Mr. George Bush,
President of the United States of America

For some time now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena and which are being constantly debated, especially in political forums and among university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (peace be upon Him), the great Messenger of God, feel obliged to respect human rights, present liberalism as a civilization model, announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and [other] weapons of mass destruction [WMD], make "War [on] Terror" his slogan, and, finally, work toward the establishment of a unified international community -- a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, but, at the same time, have countries attacked; have the lives, reputations, and possessions of people destroyed; and on the slight chance [that there are] criminals in a village, city, or convoy, for example, set ablaze the entire village, city, or convoy?

The War In Iraq

Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around 100,000 people are killed, its water resources, agriculture, and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops are put on the ground, the sanctity of private homes is violated, and the country pushed back perhaps 50 years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries; tens of thousands of young men and women -- as occupation troops -- are put in harm's way, taken away from their family and loved ones; their hands are stained with the blood of others; they are subjected to so much psychological pressure that every day some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly, and grapple with all sorts of aliments; and some are killed and their bodies handed to their families.

On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with. Of course [former Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him. The announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way toward another goal. Nevertheless, the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the war on Iran, Saddam was supported by the West.

Mr. President, you might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can theses actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter, with one's duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness.

There are prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who have not been tried, have no legal representation. Their families cannot see them and they are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, prisoners of war, accused, or criminals.

European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abductions of people and their detention in secret prisons with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e., the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights, and liberal values.

Israel And The Holocaust

Young people, university students, and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.

Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that 60 years ago such a country did not exist. They show old documents and globes and say, "Try as we might, we have not been able to find a country named Israel." I tell them to study the history of World War I and World War II. One of my students told me that during World War II, in which many tens of millions of people perished, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party.

After the war, they claimed that 6 million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least 2 million families. Again, let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalized or explained?

Mr. President, I am sure you know how -- and at what cost -- Israel was established: Many thousands were killed in the process; millions of indigenous people were made refugees; hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns, and villages were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for 60 years now. A regime has been established that does not show mercy even to children, that destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, that announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique -- or at the very least extremely rare -- in recent memory.

Another big question asked by people is, why is this regime being supported? Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values? Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands -- inside and outside Palestine -- whether they are Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, to determine their own fate runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights, and the teachings of the prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum?

The Palestinian Election

The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observers have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognize the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.

If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also saying, "Why are all UN Security Council resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?"

Mr. President, as you are well aware, I live among the people and am in constant contact with them. Many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They do not have faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies.

It is not my intention to pose to many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well.

'Scientific Research And Development'

Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific research and development one of the basic rights of nations?

You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, at what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc., must be opposed.

Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.

The Third World

Mr. President, don't Latin Americans have the right to ask why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear?

The people of Africa are hardworking, creative, and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and can contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don't they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth -- including minerals -- is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?

Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?

The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d'etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day; opposition to the Islamic Revolution, transformation of an embassy into a headquarters supporting the activities of those opposing the Islamic republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborates this claim); support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran; the [July 1988] shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane; the freezing of the assets of the Iranian nation; increasing threats, anger, and displeasure regarding the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating their country's progress); and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.

September 11, 2001

Mr. President, September 11[, 2001,] was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.

All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property, and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly, your government employs extensive security, protection, and intelligence systems -- and even hunts its opponents abroad. September 11 was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services -- or their extensive infiltration? Of course, this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?

All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbors in world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9/11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people -- who had been immensely traumatized by the attacks -- some Western media only intensified the climate of fear and insecurity. Some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?

American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and at any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work, and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to feelings of insecurity?

The Role Of The Media

Some believe the hype paved the way -- and was the justification -- for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media. In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly -- for the public to, finally, believe -- and to set the ground for an attack on Iraq.

Will the truth not be lost in a contrived and deceptive climate? Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier-mentioned values? Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?

Mr. President, in countries around the world citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them. The question here is, "what has the hundreds of billions of dollars spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign produced for [U.S.] citizens?"

As Your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist -- to a greater or lesser extent -- in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the [Iraq] campaign -- paid from the public treasury -- be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles?

What has been said [above] are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region, and in your country. But my main contention -- and I am hoping you will agree to some of it -- is: those in power have a specific time in office and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures.

What Legacy Will We Leave?

The people will scrutinize our presidencies. Did we manage to bring peace, security, and prosperity to our people or insecurity and unemployment? Did we intend to establish justice, or just support special-interest groups and -- by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship -- make a few people rich and powerful, -- thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty for [that of those few]? Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them? Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or impose wars on them, interfere illegally in their affairs, and establish hellish prisons and incarcerate some of them? Did we bring the world peace and security or did we raise the specter of intimidation and threats? Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or present an inverted version of it? Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors? Did our administration set out to promote rational behavior, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress, and respect for human dignity or, rather, the force of arms, intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and the disrespect of [other] people's rights? And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office -- to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets.

Mr. President, how much longer can the world tolerate this situation? Where will this trend lead the world? How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers? How much longer will the specter of insecurity -- raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction -- haunt the people of the world? How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women, and children be spilled on the streets and people's houses destroyed over their heads? Are you pleased with the current condition of the world? Do you think present policies can continue? If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns, and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education, the improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states and extinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic, and other conflicts -- were would the world be today? Would not your government and people be justifiably proud? Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been stronger? And, I am most sorry to say, would there have been this ever-increasing global hatred of the American governments?

Mr. President, it is not my intention to distress anyone. If the prophets Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph, or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us today, how would they judge such behavior? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be present? Will they even accept us?

Monotheism

My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world?

Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Muslims, and millions of
people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions share and respect one word and that is "monotheism" or the belief in a single God and no other in the world.

The Holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on all followers of divine religions and says: "Say, O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and [that] we shall not associate aught with Him and [that] some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah, but if they turn back, then say: 'Bear witness that we are Muslims.'"

Mr. President, according to the divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of the divine prophets -- "to worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases." "The Lord, which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes on in the hearts of His servants and records their deeds." "The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is in His court." "Planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins." "He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors". "He is the compassionate, the merciful." "He is the recourse of the faithful and guides them toward the light from darkness." "He is witness to the actions of His servants." "He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of righteousness and remain steadfast." "He calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds." "A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and disobey Him and oppress His servants." "A good and eternal paradise belongs to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves."

We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvation. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth. We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well: "And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path, Marium."

Service and obedience to the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers.

The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific, and the rest of the world is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has given greatness to humans.

We again read in the Holy Book: "The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purity them from sins and pollution. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people [might] display justice and avoid the rebellious."

All of the above verses can be seen, one way or another, in the Bible as well.

Judgment Day

Divine prophets have promised that the day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty so that their deeds might be examined. The good will be directed toward Heaven and evildoers will meet divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives have been directly or indirectly affected by our actions.

All prophets speak of peace and tranquility for man based on monotheism, justice, and respect for human dignity. Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles -- that is, monotheism, the worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day -- we can overcome the present problems of the world, which are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets, and improve our performance? Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship, and justice? Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected? Will you not accept this invitation -- that is, a genuine return to the teachings of the prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?

Mr. President, history tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted the fate of man to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.

Can one deny the signs of change in the world today? Is this situation of the world today comparable to that of 10 years ago? Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace. The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments of a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the world feel insecure and oppose the spread of insecurity and war and do not approve of or accept dubious policies. The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries. The people are disgusted with increasing corruption. The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion.

World Turning To Religion

The people of the world have no faith in international organizations because their rights are not advocated by these organizations. Liberalism and Western-style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking toward a main focal point -- that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly, through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: "Do you not want to join them?"

Mr. President, whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating toward faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.

Peace to him who follows the rightfully guided,
Mahmud Ahmadinejad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Iranian and US negotiators agreed to hold a third round of high-stakes talks on Iran's nuclear ambitions, a positive signal amid mixed White House messages about potential military action and new demands on Tehran.

The April 19 meetings, held in Rome, were the second time that top-level negotiators from Washington and Tehran had met this month.

There was no immediate comment on the outcome of the Rome talks from the US delegation, which was headed by White House special envoy Steve Witkoff.

But news agencies quoted senior US officials as saying the sides “made very good progress” in the Rome discussions.

"Today, in Rome over four hours in our second round of talks, we made very good progress in our direct and indirect discussions," said an unidentified US official -- who also confirmed a statement by Iran that the two sides agreed to meet again next week.

AP also quoted a US official as confirming that Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Araqchi had spoken face to face.

Iran's foreign minister said the two sides had agreed to meet again on April 26 in Oman, where the first round took place.

"I believe technical negotiations at the expert level will begin in Oman on Wednesday [April 23)] and next Saturday we will meet in Oman and review the results of the experts' work to see how close it is to the principles of an agreement," Araqchi told Iranian state TV.

"It was a good meeting, and I can say that the negotiations are moving forward. This time we managed to reach a better understanding on a series of principles and goals," he said.

The United States and other Western countries have long accused Iran of trying to build nuclear weapons.

Tehran has consistently denied the allegations, insisting that its efforts are aimed at civilian purposes, such as electricity generation.

Conflicting Messages

Following his return to the White House in January, US President Donald Trump, who had previously withdrawn from a 2015 accord known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), revived a "maximum pressure" campaign of sanctions against Iran.

Last month, he sent a letter to Iran's supreme leader urging renewed talks while warning of military action if diplomacy failed.

In the past week, Trump and other White House officials have sent sometimes conflicting messages about the US approach to the talks. The White House has ordered heavy, long-range bombers to the region, along with a second aircraft carrier.

"I'm not in a rush" to use the military option, Trump told reporters on April 17. "I think Iran wants to talk."

On April 18, he told reporters: "I'm for stopping Iran, very simply, from having a nuclear weapon. They can't have a nuclear weapon. I want Iran to be great and prosperous and terrific."

In an interview days earlier on Fox News, Witkoff said that the United States was open to Iran having some sort of limited nuclear program.

But he then walked back that position in a social media post, suggesting that the entire program needed to be dismantled.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meanwhile, said he hoped the Iranian talks would be “fruitful.”

“We would all prefer a peaceful resolution and a lasting one,” he said after meetings in Paris.

But, he added, “It has to be something that not just prevents Iran from having a nuclear weapon now, but in the future as well.”

Israel's Role

Israel’s role in the debate over Iran’s nuclear ambitions is also critical. Israeli officials have vowed to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and Israel has not ruled out an attack on its nuclear facilities in the coming months, according to multiple news reports.

Trump has reportedly told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Washington did not support such a move.

Former officials and experts have long said that Israel would need significant US military support –- and weapons –- to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and stockpiles, some of which are in underground facilities.

With reporting by RFE/RL's Radio Farda, AP, AFP, and Reuters

Iranian and US negotiators will hold a second round of indirect talks on April 19, a week after concluding discussions that both sides described as “constructive” and “positive.”

While the first round was hosted in Oman, the second will take place in Rome. Omani diplomats will continue to mediate the talks.

Here’s where things stand ahead of the next round of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program -- with the possibility of military action still looming.

Witkoff's Reversal On Enrichment Limits

US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, who is leading the US negotiating team, caused a stir when he publicly reversed his position on Iran’s nuclear program.

On April 15, he said Iran would need to limit its uranium enrichment to 3.67 percent -- the cap set by a 2015 nuclear deal that US President Donald Trump withdrew from in 2018.

But within hours, Witkoff walked back the comment after a backlash from hard-liners who favor dismantling Iran’s program. In a statement on social media, he said Iran “must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.”

The about-face appeared to confuse Iranian officials. Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, Iran's chief negotiator, responded that Washington’s “true position must be clarified at the negotiating table.”

Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear program is peaceful and has ruled out dismantling it.

Jalil Roshandel, director of the Security Studies Program at East Carolina University, told RFE/RL’s Radio Farda that the Trump administration is unlikely to maintain its hard-line stance.

“Trump can get a win by accepting the 3.67 percent limit in exchange for other concessions, such as extending the UN sanctions sunset clause set to expire in October,” Roshandel said.

Expanding The Scope Of A Deal

Another sticking point is whether a potential deal will focus solely on Iran’s nuclear activities or also address its missile program.

In an April 15 interview with Fox News, Witkoff said the Rome talks would also cover “verification on weaponization,” including missiles.

But Iran has long refused to negotiate over its missile arsenal, which it considers a vital part of its defense strategy.

The Islamic republic used drones and missiles in two attacks on Israel last year -- the second of which was described as the largest single ballistic missile attack in history.

Mark Fitzpatrick, a former US diplomat and a nonproliferation expert, said expanding the scope of talks could complicate progress.

“It's not surprising that the Trump team would want to put missiles back on the table,” Fitzpatrick told Radio Farda. “But it would make negotiations much more difficult because of Iran's steadfast position that missiles are essential to its defense and deterrence posture.”

European Powers Sidelined

Britain, Germany, and France -- collectively known as the E3 -- are also signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal and played a key role in previous attempts to revive it.

This time, however, they appear to have been completely sidelined. Even though the next round of talks will be held in Italy, it will be Oman -- not the Europeans -- handling mediation.

State-affiliated media in Iran have welcomed the E3’s exclusion. The Tehran Times, an English-language newspaper, claimed -- without evidence -- that the three nations are so frustrated by “their exclusion” that they offered Rafael Grossi, head of the UN nuclear watchdog, their backing to become the next UN chief if he helps “demonize” Iran.

The paper argued that this move is aimed at justifying the return of UN sanctions -- something the E3 have threatened by the end of June if Tehran fails to reach a deal with the United States.

US Military Pressure In The Region

Trump has repeatedly warned that he would resort to military action against Iran’s nuclear program if a deal isn’t reached.

Amid rising tensions -- and a US bombing campaign targeting Tehran’s allies in Yemen -- Washington is bolstering its military presence in the Middle East.

Last month, the United States dispatched at least six B-2 bombers to a joint US-British military base on Diego Garcia, a small island in the Indian Ocean. This week, the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier was sent to reinforce the USS Harry S. Truman already stationed in the region.

Analysts believe Iran takes Trump’s threats seriously, but it remains unclear whether Tehran is willing to risk air strikes on its key nuclear sites.

Trump has said Israel would play a leading role in any such attack.

According to The New York Times, Israel had been preparing to launch air strikes against Iran -- with US assistance -- as early as May, but was held back by Trump in favor of pursuing diplomacy.

With reporting by Reza Jamali and Hannah Kaviani of RFE/RL’s Radio Farda

Iran’s foreign minister has called for Russia to play a role in high-stakes negotiations over the fate of Tehran’s nuclear programs, as he cast doubt on US intentions ahead a new round of talks.

Speaking on April 18 alongside Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Abbas Araqchi said he still believed an agreement was possible.

The Iranian diplomat was set to meet with White House special envoy Steve Witkoff in Rome on April 19, for a second round of talks over Iran’s atomic programs.

"Although we have serious doubts about the intentions and motivations of the American side, in any case we will participate in tomorrow's negotiations," Araqchi said during a joint appearance in Moscow.

Last week’s first round of talks in Oman was the highest-level negotiations between Tehran and Washington since US President Donald Trump abandoned a landmark nuclear deal in 2018.

Western countries, including the United States, have long accused Iran of trying to build nuclear weapons. Tehran has consistently denied the allegations, insisting that its efforts are aimed at civilian purposes, like electricity generation.

Earlier in the week, Witkoff called for an end to all of Iran’s uranium enrichment programs. International inspectors say Tehran has managed to refine its uranium stocks to 60 percent -- which is close to the threshold at which uranium is considered weapons-grade.

Araqchi responded on April 16, saying that Iran's enrichment efforts were not up for discussion.

"If there is similar willingness on the other side, and they refrain from making unreasonable and unrealistic demands, I believe reaching an agreement is likely," Araghchi said.

Since taking office in January, Trump has ratcheted up the pressure on Iran, including by sending more US Air Force and naval assets to the region. But he’s also forced direct talks with Iranian officials.

“I’m not asking for much,” Trump said in comments earlier this month, “but they can’t have a nuclear weapon.”

With reporting by Reuters

The US military said it destroyed a key Yemeni fuel port held by Houthi rebels, who said the air strikes also killed 20 people and wounded 50 others.

The US military’s Central Command said its forces took action on the port of Ras Isa to eliminate a source of fuel for the Iran-backed Houthi rebels and deprive them of revenue.

“The objective of these strikes was to degrade the economic source of power of the Houthis, who continue to exploit and bring great pain upon their fellow countrymen,” Centcom said in a statement.

“This strike was not intended to harm the people of Yemen, who rightly want to throw off the yoke of Houthi subjugation and live peacefully,” Centcom said.

The US air strikes have hammered the Houthis in a campaign launched by President Donald Trump on March 15 to end their attacks on civilian shipping and military vessels in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

Houthi attacks have hampered shipping through the Suez Canal -- a vital route for world seaborne traffic -- forcing many companies to send their ships around the tip of southern Africa.

The Houthis denounced the attack.

“This completely unjustified aggression represents a flagrant violation of Yemen’s sovereignty and independence and a direct targeting of the entire Yemeni people,” the Houthis said in a statement carried by the Houthi-controlled SABA news agency. “It targets a vital civilian facility that has served the Yemeni people for decades.”

Health Ministry spokesman Anees Alasbahi said the preliminary death toll stood at 20, including five paramedics.

There were also "50 wounded workers and employees at the Ras Issa oil port, following the American aggression," he said on X.

"The death toll is likely to rise as body parts are still being identified," he added.

The number of dead represented one of the highest reported death tolls since Trump vowed that military action against the rebels would continue until they are no longer a threat to shipping.

The Ras Isa port lies along the west coast of Yemen on the Red Sea.

Centcom said ships have continued to supply fuel via the port despite Washington designating the rebels a foreign terrorist organization earlier this year. The Centcom statement did not specify the source of the fuel.

US State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce commented earlier on April 17 about China's participation in Yemen. Bruce told journalists that the Chinese satellite firm Chang Guang Satellite Technology Company was "directly supporting” the Houthis.

Bruce said their actions and Beijing's support of the company, “is yet another example of China's empty claims to support peace.”

With reporting by AP and Reuters

Tehran is ready to ease US concerns over its nuclear activities but scrapping uranium enrichment is off the table, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said as the two sides prepare for a second round of talks this weekend over Iran's nuclear program.

Araqchi told reporters after a weekly cabinet meeting in Tehran on April 16 that Iran's enrichment is a "real, accepted matter."

"We're ready to build confidence in response to possible concerns, but the principle of enrichment is nonnegotiable," he said, days ahead of the second round of talks with the United States on April 19, which Iran's state broadcaster announced would take place in the Italian capital, Rome, and not in Oman as previously thought.

Araqchi's comments came in response to a statement by US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on April 15 saying Iran "must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program."

But hours earlier, Witkoff had told Fox News that the Donald Trump administration was seeking to cap Iran's uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent -- the limit set in the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump abrogated in 2018.

"Iran must not possess nuclear weapons, and it should not enrich uranium beyond 3.67 percent," Witkoff said.

His apparent reversal came after a conservative backlash on social media, with the administration being accused of repackaging the 2015 deal, which is formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

"We applaud Special Envoy Witkoff's statement," wrote Mark Wallace, chief executive of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), a US-based nonprofit, after Witkoff changed his tone.

"It is clear under the Trump Doctrine that Iran must verifiably dismantle its nuclear program or the US and Israel will do so," said Wallace, a former US diplomat.

Araqchi, who will travel to Moscow on April 17, noted Witkoff had made "different comments" since the conclusion of the first round of talks but added Washington's "true position must be clarified at the negotiating table."

Trump has made it clear Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, but he has not explicitly commented on whether that involves curbing Iran's nuclear program or fully dismantling it. In the meantime, his administration has been sending out mixed messages.

Quoting an unnamed US official, the Axios news website on April 16 attributed the lack of clarity to ongoing internal discussions.

"The Iran policy is not very clear mainly because it is still being figured out. It is tricky because it's a highly politically charged issue," the official said, according to Axios.

Former US diplomat and nonproliferation expert Mark Fitzpatrick said a deal would be unlikely unless the Trump administration relaxed its position.

"Trump would have to change the position of no enrichment to a position of low enrichment," he told RFE/RL's Radio Farda.

"Iran is not going to go to a 'no enrichment' and it's certainly not going to accept it, but it would be willing to negotiate the levels of enrichment. And yes, this would be like the negotiations under the JCPOA," he added.

With reporting by Hannah Kaviani of RFE/RL's Radio Farda

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appeared to back the continuation of nuclear discussions between Tehran and Washington, though he said he is neither "overly optimistic nor overly pessimistic" about the talks as they head toward a second round this weekend.

In his first public comments on the initiation of talks between Iran and the United States last weekend, Khamenei on April 15 said Iranian negotiators need to proceed with caution.

"A decision was made [to enter the talks] and has been carried out well in the initial steps. Going forward, we need to move carefully. Our red lines -- and the other side's -- are clearly defined," Khamenei said at a gathering of the senior members of the three branches of power.

"The negotiations may or may not lead to a result. We are neither very optimistic nor very pessimistic about these talks. Of course, we are very pessimistic about the other side, but we are optimistic about our own capabilities," he added.

Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, urged officials "not to tie the country's affairs" to the negotiations.

The first round of talks, which were mostly carried out indirectly, were held in Muscat on April 12, with the next round scheduled for April 19.

Italy was initially set to host the second round, but Iran later said Oman would continue to host the talks. None of the parties involved have elaborated on why the venue was changed.

US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff said on April 14 that any diplomatic agreement reached with Iran will be centered on details related to verification of the country's uranium enrichment and weapons programs.

"This is going to be much about verification on the enrichment program, and then ultimately verification on weaponization," Witkoff said in an interview on Fox News. "That includes missiles, the type of missiles that they have stockpiled there, and it includes the trigger for a bomb."

Tehran and Washington held the first round of nuclear talks over the weekend in Oman, both saying afterward that the talks were "positive" and "constructive."

The Iranian Foreign Ministry on April 14 said a second round of talks between the United States and Iran will be held in Oman on April 19.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei was quoted by Iranian state news agency IRNA as saying that it was decided that Muscat will continue to host the talks.

The comment contradicted a statement by Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani, who said the talks would be held in Rome. Tajani said Italy received the request from the interested parties and announced Rome would be the venue.

Tehran also confirmed on April 14 that Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi will visit Moscow ahead of the next round of talks.

Separately, Iran confirmed on April 13 that Rafael Grossi, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), will travel to Iran on April 16.

Araqchi met Witkoff met briefly after the first round of talks ended, adding to optimism relations between the two countries have taken a step forward.

US President Donald Trump has said he wants to ensure Iran will never acquire nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful and wants a deal that leads to the lifting of sanctions that have battered its economy.

Trump has said that in the absence of a deal, there will be military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, with potential Israeli involvement.

Estimates suggest Iran could enrich sufficient uranium for a single bomb in less than a week and enough for several bombs within a month.

Meanwhile, the European Union on April 13 introduced sanctions on seven Iranian prison and judicial officials over Tehran's detention of nationals from the bloc.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said the sanctions were in response to Iran's "state-sponsored hostage-taking" of European citizens.

On Iran's nuclear program, she said there was a need for a swift resolution because the October deadline to reimpose UN sanctions on Tehran is approaching.

European powers have warned Iran that they will trigger the 2015 nuclear deal's "snapback mechanism" to reimpose UN sanctions if it fails to reach a new deal with the United States.

With reporting by AP and AFP

Pakistan has called on Iran to take swift action following the killing of eight Pakistani nationals in the southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchistan.

The victims, all workers at an auto repair shop in the town of Mehrestan, were reportedly shot dead by unidentified armed assailants on April 11. The attackers are said to have tied up the victims before executing them at close range and fleeing the scene.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif condemned the killings and urged Iranian authorities to apprehend and punish those responsible.

"The Iranian government must immediately arrest those involved in the killings, ensure they receive severe punishment, and uncover the motives behind this brutal act," he said.

He also emphasized the need for the immediate repatriation of the victims' bodies to their families in Punjab, Pakistan, where all eight men were from.

The attack has sparked outrage in Pakistan, with officials calling for enhanced security measures to protect Pakistani citizens working in Iran.

Iran has officially condemned the killings as an "act of terrorism." Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baqaei said in a statement on April 13 that Iranian security and judicial authorities are committed to identifying and prosecuting the perpetrators.

The Iranian Embassy in Islamabad also strongly condemned the incident, labeling it a "cowardly and inhumane attack" while emphasizing terrorism as a shared threat to regional peace and security.

Some reports allege the separatist group Baloch National Army (BNA) has claimed responsibility for the killings, alleging the victims were linked to Pakistani intelligence agencies. RFE/RL has not been able to independently verify this.

The BNA has a history of targeting Pakistani nationals and has carried out similar attacks in the past as part of its campaign against Islamabad's influence in the region.

Iran and Pakistan have frequently accused one another of allowing militants to launch cross-border attacks from their territory.

In January last year, nine Pakistanis were killed in Sistan-Baluchistan province.

Armed opposition groups to the Islamic republic -- such as Jaish al-Adl -- have a long history of launching attacks in the Iranian province.

Nuclear talks in Oman marked the first formal engagement between Iran and the United States in years, and though progress may have been slight, it was enough to signal a willingness to temper tensions through diplomacy rather than military action.

Iranian and US negotiators agreed on April 12 to continue their high-level talks over Tehran's nuclear program on April 19, with the venue likely moving to Europe from the Middle East.

Axios on April 13 cited sources as saying the second round would likely be in Rome, but there has been no official comment on the potential site.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One late on April 13, US President Donald Trump said he had met with advisers and that "we'll be making a decision on Iran very quickly," without being specific.

Going into the high-stakes meeting in Oman, Washington had insisted the talks would be direct, while Tehran maintained otherwise.

In the end, there was a bit of both.

The talks were largely held indirectly, with Omani diplomats shuttling between rooms. However, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff briefly met at the conclusion of the talks.

"So, both sides came out with their basic requirements met," Gregory Brew, a senior Iran analyst at the New York-based Eurasia Group, told RFE/RL's Radio Farda.

However, he warned against overanalyzing the outcomes of the meeting, adding, "It's still not entirely clear what was achieved beyond simply establishing a basis for further discussions."

Araqchi called the brief words he had with Witkoff "diplomatic courtesy." That was enough to bring a palpable optimism to the region, already on edge with the conflict in Gaza and a regime change in Syria.

Iran's regional rival Saudi Arabia, which was skeptical of the 2015 nuclear deal and hailed Trump for abrogating it in 2018, has welcomed the Oman talks. Bahrain and Qatar followed suit with their own statements of encouragement.

Tough Calls Necessary

Analysts say a deal on Iran's nuclear program is possible -- if Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is willing to make difficult decisions.

Despite constitutionally holding ultimate authority over all state matters, Khamenei has developed a reputation for avoiding direct accountability.

"Khamenei still appears to be unwilling to take responsibility, as seen in his recent public comments in which he says he against talks and that negotiations can be held but he won't take responsibility for the outcomes," Fereshteh Pezeshk, an international relations analyst based in Washington, told Radio Farda.

Iran is in a precarious position. Its network of regional proxies is at its weakest, and its economy is reeling under US sanctions, with the cost of living rising and purchasing power declining.

"The domestic situation in Iran is also slightly increasing the odds of a deal," Pezeshk said.

Adding to the pressure are threats of military action from Trump if no agreement is reached. While Iranian officials publicly dismiss the possibility of war, analysts say Tehran takes the threat seriously.

The Road Ahead

Mehrzad Boroujerdi, a professor of political science at the Missouri University of Science and Technology, described the Oman meeting as "warm-up talks" during which critical topics were left untouched.

"They likely agreed on a timetable and general topics of discussion, but the important issues will come up in future talks," he told Radio Farda.

Boroujerdi added that both Tehran and Washington appeared to have "pulled back from their maximalist demands", paving the way for a workable deal.

The format of the next round of talks has not been disclosed, but critics of indirect negotiations argue that Washington must insist on direct engagement, citing previous failures of indirect diplomacy.

"The US should be making clear: if there are no direct, substantive talks in the next round, there will be no negotiation," Jason Brodsky, policy director at the nonprofit United Against Nuclear Iran, wrote on X. "This is how Tehran stalls and strings things out."

Another unresolved question is whether Trump seeks to curb Iran's nuclear program or dismantle it entirely. Tehran has firmly opposed shutting down its nuclear program but has repeatedly insisted it does not seek nuclear weapons and is willing to offer assurances.

Still, there seems to be a real willingness to strike a deal, and Iran arguably needs it more than the United States.

Reaching an agreement, however, depends on whether Iranian decision-makers "show wisdom and courage," Pezeshk said.

For now, both sides seem prepared to keep talking, but there is only so much time left.

With reporting by Golnaz Esfandiari, Reza Jamali, and Mohammad Zarghami of RFE/RL's Radio Farda

Iranian and US negotiators agreed to a second round of high-level talks over Tehran's nuclear programs next week after meeting on April 12 for more than two hours of what both sides described as a "positive" and "constructive" session.

"The discussions were very positive and constructive," the White House said after the meeting in the Omani capital of Muscat.

It said special US envoy Steven Witkoff underscored "that he had instructions from President [Donald] Trump to resolve our two nations’ differences through dialogue and diplomacy, if that is possible."

"These issues are very complicated, and special envoy Witkoff’s direct communication today was a step forward in achieving a mutually beneficial outcome," the statement said, adding that "the sides agreed to meet again" on April 19.

Later, Trump, responding to reporters' questions about the talks, said, "I think they're going OK."

"Nothing matters until you get it done, so I don't like talking about it. But it's going OK. The Iran situation is going pretty good, I think," he told reporters aboard Air Force One.

The indirect meetings -- mediated by Oman -- are the first by officials from both countries on the issue in years and come amid spiraling tensions and mounting military threats from Washington.

Officials said the delegations were situated in separate room and exchanged messages through Omani Foreign Minister Said Badr.

Oman, on the southeastern coast of the Arabian Peninsula, has served as an intermediary between Iran and Western nations, including during talks that led to the release of several foreign citizens and dual nationals held by Tehran.

Witkoff's counterpart in the talks was Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, who also said the sides will meet again next weekend.

While the two sides didn't meet face to face during the talks, Araqchi briefly spoke with Witkoff -- in the presence of the Omani foreign minister -- after the meeting in what he described as a "diplomatic courtesy."

Araqchi said the meetings took place in a "productive, calm, and positive atmosphere." Iran's Foreign Ministry said the talks had been "constructive."

"[Witkoff's] desire in the negotiations was for the general framework of the agreement to be established in the shortest possible time," Iran's top diplomat said after revealing the first direct interaction between the two nations since the Obama administration.

Days before the talks, Trump issued a new warning saying that "if necessary," the United States "absolutely" would use military force against Iran -- with Israel poised to play a leading role.

Iran's response has been defiant, signaling the high stakes for both nations and the broader Middle East.

How Did We Get Here?

The talks mark another chapter in the fraught relationship between Iran and the United States, which has been defined by cycles of diplomacy and confrontation.

The 2015 nuclear deal -- formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- once offered hope for detente, but Washington's withdrawal in 2018 during Trump's first term triggered a spiral of sanctions and uranium enrichment by Tehran.

European powers tried to salvage the JCPOA by launching what they called the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges, which was meant to facilitate non-dollar transactions with Iran to avoid violating US sanctions and dissuade Tehran from scaling back its commitments.

In practice, only one transaction was made through the mechanism, and it was eventually scrapped in 2023.

Iran's economy, which had been boosted by the JCPOA, took a big hit as Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign bit and significantly reduced Tehran's oil sales.

Shortly after Joe Biden succeeded Trump in the White House in 2021, Iran and the United States began holding a series of indirect talks to revive the nuclear deal. A draft agreement was prepared by the European Union, which serves as the coordinator of the JCPOA, but it was never signed.

Talks stalled in 2022 and remained frozen -- until now.

What's At Stake?

Trump has been clear about what he wants: Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. But it remains unclear whether he wants to restrict Iran's nuclear activities or completely dismantle it.

Iran is willing to offer assurances that it's not looking to acquire a bomb but has rejected the idea of entirely scrapping its nuclear program.

Despite trying to project confidence and claiming it can neutralize US sanctions, Tehran desperately needs a deal.

Iran's economy is arguably in the worst shape it has ever been, with the national currency hitting new lows against the dollar on an almost daily basis. Iranian's purchasing power has dwindled and blackouts have become a fixture of summer and winter despite Iran's global status as an energy-rich nation.

For the United States, preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority.

Iran is enriching uranium at 60 percent purity, which is widely regarded as near-weapons grade. It has also accumulated enough uranium to build several bombs, should it choose to do so.

Tehran insists its nuclear program is peaceful and has never pursued weaponization. However, with the Trump administration continuing to raise the possibility of military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, a growing number of Iranian officials have teased that Tehran would develop nukes if cornered.

Estimates suggest Iran could enrich sufficient uranium for a single bomb in less than a week and enough for several bombs within a month.

Ahead of the talks in Oman, Washington has sought to up the pressure even further. On April 9, the US Treasury announced sanctions on five entities and one person based in Iran for their support of Iran's nuclear program, including the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI).

Mohammed Ghaedi, a lecturer at George Washington University's department of political science, told RFE/RL's Radio Farda that the new sanctions are unlikely to have much of an impact on Iran's nuclear program since they target AEOI's assets in the United States, which aren't many.

The new sanctions, he argued, mostly serve to strengthen the United States' leverage against Iran during negotiations.

On April 9, Trump again warned that, in the absence of a deal with Iran, the United States would resort to military action to neutralize Tehran's nuclear program.

"Israel will obviously be very much involved in that. They'll be the leader of that," he said.

Ali Shamkhani, a top aide to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, replied that continued threats of military confrontation would compel Iran to expel UN inspectors and "transfer enriched uranium to secure sites."

Who Are The Negotiators?

Araqchi is a career diplomat who has served as both a senior and lead nuclear negotiator. He was heavily involved in the JCPOA talks and led indirect negotiations with the United States to revive it.

Trump's envoy Witkoff, meanwhile, is a billionaire real estate investor, who lacks diplomatic experience but has taken on a central role in high-stakes negotiations since joining Trump's team.

On April 11, Witkoff stopped in St. Petersburg, Russia, for meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin. State news agencies said the meetings lasted more than four hours.

"The theme of the meeting -- aspects of a Ukrainian settlement," the Kremlin said in a statement after the meeting.

Witkoff also met with Kirill Dmitriev, a Kremlin adviser and head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund. Dmitriev has taken on a prominent role in direct talks with Washington, where he traveled last week.

Following the Oman meetings, Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia's ambassador to international bodies in Vienna, called the US-Iran talks "encouraging" in a Telegram post.

"[Witkoff] is managing a lot of different files and may be out of his depth in technical discussions that are likely to dominate the Oman meetings," Gregory Brew, senior Iran analyst at the New York-based Eurasia Group, told RFE/RL.

"Araqchi is a skilled diplomat with years of experience," he said. "Unless Witkoff is backed up by a strong staff with expertise, it may complicate discussions."

Oman's discreet diplomacy has often bridged gaps between the two sides, including back-channel negotiations that led to the JCPOA. Now, Muscat is poised to host discussions once more, with both sides wary but aware of the risks of failure.

With reporting by RFE/RL correspondent Kian Sharifi, Reuters, and AP

Iranian and US negotiators wrapped up more than two hours of high-level talks over Tehran's nuclear programs, with Iranian officials describing the effort as "positive" and "constructive."

The US delegation, which was headed by White House envoy Steve Witkoff, issued no immediate statement on the outcome of the April 12 talks, which were held in the Oman capital, Muscat.

The meetings are the first by officials from both countries on the issue in years, and come amid spiraling tensions and mounting military threats from Washington.

Witkoff's counterpart in the talks was Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi.

Days before the talks, Trump issued a new warning saying that "if necessary," the United States "absolutely" would use military force against Iran -- with Israel poised to play a leading role.

Iran's response has been defiant, signaling the high stakes for both nations and the broader Middle East.

Iran's semiofficial Tasnim news agency quoted unnamed officials as saying the atmosphere in the talks was "constructive," and said the two sides had agreed to meet again next week.

Witkoff and Araqchi also “briefly spoke in the presence of the Omani foreign minister” at the end of the talks, Iranian state TV reported. That would mark a direct interaction between the two nations locked in decades of tensions.

How Did We Get Here?

The talks mark another chapter in the fraught relationship between Iran and the United States, which has been defined by cycles of diplomacy and confrontation.

The 2015 nuclear deal -- formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- once offered hope for detente, but Washington's withdrawal in 2018 during Trump's first term triggered a spiral of sanctions and uranium enrichment by Tehran.

European powers tried to salvage the JCPOA by launching what they called the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges, which was meant to facilitate non-dollar transactions with Iran to avoid violating US sanctions and dissuade Tehran from scaling back its commitments.

In practice, only one transaction was made through the mechanism, and it was eventually scrapped in 2023.

Iran's economy, which had been boosted by the JCPOA, took a big hit as Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign bit and significantly reduced Tehran's oil sales.

Shortly after Joe Biden succeeded Trump in the White House in 2021, Iran and the United States began holding a series of indirect talks to revive the nuclear deal. A draft agreement was prepared by the European Union, which serves as the coordinator of the JCPOA, but it was never signed.

Talks stalled in 2022 and remained frozen -- until now.

What's At Stake?

Trump has been clear about what he wants: Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. But it remains unclear whether he wants to restrict Iran's nuclear activities or completely dismantle it.

Iran is willing to offer assurances that it's not looking to acquire a bomb but has rejected the idea of entirely scrapping its nuclear program.

Despite trying to project confidence and claiming it can neutralize US sanctions, Tehran desperately needs a deal.

Iran's economy is arguably in the worst shape it has ever been, with the national currency hitting new lows against the dollar on an almost daily basis. Iranian's purchasing power has dwindled and blackouts have become a fixture of summer and winter despite Iran's global status as an energy-rich nation.

For the United States, preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority.

Iran is enriching uranium at 60 percent purity, which is widely regarded as near-weapons grade. It has also accumulated enough uranium to build several bombs, should it choose to do so.

Tehran insists its nuclear program is peaceful and has never pursued weaponization. However, with the Trump administration continuing to raise the possibility of military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, a growing number of Iranian officials have teased that Tehran would develop nukes if cornered.

Estimates suggest Iran could enrich sufficient uranium for a single bomb in less than a week and enough for several bombs within a month.

Ahead of the talks in Oman, Washington has sought to up the pressure even further. On April 9, the US Treasury announced sanctions on five entities and one person based in Iran for their support of Iran's nuclear program, including the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI).

Mohammed Ghaedi, a lecturer at George Washington University's department of political science, told RFE/RL's Radio Farda that the new sanctions are unlikely to have much of an impact on Iran's nuclear program since they target AEOI's assets in the United States, which aren't many.

The new sanctions, he argued, mostly serve to strengthen the United States' leverage against Iran during negotiations.

On April 9, Trump again warned that, in the absence of a deal with Iran, the United States would resort to military action to neutralize Tehran's nuclear program.

"Israel will obviously be very much involved in that. They'll be the leader of that," he said.

Ali Shamkhani, a top aide to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, replied that continued threats of military confrontation would compel Iran to expel UN inspectors and "transfer enriched uranium to secure sites."

Who Are The Negotiators?

Araqchi is a career diplomat who has served as both a senior and lead nuclear negotiator. He was heavily involved in the JCPOA talks and led indirect negotiations with the United States to revive it.

Trump's envoy Witkoff, meanwhile, is a billionaire real estate investor, who lacks diplomatic experience but has taken on a central role in high-stakes negotiations since joining Trump's team.

On April 11, Witkoff stopped in St. Petersburg, Russia for meetings with Putin. State news agencies said the meetings lasted more than four hours.

"The theme of the meeting -- aspects of a Ukrainian settlement," the Kremlin said in a statement after the meeting concluded.

Witkoff also met with Kirill Dmitriev, a Kremlin adviser and head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund. Dmitriev has taken on a prominent role in direct talks with Washington, where he traveled last week.

"[Witkoff] is managing a lot of different files and may be out of his depth in technical discussions that are likely to dominate the Oman meetings," Gregory Brew, senior Iran analyst at the New York-based Eurasia Group, told RFE/RL.

"Araqchi is a skilled diplomat with years of experience," he said. "Unless Witkoff is backed up by a strong staff with expertise, it may complicate discussions."

Oman's discreet diplomacy has often bridged gaps between the two sides, including back-channel negotiations that led to the JCPOA. Now, Muscat is poised to host discussions once more, with both sides wary but aware of the risks of failure.

With reporting by RFE/RL correspondent Kian Sharifi, RFE/RL's Radio Farda, and AP

Welcome back to The Farda Briefing, an RFE/RL newsletter that tracks the key issues in Iran and explains why they matter.

I'm RFE/RL correspondent Kian Sharifi. In this edition I'm looking at concerns about the rising number of executions in Iran and the deteriorating human rights situation.

What You Need To Know

• Executions On The Rise In Iran: Iran continues to rank second worldwide in annual executions, Amnesty International has said in its latest report. Executions have risen steadily since 2020, largely driven by drug-related offenses. Activists argue the Islamic republic also uses the death penalty as a tool to silence dissent and suppress political opposition.

• Nuclear talks in Oman: Iranian and US negotiators will hold talks in Oman on April 12 on Tehran's nuclear program, though it remains unclear whether the talks will be direct or indirect. Both sides have framed the rendezvous as a meeting to test the waters and see whether formal negotiations can be held.

• Argentina Seeks Arrest Warrant For Khamenei: Argentina is pursuing legal action against Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for his alleged role in the 1994 AMIA bombing, which targeted a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, killing 85 people and injuring hundreds. Prosecutor Sebastian Basso has requested an international arrest warrant for Khamenei, alleging he issued a fatwa authorizing the attack carried out by operatives of the US-designated Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah.

The Big Issue

Tool To 'Silence' Critics

Executions in Iran reached their highest level since 2015, with at least 972 recorded in 2024, according to Amnesty International. The surge helped drive a global increase in capital punishment, with Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia accounting for 91 percent of known executions last year.

Amnesty Secretary-General Agnes Callamard said Iran and Saudi Arabia used the death penalty "to silence those brave enough" to challenge the authorities. She also pointed to drug-related offenses as a major contributor to the spike in executions.

Why It Matters: Rights groups say Iran's justice system is marked by a lack of transparency and due process.

Many of those executed are convicted in trials that fall short of international legal standards, with allegations of forced confessions, restricted access to lawyers, and vague charges such as "enmity against God."

What's Being Said: Raha Bahreini, a human rights lawyer and spokeswoman for Amnesty International, said the real number of executions in Iran is likely higher.

She told RFE/RL's Radio Farda that because Iran is not transparent, Amnesty International relies on documented reports of executions collected by groups that monitor human rights violations in Iran.

Bahreini noted that while the world is moving toward abolishing the death penalty, a handful of countries are driving the surge in executions -- including Iran, which accounted for 64 percent of executions in 2024.

Expert Opinion: "The authorities in the Islamic republic use the death penalty as a tool to create an atmosphere of terror and fear," Bahreini said.

That's all from me for now.

Until next time,

Kian Sharifi

If you enjoyed this briefing and don't want to miss the next edition, subscribe here. It will be sent to your inbox every Friday.

US President Donald Trump has again threated to use military force if Iran does not agree to end its nuclear program and said Israel would be the "leader" of a potential military strike.

Trump told reporters on April 9 at the White House that "if necessary," the United States "absolutely" would use military force. He made the comments after being asked about talks between US and Iranian officials scheduled to take place this weekend in Oman and how long they may last.

"We have time," Trump said, adding that there's no definitive timeline for the talks to come to a resolution.

"When you start talks, you know if they’re going along well or not," Trump said. "And I would say the conclusion would be when I think they’re not going along well. So that's just a feeling."

Trump announced the talks on April 8 during an Oval Office briefing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu said he supports Trump's diplomatic efforts to reach a settlement with Iran. He added that Israel and the United States share the same goal of ensuring that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon.

Trump said that if the use of military force is necessary, "Israel will obviously be very much involved in that."

Both sides have framed the talks in Oman as an exploratory meeting to see if negotiations can be held. Trump said the talks would be "direct," while Iran has described the engagement as "indirect" talks.

The United States will not be "asking for much" at the talks, Trump said, repeating his oft-stated position that Iran "can't have a nuclear weapon."

The United States is increasingly concerned as Tehran appears to be closer than ever to having a nuclear weapon. Iran has long maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

The United States and other world powers in 2015 reached a comprehensive nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. But Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States in 2018, calling it the "worst deal ever."

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth voiced hope that US-Iran talks could be resolved peacefully after Reuters reported on April 9 that as many as six B-2 bombers had relocated to a US-British military base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia.

Asked if the B-2s were meant to send a message to Iran, Hegseth said: "We'll let them decide." He called the bombers "a great asset," telling reporters during a trip to Panama that they send a "message to everybody."

The US Treasury Department earlier on April 9 issued new sanctions targeting Iran's nuclear program. Five entities and one person based in Iran were designated for new sanctions in connection with their alleged support of Iran's nuclear program, the department said in a news release.

The designated groups include the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran and subordinates Iran Centrifuge Technology Company, Thorium Power Company, Pars Reactors Construction and Development Company, and Azarab Industries Company.

In his comments to reporters at the White House, Trump said the people of Iran "are so incredible," but the government is a "rough regime."

"I want Iran to be great," Trump said. "The only thing that they can’t have is a nuclear weapon. They understand that."

With reporting by Reuters and AP

US President Donald Trump surprised almost everyone when he announced in an Oval Office briefing -- with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sitting right beside him -- that high-level direct talks on Iran's nuclear program were scheduled for April 12 in Oman.

It is unclear whether Iran wanted to keep it quiet, but Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi felt the immediate need to clarify in the middle of the night Tehran time that talks would be indirect, contrary to what Trump had said.

Regardless of the format, both sides have framed the rendezvous as an exploratory meeting to see if negotiations can be held.

But beneath the headlines lies a deeper strategic debate: What exactly should the United States demand from Iran's nuclear program -- tight oversight or total dismantlement?

Trump has been clear about what Washington's end-goal is: Iran can never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. What he hasn't explicitly talked about is whether that means imposing restrictions on Iran's nuclear program or completely dismantling it.

Instead, senior members of his administration have been doing the talking, but they've been sending contradictory messages.

Steve Witkoff, Trump's Middle East envoy who will be leading the US delegation in the Oman talks, said last month that Washington wants to "create a verification program so that nobody worries about weaponization of [Iran's] nuclear material."

The implication was that the United States wants to curb enrichment and establish an oversight mechanism to ensure Iran's nuclear program remains peaceful -- something that Iran claims has always been its intention.

But national-security adviser Mike Waltz struck a different chord days later, charging that the administration wants "full dismantlement," adding, "Iran has to give up its program in a way that the entire world can see."

What Should The US Aim For?

Proponents of full dismantlement of the nuclear program say it is the only surefire way to ensure Iran won't ever acquire nukes.

Behnam Taleblu, senior director of the Iran program at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), argues Trump should not entertain arms control.

"Rather than seeking to limit Iran's atomic program, it should be forced to junk it altogether," Taleblu told RFE/RL.

He conceded that going for dismantlement is "high risk" but argued it is achievable and necessary through pressure such as stepping up sanctions and holding joint military drills with Israel.

Indeed, the US Treasury on April 9 announced sanctions on five entities and one person based in Iran for their support of Iran's nuclear program, including the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI).

And if talks are futile, Taleblu said, Trump should be ready to walk away.

"The Islamic republic will only seriously consider surrender if it knows America has a credible exit option," he added.

A major supporter of the complete dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program is Netanyahu, who has floated the idea of a "Libya-style agreement," which Tehran has long rejected.

Others argue that any demand for Iran to fully dismantle the program would be seen in Tehran as political suicide.

"US demands for full dismantlement or a ‘Libya-style' deal that involves Iran breaking apart its entire nuclear program would be a nonstarter for Tehran," said Gregory Brew, senior Iran analyst at the New York-based Eurasia Group.

He argued that aiming for implementing a verification scheme to keep Iran's nuclear program in check "would, at the very least, provide a basis for further discussions."

But if Washington is intent on tearing down Iran's nuclear program, "talks will be over fast, and the risk of military escalation will go up," Brew added.

Is Iran Ready To Risk War?

The 2015 nuclear deal, which Trump withdrew from in 2018, formally expires in October. With it gone, the UN Security Council (UNSC) will lose the power to reimpose sanctions on Iran.

So, the West is running out of both time and patience.

Trump has warned Iran that it will bomb it if no agreement is reached. France, also a permanent member of the UNSC and a signatory to the 2015 deal, has expressed concern that the absence of a new agreement would make the prospect of military confrontation "almost inevitable."

The United States has been flexing its muscles and beefing up its military presence in the region. It has been launching air strikes against the Iran-backed Houthi rebels for weeks, using some of its most sophisticated hardware against a group that does not even have an air force to speak of.

"The deployments offer the United States a credible military threat that can serve to put more pressure on Iran," Brew said. "The United States is clearly signaling that it is prepared to escalate if talks fail or if Iran advances its nuclear program to weaponization."

The stakes for the regime are very high, he added.

But Taleblu believes the Islamic republic is ultimately risk-averse and won't want to risk a military confrontation.

"There are instances in history, admittedly not many, where the regime has significantly backtracked on a stated security goal it sunk significant capital into," he asserted. "In instances where Tehran senses strength and a willingness to grow penalties and impose costs over time that could meaningfully threaten the regime, it has backed down."

The stage is set for diplomacy in Oman. As the clock ticks, the question is who will blink first.

US President Donald Trump said the United States will hold high-level "direct" talks with Iran at a "very big meeting" this week while warning Tehran it would be in “great danger” if the talks on its nuclear program don’t succeed.

Iran's foreign minister confirmed that a meeting was set to take place on April 12, but the talks would be "indirect."

"Iran and the United States will meet in Oman on Saturday for indirect high-level talks," Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on X on April 7 shortly after Trump commented on the talks.

"It is as much an opportunity as it is a test. The ball is in America's court."

Iran has insisted on indirect negotiations, saying it would not hold direct talks as long as Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign on Tehran is in effect.

Araghchi later told Iran's semiofficial Tasnim news agency that US envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff would be at the talks, but the two would speak only through a mediator.

Trump told reporters at the White House that talks were taking place "on a very high level, almost the highest level," and emphasized that no intermediaries were involved.

He did not say who would represent the United States. Witkoff has not commented publicly on whether he would attend the talks.

"We have a very big meeting, and we'll see what can happen. I think everybody agrees that doing a deal would be preferable," Trump said in an impromptu press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"If talks with Iran aren't successful, I think Iran will be in great danger," Trump said, insisting that the Islamic republic must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

Netanyahu briefly weighed in, expressing support for a Libya-style deal with Iran --a reference to a 2003 agreement in which the African nation agreed to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Iran maintains its nuclear program is for civilian purposes and has previously rejected the possibility of a Libya-style agreement.

Trump earlier this month called for "direct talks" with Tehran, saying they were "faster" and offered a better understanding than using intermediaries. Trump suggested then that a new agreement with Iran could be "different and maybe a lot stronger" than the 2015 nuclear deal.

He had previously sent a letter to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calling for negotiations and warning of military action if diplomacy failed.

Iranian President Masud Pezeshkian on April 5 said that Tehran was willing to engage in dialogue on an "equal footing." The following day Araghchi said in a statement that Tehran was prepared to hold indirect talks.

After abrogating the nuclear deal in 2018 during his first term as president, Trump reimposed sanctions on Iran that had been lifted under the agreement. Iran retaliated by accelerating its nuclear program and is currently enriching uranium at 60 percent purity, which is described as near weapons-grade.

The 2015 deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), has a snapback mechanism that allows for the return of UN sanctions on Iran. But once the deal expires in October, world powers lose the ability to trigger the mechanism.

Trump has threatened to bomb Iran if there is no agreement on Tehran's nuclear program. Iran has warned that it will deliver a "strong" response to any aggression and has suggested that it will develop a bomb if attacked.

Washington has been sending mixed messages about whether it wants to restrict Iran's uranium enrichment or fully dismantle Tehran's nuclear program.

Iran has not commented on Trump's assertion that direct talks have already started.

Nour News, a website affiliated with Ali Shamkhani, a senior adviser to Iran's supreme leader, described Trump's remarks as "a calculated effort to shape public opinion" aimed at portraying Washington as the party taking diplomatic initiative and Tehran as the side opposed to dialogue.