IRGC Says War Can End If US Halts Threats and Meets Iran’s Demands

IRGC Says War Can End If US Halts Threats and Meets Iran’s Demands

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has said that the conflict between Iran and the United States could come to an end if Washington stops what Tehran describes as threats and agrees to Iran’s demands. The statement comes amid continuing tensions between the two countries and renewed discussions over the conditions required for an end to hostilities.

Iranian officials have repeatedly stressed that any settlement must address what they consider to be the underlying causes of the conflict. The IRGC’s position reflects Tehran’s broader argument that military pressure and threats cannot produce a lasting agreement and that Washington must change its approach if it wants the fighting to end.

The latest remarks are part of a wider diplomatic and military confrontation involving Iran, the United States and other regional actors. The conflict has also raised concerns about regional stability, energy supplies, shipping routes and the possibility of further escalation.

IRGC’s Position

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is one of Iran’s most important military and security institutions. Its statements are closely watched because the organisation has a major role in Iran’s national security policy and regional military posture.

According to recent reporting, Iranian officials and IRGC advisers have maintained that Tehran is prepared to continue resisting US pressure until its demands are addressed. Al Jazeera reported in August that IRGC advisers said Iran remained defiant and was prepared to continue the confrontation until its conditions were met.

The latest message that the war could end if the United States stops threats and meets Iran’s demands therefore represents a continuation of Iran’s broader negotiating position.

Tehran has sought to present an end to the conflict not simply as a temporary pause in fighting but as a settlement involving guarantees and changes in US policy.

Iran’s Demand for an End to Threats

A central element of Iran’s position is its demand that the United States stop threatening further military action.

Iranian officials have argued that negotiations cannot succeed while one side continues to issue military threats. From Tehran’s perspective, diplomatic discussions require an environment in which both sides can negotiate without facing immediate pressure to accept an agreement.

The United States, meanwhile, has continued to link an end to the conflict with its own security objectives, including concerns about Iran’s nuclear capabilities and regional military activities.

This difference in priorities has made negotiations difficult.

For Iran, the emphasis is on ending what it views as aggression and obtaining guarantees against renewed attacks. For Washington, the emphasis has included preventing Iran from developing capabilities that the United States considers a security threat and ensuring freedom of navigation through strategically important waterways.

The Broader Iran-US Conflict

Relations between Iran and the United States have been tense for decades, but the current confrontation has brought the two countries into a particularly dangerous period.

Military pressure, economic sanctions, regional alliances and diplomatic negotiations have all become part of the wider dispute.

The conflict is not limited to direct relations between Washington and Tehran. It has implications for countries across the Middle East because Iran has relationships with regional groups and because US forces and allies are present throughout the region.

This means that any escalation between Iran and the United States can have consequences beyond the two countries.

Regional governments have an interest in preventing the conflict from spreading, particularly because wider instability could affect energy infrastructure, commercial shipping and economic activity.

Strait of Hormuz

One of the most important issues connected to the conflict is the Strait of Hormuz.

The waterway is strategically important because a large share of global energy shipments passes through or near the region. Any disruption can affect oil markets and international trade.

Iran has repeatedly linked the future of the Strait to its broader negotiations with the United States. Recent reporting has indicated that Tehran has demanded that Washington meet specific conditions before agreeing to reopen the waterway fully.

The United States has also made freedom of navigation through the Strait an important element of its position.

This creates another major obstacle to negotiations because the two sides view the issue through very different security perspectives.

For Iran, control over access to the Strait can be used as strategic leverage. For the United States and many other countries, uninterrupted navigation is considered essential to international commerce.

Diplomatic Efforts

Despite the military confrontation, diplomatic efforts have continued.

The possibility of negotiations has remained an important part of discussions between Iran and the United States. Regional countries, including Pakistan and Gulf states, have shown interest in helping reduce tensions.

Earlier in the conflict, Pakistan was reported to have played a role in communication efforts between the two sides. Reports also indicated that proposals for ceasefires and longer-term arrangements were being discussed.

However, reaching an agreement has been difficult because each side has different expectations about what should happen first.

Iran has called for an end to attacks and threats, while the United States has sought commitments related to Iran’s nuclear programme, regional activities and freedom of navigation.

Iran’s Conditions

Iran has indicated that it wants any settlement to address several issues.

Among the conditions discussed in previous negotiations have been an end to military attacks, guarantees against renewed aggression, changes to sanctions and arrangements concerning regional security.

CBS News reported in April that Iran had rejected a US 15-point proposal and presented its own terms. Those reported terms included an end to regional conflicts, arrangements concerning the Strait of Hormuz and reconstruction of damaged infrastructure, along with sanctions relief.

These positions show why negotiations have been complicated.

A ceasefire can stop immediate fighting, but a permanent agreement requires the two sides to agree on what happens afterward.

US Position

Washington has presented its own conditions for ending the conflict.

US officials have focused on limiting Iran’s nuclear capabilities and addressing what Washington considers threats to American forces and regional allies.

The United States has also emphasised the importance of reopening the Strait of Hormuz and maintaining international shipping.

Reuters reported in August that President Donald Trump said the United States would hold off on a fresh attack on Iran if a deal could be reached quickly concerning Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the reopening of the Strait.

This demonstrates the contrast between the two sides.

Iran says the US must stop threats and meet Iranian demands, while Washington says Iran must address American security concerns.

Why a Settlement Is Difficult

The central difficulty is that neither side wants to appear to be surrendering to the other.

For Iran, accepting an agreement under direct military pressure could be portrayed domestically as a major concession.

For the United States, agreeing to Iranian demands without obtaining commitments on nuclear and regional issues could face political opposition.

This creates a situation in which both sides may be interested in ending the conflict but disagree strongly about the terms.

A successful agreement would therefore require compromise.

Risk of Further Escalation

The longer the confrontation continues, the greater the risk that an isolated incident could lead to a broader escalation.

Military movements, attacks on infrastructure or incidents involving commercial shipping could increase tensions quickly.

This is one reason regional governments have encouraged diplomacy.

A wider conflict could have consequences for countries that are not directly involved in the dispute.

Energy markets could be affected, shipping costs could rise and regional economies could face additional pressure.

Economic Consequences

The Iran-US confrontation has significant economic implications.

Oil prices can respond quickly to developments involving the Middle East, particularly when major shipping routes are at risk.

Businesses that depend on energy imports or international transportation may face higher costs if the conflict disrupts supply chains.

Iran itself has also faced substantial economic pressure from sanctions and the costs associated with prolonged conflict.

For the United States and its allies, maintaining military operations in the region also carries significant financial and strategic costs.

This means that there are economic incentives for both sides to eventually find a diplomatic solution.

Impact on Regional Countries

Countries across the Middle East are closely monitoring developments.

Gulf states in particular have an interest in preventing attacks on energy infrastructure and shipping routes.

A prolonged conflict could place governments in a difficult position because they may want to maintain relations with both Iran and the United States.

Some regional countries have therefore attempted to support dialogue and reduce tensions.

Their role could become increasingly important if direct negotiations between Tehran and Washington remain difficult.

Pakistan’s Role

Pakistan has particular reasons to support de-escalation.

Pakistan shares a border with Iran and therefore has a direct interest in regional stability.

Islamabad has previously expressed concern about regional conflicts and supported diplomatic efforts to prevent escalation.

A peaceful resolution between Iran and the United States would reduce the risks facing neighbouring countries and could also protect regional trade.

Pakistan’s geographical position gives it an opportunity to act as a communication channel, although the success of any mediation effort ultimately depends on whether the main parties are willing to compromise.

The Nuclear Issue

Iran’s nuclear programme remains one of the most important sources of disagreement between Tehran and Washington.

The United States has repeatedly expressed concern that Iran could develop nuclear weapons capability.

Iran has maintained that its nuclear activities are intended for peaceful purposes, while continuing to resist restrictions that it considers unfair.

Any long-term agreement would therefore likely need to address the nuclear issue.

The challenge is finding a system of verification and guarantees that both sides consider credible.

The Importance of Guarantees

One of Iran’s concerns is whether an agreement would survive changes in US policy.

Iran has argued that previous diplomatic arrangements did not provide sufficient guarantees against future pressure.

From Tehran’s perspective, a new agreement would need mechanisms that make it difficult for the United States to simply reverse its commitments.

Washington, however, has its own concerns about whether Iran would comply with any restrictions it accepts.

This mutual distrust is one of the biggest barriers to a lasting settlement.

Possibility of a Ceasefire

A temporary ceasefire could provide an opportunity for broader negotiations.

A ceasefire would reduce immediate military pressure and create space for diplomats to discuss difficult issues.

However, a ceasefire alone would not necessarily resolve the underlying dispute.

Both sides would still need to determine how to address sanctions, nuclear activities, military threats, regional security and the Strait of Hormuz.

The longer-term objective would therefore be a comprehensive settlement rather than simply a pause in fighting.

International Concerns

The international community has a strong interest in preventing a wider regional war.

European governments, Asian countries and major energy-importing states could all be affected by prolonged instability.

International organisations and diplomatic partners may therefore encourage both Tehran and Washington to pursue negotiations.

The possibility of escalation has also raised concerns about civilian safety and damage to critical infrastructure.

Any future settlement would ideally need to reduce the risk of further attacks and establish mechanisms for resolving disagreements peacefully.

What the IRGC Statement Means

The IRGC’s latest message can be interpreted as a signal that Iran is not rejecting the possibility of an end to the conflict.

Instead, Tehran is presenting conditions that it believes must be met before fighting can stop.

This distinction is important.

The statement does not necessarily mean that an immediate ceasefire agreement has been reached. Rather, it indicates Iran’s position on what would be required for the conflict to end.

The United States would need to decide whether it is prepared to address those conditions while protecting its own stated security interests.

Prospects for Diplomacy

Diplomacy remains possible despite the significant differences between the two sides.

The fact that both Iran and the United States have continued to discuss potential agreements suggests that neither side can completely ignore the possibility of negotiation.

The key question is whether they can find common ground.

A potential agreement could involve phased steps rather than one comprehensive deal.

For example, an initial reduction in military activity could be followed by negotiations over sanctions, nuclear issues and regional security.

Such an approach could allow both sides to build confidence gradually.

The Road Ahead

The future of the Iran-US conflict will depend on several factors.

These include military developments, diplomatic negotiations, the position of regional countries and the willingness of Tehran and Washington to compromise.

The Strait of Hormuz will remain an important issue because of its economic and strategic significance.

The nuclear question will also remain central to any long-term agreement.

At the same time, the humanitarian and economic costs of continued conflict could increase pressure for diplomacy.

Conclusion

The IRGC’s statement that the war can end if the United States stops threats and meets Iran’s demands highlights the continuing divide between Tehran and Washington over how the conflict should be resolved.

Iran is presenting an end to military pressure as a necessary condition for peace, while the United States has continued to demand commitments addressing its concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme, regional security and freedom of navigation.

Recent reporting shows that Iran has remained publicly defiant while also keeping the possibility of negotiations open.

The conflict has consequences far beyond Iran and the United States. It affects neighbouring countries, global energy markets, international shipping and the wider security environment of the Middle East.

A lasting settlement would require both sides to address their core concerns and establish a framework that can survive political changes.

For now, the IRGC statement indicates that Tehran sees an end to US threats and acceptance of Iranian conditions as central to ending the war.

Whether Washington is willing to accept those conditions remains a major question.

The coming diplomatic discussions will therefore be critical. If both sides can move away from threats and toward structured negotiations, the possibility of de-escalation could increase.

If diplomacy fails, however, the region could remain vulnerable to further confrontation.

The immediate priority for the international community is therefore to encourage dialogue, reduce the risk of escalation and support efforts aimed at achieving a sustainable political settlement.