Iranian source denies report of a Trump-backed plan being delivered via Pakistan's army chief, says this is completely false and no new proposal was presented to Iran

• Tehran's conditions are clear, and without a convincing response and tangible implementation, the Strait of Hormuz won't reopen.

Denials of reported back-channel proposals are a standard feature of negotiation cycles involving Tehran, and in past episodes of this kind they have more often signalled process than breakdown: intermediaries leak, one side denies receipt, and the talks continue through the same channels. The substantive content here is the linkage, not the denial. Conditioning reopening of the Strait of Hormuz on a convincing response and tangible implementation reframes the waterway as an active negotiating lever rather than a threat held in reserve, which is the stronger reading of the message. Episodes where Hormuz has been explicitly tied to demands have historically re-priced crude through the prompt end of the curve, freight rates and war-risk insurance premia, with product cracks moving on the diesel and jet side given Gulf refinery exposure; the distinction that matters is between rhetorical conditioning and any actual impediment to tanker traffic, since the former has tended to fade while the latter sustains premia. Use of Pakistan's army chief as a conduit fits the pattern of non-traditional intermediaries being tried when formal channels are blocked, and such denials have not precluded the channel from remaining live. The tells worth noting are whether the denial is echoed by the mediator side, and whether tanker tracking data or insurer guidance show any operational change, which is what separates headline risk from a genuine supply event.