NextFin News - Former Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has proposed a sweeping bilateral "reset" with the United States to end the current regional conflict, offering to down-blend Iran’s highly enriched uranium and reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for the total lifting of economic sanctions. The proposal, detailed in a series of high-profile interviews on April 3, 2026, comes as U.S. and Israeli forces continue to strike targets inside Iran following the February 28 escalation that decimated much of Tehran’s senior leadership. While Zarif frames the offer as a pragmatic path to stability, the plan has met immediate and fierce resistance from Gulf Arab states, who argue that any deal excluding their security concerns would leave them vulnerable to future Iranian aggression.
The terms laid out by Zarif represent a significant shift in Tehran’s diplomatic posture, though he maintains that Iran remains "clearly winning" the broader war of attrition. According to reports from Fox 13 News and Foreign Policy, Zarif’s blueprint involves Iran placing strict, verifiable limits on its nuclear program—a concession Washington has sought for years—while restoring the flow of global energy through the world’s most critical maritime chokepoint. For a global economy reeling from an oil crisis and the closure of the Strait, the prospect of a maritime reopening is a powerful incentive. However, the proposal is strictly bilateral, focusing on the U.S.-Iran relationship while largely ignoring the regional grievances of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait.
Zarif, who served as Iran’s top diplomat during the negotiation of the 2015 nuclear deal, has long been viewed as the "moderate" face of the Islamic Republic’s foreign policy. His current stance is consistent with his career-long effort to bypass regional rivals and deal directly with Washington to secure sanctions relief. However, his influence within the current, fragmented Iranian power structure remains a subject of intense debate. Analysts note that while Zarif possesses the international credibility to float such a trial balloon, it is unclear if he has the backing of the remaining hardline elements of the Iranian military or the IRGC, who may view any nuclear concession as a surrender following the deaths of the Supreme Leader and other top officials in March.
The reaction from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has been one of profound skepticism. On the same day Zarif’s proposal surfaced, Iranian missile strikes reportedly ignited a refinery and damaged a desalination plant in Kuwait, according to Fox 13 News. For the Gulf states, these attacks underscore the reality that Iran’s regional behavior—specifically its missile program and support for proxies—is as much a threat as its nuclear ambitions. Gulf officials have signaled that they will not accept a return to the "Obama-era" diplomacy where regional security was sacrificed for a narrow nuclear agreement. They are demanding a "seat at the table" and a "comprehensive" deal that includes limits on Iran’s ballistic missiles and an end to its interference in neighboring states.
From a market perspective, the Zarif proposal is a double-edged sword. The mere mention of reopening the Strait of Hormuz has provided a temporary reprieve for energy futures, which have been trading at record highs since the conflict began. Yet, the exclusion of the Gulf states creates a significant risk of a "spoiler" effect. If Saudi Arabia or the UAE feel abandoned by U.S. President Trump’s administration in favor of a quick exit from the war, the resulting diplomatic rift could destabilize the global energy market even further. The Trump administration now faces a delicate balancing act: the desire to end a costly military engagement versus the necessity of maintaining the "Abraham Accords" spirit and the trust of its primary Arab allies.
The viability of Zarif’s offer also hinges on the internal stability of the United States’ own policy. U.S. President Trump has historically favored "maximum pressure" but has also expressed a desire to avoid "endless wars" in the Middle East. Whether the White House views Zarif as a legitimate interlocutor or a desperate representative of a collapsing regime will determine the next phase of the crisis. For now, the proposal remains a unilateral overture. Without the inclusion of the regional powers that have absorbed the most direct physical and economic damage from the recent fighting, any bilateral "reset" between Washington and Tehran is likely to face a veto from the very allies the U.S. needs to secure a lasting peace.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
