The White House has revealed a discrepancy in the administration’s understanding of a 10-point plan proposed by Iran, with the press secretary initially suggesting two separate plans were presented – one rejected and the other accepted. However, it has since become clear that there was only one plan, which President Trump referenced in a social media post announcing a two-week ceasefire to facilitate negotiations on outstanding issues.
The president’s statement indicated that most of the contentious points had been addressed, with only a few remaining areas of disagreement between the US and Iran. Yet, just 24 hours later, the administration appeared to contradict this assessment, claiming that the plan accepted by President Trump did not include references to Israeli operations in Lebanon or actions against other Iranian allies.
The administration’s stance was echoed by the vice president, who emphasized that Lebanon and Israel’s actions are outside the scope of the agreed-upon ceasefire. As a result, the nature of President Trump’s acceptance of the plan remains shrouded in uncertainty.
Skardu.pk is one of the leading authentic news and information platform focusing on adventure tourism, regional and world affairs.
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team