Regime change could make Iran more confrontational

Dina Esfandiary, the Middle East lead for Bloomberg Geoeconomics, outlined in an analysis this week, why regime change (were it to occur) could lead to a more confrontational Iran. Her replies were written before President Donald Trump launched airstrikes on Iran. Still, her replies are worth reading for the readers of this blog. 

How likely is regime change in Iran at this point, and what would that entail?

Regime change won’t come at the hands of Israel’s bombs. When an external enemy attacks, there tends to be a strong rally-around-the-flag effect in Iran, not unlike other countries. This means that whatever discontent Iranians feel — and that discontent has been rising — gets pushed aside momentarily so the country can unite in the face of an external enemy. For as long as these strikes continue, and the more images of death and destruction get shared, the stronger this sentiment gets. And this is exactly what Iran’s leadership wants, because it buys them some time and breathing space. 

You’ve written that the removal of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could lead to an even more confrontational Iran, why is that?

The Islamic Republic is no monolith. There are reformists, pragmatists and hardliners within the elites. There is also a rising cadre of young, more ideological elements within the system who believe that the Islamic Republic has lost its way, and call for a return to the tenants of the 1979 revolution. The system has been preparing for the Supreme Leader’s succession for several years now, with each faction within the political system jostling to get their preferred candidate in the winning seat. There is a chance that this young ideological cohort of officials are able to get someone in that represents their views, or that the Revolutionary Guards, who are traditionally more hardline on Iran’s foreign policy, are able to get someone in. That might make Iran more confrontational. 

If we did see regime change in Iran, what would you be watching next? Who gains, who loses, and how might markets respond?  

It’s really difficult to tell what will come next because there is no viable, organized opposition in Iran right now. There are a few figures outside the country, but they are divisive and unlikely to get much support inside the country. This means that the field will be open to those who are stronger inside. The vision of the next leader, along with what relationships that person has, inside and outside the country, will tell us a great deal about what direction they hope to take the country in. Will they be open to bringing Iran out of isolation or will they double down and harden Iran’s stance internationally? Markets are likely to panic at first, especially if the person is unknown.

Iranian missiles hit Israeli port city

According to CNN, nearly two dozen people were wounded in parts of Israel on Friday after Iran unleashed a fresh barrage of missiles. Foreign ministers from the Britain, France, and Germany met their Iranian counterpart in Geneva on Friday.

The talks come as US President Donald Trump says he will decide within two weeks whether to join Israel’s ongoing military campaign against Iran, amid reports that Washington is actively considering intervention.

Iran said the latest attack targeted “military objectives, defense industries, and command centers” in Israel, a spokesperson for the country’s Revolutionary Guard said.

Haifa's mayor stressed need for peace after the Iranian missile barrage on Friday.

The “name of the game is peace,” Yona Yahav, mayor of the northern Israeli city, told CNN. He said the two-week deadline set by President Donald Trump to decide on whether the US will join Israel’s military action on Iran is too long.

Speaking to CNN’s Nic Robertson from the city in the aftermath of a fresh Iranian missile barrage, Mayor Yona Yahav confirmed that no one had been killed in the attack.

According to Israeli emergency services, a total of 21 people were injured in Haifa during the attacks, including three with severe injuries.

Yahav also said “I don’t like wars,” after having personally experienced 10 of them, adding that the “name of the game is peace.”

He said his culturally mixed city has been a mostly peaceful home to both Jews and Arabs for over 100 years.

When asked about the talks that are being held in Geneva between Iran and European countries, Yahav said he hoped that a peace treaty would be the ultimate end result.

The mayor said that the two-week deadline President Trump had given to decide US actions on Iran was “too much,” as he said it is difficult for residents to live while wrapped up in war.

“A fixed answer I can’t get from Trump, and this bothers me,” he said.

“Because I like stability, and I think that he has to give me this stability.”

Israeli attacks on Iran, what it gained or lost?

No one could believe that the United States or Israel launch attacks on Iran in the middle of a diplomatic process. The sixth round of indirect nuclear talks with the US was scheduled later in the week. There were expectations a breakthrough was possible this time.

US President Donald Trump had urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avoid attacking Iran. Even if Trump is "crazy," many analysts argued, he seemed capable of clear thinking when it came to West Asia, understanding that another war in the region - especially one that involves Iran - would benefit no one.

However, Trump turned out to be just as crazy and ignorant as people knew he was. He provided Israel with logistics and intelligence needed to strike residential buildings, nuclear facilities, and military sites across Iran while a meeting was scheduled in Oman.

Why did Israel attack Iran?  

Netanyahu claims the attacks aimed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons a justification few accept, even those minimally informed about Iran s nuclear program.  

The IAEA and Western intelligence agencies have confirmed time and time again that despite nuclear advancements, Iran has neither pursued nuclear weapons nor demonstrated political will to do so. If Iran develops such weapons in the future, it will likely be a direct result of Israel s brazen aggression, making them feel such arms are necessary.

Israeli attacks on the Natanz and Fordow nuclear facilities failed to cause significant damage. As per Iran's nuclear chief's latest announcement, both sites are currently operating normally. This did not come as a surprise, as the whole world had known for a while that the main part of Iran's nuclear facilities are placed deep under the ground, and that it is impossible to destroy them with conventional weapons.. 

To understand why Iran was attacked, we must first examine the Israeli offensive.  

Israeli operation against Iran comprised of three elements: 1) assassinating military leaders, 2) attacking nuclear sites, and 3) terrorizing civilians.  

Israel believed its offensive would result in three things: 1) The assassination of top Iranian commanders would delay or prevent retaliation, 2) All or a significant number of Iran's missile launchers, depots, and military sites would be destroyed through Friday's campaign, and 3) Killing of Iranian civilians and striking the heart of Tehran would pit the people against the government and spur an uprising

All assumptions proved false. While the loss of five of its top military leaders did deal a blow to Iran, it did not cripple the Iranian Armed Forces. Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei took only a couple of hours to replace the assasinated generals. 

While analysts don't know how much damage Israel has managed to inflict on Iran's military assets, it is clear that a large part of the country's defensive and offensive calibilties are still in tact. 

Since the conflict began, Iran has launched multiple waves of missile strikes against the occupied territories, hitting critical targets like the Haifa oil refinery, the Mossad and Aman headquarters, military bases, and nuclear research centers. The Iranian Armed Forces claim they have enough missiles to hit Israeli targets every day for two years.  

Another Israeli prediction that proved false was that given the various financial and societal issues gripping Iran in recent years, the people would choose to topple the government in order to "save" their lives.

Netanyahu issued a message to the Iranian people, and later did an interview with a US-based Persian speaking channel to tell them he was only at war with the government, and that he wanted to bring Iranians freedom and prosperity.

The Israeli aggression only made Iranians more united and even prompted well-known individuals with a long history of anti-goverment activisim to rally behind Ayatollah Khamenei.

What Israel gained or lost? 

Netanyahu managed to gain a temporary period of Euphoria. Settlers in the occupied territories are accustomed to waging war not facing existential threats. For the first time in Israel s history, its citizens fear for their lives. Iranian missiles strike at will, a reality Israelis recently confronted. As Hebrew media reports, residents barred by authorities from fleeing now pay smugglers to transport them by boat to Cyprus.

Journalists say they are appalled at what's happening, military analysts say Israel's interceptors, which have so far only downed older Iranian missiles designed to preoccupy air defense systems, will be out soon.

Netanyahu and Trump essentialy entered a war they can not finish. It appears Israel failed in estimating Iranian capabilities. They may have to sit back and watch how Iran writes the ending to their story.

 

Israeli attack on Iran aims two objectives

Israel's extensively planned - fully supported by United States and its Arab allies – attack on Iran had an obvious goal of sharply disrupting Tehran's nuclear program and lengthening the time it would need to develop an atomic weapon. But the scale of the attacks, Israel's choice of targets, and its politicians' own words suggest another, longer-term objective - toppling the regime itself.

The strikes early on Friday hit not just Iran's nuclear facilities and missile factories but also key figures in the country's military chain of command and its nuclear scientists. These attacks were aimed at diminishing Iran's credibility both at home and among its allies in the region - factors that could destabilize the Iranian leadership.

Israel, in fact United States, want people of Iran to rise up against the present clergy that is the reason the civilian casualties were kept minimum in the initial round of attacks.

In a video address shortly after Israeli fighter jets began striking Iranian nuclear facilities and air defence systems, Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, appealed to the Iranian people directly.

To recall, Israel's actions against Hezbollah had led to a new government in Lebanon and the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria.

Netanyahu has said, “The Iranian people had an opportunity too. I believe that the day of your liberation is near. And when that happens, the great friendship between our two ancient peoples will flourish once again."

Despite the damage inflicted by the unprecedented Israeli attack, decades of enmity toward Israel - not only among Iran's rulers but its population raises questions about the prospect for fomenting enough public support to oust an entrenched theocratic leadership in Tehran backed by loyal security forces.

Friday's assault was the first phase of what Israel said would be a prolonged operation. Experts said they expected Israel would continue to go after key Iranian nuclear infrastructure to delay Tehran's march to a nuclear bomb - even if Israel on its own does not have the capability to eliminate Iran's nuclear program.

Iran says its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only. The UN nuclear watchdog concluded this week that it was in violation of its obligations under the global non-proliferation treaty.

Israel's first salvoes targeted senior figures in Iran's military and scientific establishment, took out much of the country's air defence system and destroyed the above-ground enrichment plant at Iran's nuclear site.

Israel says, as a democratic country, we believe that it is up to the people of a country to shape their national politics, and choose their government. The future of Iran should only be determined by the Iranian people.

US President Donald Trump's administration, while acquiescing to Israel's strikes and helping its close ally fend off Iran's retaliatory missile barrage, has given no indication that it seeks regime change in Tehran.

Israel has much further to go if it is to dismantle Iran's nuclear facilities, and military analysts have always said it might be impossible to totally disable the well-fortified sites dotted around Iran.

The Israeli government has also cautioned that Iran's nuclear program could not be entirely destroyed by means of a military campaign.

"There's no way to destroy a nuclear program by military means," Israel's National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi told Israel's Channel 13 TV. The military campaign could, however, create conditions for a deal with the United States that would thwart the nuclear program.

Analysts also remain sceptical that Israel will have the munitions needed to obliterate Iran's nuclear project on its own.

"Israel probably cannot take out completely the nuclear project on its own without the American participation," Sima Shine, a former chief Mossad analyst and now a researcher at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, told reporters on Friday.

While setting back Tehran's nuclear program would have value for Israel, the hope for regime change could explain why Israel went after so many senior military figures, potentially throwing the Iranian security establishment into confusion and chaos.

"These people were very vital, very knowledgeable, many years in their jobs, and they were a very important component of the stability of the regime, specifically the security stability of the regime," said Shine.

"In the ideal world, Israel would prefer to see a change of regime, no question about that," she said.

But such a change would come with risk, said Jonathan Panikoff, a former US deputy national intelligence officer for the Middle East who is now at the Atlantic Council.

If Israel succeeds in removing Iran's leadership, there is no guarantee the successor that emerges would not be even more hardline in pursuit of conflict with Israel.

"For years, many in Israel have insisted that regime change in Iran would prompt a new and better day - that nothing could be worse than the current theocratic regime," Panikoff said. "But history tells us it can always be worse."

 

Iran proposes meeting with Europeans

Iran has proposed meeting the European parties to a 2015 nuclear deal possibly in Rome this Friday if talks resume with the United States, reports Reuters.

Iran is looking to build on the momentum of nuclear negotiations with the United States that resumed in Oman on Saturday, after talks with Russia and China.

Omani officials have said a new round of US-Iran talks could be held on May 03 in Europe. No formal decision has been taken as yet.

Iran's reach out to Britain, France and Germany, known as the E3, suggests Tehran is keeping its options open and also wants to assess where the Europeans stand on the possible re-imposition of UN sanctions before October, when a resolution ratifying the 2015 accord expires.

Iran had communicated after last Saturday's talks with the United States a proposal to meet possibly in Rome on Friday. Should that not be possible, the Iranians also suggested discussions in Tehran before that date.

The second round of negotiations between Washington and Tehran took place in Rome with Iran saying serious differences remained.

The European and Western diplomats said the E3 were assessing whether it was in their interest to meet Iran now or wait to see how talks with Washington developed, but ruled out a meeting in Tehran.

"It is important to remain on the same page with all parties to the 2015 deal. Therefore, meeting the E3 countries this week ahead of the next round of talks with Americans would be useful," said the Iranian official.

 

Iran: Blast at Bandar Abbas kills 18 people

A huge blast probably caused by the explosion of chemical materials killed at least 18 people and injured more than 700 on Saturday at Iran's biggest port, Bandar Abbas, Iranian state media reported.

The explosion, which hit the Shahid Rajaee section of the port, occurred as Iran began a third round of nuclear talks with the United States in Oman.

Hossein Zafari, a spokesperson for Iran's crisis management organization, appeared to blame the explosion on poor storage of chemicals in containers at Shahid Rajaee.

"The cause of the explosion was the chemicals inside the containers," he told Iran's ILNA news agency.

"Previously, the Director General of Crisis Management had given warnings to this port during their visits and had pointed out the possibility of danger," Zafari said.

However, an Iranian government spokesperson said that although chemicals had likely caused the blast, it was not yet possible to determine the exact reason.

President Masoud Pezeshkian ordered an investigation of the incident and sent to the site his interior minister, who said efforts were continuing to extinguish the fire and prevent it from spreading to other areas.

Iran's official news channels aired footage of a vast black and orange cloud of smoke billowing up above the port in the aftermath of the blast.

Located near the strategic Strait of Hormoz, Shahid Rajaee port is Iran’s biggest container hub, handling a majority of the country’s container goods.

The blast was heard in Qeshm, an island 16 miles south of the port.

State TV earlier reported that poor handling of flammable materials was a "contributing factor" to the explosion.

A local crisis management official told state TV that the blast took place after several containers stored at the port exploded.

 

 

Iran-US to resume talks in Oman on Saturday

Negotiations between Iran and the United States over Tehran's rapidly advancing nuclear program are set to resume on Saturday in the Omani capital Muscat, where technical experts from both sides will attempt to iron out the details of a potential agreement, reports Euronews.

The discussions aim to curb Iran's nuclear activities in exchange for lifting economic sanctions the US has imposed on the country over nearly half a century.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly warned he may order airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities if a deal is not achieved, while Iranian officials increasingly hint they could pursue nuclear weapons capability with their growing stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium.

Last weekend's talks in Rome provided a neutral ground for Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.

However, Rome's period of mourning following the death on Monday of Pope Francis, whose funeral will take place Saturday, and Iranian complaints about media attention in Italy may have influenced the change of venue.

"As you can see, unlike the first round of talks where the presence of journalists was limited...this time in Rome, Italy, that kind of control hasn't been applied," said Iranian state television journalist Hosnieh Sadat Shobeiri.

The talks in Muscat come as Iran shores up support from China and Russia. Araghchi met with officials in Moscow last week and in Beijing earlier this week.

On Thursday, representatives from China, Russia and Iran met with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog.

Although the IAEA did not release details, China's Xinhua news agency reported the three nations believe the IAEA has "the necessary potential and expertise" to contribute to the process, while emphasizing the need for diplomatic solutions.

China reaffirmed Iran's "right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy."

The Trump administration has kept European powers France, Germany and the United Kingdom — co-signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal — out of its direct talks with Iran, mirroring its strategy in negotiations with Russia over the Ukraine conflict.

Meanwhile, Araghchi suggested further discussions with the European nations, writing on X, "The ball is now in the E3's court...How we act at this critical junction is likely to define the foreseeable future."

Two Iranian diplomats, Majid Takht-e Ravanchi and Kazem Gharibabadi, will reportedly lead Tehran's technical team. The American delegation will be headed by Michael Anton, a political strategist and strong Trump supporter, although he lacks direct nuclear policy experience.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reiterated in a recent podcast that Iran must halt uranium enrichment entirely if it wants a civil nuclear program.

"If Iran wants a civil nuclear program, they can have one just like many other countries can have one, and that is they import enriched material," Rubio said.

While Witkoff initially suggested Tehran could enrich uranium to 3.67%, he later aligned with Rubio's position, insisting all enrichment must stop. Iran remains adamant that domestic enrichment is non-negotiable.

Complicating matters further is Israel's stance. Israel, which has targeted Iranian nuclear facilities in the past, has not ruled out future strikes. Israeli forces this week conducted drills preparing for possible Iranian missile attacks, according to broadcaster KAN.

"Our security services are on high alert given past instances of attempted sabotage and assassination operations designed to provoke a legitimate response," Araghchi posted on X on Wednesday.

 

 

Can US sanctions on Iran and OPEC production cuts save oil prices from falling?

According to Reuters, oil prices extended gains on Thursday on the prospect of tighter supply after Washington imposed further sanctions to curb Iranian oil trade and as some OPEC producers pledged more output cuts to compensate for pumping above agreed quotas.

Brent crude futures rose to US$66.40 a barrel by 0321 GMT, and WTI traded at US$63.13 a barrel. Both benchmarks settled 2% higher on Wednesday at their highest levels since April 3 and are on track for their first weekly rise in three. Thursday is the last settlement day of the week ahead of the Good Friday and Easter holidays

"I think the rally has a couple of factors behind it - shorts covering, the weaker Greenback which makes crude oil cheaper to buy, and the US pressure on Iran," IG market analyst Tony Sycamore said.

He added that WTI could rise back to US$67 a barrel but may struggle with further gains.

"If we assume that US growth is going to be flat at best for the next two quarters and Chinese GDP is set to slow to somewhere between the 3%-4% band, it's not good for crude oil," Sycamore said.

President Donald Trump's administration issued new sanctions targeting Iran's oil exports on Wednesday, including against a China-based "teapot" oil refinery, ramping up pressure on Tehran amid talks on the country's escalating nuclear program.

Adding to supply concerns, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) said on Wednesday it had received updated plans for Iraq, Kazakhstan and other countries to make further output cuts to compensate for pumping above quotas.

"These factors certainly could have affected sentiment – would argue that Iranian production (is) not significant and that OPEC quotas more often breached than observed, but both factors fed into the more bullish tone," said Michael McCarthy, CEO of online investment platform Moomoo.

Big draws on US gasoline and distillates stocks and a smaller-than-expected gain in weekly crude inventories also bolstered markets, he said.

"Much of the recent selling pressure in global crude markets related to fears of an imminent flood of US oil, but the drop in refining suggests that bottlenecks to supply may be emerging," McCarthy said.

Still, OPEC, the International Energy Agency and several banks, including Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, cut forecasts on oil prices and demand growth this week as US tariffs and retaliation from other countries threw global trade into disarray.

 

Israel a US accomplice in attacks on Iran

Israel's desire to potentially destroy Iranian nuclear facilities stems from a mix of strategic, security, and geopolitical concerns. Here’s a breakdown of the likely reasons:

National Security Threat

Israel sees a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat. Iran has a long history of hostile rhetoric against Israel, including statements from some Iranian leaders calling for the end of the Israeli state. A nuclear weapon in Iranian hands could shift the balance of power in the region and severely limit Israel’s freedom to act militarily.

Regional Power Balance

Israel is currently the only country in the Middle East widely believed to possess nuclear weapons (though it has never confirmed this officially). If Iran were to develop its own nuclear arsenal, it would undermine Israel’s strategic military edge in the region and potentially spark a regional arms race.

Deterrence Concerns

Even if Iran doesn’t use a nuclear weapon, the mere possession could embolden Iranian proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon or militias in Syria and Iraq. Israel worries that Iran’s nuclear capability could act as a protective umbrella for more aggressive conventional or proxy actions.

Lack of Trust in Diplomacy

Israel has been critical of the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), arguing that it does not permanently prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and that Iran could "wait out" the deal and then resume enrichment. They also believe Iran has cheated or could cheat on its obligations.

Precedent of Preemptive Strikes

Israel has a history of preemptively striking nuclear programs in the region:

Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981

Syria’s Al-Kibar facility in 2007

These actions reflect a doctrine that Israel will not allow hostile states to acquire nuclear weapons.

Killing of Iranian nuclear scientists by Israel

The killing of Iranian nuclear scientists—widely attributed to Israel—has been a significant and controversial element in the long-running tensions between Iran and Israel, especially regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Here's a breakdown of key events and context:

Overview of the Killings

Since around 2010, several Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated under mysterious or targeted circumstances. These attacks are believed by many experts and intelligence sources to be part of an Israeli covert campaign to slow or sabotage Iran’s nuclear program. Following is the list of major Israeli attacks on Iranian facilities:

Masoud Alimohammadi (Jan 2010)

Physics professor was killed in a bomb blast in Tehran. Iran blamed the US and Israel, though there was little publicly available evidence.

Majid Shahriari (Nov 2010)

Nuclear engineer was assassinated in a car bombing.

Simultaneously, another scientist, Fereydoon Abbasi, was targeted but survived.

Dariush Rezaeinejad (July 2011)

Shot by gunmen on a motorcycle outside his home.

Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan (Jan 2012)

Deputy Director of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility was killed in a magnetic bomb attack on his car.

Mohsen Fakhrizadeh (Nov 2020)

Senior figure in Iran’s nuclear program, seen as the “father” of Iran’s nuclear weapons project was killed in a highly sophisticated ambush, allegedly involving remote-controlled weapons and possibly AI. Israel was widely suspected; Netanyahu had named Fakhrizadeh in a 2018 speech as central to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Israeli Stance

Israel has not officially claimed responsibility for the assassinations but has hinted at a policy of proactive defense against Iranian nuclear capabilities. The Israeli intelligence agency Mossad is believed to be behind the operations, according to various reports and leaked information.

Strategic Purpose

Delay Nuclear Development:

Targeting key figures slows down Iran’s nuclear progress.

Deterrence:

Sends a message to Iran and other adversaries.

Psychological Warfare:

Undermines morale and trust within Iran’s scientific and intelligence community.

Iran’s Response

Iran has blamed Israel and sometimes the US and vowed revenge. It has strengthened security around its scientists and facilities. Iran has continued pushing forward its nuclear program, including uranium enrichment.

International Reactions

The killings have drawn mixed international response. Some Western countries condemned the assassinations as extrajudicial killings. Others remained silent or vaguely supportive, seeing Iran’s nuclear ambitions as a security threat.

Can US-Iran talks yield immediate results?

The outcome of today's US-Iran talks in Oman remains uncertain, given the complex backdrop of regional tensions and divergent positions.​ It is necessary to understand the key factors influencing the talks.

Regional Instability:

The Middle East is experiencing heightened tensions, including conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon, Iranian-Israeli missile exchanges, Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping lanes, and the collapse of Syria's government. These developments have created a volatile environment that complicates diplomatic efforts.

US Stance:

President Donald Trump's administration has emphasizes that preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a non-negotiable "red line." While the US demands the dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program, it remains open to compromise, focusing on trust-building measures and verifiable compliance.

Iranian Position:

Iran has shown a willingness to engage in indirect negotiations through Oman's mediation, despite Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's public rejection of talks. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has indicated that indirect negotiations are feasible and have historical precedent, suggesting a potential openness to dialogue under certain conditions.

Israel the Spoiler

Israel has consistently expressed strong opposition to US-Iran nuclear negotiations, often taking actions that complicate diplomatic efforts. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly warned that Israel will do "everything" to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, viewing any potential deal as a threat to regional stability.

In recent developments, as the US and Iran prepare for talks in Oman, Israel has intensified its diplomatic engagements. Israeli officials, including Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer and National Security Advisor Tzachi Hanegbi, have held high-level meetings with US counterparts to discuss Iran's nuclear program and express concerns over the negotiations.

While Israel remains skeptical of Iran's intentions, some Israeli officials have indicated that they might not oppose a new deal, provided it effectively prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, Israel's firm stance and active involvement underscore its influential role in shaping the discourse around US-Iran nuclear talks.​

Prospects for Progress

While both nations have expressed interest in resolving tensions, significant challenges remain. The US seeks to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, whereas Iran demands sanctions relief and economic engagement. The success of the talk hinges on the ability of both parties to find common ground and build mutual trust.​ While the talks in Oman represent a critical opportunity for diplomacy, the path to a meaningful agreement is fraught with obstacles. The coming days will be pivotal in determining whether these discussions can lead to substantive progress.

 

 

Iran Talks Spark Bipartisan Concerns on Capitol Hill

US President Donald Trump’s decision to engage in high stakes talks with Iran this weekend has raised concerns across party lines on Capitol Hill. The talks, reportedly set to begin in Oman, are framed as direct by Trump, but Iran claims they’ll be indirect. Uncertainty surrounds Trump’s objectives—whether he seeks full nuclear dismantlement or limitations similar to the Obama-era JCPOA, which he withdrew from in 2018.

Rep. August Pfluger insists that anything short of a complete nuclear disbandment is unacceptable. Lawmakers also question the potential sidelining of Israel, a key US ally, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has called for the “Libya model” of total dismantlement. Tensions rise as Netanyahu considers action against Iran’s facilities, though such a move would likely need US backing.

Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff has taken over the Iran file and advocates for a robust verification program to ensure Iran’s compliance. However, skepticism remains high among lawmakers. Sen. Tommy Tuberville supports a verifiable deal but doubts its feasibility, while Sen. Roger Wicker warns against trusting Iran.

Iran's nuclear capability has advanced significantly since the JCPOA. Experts now say Iran could fuel a bomb within weeks. However, US intelligence maintains Iran has not yet chosen to weaponize its nuclear material.

Despite its nuclear progress, Iran has lost leverage. Its regional influence has waned due to conflicts with Israel and economic decline under US sanctions. The Iranian currency has plummeted, inflation is high, and the government struggles to provide basic services.

Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi views the upcoming talks as a genuine diplomatic opening, citing recent communication with the US. He also appealed to Trump’s business instincts, suggesting a potential “trillion-dollar” opportunity through cooperation.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized that Iran must never obtain nuclear weapons or threaten regional stability. Yet Iran signals it may accept JCPOA-like terms for sanctions relief, though it rejects broader US demands. As both sides lower expectations, Iran insists military threats must be removed for diplomacy to succeed.

Iranian warning to Donald Trump

A high-ranking commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) warned on Monday that the US forces in the region are sitting in a “glass house” and should avoid “throwing stones at others.”

Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the IRGC’s Aerospace Division, made the remarks on the sidelines of ceremonies to celebrate Eid al-Fitr.

“The Americans have 10 military bases in the region, particularly around Iran and 50,000 troops” are deployed in these based, Hajizadeh said, according to Press TV.

“This means they are sitting in a glass house; and when one sits in a glass house, he does not throw stones at others.”

The top IRGC’s comment come after threats by US President Donald Trump to bomb Iran if it refuses to reach "a new deal" on its nuclear program.

On Sunday, Trump said Iran will be bombed if it does not make a deal with the United States.

“If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing,” he said in an interview with NBC News. He also threatened to punish Iran with what he called “secondary tariffs.”

In a post on his X account on Monday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Trump’s open threat of “bombing” the country is an affront to global peace and security.

“An open threat of ‘bombing’ by a Head of State against Iran is a shocking – affront ‑ to the very essence of International Peace and Security,” Baghaei wrote.

 

 

Trump threatens bombing Iran

According to Reuters, US President Donald Trump has threatened Iran on Sunday with bombing and secondary tariffs if Tehran did not come to an agreement with Washington over its nuclear program.

Western powers accuse Iran of having a clandestine agenda to develop nuclear weapons capability by enriching uranium to a high level of fissile purity, above what they say is justifiable for a civilian atomic energy program. However, Tehran insists its nuclear program is wholly for civilian energy purposes.

In Trump's first remarks since Iran rejected direct negotiations with Washington last week, he told NBC News that US and Iranian officials were talking, but did not elaborate.

"If they don't make a deal, there will be bombing," Trump said in a telephone interview. "It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before."

"There's a chance that if they don't make a deal, that I will do secondary tariffs on them like I did four years ago," he added.

Iran sent a response through Oman to a letter from Trump urging Tehran to reach a new nuclear deal, saying its policy was to not engage in direct negotiations with the United States while under its maximum pressure campaign and military threats, Tehran's foreign minister was quoted as saying on Thursday.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reiterated the policy on Sunday. "Direct negotiations with the US have been rejected, but Iran has always been involved in indirect negotiations, and now too, the Supreme Leader has emphasized that indirect negotiations can still continue," he said, referring to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

In the NBC interview, Trump also threatened so-called secondary tariffs, which affect buyers of a country's goods, on both Russia and Iran. He signed an executive order last week authorizing such tariffs on buyers of Venezuelan oil.

Trump did not elaborate on those potential tariffs.

In his first 2017-21 term, Trump withdrew the US from a 2015 deal between Iran and world powers that placed strict limits on Tehran's disputed nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

Trump also reimposed sweeping US sanctions. It is alleged that since then, the Islamic Republic has far surpassed the agreed limits in its escalating program of uranium enrichment.

 

 

 

 

 

Iran Nuclear Program: West’s Double Standards

The ongoing debate over Iran’s nuclear program has resurfaced, with a Wall Street Journal piece urging Iran’s complete nuclear disarmament. It likens Iran to South Africa’s voluntary disarmament and Libya’s renouncement of nuclear ambitions, arguing that only pressure — sanctions, military threats, and economic isolation — can force compliance. However, this argument overlooks historical context, Western double standards, and the consequences of past interference in West Asia.

Hypocrisy in Disarmament Demands

Comparing Iran to South Africa and Libya is misleading. South Africa dismantled its program during a peaceful transition from apartheid, not under external pressure. Libya abandoned its efforts after the US invaded Iraq in 2003 — a move that didn’t prevent Libya’s eventual collapse under Western intervention. Iran, aware of this history, has little reason to believe unilateral disarmament would ensure its security.

Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), allows International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections. In contrast, Israel, which possesses nuclear weapons, hasn’t signed the NPT or permitted inspections — yet faces no calls to disarm. If non-proliferation were truly the goal, the same standards would apply to all nations, not just US adversaries.

Broken Agreements and Misleading Narratives

Iran adhered to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), verified by the IAEA, until the United States unilaterally withdrew in 2018, reimposing sanctions. Iran continued compliance, hoping European nations would uphold the deal, reducing commitments only after it became clear sanctions would persist. The portrayal of Iran as the party breaking agreements is a distortion of events.

Sanctions: Economic Warfare, Not Diplomacy

Sanctions have hurt ordinary Iranians without forcing government collapse or nuclear abandonment. Iran’s economy, despite hardships, has adapted through domestic industries and alliances with China and Russia. Economic warfare often fuels national resilience, not surrender.

Real Source of Instability

The issue isn’t Iran’s nuclear program — it’s Western intervention and support for authoritarian regimes to maintain US-Israeli military dominance. Iran remains open to dialogue but not likely to accept one-sided deals demanding surrender. True diplomacy requires mutual respect, not coercion — the only path to a fair, lasting peace.

Trump gives Iran deadline to reach new nuclear deal

US President Donald Trump, in a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei proposing negotiations on a new nuclear deal, made clear that Iran has a two-month deadline to reach an agreement, a source familiar with the letter’s contents told CNN.

The directive comes as Trump has said he would like to reach a deal with Iran to gain more control over their nuclear capabilities.

Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff delivered the letter to the president of the United Arab Emirates Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan while he was in Abu Dhabi last week, the source said. The UAE later gave the letter to the Iranians.

“President Trump made it clear to Ayatollah Khamenei that he wanted to resolve the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program diplomatically – and very soon – and if this was not possible, there would be other ways to resolve the dispute,” a spokesman for the National Security Council Brian Hughes said in a statement to CNN.

Axios was the first to report on the contents of the letter.

Trump also discussed a potential nuclear deal with Iran during his phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday, according to a White House readout of the call.

The readout stated that Trump and Putin “spoke broadly about the Middle East as a region of potential cooperation to prevent future conflicts. They further discussed the need to stop proliferation of strategic weapons and will engage with others to ensure the broadest possible application.”

“The two leaders shared the view that Iran should never be in a position to destroy Israel,” the readout continued.

Earlier this month, Trump told Fox News that there “are two ways Iran can be handled: militarily, or you make a deal. I would prefer to make a deal, because I’m not looking to hurt Iran.”

“I said, ‘I hope you’re going to negotiate, because it’s going to be a lot better for Iran,’ and I think they want to get that letter – the alternative is we have to do something, because you can’t let them have a nuclear weapon,” Trump added.

It is unclear how the US would respond if Iran fails to enter direct talks regarding its nuclear program. However, senior US officials have not ruled out potential military action, whether through the US or Israel, on Iran’s nuclear facilities in the future.

During his first term in office, Trump withdrew from the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran and ordered a US-led strike on Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani, leading to further backlash from Tehran.

Trump, in his second term, has returned to his “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran, in an effort to isolate the country economically and diplomatically.

Khamenei recently said calls for negotiations by “bully states” are aimed at dominating others, not resolving issues.

“The insistence on the part of some bully states on negotiations is not to resolve issues, but to dominate and impose their own expectations,” Khamenei said this month, as cited by Iranian state media outlets.

Iran to be held responsible for attacks by Houthis

US President Donald Trump said on Monday he would hold Iran responsible for any attacks carried out by the Houthi group that it backs in Yemen, as his administration expanded the biggest US military operation in the Middle East since Trump returned to the White House, reports Reuters.

Responding to the Houthi movement's threats to international shipping, the US launched a new wave of airstrikes on Saturday. On Monday, the Red Sea port city of Hodeidah and Al Jawf governorate north of the capital Sanaa were targeted, Houthi-run Al Masirah TV said.

"Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN, and IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire!" Trump said on his Truth Social platform.

The White House said that Trump's message to Iran was to take the United States seriously.

The Pentagon said it had struck over 30 sites so far and would use overwhelming lethal force against the Houthis until the group stopped attacks. The Pentagon's chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell, said the goal was not regime change.

Lieutenant General Alex Grynkewich, director of operations at the Joint Staff, said the latest campaign against the Houthis was different to the one under former President Joe Biden because the range of targets was broader and included senior Houthi drone experts.

Grynkewich said dozens of Houthi members were killed in the strike. The Biden administration is not believed to have targeted senior Houthi leaders.

The Houthi-run health ministry said on Sunday that at least 53 people have been killed in the attacks. Five children and two women were among the victims and 98 have been hurt, it said. Reuters could not independently verify those casualty numbers.

One US official told Reuters the strikes might continue for weeks. Washington has also ramped up sanctions pressure on Iran while trying to bring it to the negotiating table over its nuclear program.

The Houthis say their attacks, which have forced companies to re-route ships to longer and more expensive journeys around southern Africa, are in solidarity with Palestinians as Israel strikes Gaza.

Houthi leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi said on Sunday the militants would target US ships in the Red Sea as long as the US continues attacks on Yemen.

Under the direction of al-Houthi, who is in his 40s, the ragtag group has become an army of tens of thousands of fighters and acquired an arsenal of armed drones and ballistic missiles.

While Iran champions the Houthis, the Houthis deny being puppets of Tehran, and experts on Yemen say they are motivated primarily by a domestic agenda.

The Houthis' military spokesman, without providing evidence, said in a televised statement early on Monday that the group had launched a second attack against the US aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman in the Red Sea.

 

Trump’s unsent letter to Iran

US President Donald Trump claimed to have sent a letter to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, expressing interest in striking a deal with Iran on its nuclear program – a move that represents neither a swerve in Iran-US relations nor holds much promise under the current US policies.

"I wrote them a letter saying I hope you are going to negotiate," Trump stated, coupling the plea with the familiar threat to either "handle" Iran militarily or "make a deal." In an eyebrow-raising moment, when asked when he'd sent the letter to [Imam] "Khomeini," the long-deceased founder of the Islamic Republic, Trump claimed it was "yesterday," meaning Wednesday.

An unnamed American official, later told Al Jazeera that the letter had been "written" but not yet sent. That came after Iran’s mission to the UN said the country had received no such letter.

This isn't the first instance of a US president writing – or, in this case, claiming to have written – to Iran's Leader. Former President Barack Obama penned two letters to Ayatollah Khamenei, and Trump himself entrusted former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe with a message for the Leader during Abe's 2019 visit to Tehran. Ayatollah Khamenei declined to receive the letter, telling Abe that he didn't consider Trump a “worthy” interlocutor.

This also isn’t the first instance of Trump saying he wants a deal with Iran. He's been making this statement since 2018, the year he withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

That 2015 agreement, negotiated over at least two years by Iran, the United States, Britain, Russia, China, and Germany, traded limits on Iran's nuclear program for sanctions relief.

Trump's abandonment of the JCPOA and reimposition of sanctions not only undermined the agreement but ultimately spurred European nations to enact their own embargoes later, despite remaining official signatories.

On the same Thursday that Trump told a Fox anchor he wanted to negotiate with Iran, his Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, addressed the Economic Club of New York.

There, Bessent vowed that the president’s anti-Iran sanctions during his second term would be even more severe.

“We are going to shut down Iran’s oil sector and drone manufacturing capabilities,” Bessent stated, adding that the administration also intends to cut off Tehran’s access to the international financial system.

Multiple Iranian officials have reiterated in recent weeks that Iran will not engage in talks under pressure, aligning with a directive from Ayatollah Khamenei, who in early February described negotiations with the US as "unwise, unintelligent, and dishonorable."

Iranians’ deep-seated distrust towards the US is rooted in decades of American meddling in Iran's affairs, especially during the Pahlavi era. But Ayatollah Khamenei’s stance has especially hardened since Trump withdrew Washington from the JCPOA.

The fact that the president continues to threaten Iran with sanctions or military action is not helping ease Tehran’s concerns either. 

During his Fox Business interview, Trump stated his primary concern was preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. However, his decision to withdraw from the JCPOA – a deal that subjected Iran's nuclear facilities to unprecedented international scrutiny and compelled the country to roll back some of its advancements – suggests other priorities are at play.

As a February directive revealed, Trump's real goals are to force Iran to curtail its missile programs and sever ties with regional Resistance forces.

Analysts argue that publicizing a letter before it reaches the intended recipient serves primarily to advance Trump's own interests, rather than reflecting a genuine desire for good faith diplomacy.

Given Iran's sustained resistance to years of sanctions, it's clear that propaganda and media maneuvers alone will not compel the country to negotiate.

Iran also remains firm on its refusal to negotiate its military capabilities, and persistent or intensified Western pressure may ultimately force it to reconsider its nuclear doctrine. 

There's no guarantee that Trump's potential military options against Iran would achieve the desired outcome. Washington likely lacks the capacity to destroy all of Iran's fortified and dispersed nuclear sites, while a devastating response from Tehran would be all but certain.

 

Iran wants US to abandon its hostility

Iran could hold direct talks with the United States if Washington demonstrates in practice that it is not hostile to the Islamic Republic, said President Masoud Pezeshkian on Monday.

Pezeshkian was responding to a question at a news conference in Tehran on whether Tehran would be open to direct talks with the US to revive a 2015 nuclear deal.

Former US president Donald Trump reneged on that deal in 2018, arguing it was too generous to Tehran, and restored harsh US sanctions on Iran, prompting Tehran to gradually violate the agreement's nuclear limits.

"We are not hostile towards the US, they should end their hostility towards us by showing their goodwill in practice," said Pezeshkian, adding, "We are brothers with the Americans as well."

After taking office in January 2021, US President Joe Biden tried to negotiate a revival of the nuclear pact under which Iran had restricted its nuclear program in return for relief from US, European Union and UN sanctions.

However, Tehran refused to directly negotiate with Washington and worked mainly through European or Arab intermediaries.

 

US Reactions on Pezeshkian's Victory

We have picked up these quotes directly from a post which was sent to us by the United States Institute of Peace. These quotes seem to have an extremely biased opinion about Iran. One fails to understand the duality of standards. Hasn’t United States godfathering Israel in the genocide in Gaza and supplying all sorts of lethal arms to Ukraine. The readers are invited to read these quotes dispassionately and form their own opinion. 

National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby on July 08, 2024 said, “We’re not in a position where we’re willing to get back to the negotiating table with Iran just because they elected a new president. They’re still supporting terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. They’re still supporting the Houthis as the Houthis attack ships in the Red Sea. They’re still attacking shipping as well. And they’re still supplying drones and drone technology and drone expertise to the Russians so that the Russians can continue to kill innocent Ukrainians like they did over the weekend.”

“We will see what Pezeshkian wants to get done, but we are not expecting any changes in Iranian behavior sadly.”

State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller on July 08 said, “So we have no expectations that this election will lead to a fundamental change in Iran’s direction or its policies. At the end of the day, it’s not the president that has the ultimate say over the future of Iran’s policy; it is the supreme leader, and of course we have seen the direction that he has chosen to take Iran in. Obviously, if the new president had the authority to make steps to curtail Iran’s nuclear program, to stop funding terrorism, to stop destabilizing activities in the region, those would be steps that we would welcome. But needless to say, we don’t have any expectations that that’s what’s likely to ensue.”

“So let’s let Pezeshkian take office first. I don’t have anything to announce today. We have always said that diplomacy is the most effective way to achieve an effective, sustainable solution with regard to Iran’s nuclear program, one of the issues with which we have great concerns, obviously, and nothing about the election has changed that. But we have also made clear that we are far from any kind of meaningful diplomatic resolution right now given Iran’s escalation across the board.”

State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel on July 01, said, "We’re not in a position to confirm or – any turnout number or speculate on what the implications of that might mean for the Iranian regime. Our viewpoint is that even the Iranian Government’s official numbers about turnout are most – like most other things as it relates to the Iranian regime, are unreliable. Our view is that these elections in Iran are not free and fair, and we have no expectation that these elections and whatever the outcome might be will lead to a fundamental change in Iran’s direction or lead the Iranian regime to offer more respect for human rights and more dignity for its citizens."

Deputy Special Envoy for Iran Abram Paley on June 26 said, “As the Iranian regime prepares for its presidential elections, the US unfortunately has no expectation of free and fair elections or fundamental change in Iran’s direction. Of course, the candidates have been hand-picked by the Guardian Council, but we also know the Iranian people lack access to even the most basic freedoms; necessary features of any democracy. In the face of the authoritarian regime’s long history of harassing and intimidating journalists, suppressing election coverage, and denying freedom of peaceful of assembly, we support the Iranian people. The United States will continue to defend human rights in Iran, shine a light on the regime’s repression, and support a free and democratic future.”

State Department spokesperson on June 30 said, "The elections in Iran are not free and fair.”

"Unfortunately, we have no expectation that these elections, whatever the outcome, will lead to fundamental change in Iran’s direction or more respect by the Iranian regime for the human rights of Iran’s citizens.”

 

Iran missile production, is it a hoax call?

According to Reuters, satellite imagery shows major expansions at two key Iranian ballistic missile facilities that two American researchers assessed are for boosting missile production.

Reuters reports, the enlargement of the sites follows an October 2022 deal in which Iran agreed to provide missiles to Russia, which has been seeking them for its war against Ukraine. Tehran also supplies missiles to Yemen's Houthi rebels and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, both members of the Iran-backed Axis of Resistance against Israel.

Images taken by commercial satellite firm Planet Labs of the Modarres military base in March and the Khojir missile production complex in April show more than 30 new buildings at the two sites, both of which are located near Tehran.

According to Reuters, these images show many of the structures are surrounded by large dirt berms. Such earthworks are associated with missile production and are designed to stop a blast in one building from detonating highly combustible materials in nearby structures, said Jeffrey Lewis of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey.

The expansions began at Khojir in August last year and at Modarres in October, Lewis said, based on images of the sites.

Iran's arsenal is already the largest in the Middle East, estimated at more than 3,000 missiles, including models designed to carry conventional and nuclear warheads, experts say.

Reuters claims that Modarres and Khojir sites are being expanded to boost production of conventional ballistic missiles.

Reuters claims that some of the new buildings would also allow a doubling of drone manufacturing. Drones and missile components would be sold to Russia, drones would be provided to the Houthis and missiles to Hezbollah.

Iran's mission to the United Nations did not respond to a Reuters request for comment on the expansion of the complexes. Tehran has previously denied providing drones and missiles to Russia and the Houthis.

Houthi spokesperson Mohammed Abdulsalam said a boost in Iran's weapons manufacturing would not have any impact in Yemen because the Houthis develop and manufacture aircraft independent of Iran.

Lewis analyzed the Planet Labs imagery with Decker Eveleth, an associate research analyst at CNA, a Washington think-tank, as part of a Middlebury project that monitors Iranian missile infrastructure.

The two US researchers said in separate interviews that it was not clear from the photos what kinds of missiles would be produced at the new facilities, which still appeared to be under construction.

Any increase in Tehran's missile or drone production would be concerning to the United States, which has said that Iranian drones help sustain Russia's assault on Ukrainian cities, and to Israel as it fends off attacks from Iran-backed groups, including Hezbollah.

 

Reuters in February reported that Iran had sent surface-to-surface ballistic missiles to Russia for use against Ukraine. Iran denied providing the weapons. Washington said it could not confirm the transfers but it assumed Tehran intended to provide missiles to Moscow.

On November 12, 2011, a massive explosion destroyed a large swath of Shadid Modarres associated with solid fuel missiles, killing 17 IRGC officers. They included Gen. Hassan Moqaddam, regarded by Iran as the "architect" of its ballistic missile program.

Construction at Shahid Modarres, which began again after the 2011 explosion, accelerated last year.