U.S. Seeks Favorable Peace Terms to Contain Iran's Nuclear Ambitions

Criticism of the timing of military action against Iran is fair, but finding a plan to prevent Iran from advancing its nuclear program and threatening regional allies is the priority.

Mar. 29, 2026 at 5:20pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A conceptual, abstract painting featuring overlapping, fragmented geometric shapes in muted tones of green, orange, and blue, representing the complex political and military tensions surrounding Iran's nuclear ambitions.As the U.S. and Iran negotiate an end to their military conflict, the future of Iran's nuclear program and ballistic missile capabilities remains a central point of contention.Annapolis Today

As the war against Iran continues, criticism of how the conflict was launched is understandable, but the focus now must be on securing a peace deal that limits Iran's nuclear program and ballistic missile capabilities without requiring a full-scale ground invasion. The U.S. has transmitted a 15-point proposal to Iran, but many of the demands may be unacceptable without the threat of further military action. Determining the minimum conditions the U.S. is willing to accept, while also deciding what risks it's willing to take, will be crucial in ending the war on favorable terms.

Why it matters

Containing Iran's nuclear ambitions and limiting its ability to threaten regional allies through ballistic missiles and proxy groups remains a top priority for the U.S. The current military campaign is an attempt to force more concessions from Iran than the previous nuclear deal, the JCPOA, but finding the right balance between maximalist demands and acceptable compromises will be key to ending the conflict.

The details

The U.S. recently transmitted a 15-point proposal to Iran outlining the conditions for peace, many of which may be beyond what Iran is willing to accept without the threat of a ground invasion. The most pressing issue is Iran's nuclear program, which was set back considerably by Trump's actions but continues clandestinely. The U.S. will need to decide if it can accept strict limits on uranium enrichment and a robust inspection regime, or if it requires Iran to give up its nuclear enrichment entirely in exchange for sanctions relief.

  • In January, when tens of thousands of Iranians were protesting the regime, was seen as the most effective moment for U.S. intervention.
  • The government's violent crackdown on protests, which resulted in 7,000 deaths, finally ended the latest unrest in Iran.

The players

Donald Trump

The former U.S. president who withdrew from the JCPOA nuclear deal and launched the current military campaign against Iran.

Barack Obama

The former U.S. president who signed the JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran in 2015, facing similar tradeoffs as the current administration.

Colin Pascal

A retired Army lieutenant colonel and senior fellow at the Orion Policy Institute who wrote this opinion piece.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Trump's claim last summer that the program was 'obliterated' was an exaggeration, even though the program was set back considerably.”

— Colin Pascal, Retired Army lieutenant colonel and senior fellow

“Obama decided it was too difficult to tackle each of the issues comprehensively and focused his efforts on slowing Iran's nuclear progression without addressing ballistic missiles or support for proxies.”

— Colin Pascal, Retired Army lieutenant colonel and senior fellow

What’s next

The U.S. will need to carefully analyze its negotiating position and determine the minimum conditions it is willing to accept from Iran in order to end the conflict, while also deciding what risks it is willing to take to achieve those ends.

The takeaway

While criticism of the president's handling of the conflict is fair, the priority now must be finding a path to limit Iran's nuclear program and ballistic missile capabilities without requiring a full-scale ground invasion, which the American people would likely want to avoid.