Iran included Lebanon in a proposal transmitted to the United States to end the war and reopen the Strait of Ormuz. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told New York that Tehran could reopen this strategic maritime route within seven days if its conditions were met. Among them is a cessation of hostilities on the various fronts of the Middle East, including Lebanon. The proposal thus directly associates Israeli operations on Lebanese territory with the negotiations between Washington and Tehran, while the Lebanese authorities are at the same time seeking a settlement in the South.
Lebanon now appears explicitly under Iranian conditions for an exit from the crisis with the United States. Present in New York on the occasion of the United Nations General Assembly, Abbas Araghchi detailed a plan, according to him, to put an end to the hostilities and reopen the Strait of Ormuz within seven days.
» If certain conditions are met, the Strait will be opened within seven days and discussions will begin, » said the Iranian Foreign Minister to several international media.
The project, however, does not only concern relations between Washington and Tehran. One of Iran’s demands is for a cessation of hostilities in the region. Lebanon is one of the fronts explicitly concerned.
This condition gives the Lebanese case a place in a negotiation which, however, has an immediate stake more than 2,000 kilometres away: the Ormuz Strait, a maritime passage essential to the Gulf’s energy exports and which has become one of Iran’s main means of pressure in its confrontation with the United States.
Iran calls for cessation of hostilities in Lebanon
According to evidence from Abbas Araghchi in New York, the Iranian plan envisages a cessation of hostilities on the various regional fronts during the period leading to the reopening of the Strait.
Lebanon is directly included in this requirement.
In the current discussions, this reference refers to Israeli military operations in Lebanon and is part of a broader Iranian demand to stop fighting in the various theatres of regional confrontation.
Iranian officials had already linked the issue of the Strait of Ormuz to Israeli operations in Lebanon in recent months. The position presented this week in New York further formalizes this link by integrating into the conditions submitted to Washington.
The Iranian Minister states that, should the requested commitments be implemented, Tehran would be ready to reopen the Strait on the seventh day and enter into discussions with the United States.
The proposal therefore places Lebanon in a much broader diplomatic package. Israeli operations on its territory became, in Tehran’s position, one of the elements to be resolved in order to allow for a de-escalation between Iran and the United States.
Seven days to reopen the Strait of Ormuz
Tehran’s timetable is particularly short.
Iran proposes a seven-day sequence during which conditions in the United States should be applied. At the end of this period, the Strait of Ormuz would be reopened.
This proposal had begun to circulate earlier this week. The Japanese agency Kyodo reported, quoting a senior Iranian official, that Tehran had proposed a mechanism to reopen the Strait in the United States within a week.
The Iranian media initially challenged certain information about the proposal, without the Tehran authorities immediately clarifying the entire scheme.
The statements made since then in New York by Abbas Araghchi clarify some of them. The head of Iranian diplomacy confirms the existence of a plan and conditions the reopening of Ormuz with American and regional measures.
However, caution is still needed on the exact details of the conditions. Several versions of the plan circulated and not all Iranian officials publicly presented an identical list.
However, one point appears on a recurring basis: Tehran wants de-escalation to go beyond the Iranian-American face-to-face.
Waiver of sanctions and $12 billion in frozen assets
Iranian demands also have a major economic component.
According to the conditions outlined by Abbas Araghchi, Washington should allow the release of Iranian assets frozen abroad. Their amount is estimated at at least $12 billion in this week’s proposal.
Tehran also calls for easing or lifting sanctions against its oil exports.
This requirement is central to the Iranian economy. Oil remains a major source of revenue for the country, while US sanctions limit its access to the international financial system and complicate its commercial transactions.
Iran also calls for an end to the American naval blockade on its maritime activities.
These conditions allow us to understand why Tehran is associating the reopening of Ormuz with a broader political settlement. The control of the sea passage is one of its main levers in the confrontation with Washington.
Iran proposes to give up this lever in exchange for military, economic and diplomatic measures.
Araghchi met Steve Witkoff in New York
Proposals are not only circulated through public statements.
Abbas Araghchi met this week in New York Steve Witkoff, the emissary of US President Donald Trump. Discussions included the Iranian conditions, the reopening of the Strait of Ormuz and the possibility of resuming dialogue.
The meeting took place while the two countries remained engaged in a military confrontation, despite several attempts to mediate since the beginning of the year.
Araghchi now says he is waiting for an American response.
At the same time, Iranian officials indicated that Washington had a few days to decide on the conditions transmitted by Tehran. The secretary of the Iranian Supreme Security Council, Mohsen Rezaei, said that the requests should be fully implemented.
According to this position, Iran no longer wishes to open a new negotiation on the list of conditions before they are implemented. Tehran is now demanding action from Washington.
The US side was more cautious. Secretary of State Marco Rubio refused to present the New York exchanges as a major diplomatic breakthrough, while keeping open the possibility of discussions.
Why Lebanon finds itself in the negotiations on Ormuz
Lebanon’s appearance in this negotiation is not due to the strait itself. It stems from the way Iran has been presenting regional war for several months.
Tehran considers the various theatres of confrontation to be linked. Thus, a truce with the United States could not, according to this position, be sustainable if operations continued simultaneously in Lebanon or on other fronts.
This approach had already produced concrete consequences in the spring and early summer.
The discussions between Washington and Tehran included references to the cessation of hostilities in Lebanon. In June, Iran again accused the United States of failing to honour its commitments because of the continued Israeli operations on Lebanese territory.
The Lebanese case therefore does not appear for the first time in the Iranian-American trade. What changes this week is its explicit integration into a proposed mechanism to get the rapid reopening of Ormuz.
For Lebanon, this development is important because it further internationalizes a case that Beirut is seeking to place under its own control.
Beirut is also seeking its own settlement in the South
The Iranian proposal comes as the Lebanese authorities follow a separate diplomatic approach.
President Joseph Aoun and the government of Nawaf Salam are seeking the end of Israeli operations, the withdrawal of Israel from the positions still occupied and the return of the inhabitants to the border areas.
At the same time, they defend the extension of State authority throughout Lebanon and the monopoly of arms by Lebanese institutions.
Again this week, Joseph Aoun told soldiers that the weapons of the Lebanese army were « the only legitimate weapons ». However, the president stressed the need for the army to maintain the confidence of all Lebanese and to protect all citizens.
Hezbollah and the Amal movement said on Friday that they were not opposed to a « political solution » in South Lebanon.
MP Hassan Fadllallah claimed that the two formations were open to indirect negotiations if they allowed for the liberation of the territory, the return of the inhabitants and the reconstruction.
These positions show that several diplomatic channels are simultaneously evolving around the South Lebanon.
On the one hand, Beirut is seeking a settlement in which the state and the army would regain full control of the territory. On the other hand, Tehran now includes the cessation of hostilities in Lebanon as part of its own strategic negotiation with Washington.
The June precedent
The situation recalls the discussions held a few months earlier.
In June, the United States and Iran had signed a memorandum to end their war, reopen the Strait of Ormuz and launch discussions on Iran’s nuclear programme.
However, the agreement had not produced a lasting settlement.
Tensions had quickly returned to the Strait. In particular, Iran had fired at commercial vessels which it accused of not complying with the waterways and licensing procedures imposed by Tehran.
The United States had responded with one-off strikes against Iranian coastal areas.
The strait has since remained at the centre of the balance of power.
This experience also explains Iran’s current desire to obtain guarantees on several fronts before abandoning its main means of maritime pressure.
Ormuz, a global issue
The Strait of Ormuz gives negotiation a dimension far beyond the Middle East.
This narrow seaway between Iran and Oman connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Indian Ocean. A major part of the oil and gas exported by Gulf producers is transported there.
Any disruption of shipping therefore quickly affects energy markets, shipping costs and insurance premiums.
The closure or restriction of the passage does not only affect the United States and Iran. It directly concerns Gulf producers and major energy importing economies in Asia and Europe.
This dimension explains the involvement of several powers in diplomatic efforts.
Abbas Araghchi states in particular that China supports the Iranian plan. Beijing has a major interest in the stability of energy supplies in the Gulf.
Chinese President Xi Jinping is also in the United States this week for discussions with Donald Trump, adding a potential diplomatic channel to the ongoing discussions.
Yemen also integrated into Iranian applications
Lebanon is not the only regional front mentioned in Tehran’s demands.
Hossein Mohebi, spokesman for the Revolutionary Guards, said that ending hostilities in Yemen was also one of Iran’s demands.
This issue is directly related to maritime safety. The Houthis control Yemen’s areas of access to the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, another essential crossing for trade between the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea and the Suez Canal.
Iranian military officials warned that a continuation of escalation could also affect this passage.
Tehran’s defence therefore combines two of the region’s most strategic maritime routes with a more general cessation of hostilities.
Washington must now answer
The Trump administration has not yet publicly accepted Iranian conditions. Nor did the New York trade lead to the announcement of a new agreement.
The proposal must therefore take several steps before it can produce a ceasefire in Lebanon.
First, Washington should accept the conditions or reach a compromise with Tehran. Then the question of their application by Israel would arise, since the cessation of operations in Lebanon does not depend solely on the United States.
The Iranian formulation therefore does not mean that a Lebanese ceasefire is acquired within seven days. It means that Tehran now makes it a condition of its offer in Washington.
This distinction is essential as several versions of the plan circulate and negotiations continue.
For Beirut, development once again places Lebanon at the intersection of two processes: its own discussions on Israeli withdrawal, southern control and Hezbollah weapons, and much broader negotiations between Washington and Tehran.
The US response to Abbas Araghchi’s plan will now determine whether this proposal will remain a list of Iranian conditions or whether it will become the basis for a new round of negotiations in which the ceasefire in Lebanon would be one of the elements of the regional settlement.
