A senior political-security official speaking to Press TV stated that Iran will not accept externally imposed timelines for ending the ongoing conflict and will continue its defensive operations until its stated conditions are fulfilled.

"The Islamic Republic will end the war when it decides to do so and when its own conditions are met,” the official said, emphasizing that Tehran will not allow any foreign leader to dictate the timing of de-escalation.

The official further said Iran has responded negatively to what it described as a U.S.-backed proposal delivered through a regional intermediary, characterizing the initiative as inconsistent with realities on the ground.

According to the official, Washington has been pursuing indirect negotiations through multiple diplomatic channels, offering proposals that Tehran considers detached from battlefield developments.

The source claimed that similar negotiation attempts in 2025 were perceived by Iranian authorities as lacking sincerity. "In previous rounds, there was no genuine intent to engage constructively,” the official said, alleging that those talks were followed by military escalation.

Iran’s assessment, the official added, is that the latest proposal represents continuity in strategy rather than a substantive shift in approach.

Diplomatic observers cited by Diplomat News Network, speaking on condition of attribution, noted that indirect negotiations in such conflicts often rely on intermediaries due to the absence of direct diplomatic relations. One regional analyst said, "Messages passed through third parties are common in high-tension environments, but trust deficits can significantly limit progress.”

The Iranian official outlined five principal conditions that Tehran says must be met before any cessation of hostilities:

1. A complete halt to what it describes as "aggression and assassinations.”

2. The establishment of enforceable mechanisms preventing the recurrence of conflict.

3. Clearly defined guarantees for war reparations and compensation.

4. A comprehensive end to hostilities across all fronts involving allied or aligned regional groups.

5. Recognition of Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz as a legal and strategic imperative.

The official stressed that these conditions build upon earlier positions presented during indirect discussions held in Geneva in early 2025, shortly before renewed escalation involving United States and other regional actors.

"No negotiations will take place prior to acceptance of these terms,” the official added.

In Tehran, government offices and surrounding streets appeared calm on Wednesday, with routine security presence visible near administrative buildings. Traffic flowed steadily, though some residents reported heightened awareness following recent developments.

A local shopkeeper in central Tehran said, "People are متابعة closely what is happening in the news, but daily life continues as usual.” Another resident, a university student, remarked, "There is concern about escalation, but also a sense that negotiations will continue behind the scenes.”

Military-linked sources referenced by officials indicated that Iranian armed responses have included multiple waves of retaliatory actions targeting regional military assets associated with adversaries. While independent verification of operational details remains limited, the scale and frequency of reported exchanges have contributed to elevated regional alert levels.

The current tensions are rooted in a broader geopolitical confrontation involving Iran, the United States, and allied regional actors. Historical disputes over nuclear policy, sanctions, and regional influence have shaped a pattern of indirect negotiations and intermittent escalation.

Iranian authorities maintain that previous rounds of talks were interrupted by military actions, reinforcing skepticism toward renewed diplomatic overtures. The government’s emphasis on sovereignty over strategic waterways, including the Strait of Hormuz, reflects longstanding priorities tied to energy security and maritime control.

International analysts note that the Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world’s most critical shipping corridors, through which a significant portion of global petroleum trade passes. Any disruption in this area could have implications for global markets and regional stability.

The latest rejection of the U.S. proposal highlights persistent mistrust between Tehran and Washington, with both sides maintaining fundamentally different frameworks for negotiation. Iran’s insistence on preconditions suggests a strategy aimed at securing concessions before entering formal talks, while U.S.-led efforts appear focused on achieving a ceasefire through incremental engagement.

From a regional standpoint, the continuation of hostilities and Iran’s stated willingness to sustain defensive operations may prolong instability across multiple fronts involving aligned groups and strategic assets. The emphasis on sovereignty and reparations also indicates that any future agreement would likely require broader international involvement or guarantees.

For regional governments acting as intermediaries, the situation underscores the complexity of facilitating dialogue without direct channels of communication. Mediation efforts remain dependent on aligning expectations between parties that continue to hold divergent interpretations of prior negotiations and current realities.