Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Speaker of Iran's Parliament, defended a 14-point peace proposal after President Donald J. Trump dismissed the plan as "trash" [1].

The exchange underscores the deep diplomatic divide between Tehran and Washington, suggesting that efforts to avoid a prolonged conflict remain stalled despite Iranian attempts to offer a rapid exit strategy.

Ghalibaf spoke from the Iranian Parliament's press office in Tehran on May 7, 2024 [1]. He responded to comments from President Trump, who said the proposal was a "stupid offer" [1].

"We will not be intimidated; our 14-point plan is a genuine effort to end the war within 30 days and obtain sanctions relief," Ghalibaf said [2].

The proposal consists of 14 specific points [3]. According to a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, the plan includes a cease-fire, the release of all prisoners, and a phased lifting of U.S. sanctions [3].

Iranian officials said the plan is intended to provide a swift resolution to the conflict, proposing a timeline of 30 days to end hostilities [3]. Ghalibaf said the move was a genuine effort to reach a diplomatic solution while pressuring the U.S. to consider the terms.

Reports on the status of the proposal vary. Some sources indicate that President Trump is currently reviewing the latest offer [1]. Other reports suggest that both sides are still reviewing the terms and no formal acceptance has occurred [3].

Despite the rejection from the U.S. president, Ghalibaf said the 14-point framework remains the most viable path toward stability in the region. The Iranian leadership continues to link the cessation of war directly to the removal of economic sanctions [2].

“"The proposal is 'trash' and a 'stupid offer'."”

The public clash over the 14-point proposal highlights the friction between Iran's desire for rapid sanctions relief and the Trump administration's skepticism toward Iranian diplomatic overtures. By emphasizing a 30-day window to end the war, Tehran is attempting to frame itself as the party seeking peace to gain leverage with international observers, even as the U.S. maintains a hardline stance on the validity of the offer.