This week, in Eastern Eight Time, a purported news about "the United States proposing a 15-point ceasefire agreement to Iran" quickly fermented after spreading via Iranian Students’ News Agency and Fars News. The chairman of the Iranian government information committee, Hazrati, promptly responded, directly pointing out that the ceasefire conditions listed by the United States are "desires that the enemy cannot realize through attacks," characterizing this 15-point proposal as yet "another lie" from U.S. President Trump, emphasizing that Iran "does not need to pay attention to it." One party throws out signals for ceasefire talks, while the other publicly denies and rejects, instantly creating intense public opinion tension. The deadlock between the U.S. and Iran continues to pull between war and peace, leaving the international community filled with greater uncertainty regarding the direction of the Middle Eastern situation, the paths of regional security risk diffusion, and the pricing logic of global risk assets in the near future.

Where the Trump fifteen-point proposal originated

Regarding the so-called "Trump's 15-point ceasefire proposal to Iran," the news did not initially come from a formal announcement by the U.S., but was first spread through regional media and social channels before being cited and amplified by local Iranian media. Iranian Students’ News Agency and Fars News mentioned the existence of this proposal in their reports, but did not present a formally confirmed text by both parties, nor was there multi-lateral endorsement, which made it evidently exhibit a clear "one-way leaking" characteristic from the source of information. For the Iranian domestic public opinion, such a proposal resembles more of a tentative signal released through media by the U.S. rather than a formally submitted serious proposal at the negotiation table.

From the Iranian official responses, it is evident that they classify this 15-point proposal as a propaganda tool commonly used by the U.S., rather than a negotiation basis that needs to be studied and discussed point by point. Hazrati directly referred to it as "another lie from Trump," which in itself implies that Tehran chooses to marginalize and symbolize this proposal in the public opinion arena, rather than include it in the main line of policy discussions. Since this news itself has evident information gaps such as "briefing generation failure" and non-verified text content, regarding the specific clauses and details of the so-called 15 points, the outside world can only maintain a high degree of caution to avoid deriving overly detailed political and military scenarios based on unverified materials.

Hazrati's strong rebuttal: This is the enemy's illusion

In the reports from Iranian Students’ News Agency and Fars News, the chairman of the Iranian government information committee Hazrati's statement is quite representative. He pointed out that the claimed ceasefire conditions from the U.S. are essentially "desires that the enemy cannot realize through attacks," which on one hand denies the logic of the U.S. exchanging military pressure for political concessions, and on the other hand narratively categorizes this proposal as "fantasy rather than reality." Through this linguistic framework, Iran describes the conditions proposed by the U.S. as unilateral expectations from the other party, rather than a compromise naturally generated by the comparison of forces and geopolitical patterns between both sides.

Even more pointedly, he defines this 15-point ceasefire proposal as "another lie of Trump," and explicitly states that Iran "does not need to pay attention to it." The phrase "another" is clearly intended to connect with past various U.S.-Iran disputes and the historical narrative of ripping agreements, emphasizing to the domestic audience that the current proposal is not a new situation, but a continuation of the same set of "speaking one way and acting another." This narrative not only provides emotional and historical legitimacy for refusing negotiation, but also shifts the external discourse's initiative from "whether I should accept your conditions" to "I have the right to reject your false statements."

On the domestic political level, this strong rebuttal helps to consolidate the "resistant" and "unyielding" national image, packaging the refusal to accept ceasefire and negotiations as a manifestation of maintaining dignity and principles. In external propaganda, it emphasizes keywords like "enemy's desires" and "lies," painting the U.S. as an unreliable negotiating partner, thus reserving a foundation of public opinion for continuing to adhere to a tough stance and delaying any substantial dialogue. This narrative strategy itself is part of the geopolitical game, responding to the current ceasefire narrative while also pre-setting a position for the next round's conflict rhythm.

Refusal of ceasefire and negotiations: Iran's drawn bottom line

In responding to the so-called 15-point ceasefire agreement, Iran not only denies the proposal itself but also clearly outlines its current bottom line: it will not accept a ceasefire, nor will it enter any negotiation process with the U.S., which it regards as the "violator." The term "violator" refers to the U.S.'s previous withdrawal from existing agreements and the escalation of sanctions. In Iran's rhetoric, this behavior has transcended from a policy choice to a bankruptcy of trust, leading to the conclusion that "negotiating with a repeatedly violating party is illogical."

Iran's claim that negotiating with the U.S. is "illogical" is not merely an emotional expression, but is embedded in its long-term memory of past agreements and sanction experiences. Since the U.S. unilaterally tore up relevant agreements and resumed pressure, the mainstream narrative within Iran has consistently revolved around "the U.S. not keeping its promises and only using negotiations to impose pressure." Therefore, when the so-called ceasefire proposal was thrown out, Iran did not need to dissect the clauses specifically, as it could reject the entire negotiation framework's rationality through the identity label of "violator," packaging the refusal of dialogue as respect for rationality and experience.

It is noteworthy that, on one hand, Iran emphasizes it will not accept a ceasefire and will not negotiate, while on the other hand, it acknowledges that the U.S. is "increasing efforts to promote a ceasefire." This subtle attitude reflects a deliberately maintained strategic ambiguity: firmly refusing to yield in stance, to avoid being seen as softening or being accused of "compromising for peace"; while not completely denying the existence of the U.S.'s mediation in information, reserving room for future adjustments if circumstances change. What is being rejected is the immediate posture of sitting at the negotiation table, but does not entirely shut off the channels of external communication. This combination of "hardness with softness" itself outlines the strategic bottom line drawn by Iran at this moment.

Middle Eastern risk pricing under the misalignment between the U.S. and Iran

From a broader perspective, the core differences between the U.S. and Iran regarding ceasefire, sanctions, and security demands are unlikely to be bridged in the short term. One side emphasizes shaping the other party's behavior through continuous pressure and conditional limits, while the other binds resistance to external pressures with the narrative of maintaining sovereignty, viewing concessions as a weakening of domestic authority and regional influence. The ceasefire is not just the suspension of military actions; it also involves multiple topics such as sanction alleviation, the security of regional allies, and the survival of proxy forces. In the absence of a trust foundation, any single-point breakthrough is very likely to be interpreted by the other party as tactical delay rather than strategic compromise.

This long-term high-pressure standoff will ultimately transmit through oil supply expectations, the safety of key shipping routes, and the risk of regional conflicts overflowing to global asset pricing. Geopolitical tensions in the Middle East often imply an increase in the uncertain premium of energy supply, higher maritime insurance costs, and a reassessment of risks to neighboring oil-producing countries and related infrastructures. When the market finds it difficult to accurately quantify conflict paths, it will typically hedge against "unclear but existent" systemic variables by raising the risk premiums of related assets and increasing the discount weight on potential impacts.

Historically, whenever the Middle Eastern situation suddenly tightens, global markets tend to reassess the allocation ratio of risks and safe-haven assets within a short time. Capital is concerned that escalated conflicts may trigger energy price shocks and a resurgence of inflation expectations, while also seeking safe-haven tools that can remain relatively robust in extreme scenarios. The current misaligned game between the U.S. and Iran regarding the ceasefire and negotiation issues has not yet evolved into uncontrollable extreme conflict, but the continuous and uncertain standoff itself is sufficient for the market to add a thicker layer of "Middle Eastern discount" in medium and long-term asset pricing.

Ceasefire far away? How will the market face suppressed uncertainty

In summary, Iran's clear rejection of the so-called 15-point ceasefire proposal, defining it as "the enemy's desires" and Trump's "another lie," while also emphasizing it will not accept a ceasefire or negotiate with the "violators" (the U.S.), contrasts with the U.S.'s release of various signals promoting a ceasefire through different channels. The significant misalignment in both parties' positions on ceasefire preconditions, sanction pathways, and security guarantees makes it challenging to clarify the prospects of the Middle Eastern situation within a foreseeable timeframe, with the external world only able to hedge against a future filled with uncertainty amid limited information and high noise.

The future paths may swing between several scenarios: one is moving towards limited relaxation through third-party mediation or battlefield realities, forming a sort of de facto cooling without openly acknowledging "negotiations," which can help reduce energy and geopolitical risk premiums temporarily and release some risk appetite; the other is repeated escalation of friction, which may not immediately ignite a full-blown conflict but is sufficient to prompt the market to re-estimate risks in every surge of firepower and intensifying public opinion, creating an environment of high volatility and low certainty in asset pricing. Between these two extremes, there are also more gray areas: superficial stalemates, localized tensions, periodic flashpoints, testing investors' ability to discern between noise and signals.

In an era of highly fragmented information and frequent changes in various parties' game narratives, investors need to establish a robust risk management framework: identifying truly directional turning signals, such as substantive softening of official stance wording and formal involvement of multilateral mechanisms, rather than being emotionally driven by every media "rumor"; meanwhile, maintaining restraint in positioning and risk exposure to allow room for potential tail risks brought by the Middle Eastern situation. Geopolitics will not end in a single piece of news; what genuinely determines asset performance is often those rhythm changes underestimated by the market, rather than the loudest conflict.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX benefit group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefit group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。