Attacks on two commercial oil tankers in the Gulf Of Oman have escalated tensions in the Middle East and raised the prospect of a military confrontation between Iran and the United States. Washington and its allies in the region have blamed Tehran for the blasts on board the Norwegian-owned Front Altair and Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous. The cause of the explosions remains unclear.

The blasts, south of the Strait of Hormuz, followed last month's attacks on vessels off the nearby United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) that Washington also blamed on Tehran. Almost a fifth of the world's oil passes through the strait.

Tensions have escalated since May 2018, when U.S. President Donald Trump pulled out of a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and major powers that aimed to curb Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Washington has since reimposed stiff economic sanctions. Tehran has repeatedly warned it would block the Strait of Hormuz if it could not sell its oil because of U.S. sanctions.

RFE/RL spoke with Scott Lucas, an Iran expert at Birmingham University in Britain and editor of the EA World View website, about the attack and its possible repercussions.

RFE/RL: The U.S. military has blamed Iran for the attacks on the tankers. What possible political, economic, and military motivations would Iran have for allegedly targeting the vessels?

Scott Lucas: There is nothing conclusive about Iranian responsibility at this point. When you assess the possible motives behind this attack, we should consider the context.

The background in terms of quasi-military operations would be the attacks on the four ships, including the two Saudi tankers, in the U.A.E. port on May 12. It would include the drone attacks on Saudi pumping stations by Huthi rebels recently. Politically, the context for this would be a much tougher line this week from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who not only rejected mediation by Germany and Japan but did so in very strong terms.

This doesn't mean in any way I think that the Iranians necessarily did it. But there is a possible and plausible scenario under which it could have occurred. It could mean a faction within the Iranian system carried out military operations to say to the Americans and their allies, "Look, if you are going to come after us, we can hurt you."

I'm not saying that's what happened. What I'm saying is that if the Iranians were responsible then what it means is that the supreme leader and Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps [IRGC] are expecting American-led attempts at regime change or effectively a surrender of its position in the region and what the Iranians are saying is that they will not tolerate that. They're saying to the Americans, "If you think you can use military force to make us do this, we've got military capabilities as well."

RFE/RL: Does Iran have the military and intelligence capabilities to pull off such an attack?

Lucas: Iran certainly has the capabilities of carrying out such an attack. There's some confusion over whether the ships were hit from a flying object or they were disabled and damaged by limpet mines. The Iranians fought a ground, air, and naval war with Iraq from 1980-88, including in the Persian Gulf and the Strait Of Hormuz. Iran has developed military capabilities against a series of what they would call "regional enemies" like Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Yes, they have the capabilities to attack shipping. We've known that for years. We have just always wondered if Iran would ever take the step to attack shipping. That's the unanswered question we have at this moment.

RFE/RL: U.S. acting Ambassador Jonathan Cohen said that "no proxy group in the area has the resources or the skill to act with this level of sophistication." Do Lebanon's Iran-backed Hizballah movement or the Iranian-backed Huthi rebels in Yemen have such capabilities?

Lucas: This is where the question of the flying object versus the limpet mine takes on significance. We know that the Huthis have carried out attacks on Saudi shipping by using airborne missiles. So we do have a group like the Huthis who have attacked shipping in the area. Why they would want to attack, for example, these ships and what their motives would be is a much different question.

My response here would be to put the Iranian side of the case. The Iranians are saying that the Saudis, the U.A.E., the Israelis, and the Americans all have motive in carrying out a false-flag attack and damaging these tankers and blaming it on the Iranians to set up the pretext for military action or at least more extensive sanctions. The Iranian argument would be that "we are being set up as the fall guy for this."

RFE/RL: The U.S. military released a video on June 13 that it said showed Iran's IRGC removing an unexploded mine from the side of one of the oil tankers. The U.S. military also released photographs showing the apparent mine, which attaches to the side of a ship magnetically, before it was removed later the same day. Does this apparent evidence incriminate Iran or is it inconclusive?

Lucas: I would expect Iran's response to be that the IRGC unit were helping that ship by removing the unexploded mine that had been placed there by someone else. The question will still remain: who placed that mine in the first place? The U.S. will insist that Iran was removing it to cover up its trail. This will become a political battle, amongst many, in the days to come.

RFE/RL: Besides Iran, what other state or nonstate actors could be responsible or would benefit from this attack?

Lucas: Those who would benefit from Iran being found guilty of this would be their rivals in the region -- Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., and Israel. Certainly, U.S. hard-liners would be supported in their case for stronger action against Iran if Tehran was found culpable. But that leads to Iran saying that those parties who benefit set up the attack to justify the maximum-pressure strategy that is being pursued by the Trump administration.

There is no evidence yet that this was a false-flag attack. We also don't have conclusive evidence that Iran is responsible for this. While we await that evidence, and it might never come, this becomes a political choice. Do you believe the Iranians who say they are being set up as the scapegoats or do you believe the Americans and their allies that say Iran is the culprit?

One thing is clear: We now have a resurgence of tension between the U.S., Iran, and other countries that after having retreated from military confrontation last month and with mediation being firmly rejected by Iran, we are back to a dangerous escalation. It doesn't mean that war is on the way, but it does mean the opportunity for the avoidance of war has shrunk.

RFE/RL: What kind of possible responses might we see from the United States and the region?

Lucas: That's a huge question in terms of what responses and how far do they go. Where we were last month was that the Americans were moving a carrier strike force to the Persian Gulf and bombers. And they were going to station bombers in Qatar as a show of its military capability.

Now that was checked because various U.S. agencies got Trump to say, "Let's not go too far." We're at the point where those military forces could be moved back to the region. Do the Americans take the position they did in the late 1980s? Back then they put in military forces to patrol the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. We know that ended very badly, culminating with a U.S. warship shooting down an Iranian civilian plane that killed almost 300 people.

Would the U.S. and Israel go further with a renewal of covert attacks? We know there were attacks on Iran to limit their nuclear program, including assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists and the introduction of computer viruses. Would the U.S. go in and try to cripple Iranian infrastructure like the electricity grid or power stations with cyberwarfare?

On the other hand, what could the Iranians do? The Iranians can carry out asymmetric warfare through allies like Hizballah and the Huthis. Remember, Iran stands accused by European governments of carrying out bomb and assassination plots in recent years. So, there's a whole variety of actions that each side can take. But if they take any of those actions, they're committing themselves to an escalation. And this time, there may not be a way of stepping back from an escalation that does lead to overt military confrontation.

RFE/RL: What is the likelihood of a direct military confrontation between Iran and the United States? In 1988, the United States launched Operation Praying Mantis in the Persian Gulf, attacking and destroying Iranian sea bases, a frigate, and other ships in retaliation for Tehran's use of sea mines during the Iran-Iraq War.

Lucas: I don't think either side goes in thinking, "I want war." We have been here before, as in the late 1980s, when each side was calculating on military steps which were short of war. The problem is that when you take military steps short of war, the other side could respond. You could then respond to their response and then you would have an upward spiral that does end in a widespread conflict.

Let's look at what's happening now. If the Americans put military forces into the Persian Gulf and the Iranians decide to buzz the forces by sending speed boats or by even threatening the use of naval mines, do the Americans then respond with fire upon IRGC forces?

War doesn't occur in a single dramatic moment. It occurs step by step, and that's the risk we are facing now. It's a risk that is now at its highest point since the 1980s of something that escalates into a direct military confrontation.

RFE/RL: Is there still a chance that diplomacy could de-escalate tensions?

Lucas: There's always a chance. We had diplomacy that de-escalated tensions that led to the 2015 nuclear agreement. The point is that on both sides we are getting steps that are rejecting diplomacy. The Americans quite clearly did that by shredding the nuclear agreement. That was their message to Iran. The Iranians have made their latest message very clear by rejecting diplomacy.

Someone has got to step in and says to both sides to pull back from military measures and signals. But the problem is it goes beyond military signals. Iran is demanding a diplomacy that eases U.S. sanctions. The Trump administration is demanding a diplomacy in which Iran has to give up its uranium-enrichment program and to end their activities in the Middle East, whether it's Iran's involvement in Syria's civil war, Yemen's civil war, or Lebanon's Hizballah.

Neither side is going to make concessions at this point. Diplomacy is always possible but at this point diplomacy has a very limited window in terms of what it can do.

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.