After nearly two weeks of strikes, Iran’s president posted a short, unusual message on X saying he had spoken with counterparts in Russia and Pakistan and that Iran was committed to peace. More importantly, he listed the conditions Tehran wants for an end to the war.

Pezeshkian’s three conditions

According to his post, Iran says the conflict can stop if the United States and Israel do three things:

  • Recognize Iran’s legitimate rights
  • Pay reparations to Iran for damage caused
  • Offer firm international guarantees that future aggression will not happen

That stance is notable because Tehran had been defiantly rejecting talks in the earliest days of the conflict. So this is a shift. Whether it is a genuine olive branch or carefully worded diplomacy depends on who you ask.

How Tehran can hurt the world economy

One reason Iran has leverage is plain and brutal: oil. The country and its proxies have used asymmetric tactics to cause economic pain beyond the battlefield. Iran has struck back at military targets, hit critical infrastructure and made the Strait of Hormuz a dangerous place to sail.

The strait normally carries about 20 percent of global oil and gas traffic. Attacks and threats have effectively throttled that route, and oil prices jumped from roughly $65 a barrel before the fighting to above $100. Tehran even warned that prices could surge toward $200 if the chokehold continued.

That kind of shock forces governments to think fast. International groups agreed to release emergency oil reserves to blunt the shock, but how much that helps and how fast it will flow are uncertain. Meanwhile, attacks reported near ports in Iraq and at an oil terminal in Oman have prompted some neighbours to suspend operations for safety.

Mixed messages inside Iran

Tehran’s public face is not unified. The political leadership, including the president, has shown signs of diplomacy: an apology was offered to neighbouring states affected by strikes and a conditional promise was made to avoid hitting neighbours if they don’t let the United States use their territory for attacks.

At the same time, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps continues to act and speak like a force with its own agenda, launching attacks and issuing harsh warnings. The IRGC answers to the Supreme National Security Council, which is led by a senior hardline politician. That institutional division makes it hard to know how much the president’s words can actually change military plans on the ground.

What Washington and Jerusalem are saying

Messages from the other side are also inconsistent. The U.S. president said the campaign would end soon and that it could stop whenever he wanted. Israel’s defense minister countered that the campaign would continue without a time limit until objectives are achieved.

The mixed signals reflect competing pressures. U.S. leaders face domestic political fallout, concerns about rising fuel prices and the ever-present cost of advanced munitions. Some advisers want a quick finish; others are framing a longer effort to achieve strategic aims.

The bill so far

The fighting has not been cheap. Official briefings reported multi-billion-dollar expenditures in the opening days. Independent estimates put the daily cost in the hundreds of millions to billions, driven largely by the use of expensive precision weapons and the loss or damage of military hardware.

Beyond direct military spending, global energy markets and regional economies are paying the price. Inflationary pressure, higher fuel costs for households, and disruptions to trade are all part of the toll.

Is an off-ramp in sight?

Short answer: maybe. Tehran’s conditions amount to a clear checklist. If the United States and Israel could credibly accept recognition, provide a reparations framework and secure international guarantees, the president’s statement could be the start of a negotiated pause.

But there are big ifs. The IRGC’s posture, the role of the country’s security council, and the question of who controls the final decisions make any rapid de-escalation uncertain. Economically, Iran also needs oil revenue, so some of its harder threats may be time-limited.

In the end, the shape and timing of any peace will depend on bargaining among multiple players and whether all sides can live with the costs of continuing the war. For now, Pezeshkian’s three demands hand the world a menu. Whether anyone chooses to order from it remains to be seen.