The first phase involves ending the war and halting all military operations across every front; the second phase addresses issues related to the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions, and Iran’s frozen assets; the third phase formally transitions to negotiations on sanctions and nuclear-related matters; and the fourth phase establishes a monitoring mechanism to ensure compliance by all parties.
New possible frameworks have emerged from U.S.-Iran negotiations.
According to Iranian media reports, a potential understanding currently under discussion between Tehran and Washington would proceed in four phases: the first phase involves ending the war and halting all military operations across all fronts; the second phase addresses issues related to the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions, and Iran’s frozen assets; the third phase formally shifts to negotiations on sanctions and nuclear issues; and the fourth phase establishes a monitoring mechanism to ensure compliance by all parties.
This disclosure indicates that, compared with past nuclear negotiations centered on uranium enrichment levels and verification mechanisms, the current Iranian-proposed framework resembles a 'comprehensive de-escalation agreement' encompassing regional security, energy transit routes, sanctions relief, and nuclear issues.
If this framework ultimately moves forward, it could not only reshape the Middle East’s persistently tense situation but also directly affect international oil prices, safe-haven asset movements, and global market pricing of geopolitical risk.
Iranian media reveals 'four-phase arrangement': ceasefire first, followed by talks on the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions, and nuclear issues
According to a political channel affiliated with Iranian media, the potential understanding between Iran and the U.S. government would be implemented in four phases.
Under this proposal, the core objective of the first phase is 'ending the war and comprehensively halting military operations.'
Iranian media stated that the ceasefire should not be limited solely to Iran and the United States but should extend to 'all involved parties and all fronts,' including Iran, the United States, and the so-called 'axis of resistance.' This implies that the scope of the proposal goes beyond bilateral relations and may also cover regional proxy conflicts, the Red Sea situation, developments in Lebanon, and broader Middle Eastern security issues.
Following the successful implementation of the first phase, the agreement would proceed to the second phase, which entails specific operational arrangements.
According to the aforementioned Iranian media outlet, the second phase must address four key issues:
The Strait of Hormuz and related institutional mechanisms;
Lifting the U.S. maritime blockade on Iran;
Removal of oil-related restrictions and sanctions;
Partial release of Iran’s frozen assets and resources.
The third phase formally shifts to negotiations on existing U.S. sanctions against Iran and the Iranian nuclear issue.
According to Iranian media reports, after the completion of “objective and verifiable measures,” parties will commence broader negotiations on sanctions and formal discussions regarding Iran’s nuclear dossier.
The fourth phase involves establishing a monitoring mechanism.
Per Iranian media reports, the parties will establish a dedicated committee to oversee implementation of the agreement and fulfillment of commitments. Committee membership has not yet been finalized, but Iran is seeking to include “friendly countries with aligned positions” in this mechanism to provide political support for implementation.
Notably, this framework currently originates from disclosures by Iranian media and has not been officially released by the U.S. side; there has been no public confirmation from Washington to date.
Shifting from “nuclear talks first” to “de-escalation first”: Is the logic of U.S.-Iran negotiations changing?
If the aforementioned framework holds true, its most significant change lies in a clear adjustment to the negotiation sequence.
In the past, whether under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) model or in subsequent rounds of talks aimed at reviving the agreement, U.S.-Iran discussions typically centered on technical issues such as nuclear activities, uranium enrichment limits, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections, and sanctions relief.
However, the pathway disclosed by Iranian media this Wednesday reflects a different logic: addressing war and regional security first, followed by economic and nuclear issues.
This sequencing is closely tied to the recent context of U.S.-Iran negotiations.
Over the past several weeks, tensions in the Middle East have remained extremely high: Iran, the United States, and Israel have repeatedly clashed over the Iranian nuclear issue, regional proxy networks, and military operations; the Strait of Hormuz has temporarily become a focal point for global energy markets; and concerns about blockade risks, shipping safety, and oil price shocks have continued to intensify.
Against this backdrop, Tehran clearly seeks to place 'ending wars on all fronts' at the outset of negotiations, rather than confining talks solely to nuclear technical matters.
This aligns broadly with Iran’s recent public signals.
Previously, according to China Central Television (CCTV) citing Iranian media reports, Abolfazl Zohrevand, a member of Iran’s Parliament Committee on National Security and Foreign Policy, stated that if Iran and the U.S. advance negotiations, 'ending wars on all fronts' should be the primary agenda item.
In other words, Tehran is currently conveying a relatively clear strategic narrative: de-escalate regional conflicts first, then discuss nuclear concessions and sanctions relief.
What this means for the Middle East situation: Hormuz-related risks may become a key observation point.
If the 'four-phase proposal' moves forward, the most immediate impact may stem from the security environment in the Middle East.
First, the 'comprehensive cessation of military operations' proposed in Phase One, if genuinely implemented, would imply that the geopolitical risk premium currently priced into markets could face repricing—particularly regarding the Strait of Hormuz.
According to Iranian media reports, mechanisms related to the Strait of Hormuz have been listed among the core issues to be addressed in the initial agenda of Phase Two.
As one of the world’s most critical energy transit corridors, the Strait of Hormuz handles a significant share of global crude oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments. In recent periods, concerns over Iran potentially blocking the strait, disrupting shipping, or carrying out regional retaliatory actions have been a key driver of oil price volatility.
If negotiations lead to the establishment of some form of maritime security arrangement, transit mechanism, or de facto risk mitigation, tail risks facing international energy markets could decline.
Second, if the agreement progresses into Phases Two and Three, markets will begin reassessing the outlook for Iranian oil supply.
The lifting of oil-related restrictions, partial sanctions relief, and the unfreezing of assets could all be interpreted by investors as potential signals of a resumption in Iranian crude exports.
This is particularly significant for the global crude oil supply-demand balance.
Over the past few years, Iranian crude exports have remained constrained by the U.S. sanctions regime. Should these restrictions ease incrementally in the future, global markets could once again face expectations of additional supply.
Editor/Liam