Trump Reviews Iran's 14-Point Peace Offer as War Hits Day 65

President Donald Trump is examining a new 14-point peace proposal from Iran as the U.S.-led conflict enters its 65th day, with fresh accounts revealing the president anticipated the war would damage his political standing yet moved forward under what one former ally described as intense pressure. The fighting, which began with surprise U.S. and Israeli strikes on February 28, has produced measurable setbacks for American interests, including disrupted global energy flows, strained alliances, and mounting domestic disapproval for the administration.

Tucker Carlson, who once supported Trump enthusiastically, told The New York Times in an interview published Saturday that the president understood the risks from the outset. Carlson, drawing on multiple direct conversations, said Trump recognized the war could effectively end his presidency but appeared to act against his own judgment. “He knew that the potential consequences were profoundly bad; the end of his presidency to start, which I think has proven to be,” Carlson recounted. He described Trump as feeling he “had no choice,” characterizing him as more hostage than free actor in the decision-making process. Carlson pointed toward Israeli influence as a decisive factor, though he stopped short of detailing specific mechanisms of pressure.

Trump’s public comments on Saturday struck a cautious note while signaling continued hardness. He said he is reviewing Tehran’s latest offer but doubts a deal can be reached, adding that Iran “has not yet paid a big enough price” for its past behavior. The president did not rule out renewed strikes, stating that if Iran “misbehaves” or “does something bad,” further action remains possible. Nuclear restrictions remain a declared red line for the administration, while Iran has proposed postponing those discussions to a later phase.

The Iranian plan, delivered through Pakistani mediators, seeks a comprehensive end to hostilities rather than a temporary truce. Its central demands include formal nonaggression guarantees, withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region, lifting of the American naval blockade on Iranian ports, release of frozen assets, broad sanctions relief, and cessation of conflict on all fronts, explicitly including Lebanon. Tehran wants the entire package resolved within 30 days. The proposal responds to an earlier nine-point American outline and comes after a ceasefire brokered by Pakistan took effect on April 8. That pause has held unevenly, with both sides continuing to seize or attack commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint carrying roughly one-fifth of global oil and gas shipments.

The economic consequences have been immediate and widespread. Iran’s economy is contracting under the combined weight of blockade, strikes, and renewed sanctions, producing shortages, inflation, and job losses. Globally, oil prices have surged, adding pressure on consumers and businesses already navigating post-pandemic recovery. In the Middle East, the ripple effects extend beyond direct combatants. Civilians interviewed across several countries described a climate of persistent anxiety in which routine activities, electricity supply, and personal safety can vanish without warning.

Inside Iran, the human impact has been especially acute in non-military targets. On the opening day of the campaign, missiles struck an elementary school in Minab and a high school gymnasium in Lamerd where a girls’ volleyball team was practicing. Mir Dehdashti, whose daughter Robab died in the gym attack, described arriving to scenes of bleeding children, some unconscious, others screaming in pain. Similar accounts emerged from Isfahan, where residents awoke to explosions and fighter jets, then faced decisions about whether to flee or shelter in place as infrastructure damage mounted. One young Iranian man, identified only as Hossein, told reporters his family attempted to leave the city but turned back when aerial threats made roads equally dangerous.

These episodes illustrate a pattern familiar to students of prolonged conflict: modern air campaigns erode civilian life even when ground forces are not engaged. Power outages, interrupted schooling, and random mortality become normalized. Across the region, residents in Lebanon, Yemen, and Gulf states reported parallel disruptions from secondary strikes, refugee movements, and economic contagion. Israeli officials, meanwhile, have signaled preparations for possible Iranian retaliation should diplomacy collapse, with one senior officer telling reporters that any agreement failing to eliminate Iran’s uranium enrichment and highly enriched uranium stockpile would constitute failure.

The war’s unpopularity at home has been reflected in polling that shows Trump’s approval ratings at record lows for his tenure. The Carlson interview underscores an emerging narrative that the decision, whatever its strategic rationale, was not embraced with conviction by the commander in chief. Carlson issued a broader apology for his earlier advocacy on Trump’s behalf, suggesting the episode has fractured parts of the president’s original coalition.

Pakistani diplomats are attempting to restart talks in Islamabad after an earlier round collapsed over preconditions. Washington continues to insist on verifiable limits to Iran’s nuclear program before major sanctions relief, while Tehran demands concrete economic and security assurances first. With each side holding firm on its core priorities, the coming days will test whether the human and material costs already incurred have altered either capital’s calculus.

The episode serves as a reminder that even limited military actions undertaken with the aim of enhancing security can generate consequences far exceeding initial projections. Energy markets remain volatile, regional actors are repositioning, and American voters are registering their fatigue. Whether the latest Iranian proposal offers a viable off-ramp or merely prolongs an unsatisfactory stalemate is the question now before the administration.