Seven weeks into the joint US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, US President Donald Trump has issued a stark ultimatum to Tehran: meet Washington’s preconditions for a negotiated settlement by 8 p.m. Washington local time Tuesday, or face the full obliteration of Iran’s core national infrastructure, including its energy grids, communications networks, and civilian water systems. The escalated rhetoric comes as Iranian officials have repeatedly rejected US overtures, insisting Tehran retains meaningful battlefield leverage and that Washington cannot be trusted to honor any diplomatic agreement.
Trump first laid out the aggressive threat during remarks to reporters at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll on Monday. “We are obliterating that country, and I hate to do it, but we’re obliterating [them] and they just don’t want to say ‘uncle’. They don’t want to cry, as the expression goes, ‘uncle’, but they will. And if they don’t, they’ll have no bridges, they’ll have no power plants, they’ll have no anything,” the president told assembled media.
When a reporter pressed Trump on whether such a deliberate attack on civilian infrastructure would qualify as a war crime under international law, Trump justified the threat by claiming the Iranian government had killed 45,000 people in recent weeks. No independent verification of this claim has been possible; Iranian authorities have reported just under 4,000 total deaths linked to mass anti-government protests that began in January, a figure that includes both civilian protesters and slain police officers. Undeterred by the lack of corroboration, Trump doubled down on his denunciation, calling Iranians “animals” that must be stopped, and falsely claimed that Iranian civilians “want to hear bombs because they want to be free.”
The 1949 Geneva Conventions explicitly ban deliberate attacks on infrastructure that cuts off civilian access to basic survival needs, a provision that would cover the targets Trump threatened to destroy.
Speaking on a virtual panel hosted by the Executive Intelligence Review earlier Monday, Iran’s ambassador to Armenia Khalil Shirgolami pushed back against Washington’s maximalist demands, arguing that Trump’s aggressive approach is fundamentally nonviable. “President Trump had, several times, the chance to find a real solution and political settlement for the nuclear issue of Iran, and at least two times he betrayed diplomacy and he betrayed the negotiating table, and he bombed the negotiation table, actually,” Shirgolami said. “The United States is not in a position in terms of the battlefield operation to be putting all those preconditions.”
Shirgolami’s remarks referenced Washington’s previously proposed 15-point peace framework, which was transmitted to Tehran via Pakistani intermediaries last month. The US proposal is reported to require Iran to completely end all uranium enrichment activities and fully dismantle its domestic missile program, demands Iran has repeatedly rejected.
Pakistan, which has mediated quiet backchannel talks between the two sides, presented a new tentative peace framework dubbed the “Islamabad Accords” to both Washington and Tehran on Monday. The new proposal outlines a two-stage process: it calls for an immediate ceasefire first, followed by negotiations to finalize a full comprehensive agreement within a 15 to 20-day window. Shirgolami confirmed that Iran rejects a standalone temporary ceasefire, instead demanding a permanent end to all US and Israeli aggression, the establishment of a joint international mechanism to secure unimpeded trade passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and full compensation for all damage and losses caused by the ongoing conflict.
Prior to Trump’s press conference at the Easter Egg Roll, Shirgolami noted that Iran’s strategic approach to negotiations is rooted in the proverb “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” explaining that Washington has repeatedly broken past commitments, so it cannot be trusted without ironclad guarantees. “We need to go for a new equation, in which I mean, in that equation, there will be real guarantees for non-aggression against Iran, for preserving Iran’s rights, for the nuclear, peaceful energy and enrichment,” he added.
During Monday’s Easter event, Trump also told reporters that if his policy decisions were not constrained by the will of the American public, he would simply seize Iran’s oil reserves for US profit. “It’s there for the taking. There’s not a thing they can do about it. Unfortunately, the American people would like to see us come home. If it were up to me, I’d take the oil. I’d keep the oil and would make plenty of money,” he said. When pressed on the comment later in the White House briefing room, Trump defended the framing by noting “I’m a businessman first.”
Expanding on his vision for a post-deal settlement, Trump also floated the idea of the US seizing full control of the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant share of global oil trade passes. When a reporter asked if Trump would accept ending the conflict in exchange for the right to charge tolls for vessels passing through the Strait, Trump responded: “What about us charging? I’d rather do that than let them [or] have them run it. Why shouldn’t we? We’re the winner. We won. Okay? They are militarily defeated.”
Currently, the Strait of Hormuz remains operational under Iranian control, which operates a three-tiered access system: vessels from countries friendly to Iran are granted free routine passage, vessels from neutral countries that pay a fee denominated in Chinese yuan are also allowed through, but all ships linked to the US and Israel are barred from transiting. Trump reiterated Monday that any final deal must guarantee unimpeded, free passage for all global oil and commercial traffic through the waterway.
When asked about the newly proposed Islamabad Accords ceasefire framework, Trump told reporters he “can’t talk about the ceasefire” but claimed “we have a willing participant on the other side” referring to Iran. That claim directly contradicts Shirgolami’s confirmation that Iran rejects any temporary ceasefire proposal that does not include pre-agreed commitments to end aggression permanently and provide security guarantees.