The United States said it had delivered a 15-point plan for a month-long ceasefire to Iran, various media outlets reported on March 25, but a spokesperson from Tehran’s Khatam al-Anbia Central Headquarters denied that any such development had taken place.The spokesperson mocked Washington’s attempt to pass off what he said was the US’ military “defeat” against Iran as an “agreement”, Tasnim News agency reported.He also stressed that Iran “will never come to terms with an aggressor”.“The strategic power you were boasting about has turned into a strategic defeat. A self-proclaimed superpower, if it could escape the predicament, would have done so by now,” the spokesperson was quoted as saying by Tasnim.He also questioned whether the level of “your (US) self-conflicts reached the point where you negotiate with yourself?” The spokesperson warned that the region would see neither new US investments nor a return to previous energy prices until Washington understands that regional stability is guaranteed by the strength of Iran’s armed forces.“Our first and last word has been, is, and will always be: Someone like us will not come to terms with someone like you. Not now, and not ever,” the spokesperson added.Al Jazeera had earlier reported that there was confusion in Iran as to whom the US was negotiating with as President Donald Trump touted “progress” in talks.Abdul Wahed Jalal Nori, a lecturer in the Department of Fundamental and Inter-Disciplinary Studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia, told China Daily that the confusion highlights a deeper structural problem — the absence of a clearly unified Iranian negotiating channel.“Trump is not clear who is talking to whom. Without clarity on counterparts, even a well-designed framework risks stalling at the implementation stage,” said Abdul Wahed, who is also author of the book, State-building under Foreign Occupation: The Case of Iraq 2003-2008.The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) director general Rafael Grossi on March 24 reiterated his call for maximum restraint following a fresh attack on Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant.German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier slammed the US for starting the war against Iran, calling it “a politically disastrous mistake”.Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said his country “welcomes and fully supports ongoing efforts to pursue dialogue to end the war in the Middle East”.“Pakistan stands ready and honoured to be the host to facilitate meaningful and conclusive talks for a comprehensive settlement of the ongoing conflict,” said Sharif.Abdul Wahed from Malaysia said Steinmeier’s criticism reflected a widening transatlantic divergence.“European actors appear increasingly concerned that military-first approaches are undermining diplomatic channels, while also exposing Europe to secondary economic and security fallout. But such criticism, while politically significant, has limited practical impact unless it translates into coordinated diplomatic pressure or alternative mediation efforts,” said Abdul Wahed.In his meeting with European Union Special Representative for the Gulf Region Luigi Di Maio on March 24, Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi said in a post on X that any reasonable assessment of the facts “leads to the clear conclusion that the United States and Iran have a strong shared interest in ending this war right now”.Meanwhile, Qatar’s former prime minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani said in a lengthy post on X that in the region’s history, and amid reports of ongoing talks between the US and Iran to halt military operations, he wishes to emphasize that the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states “cannot be absent from any table where the contours of the regional future are being drawn”.“The security of this region is not a secondary matter, nor a file to be discussed on our behalf; rather, it is the essence of our stability and existence. And here, the issue of the Strait of Hormuz must be placed in its proper position,” Al Thani said. He added that the Strait of Hormuz “is not a bargaining chip, nor a tool of pressure”.“It is an international passage that must remain open without condition or restriction, under any circumstance,” said Al Thani.He added that the crisis “was imposed upon us without consultation” and that the GCC states “have borne its economic and strategic repercussions — from disruptions in exports, to restrictions on trade movement, to threats to energy security, and disturbances to regional stability”.Abdul Wahed said the Gulf states “have direct exposure to both the security and economic consequences of escalation, yet are often treated as secondary stakeholders”.He added that if they are not part of any negotiations, it risks “weakening regional buy-in and long-term enforceability”.“Any durable arrangement will likely require a broader regional security architecture, not just a bilateral or US-Iran understanding. Trump seems to have assumed in the beginning he could switch the conflict on and off, but is now confronting consequences he did not anticipate,” Abdul Wahed added.