Iranian official calls US demands ‘UNREASONABLE’

U.S. Analysts Warn Iran Is Running Out of Time as Nuclear Talks Stall Over “Unreasonable” Demands

The diplomatic window between Washington and Tehran appeared to narrow sharply Friday as American national security analysts warned that Iran’s refusal to address its nuclear program may leave President Trump with little choice but to resume military strikes.

After weeks of negotiations involving U.S. officials and regional intermediaries, including Qatar and Pakistan, the core dispute remains unresolved: Iran is resisting American demands to give up its highly enriched uranium, end any path toward a nuclear weapon, and reopen the Strait of Hormuz without tolls or restrictions.

Iranian officials have described the U.S. position as unreasonable. But in Washington, the emerging view among several military and foreign-policy hawks is that Tehran is not negotiating in good faith. Instead, they argue, the regime is trying to drag out talks, exploit fears of escalation, and pressure the United States into accepting a weaker deal.

Dr. Rebecca Grant, a national security and military analyst, said Iran has had ample opportunity to move toward a diplomatic solution but has shown little sign of doing so.

“The U.S. and partners like Qatar and Pakistan have tried so hard to move Iran on negotiations,” Grant said. “But I think the fact is Iran only listens to military force.”

Grant argued that U.S. Central Command is already positioned for a renewed campaign if the president gives the order. She pointed to the military posture in the region, including two aircraft carriers, long-range bombers and other assets that could be used to strike Iranian military targets.

Her conclusion was blunt: it may be time to hit Iran again.

That assessment was echoed by Alex Gray, a former National Security Council chief of staff, who said Trump has been careful to preserve a military option while giving diplomacy a chance. Gray said Iran appears to be playing a familiar game — keeping negotiators engaged while avoiding the core concessions required for a real agreement.

“The president has been very smart to leave himself the option to go back to a kinetic option,” Gray said. “Every indication right now is they’re doing the typical Iranian game of stringing along the guy on the other side of the table.”

The phrase “kinetic option” is Washington’s restrained language for military action. In this case, it would likely mean renewed strikes against Iranian military infrastructure, coastal missile positions, naval assets, drone launch sites and facilities tied to the regime’s nuclear or ballistic missile programs.

The administration has not publicly announced a decision to resume strikes. But Secretary of State Marco Rubio has repeatedly made clear that the president’s demands are nonnegotiable: Iran must not obtain a nuclear weapon, the Strait of Hormuz must be reopened without tolls, and Tehran must turn over its highly enriched uranium.

Rubio has also warned that the problem will be solved “one way or the other,” a phrase widely understood as a signal that diplomacy remains preferred but force remains available.

For critics of Iran, the stalemate was predictable.

Retired Navy Commander Kirk Lippold, whose comments were played during the discussion, said the United States is likely headed back to combat operations because Iran will not surrender its nuclear program voluntarily. He argued that Tehran has not only refused to meet American demands but has expanded its own conditions regarding the Strait of Hormuz.

“When you look at all the tea leaves, all the analysis, all the intelligence, it’s a matter of not if, but when the United States is going to recommence combat operations,” Lippold said.

The Strait of Hormuz has become the second major front in the confrontation. The narrow waterway, through which a significant share of global energy trade passes, has long been one of Iran’s most powerful tools of pressure. By threatening vessels, restricting passage or raising the cost of transit, Tehran can unsettle energy markets and force the world to respond.

Now U.S. officials say Iran is attempting something even more provocative: a tolling system.

Rubio accused Tehran of trying to create a system in which ships would have to pay to pass through an international waterway. He said Iran has even tried to persuade Oman to participate in such an arrangement.

“I don’t know of anyone in the world that should be in favor of a tolling system in an international waterway,” Rubio said. “That’s just not acceptable. It can’t happen.”

His warning extended beyond the Persian Gulf. If Iran succeeds in turning the Strait of Hormuz into a toll corridor, Rubio said, other hostile powers or armed groups could try similar tactics in other strategic waterways around the world.

That concern is central to the American position. The United States does not view the Strait of Hormuz dispute as a local maritime disagreement. It sees it as a test of global freedom of navigation. If Iran can profit from threatening a chokepoint, then other actors — from the South China Sea to the Red Sea — may draw the same lesson.

Gray said the Iranian position amounts to a major miscalculation. In his view, Tehran does not understand the administration it is dealing with.

“The idea that President Trump would destroy the Iranian military and, with Israel, destroy these leadership targets over the last several months, and then allow the Strait of Hormuz to be turned into this Iranian lake with a tolling operation — that’s crazy,” Gray said.

He argued that allowing Iran to impose such a system would invite imitation by Russia, China and other adversaries. For that reason, he said, the United States cannot permit it.

The nuclear issue remains even more serious.

A Jerusalem Post headline cited during the discussion reported that there would be “no deal in sight” if the United States insists on discussing the nuclear issue. Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson reportedly indicated that Tehran would not negotiate over its nuclear program, effectively rejecting the very subject Washington considers most important.

For American officials and analysts, that position is untenable. The entire purpose of the pressure campaign is to ensure Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon. Any agreement that leaves the nuclear question unresolved would be politically explosive in Washington and deeply alarming to Israel and Gulf allies.

Grant said the regime’s posture is irrational given the damage Iran has already suffered.

“This regime is out of its mind,” she said. “Obviously, the nuclear issue is job number one.”

She argued that Iran must give up its enriched uranium and accept limits on its nuclear activity. If not, she said, the United States may have no choice but to strike legitimate military targets.

Grant emphasized that any renewed military operation would be calibrated to minimize civilian harm. The likely target set, she said, would involve military positions, coastal emplacements, facilities tied to weapons production and infrastructure used to threaten commercial shipping or U.S. forces.

But she also made clear that, in her judgment, strikes appear increasingly likely.

The strategic logic behind that view is straightforward. If Iran refuses to discuss its nuclear program, insists on maintaining leverage over the Strait of Hormuz, and continues to delay negotiations, then diplomacy may no longer be serving American interests. It may simply be giving Tehran time.

That is the fear now driving hawkish voices in Washington.

They believe Iran is betting that Trump will eventually face enough domestic pressure — from oil prices, market uncertainty, war fatigue and political criticism — to accept a bad deal or settle into a stalemate. Under that scenario, Tehran would survive, retain some leverage, and perhaps even gain sanctions relief without making irreversible concessions.

Trump’s supporters say the president understands that risk. Since 2015, Gray noted, Trump has repeatedly said Iran will not obtain a nuclear weapon on his watch. Gray said Tehran should take that statement seriously.

“If you don’t believe him, you have not been paying attention,” Gray said. “The Iranians are about to find out the hard way that the president says what he means and means what he says.”

The administration’s challenge is balancing pressure with diplomacy. Trump has often said he prefers negotiated solutions, especially if they prevent prolonged wars. But he has also shown a willingness to use military force when he believes American red lines are being tested.

That mix of restraint and threat has defined the current standoff. The United States has allowed regional partners to mediate. It has kept diplomatic channels open. It has given Iran repeated chances to accept terms. At the same time, it has kept military assets in the region and warned that refusal will carry consequences.

The problem is that Iran’s demands appear to be moving in the opposite direction.

Rather than accepting the American framework, Tehran has reportedly called U.S. demands unreasonable, resisted nuclear discussions and sought expanded conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz. To many in Washington, that looks less like negotiation and more like defiance.

The economic stakes are also significant. A disrupted Strait of Hormuz can raise global oil prices, increase shipping costs and put pressure on consumers. Rubio’s warning about tolls reflects a broader fear that Iran could use the waterway not only as a military threat but as an economic weapon.

For American families, the effects could show up in gasoline prices, grocery costs and broader inflationary pressure. For Gulf allies, the risks are even more direct: attacks on tankers, energy infrastructure, ports or military facilities could destabilize the region.

That is why the U.S. military presence matters. Two aircraft carriers and supporting forces are not simply symbolic. They give the president options. They reassure allies. They warn Iran that the next phase could be far more costly if talks collapse.

Still, renewed strikes would carry dangers. Iran could retaliate through proxies, missiles, drones or cyberattacks. It could target U.S. personnel or attempt to disrupt shipping further. Even carefully limited operations can spiral in a region where miscalculation is common.

That is why the administration continues to present diplomacy as the preferred path. But the emphasis is shifting. Diplomacy, officials suggest, cannot become an excuse for endless delay. Negotiations must produce results.

The central question is whether Iran’s leadership believes that.

If Tehran thinks it can outlast Washington, the risk of military action rises. If it believes Trump is prepared to strike again, it may yet make concessions. That is the logic of the pressure campaign: convince Iran that the cost of refusal is higher than the cost of compromise.

For now, the signs are mixed. Talks continue through intermediaries. Rubio has left open the possibility of progress. But Iran’s refusal to discuss the nuclear file, combined with its posture in the Strait of Hormuz, has deepened skepticism.

Grant and Gray both suggested that time is running short. Their message was not that war is inevitable, but that Iran is pushing the United States toward it by rejecting the very terms required for peace.

The next move belongs to Tehran — and then to Trump.

If Iran agrees to address enrichment, surrender highly enriched uranium and reopen the strait without tolls, diplomacy may still produce a breakthrough. If it continues to call those demands unreasonable, Washington may decide that the only language the regime understands is force.

That is the warning now echoing through the debate in Washington: Iran can make a deal, or it can face the consequences of refusing one.