An Interpretation of Trump's May 10 Rejection of Iran's Reply

On May 10 (local time), Trump stated that Iran’s reply was entirely unacceptable.

• Based on what is currently known, the two proposals appear to share a similar endpoint. Ending the war, normalizing navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, easing sanctions and blockade measures, and addressing remaining issues, including the nuclear issue, through a separate follow-up negotiation framework form the shared axis.

• The previously reported U.S. proposal can be interpreted as placing Iran’s initial action, including the reopening of Hormuz, as a precondition. If Iran first takes an initial de-escalatory step, including reopening Hormuz, follow-up negotiations would then proceed.

• According to publicly available information, Iran’s reply appears to place the cessation of full-scale hostilities first, followed by subsequent negotiations. Trump’s rejection appears to reflect resistance to a structure in which Iran places the cessation of hostilities as the prior condition.

• From the U.S. perspective, Iran’s initial de-escalatory step would create a political and symbolic image through which the effect of pressure could be explained, but if implemented before the cessation of hostilities, it could appear from Iran’s perspective as a unilateral concession.

Therefore, the possibility of agreement between the two countries can be interpreted as being shaped by the political narrative created by the order of implementation.