith was an awful move. Being under attack often brings countrymen closer together, it invokes a greater sense of nationalism...and oops there we've gone and made recruitment into the IRGC easier haven't we? D'oh!

Let's also not forget that the assault on the children's school was a double tap attack and that those missiles are equipped with cameras to ensure the targets are correct and that they won't cause undue civilian harm. A person reviewed the footage from the first missile, saw that it was a school (or at the very least not an active military facility) and sanctioned a second hit to kill the survivors and rescuers. These are obviously the acts of a nice country that obviously wouldn't be forever looking for opportunities to line its own pockets...

Something often heard about the Mao era in the PRC is "It was better then, because when we were all poor we had to work together for the small things. We had more community. Now there are all these rich selfish people and it's no good"

Old coalface cadres are the folk saying that. Because in the Mao era, even the lowest party cadres had substantial power over day to day life. Want some chickens for a wedding meal ? Talk to the cadre. Sick child and need a doctor ? Cadre.

Authoritarian systems thrive on poverty. Because people depend on the system. For everything from housing and jobs, all the way to food and medicine. The Church is a great example.

And Trump thinks he can cause the collapse of the Iranian government by piling even more hardship on the Iranian people ? He is a total clown. He is reinforcing the regime.

Nowadays in the PRC, ordinary civil service jobs are filled by non Party members. There is no shortage of party members. But they no longer want government jobs. The ideology is slipping. For sure, leadership is party only. But nowadays the questions about stupid rules are reaching the party leaders from the employees below them. And the stupid rules are slowly changing. For day to day living, the Party becomes more irrelevant to ordinary people.

So yup @AgingLikeGazpacho . I agree with what you are saying.

@AgingLikeGazpacho that coup you’re talking about was in 1953.

We are in different times now and whatever the mistakes of the past, the IRGC are not a regime that can be trusted to develop nuclear weapons. Most if not all Western countries are agreed on this.

As if the west doesn't still stage coups or incite unrest to topple governments?

You are also making an assumption that Iran was going to make nuclear weapons / use them. Up until this current war numerous experts had declared that Iran was not close to producing a real nuclear weapon - in fact, prior to Khamenei's assassination it even had a fatwa against usage of nuclear weapons. During the February negotiations they were also agreeing to dilute their enriched uranium. You're just peddling Trump and Netanyahu's narrative at this point

I didn’t say that, I was talking specifically about the coup in Iran. I don’t accept the justification of using what happened decades ago to justify lifting sanctions on a country that behaves despicably today due to their terrorist leaders.

The IRGC need to be overthrown to have any chance of peace in the Middle East and that can only be done from within. The protests back in January 2026 were triggered by economic hardship so in that sense, sanctions are working to make people in Iran aware that the IRGC model of ruling Iran isn’t working.

Economic sanctions are a more peaceful alternative to war but you seem to be against both. Do you also think Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons if they want to, maybe because other countries have them?

@AgingLikeGazpacho thanks for that post some.really intersting points

Intereeting about the irg receuitment and the benefits it brings.

My only diversion would be that in all that time Iran has clearly got nuclear ambitions and clearly somerhng very suspect has been going on during all these other years of getting closer

It' makes sense for iran to want nukes.
The regime and the peoples relationship didn't seem to be easing at all .

Indeed. History is very important to revolutions. And states born from revolution. Just ask anyone what happened in 1776.

Revolution is their entire reason for being. And people are not allowed to forget it. Even when the revolutionary regime become very similar to the one they revolted against.

It’s strange that the nuclear weapons issue has become the main sticking point in negotiations, if the IRGC don’t want to develop them?

They just want the enriched uranium for civilian use right but whoops suddenly it got to 60%. It’s a very obvious lie or they would be conceding on that issue and being firm on others like getting the economic sanctions lifted in exchange for conceding to US demands on the uranium etc.