Smoke in Rome: What’s really cooking between Trump and Tehran?
While US negotiators trade smiles with Tehran, internal rifts and foreign pressure reveal just how fragile Washington’s position has become
By Farhad Ibragimov | RT | April 23, 2025
Last Saturday, the second round of US-Iran nuclear talks took place in Rome, following an initial meeting held a week before in Muscat, Oman. Both sides had described the talks as “constructive,” but that optimism quickly collided with a wave of conflicting signals from the Trump administration. Despite the encouraging tone, it remained unclear whether a new nuclear agreement was truly within reach.
At the outset of negotiations, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz – an outspoken Iran hawk – laid down a hardline condition: Iran must completely dismantle its uranium enrichment program if it wanted any deal with the US. But after the Muscat meeting, Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, who led the US delegation, struck a very different note. In an interview with Fox News, he suggested that Tehran might be allowed to maintain limited uranium enrichment for peaceful energy purposes – something that would have been a nonstarter just days earlier.
Witkoff emphasized the importance of strict verification protocols to prevent any militarization of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, including oversight of missile technology and delivery systems. Notably absent from his remarks? Any mention of “dismantlement.” This shift hinted that the administration might be considering a modified return to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – the very agreement that Trump tore up in 2018, branding it a “disaster.”
But the pivot didn’t last. Just one day later, Witkoff reversed course in a post on X, doubling down on the demand for full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear and weapons programs. So what triggered the rhetorical whiplash?
According to Axios, Trump huddled with top national security officials just three days after the Muscat talks to reassess the US strategy. In that meeting, Vice President JD Vance, Witkoff, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued for a pragmatic approach. Pushing Tehran to dismantle its entire nuclear infrastructure, they warned, would tank the talks. Iran had already made it clear that such sweeping concessions were off the table. Vance even suggested Washington should brace for some level of compromise.
But not everyone agreed. A rival faction – led by Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio – saw things differently. They argued that Iran’s current vulnerability gave the US a unique upper hand, one that shouldn’t be squandered. If Tehran failed to meet America’s terms, they insisted, the US should be ready to strike militarily or greenlight Israeli action.
The divide exposes a deeper strategic rift within the Trump administration. Between the maximalist view that Iran must be completely disarmed and the more flexible position that aims to curb weaponization while preserving peaceful enrichment lies a vast gray area. The lack of a unified message – or even basic consensus – risks leaving the US at a disadvantage against a seasoned and coordinated Iranian negotiating team.
In short, Trump finds himself in a difficult balancing act. On one hand, it’s clear he wants to avoid military escalation. The decision to send Witkoff – a figure known for his willingness to compromise – signals a genuine interest in diplomacy over saber-rattling. If hardliners had the upper hand in Washington, it’s unlikely the second round in Rome would have happened at all.
On Monday, April 21, Trump cautiously told reporters the talks were going “very well,” but warned that real progress would take time. His choice of words reflected a desire to stay flexible, while acknowledging the complexity – and risks – of negotiating with Tehran.
Optimism seems more palpable on the Iranian side. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the two sides had found significantly more common ground in Rome than in Muscat. His remarks suggest that momentum is building and that real progress may be on the horizon.
Araghchi’s itinerary also raised eyebrows. Before heading to Rome, he made a stop in Moscow, where he met with President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. He reportedly carried a personal message from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – what he called “a message to the world.” The West didn’t miss the symbolism: the visit was widely interpreted as a public reaffirmation of the Moscow–Tehran alliance. Retired US Army Colonel and former Pentagon advisor Douglas MacGregor noted on X that any major American military action against Iran would likely draw a response from Russia, Tehran’s strategic partner.
On that same day, President Putin signed a law ratifying a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with Iran – further cementing political and economic cooperation. Against the backdrop of fragile US-Iran talks, the Moscow-Tehran axis suddenly looks more consequential. With these growing ties, Washington may find it harder to exert unilateral pressure on Iran.
Meanwhile, not everyone in Tehran is sold on the negotiations. Many Iranian officials remain skeptical of Trump, whose decision to unilaterally scrap the JCPOA in 2018 still looms large. Their distrust extends beyond Trump himself to a broader concern: that future US presidents may once again reverse course. If Obama’s deals were dismantled by Trump, why wouldn’t Trump’s agreements suffer the same fate?
Despite these tensions, major international outlets have confirmed that two more rounds of talks are planned: one in Geneva next week, and another in Oman the week after. The continued diplomatic activity points to a shared interest in keeping the conversation alive. For now, both Trump’s measured optimism and Iran’s cautious tone suggest that, at least in the near term, the risk of war has receded.
This de-escalation in rhetoric reflects a deeper truth: despite lingering mistrust and domestic political pressures, both sides see value in staying at the table. You don’t have to be a policy wonk to see that. But in Israel, the mood is far more anxious. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – never one to hide his skepticism about engaging Iran – has condemned the talks. For Tel Aviv, negotiations risk softening Tehran’s isolation and threatening Israel’s strategic position.
Still, Trump’s priority isn’t regional politics – it’s his legacy. He wants to be seen as the president who avoided war and brokered a deal the American public can get behind. In that light, Netanyahu’s objections may have to wait
Farhad Ibragimov, lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University, visiting lecturer at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Seven Reasons Not to Bomb Iran
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | April 23, 2025
“There are two ways Iran can be handled,” U.S. President Donald Trump has said, “militarily, or you make a deal.” National Security Adviser Mike Waltz advocated for the military solution; Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Vice President JD Vance advocated for diplomacy. Trump has opted for diplomacy. But all options are still on the table, and if the diplomatic path fails, Trump says “the other will solve the problem.”
But there are several reasons why all options should not be on the table and why bombing Iran to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear bomb would be absurd.
Most importantly, and the only one that really needs to be said, is that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear bomb. In 2003, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, issued a fatwa, an official religious ruling, that declared nuclear weapons to be forbidden by Islam. The 2025 Annual Threat Assessment, which “reflects the collective insights of the Intelligence Community,” clearly states that U.S. intelligence “continue[s] to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that [Ayatollah] Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” That assessment maintains the 2022 U.S. Department of Defense Nuclear Posture Review that concludes that “Iran does not today possess a nuclear weapon and we currently believe it is not pursuing one.” The most absurd reason for bombing Iran to prevent them from pursuing a nuclear bomb is that the U.S. knows Iran is not pursuing a nuclear bomb.
Since Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program, the second reason why it is absurd to bomb Iran is that it has every legal right to its civilian nuclear program. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has “the inalienable right to a civilian program that uses “nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.” The United States does not believe Iran has an illegal nuclear weapons program, and it would be absurd to bomb them for having a legal civilian nuclear program.
Thirdly, Iran has already demonstrated that a military solution is not necessary for the Trump administration to achieve its goal of ensuring that Iran does not enrich uranium to weapon grade levels. America’s concerns, well-founded or not, can be satisfied by establishing verifiable limits on Iran’s levels of enrichment. Iran demonstrated its willingness to comply with this nonmilitary solution when it agreed to those verifiable limitations in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Program of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement. Eleven consecutive International Atomic Energy Agency reports verified that Iran was completely and consistently in compliance with the commitments made under that agreement. A military solution to America’s concerns about Iran’s civilian nuclear program is absurd because the U.S. has historical evidence that the nonmilitary solution works.
The military solution is not only absurd because it is unnecessary, it is even more absurd because it risks, not only war with Iran, but a wider, regional war. The United States has begun moving military equipment into the region, including aircraft carriers, bombers, and air defense systems. While presented as preparation for the possibility of intensified war with the Houthis, American officials have privately said “that the weaponry was also part of the planning” for a potential “conflict with Iran.” Even just that “buildup of American weaponry,” according to a new intelligence assessment provided by Tulsi Gabbard, “could potentially spark a wider conflict with Iran that the United States did not want.” Iran has stated that U.S. military action against its civilian nuclear program will elicit a military response from Iran against U.S. bases in the region. Iran’s Parliamentary Speaker, Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf, said, “If they threaten Islamic Iran, then, like powder kegs, America’s allies in the region and U.S. bases will be made unsafe.” A military solution risks a war with Iran and, potentially, even a wider, regional war.
The fifth reason is that, for all the risk of war with Iran and, perhaps, even a wider regional war, the assessed benefit is not worth it. In a striking line that has received little attention, The New York Times reported that the goal of military plans to bomb Iran’s civilian nuclear sites being discussed by the United States and Israel “was to set back Tehran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon by a year or more.” Absurd is an understatement for risking war with Iran, and even a wider Middle East war, to set Iran’s nuclear program—a nuclear program the U.S. knows Iran does not have—to set the program back by only a year.
All of this calculation of costs and benefits and risks of war is absurd because we know that the diplomatic path can work. We know it can work because it did ten years ago with the successful solution of the JCPOA nuclear agreement. There is reason to hope that, a decade later, it can work again. In the first round of talks in Oman on April 12, Iran insisted that future direct talks would be contingent on the success of the current indirect talks. At the end of that first round, Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and U.S. chief negotiator Steve Witkoff, met directly, not momentarily as first reported, but for forty-five minutes. The first round in Oman successfully led to a second round in Rome, and the second round has now led to a third round because the second round was constructive.
And, finally, talk of a military solution by the nation that claims leadership of a world order based on international law is absurd because a pre-emptive strike on Iran without Security Council approval would be a violation of international law.
Diplomacy has a real chance of defusing the long and volatile standoff between the United States and Iran. Threats of war are not only unnecessary, they contribute only to making the diplomacy more difficult.
Seyed Mohammad Marandi: Israel Pressures US Toward War With Iran
Glenn Diesen | April 22, 2025
Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor, an analyst and an advisor to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. Prof. Marandi argues that Iran is ready for war, as the US and Israel disagree over attacking Iran.
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
Support the channel: PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenn…
Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f
Iran Ready to Make Nuclear Program More Transparent in Exchange for Lifting Sanctions
Sputnik – 22.04.2025
TEHRAN – Tehran is ready to make its nuclear program more transparent and develop more trust in it, provided that sanctions are lifted, Iranian government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani said on Tuesday.
“We will try to create more transparency and more trust [in the nuclear program] in exchange for lifting sanctions. In other words, in exchange for lifting sanctions — I emphasize, in a way that is effective and has a [positive] effect on people’s lives — Iran is ready to create more trust in its nuclear program and more transparency,” Mohajerani told reporters.
Mohajerani added that Iran considers it possible to reach a “good agreement” with the United States on nuclear issue, and this can be done in a short time.
“We are confident that reaching a good agreement [with Washington] in a short time while respecting our national interests is realistic,” Mohajerani said.
Mohajerani described the second round of Iranian-American talks as “good,” and called its atmosphere “constructive.”
The second round of talks between Iran and the US took place in Rome on April 19 with the mediation of Oman. The first round took place in the Omani capital on April 12 and the third round is planned for April 26.
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, saying that Tehran is close to creating nuclear weapons, but the US does not intend to allow this to happen. However, Iran has denied any plans to develop nuclear weapons.
Trump’s NSC Director for Israel and Iran Previously Worked for Israeli Ministry of Defense
By Ryan Grim and Saagar Enjeti | Drop Site News | April 21, 2025
The American official overseeing White House policy toward both Israel and Iran inside the National Security Council formerly worked for the Israeli Ministry of Defense, Drop Site News has learned. Merav Ceren’s appointment as Director for Israel and Iran at the NSC has not previously been reported, but her work with Israel’s MoD is well known among GOP circles.
Ceren’s appointment gives Israel an unusual advantage in internal policy discussions just as the Israeli government has launched a new campaign to pressure the American government to start a war with Iran rather than continue with negotiations toward a nuclear deal.
NSC spokesperson Brian Hughes confirmed that Ceren is now an official at the NSC and defended her as “a patriotic American.”
“Merav is a patriotic American who has served in the United States government for years, including for President Trump, Senator Ted Cruz, and Congressman James Comer,” said Hughes. “We are thrilled to have her expertise in the NSC, where she carries out the President’s agenda on a range of Middle East issues.”
Ceren includes her time with Israel’s Ministry of Defense in her bio at the pro-Israel think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).
The Israeli campaign has forced the issue into the top echelons of government. At a high-level meeting reported on recently by the New York Times, Vice President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth all pushed back against Israel’s plan for a major strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. They were even joined by NSC Director Michael Waltz, who warned that Israel’s effort would not succeed without ample U.S. support. Waltz and CENTCOM commander, Gen. Michael Kurilla, the Times reported, had previously been open to entertaining the Israeli idea and were briefed by Israeli military officials on a range of plans.
It’s rare for a foreign country to be able to pitch American policymakers on a joint war effort and look across the table to see a former member of their own Ministry of Defense working for the Americans. As Trump debates his tariff policy, for instance, there are no high-level officials who previously worked for the Chinese Communist Party present.
Ceren’s FDD bio says that while working for the Israeli military she participated in negotiations in the West Bank between Israel’s Coordinator for Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) and the Palestinian Authority. COGAT is the Israeli agency now refusing entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza, sparking a humanitarian crisis of unspeakable proportions. Ceren is the sister of Omri Ceren, a bellicose neoconservative and longtime foreign policy adviser to Sen. Ted Cruz.
In 2021, she authored the article “The Moral Case for High-Tech Weapons” for The New Atlantis, a long-form style publication that seeks to “understand the core anxiety about tech as the threat of dehumanization.”
‘A battle between right and wrong’: Houthi spokesman on confronting the US and Israel
The Grayzone | April 21, 2025
The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal interviews Muhammad Al-Bukhaiti, senior political officer and spokesman for Ansar Allah (the Houthi movement), on Yemen’s direct confrontation with a US military machine which is hellbent on destroying its ability to resist Israel. In this third conversation between The Grayzone and Bukhaiti, the Ansar Allah spokesman explains why he believes his movement’s war with the US-Israeli axis is unlike any conflict that preceded it, and why he believes Yemen is engaged in a righteous battle despite the terrible toll its civilians have faced. This interview was translated by Hekmat Aboukhater.
Find more reporting at https://thegrayzone.com Support our original journalism at
Patreon:
/ grayzone
Facebook:
/ thegrayzone
Twitter:
/ thegrayzonenews
Instagram:
/ thegrayzonenews
Dozens of casualties in US attack on market in Yemen’s capital
Palestinian Information Center – April 21, 2025
SANA’A – At least 12 civilians were killed and 30 others were injured in US airstrikes on a market and residential area in the center of Yemen’s capital city, Sana’a, on Sunday night.
According to local media, deadly US strikes targeted the Furwah neighborhood market in Sana’a’s Sha’ub district.
Footage aired by al-Masirah satellite channel showed extensive damage to vehicles and buildings in the bombed area in Sana’a, with citizens, who rushed to the scene, holding what appeared to be a dead child. Other wounded civilians wailed on stretchers heading for hospitals.
The strikes also targeted other populated areas in Sana’a, including Faj Attan neighborhood and the sanitation project in Aser neighborhood. No casualties in those areas have been reported.
Multiple strikes overnight also hit other areas of the country, including in Amran, Hodeida, Marib and Saada governorates.
On Saturday night, at least 29 US airstrikes targeted areas in northern Yemen, resulting in multiple casualties.
These deadly strikes come after the US army bombarded the Ras Issa fuel port in Yemen last week, killing at least 80 people and wounding 171 others, all of them civilians.
Yemen: US fails in its aggression since day one; Trump ‘accountable’ for fatalities
Press TV – April 21, 2025
The chairman of Yemen’s Supreme Political Council says Sana’a has not suffered even one percent damage at the military level despite all US assaults in support of Israel’s war on Gaza.
“I assure you that the aggression failed from its very first day, and we had previously managed to obtain information that thwarted the aggression before it occurred,” Mahdi al-Mashat said during a meeting of the National Defense Council on Sunday.
He added that if the Americans increase their mobilization, it means their weapons have failed.
Referring to US warship USS Harry S. Truman, Mashat said that it lost its command and control and was rendered out of service in the early days of the aggression.
The warship “achieved nothing for the enemy, forcing them to bring in other vessels and use other weapons,” he further said.
Mashat also said that, “The criminal US President Donald Trump will be held accountable for all that he did to civilians and civilian facilities, whether he remains in office or not.”
The US military has been carrying out almost daily attacks on Yemen for the past month, claiming that they are aimed at stopping the Ansarullah movement’s attacks on Israel-related ships.
The Yemeni army, however, said it will not stop its attacks on Israel-bound vessels until the regime halts its genocidal war on Gaza.
“Our stance in supporting our brothers in Gaza is firm and we will never retreat from it,” he said, adding that Yemen cannot allow the Americans and the “Israelis” to prey upon the Palestinian people in Gaza alone.
Since March, over 200 individuals have lost their lives due to US aggression in Yemen.
In retaliation for Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the US-UK-led assault on Yemen, the Yemeni Armed Forces began to carry out a series of strikes against Israeli, American, and British interests in the Red Sea and nearby regions in late 2023.
As the brutal conflict in Gaza worsened, Yemen imposed a strategic blockade on major maritime routes to hinder the movement of military supplies to their enemies and to pressure the international community to respond to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
If the US launches a ground operation against Yemen, it will backfire
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | April 21, 2025
Frustrated by its costly ongoing offensive campaign against Yemen, the Trump administration is said to be in talks to launch a ground effort aimed at seizing the strategic port city of Hodeidah, before effecting regime change in Sanaa. If this offensive does occur, it will result in a disastrous defeat for Washington.
In 2015, when then-US President Barack Obama backed the Saudi-led coalition’s war on Yemen, Riyadh had estimated that it would only take a few months to uproot the Ansar Allah leadership that had taken over Sanaa. Instead, they faced defeat after defeat at the hands of a highly-motivated armed force that received the backing of the majority of Yemen’s Armed Forces.
A decade later, despite the 2022 ceasefire, the conflict remains unresolved – and Ansar Allah’s power has only continued to grow. The movement that once seized control of Sanaa with the backing of key elements of the existing power structure, including segments of the military, was a shadow of what it has since become. Not only has it forged strong alliances with various tribal factions across Yemen, but it has also made leaps and bounds in developing both offensive and defensive weapons technologies.
The Yemeni Armed Forces that aligned with the Ansar Allah-led government proved capable of holding off the combined power of the Saudi-backed and UAE-backed Yemeni forces, in addition to various militant groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, also battling Saudi Arabia’s armed forces and later mercenary fighters from Sudan and elsewhere. They fought on the ground for years, amidst a US-Saudi blockade in the Red Sea, combined with US-British-Israeli logistical support being provided to their enemies, backing Riyadh’s air attacks against the country.
While managing to inflict countless defeats on what was supposed to be a militarily superior opposition – on paper – the Yemeni government in Sanaa continued to expand its power and territorial control in a country that has historically been divided between north and south.
In late 2021, game changing technological advances introduced a new dynamic to the conflict, ultimately pressuring the Saudi-led coalition to accept a UN mediated ceasefire proposal. By early 2022, after an expansion of the ground war the previous year, the Yemeni Armed Forces had launched a wave of successful drone and missile attacks at targets across the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia.
While Riyadh had been dealing with Ansar Allah’s drones and missiles for years by that point, it was clear that a significant technological advancement had occurred. And whereas the Saudi State had some capacity to absorb limited attacks on its vital infrastructure, the Emirati regime was far less equipped to withstand repeated blows from Yemen.
Abu Dhabi in particular cannot afford to absorb sustained waves of drone and missile attacks, especially if Dubai becomes a target. Unlike Saudi Arabia, the UAE is a tiny and vulnerable country. If Yemen decides to blanket them with strikes, their endeavors to diversify their economy will likely disintegrate, and no amount of deals with the US nor the Israelis can help them.
The claims that are being spread, particularly across Arabic language media, speculate that a Saudi-UAE backed force of about 80,000 soldiers is being amassed in order to launch an offensive aimed at seizing Hodeidah. Then, so goes the report, the US will offer air support and even launch a smaller ground attack to invade Yemen.
Donald Trump’s Vietnam?
Yemen was once dubbed Egypt’s Vietnam – and if the United States decides to launch a ground campaign there, the outcome is unlikely to align with President Donald Trump’s intentions. Already, the air campaign alone, which has to date killed around 150 civilians, has proven to be an embarrassing failure, costing US taxpayers billions of dollars with little to show in return.
Despite this war of aggression against Yemen being launched without a popular mandate, nor congressional approval, the US corporate media have largely chosen to ignore it. Yet, if Trump sends boots on the ground, Yemen will quickly dominate headlines, for the simple reason that US service members will start returning home in coffins.
So far, the Yemeni Armed Forces have limited their confrontations with the US’s naval fleets to defensive maneuvers, meaning that they have not been attempting to sink ships or aircraft carriers and are focused on defending their nation. If a large-scale ground operation is launched, the defensive posture will shift to one of offense.
The ground campaign will not only be costly and far from a walk in the park, the US will also endure direct hits to its vessels and significant casualties. Additionally, we should expect major attacks on both Saudi and Emirati infrastructure, which will disrupt oil markets. It is also very likely that US bases located in the Arabian Peninsula and beyond will come under attack.
Furthermore, we should probably expect occasional strikes against the Zionist regime that will be more intense than previous waves. If we begin to see the civilian death toll climb dramatically in Yemen, while the war is overtly an American-Zionist aggression, the way in which Ansar Allah will deal with it won’t be restricted any longer. On top of this, it could even end up uniting the people of Yemen to an even greater degree as a result, including factions and tribes that have always been at odds with Ansarallah.
Yemen is not Iran, but it has the capacity to inflict considerable losses on the US-allied regimes surrounding it and can target US forces directly. The question then becomes, can Riyadh and Abu Dhabi endure continuous barrages of munitions being fired towards them? Also, when the war lasts much longer than anticipated and the proxy ground force used to attack Yemen is suffering severe losses, as American soldiers return home in body bags, what will the strategy be then?
Will the 80,000 strong force continue to fight if they are suffering considerable losses, all in order to achieve a victory for Israeli strategic interests? Or will they begin to experience serious morale issues and defections? Will the US public be able to stomach the losses, and can the US military itself justify the loss of assets in a pointless fight to please their Zionist allies?
There will be no benefits to launching such an assault, and the US has not amassed nearly enough ground troops to launch a war alone. On every level, this would be a catastrophic strategic blunder. If they lose, this would be an embarrassment of historic proportions and nation-defining victory for the Sana’a government, despite the immense civilian suffering that will inevitably come from the war. All of this leaves out the potential involvement of other regional actors who may take advantage of the situation too.
If Trump decides to go ahead with such a conflict, in order to please his Zionist ally, it will greatly backfire. There will also be no way to hide the fact that he is working against US interests and sacrificing his own citizens in order to make the Israelis satisfied, without any real end goal or vision for victory.
Why AIPAC Must Register Under FARA: Exposing Israel’s Influence in Washington
Track AIPAC
For decades, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has served as Israel’s unofficial arm in Washington, shaping U.S. policy to favor Israeli interests while avoiding the transparency required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). This evasion hides AIPAC’s role as a foreign proxy and undermines American democracy.
What Is FARA?
Enacted in 1938 to counter Nazi and Soviet influence, FARA mandates that anyone acting as an “agent of a foreign principal”—engaging in political activities in the U.S. at the direction or request of a foreign government—register with the Department of Justice. This means disclosing contacts, activities, and funding. FARA focuses on whose agenda is being pushed, not the source of the money. AIPAC’s mission, to align U.S. policy with Israel’s goals, fits this definition exactly. Yet it cloaks itself as an “American” lobby, a claim that doesn’t withstand scrutiny.
AIPAC: Israel’s Proxy in Washington
AIPAC’s mission is to steer U.S. policy toward Israel, functioning as a coordinated extension of Israeli interests. It invests millions in U.S. elections with its political action committee, AIPAC PAC, and through its super PAC, United Democracy Project, to support Israel First candidates and oppose anyone who speaks out against Israel’s crimes. It pushes anti-BDS laws mirroring Israeli priorities and secures billions in annual aid, often at the expense of U.S. needs. Through its nonprofit arm, the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF), it funds frequent congressional trips to Israel—the number one destination for privately sponsored foreign travel by members of the House and their aides—where they meet Israeli leaders and adopt their narrative.
The connections are undeniable: AIPAC has operated a Jerusalem office since 1982, a direct link to Israeli leadership. Its leaders frequently visit Israel, host Israeli officials at policy summits, and align U.S. policy with Israel’s agenda. In 2015, AIPAC strongly opposed a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements, mirroring Israel’s defiance, and launched a significant lobbying effort, spending a reported $30 million, to support Netanyahu’s campaign against the Iran nuclear deal. In 2023, it briefed Congress on Israel’s Gaza operations, echoing military talking points. In 2024, it pushed $14.1 billion in emergency aid for Israel, matching Netanyahu’s demands, and followed through on Foreign Minister Israel Katz’s request to secure congressional sanctions against the International Criminal Court. If a group lobbying for Russia maintained a Moscow office, funded trips there, and parroted Kremlin lines, we’d call it foreign influence. AIPAC’s U.S. funding doesn’t alter its role as Israel’s conduit.
A History of Dodging Accountability
AIPAC’s ties to Israel are deep-rooted. Its predecessor, the American Zionist Council (AZC), was ordered to register under FARA in 1962 after funneling millions from Israel’s Jewish Agency to lobby Congress. Instead, Isaiah Kenen relaunched it as AIPAC in 1963, dodging the law by using U.S. donors. Declassified 1984 FBI files reveal AIPAC’s early collaboration with Israel’s Ministry of Economics, using stolen U.S. trade data to shape the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement; an act of espionage, not advocacy. In 2005, AIPAC staffers Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman passed classified Pentagon data to Israeli officials, though charges were later dropped. Leaked 2018 Israeli Justice Ministry documents show Jerusalem’s worry that AIPAC’s advocacy could trigger FARA scrutiny, prompting plans to conceal ties with a U.S. nonprofit. If AIPAC’s work is truly domestic, why does Israel fear exposure?
Transparency, Not Prohibition
FARA doesn’t prohibit lobbying, it requires openness. Registration would compel AIPAC to reveal its meetings with Israeli officials, spending details, and directives. If it’s merely Americans supporting Israel, why resist this disclosure? Refusing transparency raises questions about whose interests it truly serves.
The Stakes for Democracy
AIPAC’s unchecked influence skews U.S. policy. General David Petraeus warned in 2010 that Israel’s actions, amplified by AIPAC, put U.S. troops in the Middle East at risk. Billions flow to Israel each year, while domestic crises like healthcare languish. Without FARA, we remain blind to how much Israel shapes these decisions or what AIPAC is hiding.
TrackAIPAC demands that lawmakers, regulators, and the public compel AIPAC to register under FARA. Transparency is the first step to dismantling foreign influence in U.S. policy.
Atmosphere of talks with Washington is ‘constructive’: Iran
Al Mayadeen | April 20, 2025
The Iranian government’s spokesperson, Fatemeh Mohajerani, stated on Sunday that the atmosphere of the recent round of indirect talks with the United States was “constructive,” signaling a potential easing of tensions between the two countries.
She confirmed that practical steps to reduce tensions will be discussed in the upcoming sessions.
Speaking to the state-run IRNA news agency, Mohajerani emphasized that Iran is acting in its national interests and values, adding that “Iran is moving forward based on its national interests and preserving the dignity of its people.”
“It will welcome any initiative to lift sanctions that serve the interests of the Iranian people,” noting that the expert-level talks are expected to resume in Muscat, Oman, in the coming days.
Araghchi confirms forward momentum
The statement came a day after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the second round of indirect discussions, held in Rome, as “good.”
He said the talks, which lasted approximately four hours, led to an understanding on several key frameworks and objectives.
“We reached an understanding on some of the main frameworks and objectives, and we agreed to continue the talks,” Araghchi told Iranian state television.
Araghchi confirmed that technical-level discussions will begin on Wednesday in the Sultanate of Oman. These expert meetings aim to work out the specifics of a potential agreement. A follow-up political meeting is scheduled for Saturday, also in Oman, to evaluate the results of the technical talks.
This second round of diplomacy comes just one week after the first round, also held in Oman, which both sides had described as constructive.
Yemeni Armed Forces Announce Downing US MQ-9 Drone over Sanaa: Second in 24 Hrs, Sixth in a Month
Al-Manar | April 19, 2025
Within the framework of confronting the ongoing American aggression against Yemen, the Yemeni air defenses succeeded in shooting down a hostile American MQ-9 drone while it was carrying out hostile missions in the airspace of Sanaa Governorate, according to a statement read by the military spokesman General Yahya Sarea.
The drone was shot down with a locally manufactured surface-to-air missile, Sarea affirmed.
“This is the second drone our air defenses have successfully shot down within 24 hours and the sixth during the current month of April. This brings the number of drones shot down during the Battle of the Promised Victory and Holy Jihad to 21.”
The continued airstrikes and targeting of civilians, properties, and public and private facilities will not break the will of the faithful, struggling Yemeni people, the statement added.
“This will only lead to greater steadfastness and unwavering support for the oppressed Palestinian people in confronting the genocidal war crime being perpetrated by the Zionist enemy against our people in Gaza, in response to our religious, moral, and humanitarian duty.”
We will continue our support operations until the aggression against Gaza stops and the siege is lifted, General Sarea affirmed.
