IRGC Says War Can End If US Halts Threats and Meets Iran’s Demand

IRGC Says War Can End If US Halts Threats and Meets Iran’s Demands

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has said that the ongoing conflict with the United States could come to an end if Washington stops threatening Tehran and agrees to a series of conditions presented by Iran. The statement, reported on September 9, 2026, comes at a time when tensions between the two countries remain extremely high and military confrontations have continued across the wider Middle East.

According to IRGC spokesman Hossein Mohebi, Iran wants the United States to completely stop the war, refrain from renewed threats and address several political, military and economic issues. Among the conditions mentioned by the IRGC are the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon, an end to the blockade of Yemen, the release of $24 billion in Iranian frozen assets, and an end to what Tehran describes as interference in Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities.

The statement is significant because it lays out a possible Iranian framework for ending the conflict. However, the demands also highlight the wide gap between Tehran and Washington, making any immediate agreement difficult.

Iran Calls for an End to US Threats

One of the central points in the IRGC statement is Iran’s demand that the United States stop making threats against the country.

Tehran has repeatedly argued that a sustainable settlement cannot be achieved while Washington maintains military pressure and continues to threaten further action. From Iran’s perspective, ending military operations and preventing renewed attacks would be essential before broader negotiations could make meaningful progress.

The IRGC’s latest statement therefore places security guarantees and an end to threats at the centre of Iran’s position. Tehran wants assurances that an agreement would not simply be followed by another round of military pressure.

This demand reflects a wider Iranian concern about trust. Years of confrontation, sanctions and disputes over Iran’s nuclear programme have created deep suspicion between the two governments. As a result, any future agreement would likely require mechanisms that both sides believe can prevent a new escalation.

Iran’s Demand Concerning Israel and Lebanon

Another major condition mentioned by the IRGC is the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.

The issue adds another layer of complexity to the US-Iran confrontation because it connects the conflict directly to developments elsewhere in the Middle East. Iran has strong regional interests and has repeatedly opposed Israeli military activity in areas where Tehran maintains political and strategic relationships.

Israel, however, has its own security concerns and has previously insisted on measures aimed at limiting the capabilities of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israeli officials have rejected the idea of simply accepting Iranian demands concerning its military position in southern Lebanon.

This disagreement means that even if Washington and Tehran were able to make progress, regional issues involving Israel, Lebanon and other actors would remain important obstacles.

The Yemen Blockade Issue

The IRGC also called for an end to the blockade of Yemen.

Yemen has become an important part of the wider regional confrontation. The conflict there has repeatedly affected relations between Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United States and other regional powers.

For Tehran, ending restrictions on Yemen is part of a broader demand to reduce military pressure on Iran’s regional partners and allies. Washington and its regional partners, however, view the security situation through a different lens, particularly because attacks connected to the wider conflict have affected shipping and energy infrastructure.

The Yemen issue therefore demonstrates how difficult it would be to negotiate a settlement limited only to US-Iran relations. Several regional conflicts have become interconnected, meaning that a final agreement could require discussions involving multiple governments.

Iran Wants Frozen Assets Released

Another important part of Iran’s demands is the release of $24 billion in Iranian frozen assets.

Iran has long argued that sanctions and restrictions on its financial resources have placed significant pressure on its economy. Tehran sees the release of frozen funds as an important part of any potential settlement.

The demand is also connected to Iran’s broader call for economic relief. Earlier Iranian proposals have included the lifting of sanctions, compensation for wartime damage and the release of frozen assets.

For Washington, however, financial concessions are likely to be linked to security and nuclear issues. The US has used sanctions and economic pressure as a major tool to influence Iranian policy.

That creates a fundamental disagreement over sequencing. Iran wants major pressure to be removed as part of an agreement, while the United States has sought concrete commitments from Tehran before offering significant relief.

The Nuclear Programme Remains a Major Dispute

Iran’s nuclear programme is another central issue.

The IRGC has demanded that the United States refrain from interfering in Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities. Tehran argues that its nuclear activities are part of its national rights and rejects what it considers excessive foreign pressure.

The United States, meanwhile, has made Iran’s nuclear programme one of the central issues in its approach to the conflict. Earlier negotiations showed that Washington wanted restrictions and guarantees concerning Iran’s nuclear capabilities, while Iranian proposals sought to postpone or limit discussions over the nuclear issue until other parts of the conflict were resolved.

This difference could become one of the hardest problems in any future peace negotiations.

A possible agreement would need to balance Iran’s demand for sovereignty with international concerns about nuclear proliferation and regional security.

The Strait of Hormuz Adds Another Challenge

The Strait of Hormuz has become one of the most important issues in the wider conflict.

The waterway is a major route for international energy shipments, and disruptions have already affected global oil markets. Iran has previously linked the reopening of the strait to the fulfilment of its demands, including the lifting of restrictions and sanctions.

Recent developments have made the situation even more serious. Reuters reported on September 9 that Iran and the United States had engaged in a major escalation involving shipping and military targets around the Strait of Hormuz. The fighting disrupted oil flows and pushed Brent crude prices above $100 per barrel.

The economic importance of the strait means that its status is not simply a bilateral issue. Countries around the world depend on the safe movement of energy supplies through the region.

Any long-term agreement between Iran and the United States would therefore need to address maritime security and international shipping.

Economic Pressure on Iran

The United States has increasingly relied on economic pressure to force Tehran toward concessions.

Recent US sanctions have targeted parts of Iran’s aviation and financial sectors as Washington seeks to isolate the Iranian economy. The measures have been described by the US administration as part of a broader campaign to pressure Tehran.

Iran has rejected the pressure and argued that sanctions harm its economy without resolving the underlying political disputes.

Reuters reported earlier this month that Iran is facing serious economic difficulties as a result of sanctions and restrictions on its oil exports. The economic situation has increased pressure on Tehran, but Iranian officials have continued to resist demands that they consider unacceptable.

This creates a difficult strategic calculation for both sides. Washington wants economic pressure to produce political concessions, while Tehran wants sanctions removed as part of any settlement.

US Position Remains Different

Although Iran has presented its conditions, the United States has its own priorities.

Washington has emphasized the need for safe shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and has continued military and economic pressure on Tehran. US officials have also linked the conflict’s resolution to Iran stopping attacks on shipping.

US Vice President JD Vance said earlier in September that the United States was not discussing an end to the conflict while Iran continued attacks on ships. He also said there was no fixed timeline for ending the confrontation.

The different positions show why negotiations remain difficult. Iran is demanding an end to threats, sanctions and military pressure, while Washington wants changes in Iranian behaviour and greater security for international shipping.

Growing Risk of Further Escalation

The latest IRGC statement comes during a particularly tense period.

Recent days have seen attacks involving military targets and commercial shipping. Reuters reported that Iran and the United States exchanged major attacks around the Gulf and Strait of Hormuz on September 9. The developments have raised concerns about further disruption to energy markets and international trade.

The longer the confrontation continues, the greater the risk that additional countries and regional groups become involved.

The Middle East contains several overlapping conflicts and alliances. A confrontation between Washington and Tehran can therefore have consequences far beyond the two countries.

Regional governments are particularly concerned about the impact on shipping, energy supplies, economic stability and civilian life.

Possibility of Diplomacy

Despite the continuing confrontation, the IRGC statement can also be viewed as an indication that Tehran is outlining conditions under which it would consider an end to the conflict.

Earlier Iranian proposals have similarly called for an end to military operations, the withdrawal of foreign forces, economic relief and guarantees against future attacks.

The existence of stated conditions does not mean that an agreement is close. Instead, it provides a clearer picture of the issues that negotiators would have to address.

A diplomatic process would likely require compromises from both sides. Iran would have to address US concerns about nuclear capabilities and maritime security, while Washington could face pressure to offer sanctions relief and security assurances.

Role of International Mediators

International mediation could become important if direct negotiations between Iran and the United States remain difficult.

Countries with relations with both sides could potentially help establish communication channels and reduce misunderstandings. Previous efforts have involved regional and international actors attempting to bring the two sides closer together.

For diplomacy to succeed, however, both Washington and Tehran would need to believe that negotiations offer a better alternative than continued confrontation.

A ceasefire could be an initial step, followed by negotiations over sanctions, frozen assets, regional military deployments, nuclear activities and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Impact on Global Energy Markets

The conflict is already having consequences beyond the Middle East.

The Strait of Hormuz is crucial to global energy transportation. Any prolonged disruption can increase shipping costs and create uncertainty for oil-importing countries.

Recent attacks have already pushed oil prices higher, with Reuters reporting Brent crude above $100 per barrel during the latest escalation.

Higher energy prices can affect transportation, manufacturing, electricity costs and household expenses in countries far from the conflict zone.

This means that the international community has a strong interest in preventing further escalation and maintaining secure commercial shipping.

What Could Happen Next?

The immediate future depends largely on whether the United States and Iran can find a way to reduce military confrontation.

Iran’s latest statement provides several conditions that Tehran considers necessary for ending the conflict. These include stopping US threats, ending the war, addressing the situation in Lebanon and Yemen, releasing frozen Iranian assets and avoiding interference in Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities.

The United States is likely to continue demanding security guarantees and changes in Iranian behaviour, particularly regarding attacks on shipping and the nuclear programme.

The two sides therefore remain far apart on several fundamental questions.

However, the fact that Iran is publicly discussing conditions for ending the conflict could provide a potential starting point for diplomacy. If both sides eventually agree to a ceasefire and establish reliable communication channels, negotiations could focus on the most difficult issues one by one.

Conclusion

The IRGC’s latest statement has placed Iran’s conditions for ending the conflict clearly in the international spotlight. Tehran says the war can end if Washington stops threatening Iran and accepts a series of political, economic and security demands.

The demands include an end to renewed threats, an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, an end to the blockade of Yemen, the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets and non-interference in Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities.

At the same time, the United States continues to prioritize maritime security, pressure over Iran’s nuclear programme and changes in Tehran’s regional activities.

With fighting continuing and the Strait of Hormuz remaining a major point of tension, the possibility of a diplomatic solution remains uncertain. Yet the latest statement shows that both sides have identifiable issues that could eventually become the basis for negotiations.

For the international community, the priority is preventing further escalation, protecting commercial shipping and reducing the economic impact of the conflict. Whether the current confrontation moves toward diplomacy or another cycle of escalation will depend on the willingness of Washington and Tehran to compromise on their most sensitive demands.