The countdown set by Washington reaches its limit with no clear outcome. The United States’ ultimatum to Iran, which expired this Monday, was postponed amid last-minute negotiations for a possible temporary ceasefire to prevent a further escalation in the Middle East.
The extension, driven by indirect contacts and regional mediation, reflects both military pressure and the fragility of the diplomatic track, amid contradictory reports and terms that stretch out and intertwine with threats of destruction.
While U.S. President Donald Trump maintains a rhetoric of maximum pressure, Tehran insists it does not negotiate under threats and denies any direct dialogue with the White House.
The contrast between the two versions highlights a political standoff in which each side seeks to control the narrative, even as talks—albeit indirect—remain open.
US extends ultimatum to Iran amid 45-day ceasefire talks
The initial deadline, set at 48 hours, required Iran to accept key conditions such as reopening the Strait of Hormuz or face attacks on strategic infrastructure. However, the deadline was pushed back as diplomatic contacts intensified and amid the possibility of a provisional agreement.
According to various reports, the United States, Iran, and mediators such as Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey are working on a two-phase framework: a 45-day ceasefire followed by broader negotiations to end the conflict. This plan seeks to halt a war that has already left thousands of victims and caused severe damage to energy and civilian infrastructure.
Trump himself has acknowledged that talks are underway and that there is a window for an agreement, although he maintains the threat of a massive military response if there is no progress. U.S. pressure is focused in particular on control of the Strait of Hormuz, a key artery for global oil trade.
The possible ceasefire is being considered as a temporary solution to buy time. The proposal envisions an immediate truce to reduce the intensity of the fighting and open space for deeper negotiations.
However, expectations of success are limited. Sources close to the talks warn that the chances of reaching an agreement in the short term are low due to substantial differences between the two sides. Iran is reluctant to make concessions on its nuclear program and control of the strait, elements it considers strategic.
At the same time, the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate. Exchanges of attacks between Iran, the United States, and Israel persist, with direct impacts on energy infrastructure and civilian areas. This context adds urgency to the negotiations but also increases the risk that any incident could derail the process.
Israel kills intelligence chief of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard
Meanwhile, the Israeli military continues its escalation against its main regional adversary. Amid ongoing strikes on strategic Iranian targets, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz announced the death of Mayid Jadami, intelligence chief of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, stating that he was “one of the organization’s three senior commanders.”
Iranian authorities confirmed Jadami’s death. “The distinguished and respected head of the Revolutionary Guard’s Intelligence Organization has attained the exalted honor of martyrdom,” the elite military force said in a statement reported by the Tasnim news agency.
Jadamí, who held the rank of major general, was appointed head of the Revolutionary Guard’s Intelligence in June 2025, following the death of his predecessor, Mohamad Kazemi, in last year’s conflict with Israel.
All of this unfolded during another night of fire over Tehran, in which at least 34 people were killed, including seven children, in a new wave of bombings by Israel and the United States against various parts of Iran, according to tallies reported by local media.
Majid Khademi, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Intelligence Organisation, has been killed by Israel. pic.twitter.com/pfohQPTvXP
— Iran's Today (@Iran) April 6, 2026
Tehran denies negotiating under pressure
Amid ongoing military operations, with the U.S. ultimatum extended and potential negotiations underway, Iran cooled the prospects of an immediate agreement with Washington.
In fact, one of the main obstacles is the contradictory narrative regarding the very existence of negotiations. Trump has repeatedly claimed that there are direct contacts and even that Iran has requested a ceasefire. However, Iranian authorities categorically deny this.
Tehran insists it does not hold talks with Washington under ultimatum conditions and rejects what it sees as a strategy of coercion. This position has been reiterated by senior Iranian officials, who describe U.S. statements as propaganda or psychological pressure.
“Negotiation is in no way compatible with ultimatums, crimes, or threats to commit war crimes,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Ismail Bagaei said at a press conference.
Iran’s top diplomat stated that a ceasefire “means a pause to regroup and rearm in order to continue the crime” when asked about the alleged negotiations. “Our demand is an end to the imposed war, along with guarantees that this disastrous cycle will not be repeated,” he said.
In addition, Iran has responded forcefully to the threats, warning of serious consequences in the event of an attack. The confrontational tone remains high, complicating any real diplomatic progress, even as several sources confirm Turkish and Pakistani mediation.
Iran's position is being misrepresented by U.S. media.
We are deeply grateful to Pakistan for its efforts and have never refused to go to Islamabad. What we care about are the terms of a conclusive and lasting END to the illegal war that is imposed on us.
پاکستان زنده باد pic.twitter.com/AUjBQxOFyA
— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) April 4, 2026
Key days for the future of a war with an uncertain end
The postponement of the ultimatum shows that neither side is ready to take the next decisive step, either toward all-out war or toward a lasting agreement. The United States is seeking to force rapid concessions, while Iran is trying to gain time without yielding on key points.
In this scenario, regional mediators play a crucial role as an indirect channel of communication. Without them, the chances of dialogue would be virtually nonexistent. Even so, the room for maneuver is narrow and time is limited, although the coming hours could be decisive for the future of a conflict approaching a month and a half in duration.
The outcome will depend on whether both sides can turn the proposed truce into a broader negotiation process. For now, the conflict remains open and the clock, though delayed, continues to tick.