Fifth round of Iran-US talks to be held on May 23: Oman
Press TV – May 21, 2025
The fifth round of indirect negotiations between Iran and the United States will take place on May 23, according to Oman’s foreign minister.
Badr al-Busaidi made the announcement on Wednesday, adding that the talks will be held in the Italian capital, Rome.
Three of the previous rounds took place in the Omani capital, Muscat, and the second round in Rome.
Iranian and US officials have not commented on the announcement so far.
The talks focus on producing a replacement for the 2015 nuclear deal, which was derailed by American withdrawal in 2018.
Iran had previously declared it would decide whether to take part in the next round of the talks after US officials claimed any deal would not allow Tehran to enrich uranium.
Iran says it will not forgo its right to uranium enrichment, which is guaranteed under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
MAGA influencers want an Iran deal and for hawks to shut up
Trump is unlikely to pay any political price if he disregards the old guard’s unrealistic demands
By Ben Armbruster | Responsible Statecraft | May 19, 2025
Neocons and their allies in Washington, Israel, and beyond are making unrealistic demands about the outcome of U.S. talks with Iran on limiting its nuclear program. But President Trump has absolutely no reason to listen to them and should not take them seriously.
The anti-Iran deal campaign kicked into overdrive last week when Republicans on Capitol Hill sent a letter to the White House calling on Trump to refuse any agreement that doesn’t include the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program.
“Every Republican senator except Rand Paul signed a letter to President Trump urging the administration to push for an end to Iran’s enrichment capacity,” Andrew Day, senior editor of the American Conservative, told RS. “They know that this demand is unacceptable to the Iranian regime and are clearly hoping to sabotage Trump’s diplomatic efforts.”
Center for International Policy senior non-resident fellow Sina Toossi called the letter’s demand “a poison pill.”
“Demanding zero enrichment, permanent restrictions, and total dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure — after the U.S. already broke the 2015 deal — is not a negotiating position,” he told RS.
Meanwhile, other deal opponents say that Iran can be allowed to keep its program for civilian energy production purposes with the caveat that it cannot enrich its own uranium.
The good news for Trump though — and those who see an opportunity to box in Iran’s nuclear program and avoid war — is that this anti-Iran deal coalition has no constituency outside Washington and Israel, and Trump will pay very little to no political price if he just ignores them.
Take for instance a recent poll conducted by the SSRS Opinion Panel Omnibus in conjunction with the University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll program. That survey found that a large majority of Americans — 69% — favor “a negotiated agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear program to peaceful ends, with stringent monitoring” as opposed to military action. But perhaps more importantly for Trump’s political fortunes, 64% of Republicans surveyed — i.e. his base — agreed.
Opponents of diplomacy with Iran try to obfuscate this reality and muddy the waters. For example, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies CEO Mark Dubowitz — who’s been pushing for regime change in Iran for nearly two decades — promoted a poll last week finding that “76% of Americans say Iran’s nuclear-weapons facilities should be destroyed.”
Of course there is one problem: Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons program, and thus no nuclear weapons facilities, a fact that the U.S. intelligence community routinely concludes.
But it’s not just the American people or the GOP base that support Trump making a deal with Iran. Some of the more high profile figures in the MAGA-America First world back him too.
“It’s called sanity,” Steve Bannon said last week, referring to the SSRS/UMaryland poll. Bannon, of course, served as a senior adviser to Trump during his first term and remains influential within his orbit and among his supporters.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who also has clout with Trump’s base, has been very vocal recently against going to war with Iran. “There is no wedge between the base and President Trump,” she said earlier this month. “The wedge is between Congress and the establishment Republicans that are undermining the president’s agenda.”
And conservative media star Tucker Carlson, who like Bannon, has close ties to Trump world and is influential with the president’s base, has been similarly calling out neocons and others who are trying to kill Trump’s diplomacy with Iran and push for war.
“Thousands of Americans would die. We’d lose the war that follows. Nothing would be more destructive to our country,” he said last month. “Anyone advocating for conflict with Iran is not an ally of the United States, but an enemy.”
Popular right-wing podcaster Charlie Kirk has piled on as well. “[T]here are people in Washington inside the Pentagon and inside the administration who want to launch military strikes on Iran. Often, they say it’d be easy. Just one strike in and out,” he said recently. “Now pause. How often have they actually been correct about the one in and out thing? Has that ever actually been the case?”
“President Trump has consolidated his power over the Republican Party to a remarkable degree and could certainly sign a good deal with Iran without suffering politically,” Day said. “The base still loves him, and lawmakers and conservative media are afraid of him. The elites would fall in line for fear of MAGA turning on them.”
Ryan Costello, policy director at NIAC, agrees. “Trump wouldn’t have been elected president twice if his foreign policy echoed the discredited views of the Bush-Cheney wing of the Republican party,” he said. “Trump can have a deal with Iran or he can be pushed into war by adopting rigid and inflexible demands — the vast majority of Americans want him to lead with diplomacy.”
Meanwhile, it appears increasingly unlikely that Democrats — most of whom supported President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal back in 2015 — will try to make much political hay with any agreement Trump makes with Tehran.
“This is not a time for politics on Iran,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a leading Democratic foreign policy voice in the House, said last week. “I support [Trump] trying to get a deal with Iran. I supported the Obama nuclear deal. How about we put the interest of our nation and peace above scoring political points at every moment?”
And what’s perhaps overlooked but maybe equally important: major regional powers like Saudi Arabia, who campaigned hard against Obama’s Iran deal, have changed their tune with Trump.
“Gulf leaders have been broadly supportive of the talks between the Trump administration and Iran because they don’t want to be caught in the crossfire of a regional escalation if they fail,” Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group told Middle East Eye last week. “That support doesn’t necessarily translate into success at the negotiating table but it’s a shift from the 2015 talks.”
Perhaps most importantly, Trump can get a deal with Iran that places strict limits on its nuclear program with incredibly intrusive verification mechanisms that will satisfy his stated goal of preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon, all without zero enrichment provisions or requiring Iran to dismantle its entire program.
“Not only will adopting a hardline ‘no enrichment’ position push Iran from the negotiating table entirely, it is not necessary for an effective agreement and would not fully address Iran’s proliferation risk,” the Arms Control Association’s Kelsey Davenport wrote recently, adding that “dismantling the infrastructure does not erase the knowledge Iran has gained about uranium enrichment.”
In short, she concluded, the U.S. “can find the right combination of limits and monitoring to block Iran’s pathways to nuclear weapons while allowing Iran to retain a less risky level of uranium enrichment.”
Ben Armbruster is the Managing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He has more than a decade of experience working at the intersection of politics, foreign policy, and media. Ben previously held senior editorial and management positions at Media Matters, ThinkProgress, ReThink Media, and Win Without War.
Iran Nuclear Negotiations Bring New, Suprising Developments
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | May 20, 2025
In the past several days, there have been surprising developments in the negotiations between Washington and Tehran over Iran’s civilian nuclear program.
U.S. President Donald Trump has frequently, but not always, defined the goal of the negotiations as being limited to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. He repeated that definition as recently as May 25, saying Iran must “permanently and verifiably cease pursuit of nuclear weapons…They cannot have a nuclear weapon.”
But the message from his team has been contradictory. Then-National Security Advisor Mike Waltz said that the United States is demanding “full dismantlement,” and Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff said that “a Trump deal” means “Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.” Rubio said that Iran can have a civilian nuclear program, but by importing uranium enriched up to 3.67%, and no longer by enriching their own. On May 9, Witkoff told Breitbart News that “An enrichment program can never exist in the state of Iran ever again. That’s our red line. No enrichment.”
But Iran has drawn the mirror image red line. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has placed a firm limit that Iran will not negotiate “the full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.” Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian repeated that red line ahead of the talks, insisting that “Iran has never sought, is not seeking, and will never seek nuclear weapons” but that “Iran will not give up its peaceful nuclear rights.”
American insistence on ending Iran’s civilian enrichment program could put a quick end to the talks. Widening the negotiations to Iran’s missile program or to Iran’s relationship with its regional proxy groups could also jeopardize the talks.
But Trump raised that possibility on May 14 when he suggested that breaking off relations with proxy groups in the region must be part of any deal. Iran “must stop sponsoring terror,” he said, and “halt its bloody proxy wars.”
The contradictory statements emanating from the Trump administration appear to have been “because of a lack of decision on key strategic points,” Trita Parsi, Executive Vice President of Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and an expert on Iran, told me. And, indeed, on May 7, Trump said, “We haven’t made that decision yet.”
“As a result,” Parsi said, “the debate on these points is now, rather unhelpfully, taking place out in public.”
That the talks have progressed to a fourth meeting suggests, at this point, that the public crossing of these Iranian red lines may not be being repeated in the private meetings. Iran’s Foreign Minister hinted at that possibility when he identified one of the difficulties in the negotiations as being “contradictions both inside and outside the negotiating room.” Supporting this possibility, when Trump introduced Iran’s support of regional proxies into the discussion, Araghchi called the remark, not unproductive or unhelpful, but “deceitful.”
And Araghchi may know. Barak Ravid of Axios has now reported that, during the fourth round of talks, the United States presented Iran with a written proposal. The report says that, during the third round, Araghchi gave Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff a document with Iran’s proposals for a deal. The U.S. studied it and returned it to Iran with “questions and requests for clarifications.” Iran replied, the U.S. prepared a new proposal, and then presented it to Araghchi who has now brought it back to Tehran for consultations with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian.
How far down the path to a settlement the proposal is is unknown. Araghchi said future negotiations now become more difficult. But he said that “despite the difficulty and frankness of the talks, very useful discussions were held.” He then said, “We can now say that both sides have a better understanding of each other’s positions.”
This major breakthrough may have been facilitated by another recent development: a subtle change in tone by Trump. Following a flurry of American threats, the fourth round of talks was postponed. Iranian officials said that [d]epending on the U.S. approach, the date of the next round of talks will be announced.”
Recently, that approach subtly changed. Previously, Donald Trump had formulated Iran’s choice as “If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing. It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.” But in his most recent remarks, which went largely unnoticed, Trump softened the consequence, saying only “If Iran’s leadership rejects this olive branch…we will have no choice but to inflict massive maximum pressure, drive Iranian oil exports to zero.” Notably, bombing was replaced with sanctions.
On May 15, Trump again seemed to reject the risk of war:
“Because things like that get started and they get out of control. I’ve seen it over and over again. They go to war and things get out of control, and we’re not going to let that happen.”
In another surprise development, Iran may have facilitated negotiations with a creative and unexpected proposal.
There are now reports that Iran has suggested for consideration that they could join with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in a nuclear enrichment consortium. Iran would continue to enrich uranium but accept a cap at the 3.67% enrichment required by a nuclear energy program. Saudi Arabia and UAE, who would gain access to Iran’s nuclear technology, would be shareholders and funders.
If true, the proposal would be based on a consortium idea first proposed by Princeton physicist Frank von Hippel and former Iranian nuclear negotiator Seyed Hossein Mousavian.
Von Hippel told me that the idea was inspired by the URENCO enrichment consortium of Germany, the Netherlands and Britain and by the ABAAAC consortium of Brazil and Argentina.
The consortiums, he said, allow nuclear experts from each country to “visit each other’s facilities to assure themselves that the activities are peaceful.” He added that “decisions that might have proliferation implications are made by the [partner] governments.” Saudi Arabia’s, the Emirates’ and Iran’s watchful eyes would all help the International Atomic Energy Agency ensure that the program is peaceful.
Aside from the implications for the nuclear negotiations, this level of trust between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE was unthinkable only a very short time ago and testifies to the changes going on in the region and in the evolving Iran-Saudi Arabia relationship. That Iran would trust Saudi Arabia with access to its nuclear technology indicates that a region changing shift in the relationship is underway.
As Annelle Sheline, research fellow in the Middle East program at the Quincy Institute, told me:
“The Iranians’ willingness to join a consortium with Saudi Arabia and the UAE to develop civilian nuclear energy demonstrates significantly improved relations between these countries. This sends a strong signal that Tehran as well as Riyadh and Abu Dhabi would prefer to prioritize cooperation over conflict.”
She said that all three countries have growing motivation for peace in the region. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman needs to avoid violent conflict to encourage the foreign investment and tourism needed to fuel his planned economic diversification. Mohammed bin Zayed needs economic security in the face of competition from Saudi Arabia to be a regional hub. Iran needs to encourage peace in the region because of the recent weakening of its own strategic position in the region. Saudi Arabia and Iran have recently been moving towards enhanced friendship both bilaterally and through multinational organizations.
Sheline expressed the hope to me that “Trump should take advantage of these circumstances to sign a nuclear deal with Iran and avoid unnecessary war.”
All of these developments, from the contradictory American messaging, to the until now unreported existence of a written proposal, to the subtle and little noticed change in Trump’s tone to the Iranian idea of a nuclear consortium with Saudi Arabia and UAE are shocking and new. They may present an opportunity to return to a nuclear agreement with Iran and to usher in a new hope for peace and friendly relations both between the U.S. and Iran and in the region. Hopefully, the two sides will seize this opportunity.
Ball’s in Trump’s Court, But Iran Won’t Bow to US Pressure
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 15.05.2025
There is a good possibility of a US-Iranian deal, Mohammad Marandi, a Tehran University professor who was on Iran’s team during the 2015 nuclear talks, tells Sputnik.
Marandi stresses, however, that Tehran won’t accept any agreement that infringes on the nation’s sovereignty.
Reduced, Not Suspended, Enrichment
“The reason why [Iran is] enriching uranium at 60% right now is in order to put pressure on the US to come to the negotiating table, to behave more reasonably and to force it to remove sanctions,” the professor tells Sputnik.
The US shouldn’t expect Iran to halt its uranium enrichment – Tehran will only reduce enrichment levels and expand the IAEA’s role in the country in exchange for US sanctions relief, the academic stresses.
“Iran is a country that’s deeply and profoundly independent in its foreign policy… so the US should not expect Iran to be a subordinate country.”
What’s the Real Cause of the US-Iranian Row?
- The root cause is “Iran’s support for the Palestinian people and… legitimate resistance to ethnic cleansing, to genocide, to apartheid,” says Marandi.
- “The US supports genocide, because they unconditionally support racism… and ethno-supremacism in our region.”
- The nuclear issue is an excuse — just like the “human rights” or “terrorism” accusations the US uses against Iran to appease Israel.
US: An Irresponsible Negotiator?
The US isn’t a trustworthy negotiator; it violates agreements, according to Marandi: Trump is constantly “flip-flopping” — be it Ukraine, trade wars, Yemen, or Gaza genocide.
“This is what makes it very difficult to come to any agreement,” the pundit concludes.
Iran’s Bold Nuclear Deal 2.0?
By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 14.05.2025
After the US unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 Iran nucleal deal in May 2018, subsequent efforts to revive the agreement have largely stalled.
Iran has suggested a joint nuclear enrichment project with US investments and regional Arab nations – Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Iranian FM Abbas Araghchi offered the idea as an alternative to US demand for the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program during the recent talks with US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff in Oman, the New York Times reports.
Iran would use the venture to enrich uranium to a low grade, beneath the levels needed for nuclear weapons.
Representatives from other countries, including the US, will be on the ground to provide “oversight and involvement.”
FM: Raising concerns about Iran’s peaceful nuclear work while ignoring Israel’s nukes ‘unacceptable’
Press TV | May 10, 2025
Iran has called attention to the double standards of the international community regarding nuclear weapons, calling it “unacceptable” for Western powers to raise alleged concerns over the country’s peaceful nuclear energy program while overlooking the Israeli regime’s extensive nuclear arsenal.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made the remarks during an extended address during the Fourth Round of Iranian-Arab Dialogues conference in the Qatari capital Doha on Saturday.
The top diplomat reminded that the Islamic Republic’s nuclear energy activities were a peaceful and legitimate pursuit in contrast to the nuclear weapons possessed by the Israeli regime.
He reaffirmed that Iran did not seek nuclear weapons and that weapons of mass destruction had no place in the country’s security doctrine.
The foreign minister pointed out that the country was one of the initiators of a nuclear-weapon-free zone concept in Asia and called on Western countries to abandon their double standards regarding nuclear proliferation.
“Iran is committed to the international non-proliferation regime,” Araghchi explained, denouncing Western countries’ and their allies’ decades-old way of raising uncalled-for alarm about the nation’s peaceful nuclear energy program while turning a blind eye to the Israeli regime’s nuclear arsenal.
For decades, the United States, its European allies, and Washington’s allied parties elsewhere across the globe have been using allegations of Iran’s pursuing non-conventional arms to either enact or agitate anti-Iranian policies, including sanctions, and anti-Iranian discourse.
This is while Iran’s leadership has categorically ruled out such endeavor in line with moral and religious imperatives.
The Islamic Republic’s refusal to either pursue, develop or stockpiles such weaponry has also been unexceptionally proven during the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s inspections, making the country the most-verified member of the United Nations nuclear watchdog.
‘Israel greatest threat to regional peace’
Pointing again to the Israeli regime’s nuclear weapons program and arsenal and instances of its deadly adventurism and expansionism across the West Asia region, the official said, “The existence of the Zionist regime remains the single greatest threat to peace in the region.”
He condemned the United States for supporting the regime unwaveringly and exponentially, calling Washington an accomplice in the regime’s atrocities, including its acts of violence and injustice targeting Palestinians.
The foreign minister described the regime’s ongoing genocidal and other aggressive measures as a direct attempt to erase the Palestinian nation.
Such prospect, he said, would amount to complete colonial erasure of the Palestinian nation through the most horrific forms of violence and forced displacement.
He identified the so-called “two-state solution” as a myth used to delay the realization of Palestinian rights for decades, and reminded that the regime, itself, had ruled out even that prospect.
Iran-US talks: A clarification on nuclear rights
As the fourth round of indirect talks between Iran and the United States was set to begin the following day, Araghchi said, “We will continue our discussions with the United States — and concurrently with Europe, Russia, and China — in good faith.”
However, he made it clear that if the goal of these discussions was to ensure that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons, that objective had already been achieved.
The official also firmly stated that if the aim was to deny Iran its legitimate nuclear rights and impose unrealistic demands, the Islamic Republic would not yield. “The Islamic Republic of Iran will never, under any circumstances, surrender any of the legitimate rights of the proud Iranian nation.”
In the same context, he underscored that Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy, including enrichment, was non-negotiable.
On regional cooperation, the path forward
Araghchi stressed the importance of regional convergence as the path forward for Western Asian nations.
He called for deeper trust-building and mutual understanding, advocating for cooperative initiatives in areas like cultural exchange, trade, and tourism.
According to Araghchi, prosperity in the region depends not on the rise of dominant nations, but on the success of a strong region as a whole.
Iran, Saudi Arabia foreign ministers discuss key bilateral, regional developments
Press TV – May 10, 2025
The top diplomats of Iran and Saudi Arabia met to discuss key issues related to bilateral relations, as well as regional and international developments.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met with his Saudi counterpart, Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, upon arriving in Jeddah on Saturday. His visit to Saudi Arabia is part of Tehran’s ongoing policy of strengthening ties with neighboring countries.
During the meeting, Araghchi also signed the Saudi Foreign Ministry’s memorial book.
Araghchi urged the Muslim world to take action to confront threats and challenges, including putting an end to the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza and preventing a conspiracy to annihilate Palestine in a colonial manner.
The top Iranian negotiator updated his Saudi counterpart on the latest developments regarding the Tehran-Washington indirect talks.
The Iranian and Saudi foreign ministers expressed the two countries’ determination to promote their common goal of expanding mutual relations in all fields.
On Friday, Araghchi announced that the fourth round of indirect talks between Iran and the United States will take place in Oman on Sunday.
His regional tour includes a visit to Qatar later on Saturday as part of his diplomatic engagements.
Speaking in an interview on Friday, Araghchi said his visit to Saudi Arabia would be in line with consultations between the two countries about regional issues and indirect negotiations between Iran and the United States.
He added that since the beginning of the talks in April, Iran has been in constant contact with regional countries to inform them about the process.
“The sustainability of any potential agreement largely depends on the considerations and concerns of the regional countries regarding the nuclear issue and their common interests with the Islamic Republic,” the Iranian foreign minister emphasized.
Mediated by Oman, Iran and the US have held three rounds of talks in the Omani capital of Muscat and the Italian capital of Rome on April 12, 19, and 26, with the aim of reaching a deal on Iran’s nuclear program and the removal of sanctions on Tehran.
Both parties have so far expressed satisfaction with the way the negotiations are moving on, praising the talks as “positive” and “moving forward.”
A fourth round of the talks was scheduled to be held on May 3 in Muscat but was postponed for “logistical and technical reasons,” as cited by the Iranian foreign minister.
Iran categorically rejects involvement in alleged plot to attack Israeli embassy in UK
Press TV – May 8, 2025
Tehran has categorically rejected Western media reports about Iranian nationals being involved in an alleged plot to target the Israeli embassy in London.
In a post on his X account on Thursday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran has not been informed of any allegations via “proper diplomatic channels”.
“Iran stands ready to engage to shed light on what has truly transpired, and we reiterate that UK authorities should afford our citizens due process,” he wrote.
The United Kingdom has arrested eight men, including seven Iranian nationals, as part of two investigations regarding alleged threats to national security.
London’s Metropolitan Police confirmed the arrests on Sunday, saying five men, including four of the Iranian nationals, were detained on suspicion of “preparation of a terrorist act” while the other three were being held under national security legislation introduced in 2023 to counter the actions of hostile states.
They were arrested as part of a “pre-planned” investigation into an alleged plot to “target specific premises,” the Metropolitan Police said, adding that the “affected site” was made aware and is being supported by police.
As part of a separate investigation led by the Met, three other Iranian men were arrested in London on Saturday.
The Met said three men — aged 39, 44 and 55 — were arrested under section 27 the National Security Act at separate addresses in north-west and west London, and had been taken into custody while searches continued.
In his post, Araghchi pointed to the stories in the media about the alleged involvement of Iranian nationals in a supposed plot to target the Israeli embassy in London and urged the UK to engage so that Tehran may assist any probe into credible allegations.
The top Iranian diplomat warned that third parties are resorting to desperate measures, including false flag operations, to derail diplomacy and provoke escalation.
“Timing and lack of engagement suggest that something is amiss,” he said.
In a post on his X social media account on Tuesday, the Iranian foreign minister called on the UK to respect the rights of Iranians arrested in Britain, underscoring Tehran’s readiness to assist investigations in the incident.
“Disturbed to learn that Iranian citizens have reportedly been arrested by UK security services,” Araghchi wrote.
Do Trump’s Slick Comments Put Iran Talks in Jeopardy?
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | May 6, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump’s unexpected answer on Sunday to an interviewer’s question has thrown his administration’s nuclear negotiations with Iran into confusion.
Trump has consistently said that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program are limited to preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon: “You know, it’s not a complicated formula. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.” But in an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, when the interviewer asked Trump, “Is the goal of these talks limiting Iran’s nuclear program or total dismantlement?” Trump answered, “Total disarmament.”
There has been disagreement in the Trump team over, not just the goal of negotiations with Iran, but, more fundamentally, over negotiating with Iran. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz advocated for a military path, while Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Vice President J.D. Vance advocated for caution. Vance urged fully exploring talks before settling for a military solution. Trump sided with the diplomacy camp, believing that “we can make a deal without the attack.”
According to reporting by The Washington Post, Trump fired Waltz as National Security Advisor because he opposed Trump and “wanted to take U.S. policy in a direction Trump wasn’t comfortable with because the U.S. hadn’t attempted a diplomatic solution.” Waltz maintained that “the time was ripe to strike Iran.”
Having agreed on the diplomatic path, there appeared to be confusion over the goal of diplomacy. Waltz said that the U.S. is demanding “full dismantlement,” and Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff said that “a Trump deal” means “Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.” But these statements had been at odds with Trump’s more limited stated goal. Until Sunday.
If there was a lack of clarity in America’s goals in negotiating, there was no ambiguity in Iran’s. Iran wanted a deal that the United States couldn’t walk away from, as they walked away from the previous 2015 JCPOA nuclear agreement, and they wanted negotiations to lead to three things.
The first is that negotiations have to lead to a cessation of U.S. threats of a military solution. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian had made it clear that “the language of threats and coercion is absolutely unacceptable… It is unacceptable for someone to come along and say, ‘Don’t do this, don’t do that, or else.’ I won’t come to negotiate with you.”
The second is that negotiations have to lead to the complete lifting of sanctions.
The third is that, while Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has fully empowered his team to negotiate, he has placed the firm limit that Iran will not negotiate “the full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.”
The American-Iranian talks were showing signs of success. Iran called the first round “constructive” and “respectful.” The U.S. called it “constructive” and “positive.” The first round led to a second, which led to an agreement to begin work on a framework for a potential deal and a third round of talks.
Then a flurry of confusing and contradictory statements made by U.S. officials in the past few days began to derail the talks.
First, Pete Hegseth returned to the language of threats. Referring to Yemen’s Houthi attacking vessels in the Red Sea, Hegseth “warned” Iran, “You know very well what the U.S. Military is capable of… You will pay the CONSEQUENCE at the time and place of our choosing.” From Iran’s perspective, what is the point in negotiating limits on your civilian nuclear program to avoid American bombs if the United States is going to bomb you anyway for another purpose?
Then Trump returned to the threat of sanctions, posting that “Any Country or person who buys ANY AMOUNT of OIL or PETROCHEMICALS from Iran will be subject to, immediately, Secondary Sanctions. They will not be allowed to do business with the United States of America in any way, shape, or form.”
Following those two statements, the fourth round of scheduled talks between the United States and Iran were postponed. They were allegedly postponed “[f]or logistical reasons.” However, a senior Iranian official said that “U.S. sanctions on Iran during the nuclear talks are not helping the sides to resolve the nuclear dispute through diplomacy” and that “[d]epending on the U.S. approach, the date of the next round of talks will be announced.”
Then came the unexpected threat to future talks. Trump told Meet the Press that the talks are not negotiating what the Iranians thought they were negotiating. The United States he said, is not negotiating verifiable limits on Iran’s civilian nuclear program, it is demanding “total dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear program.
“That’s all you’ll accept?” the interviewer clarified. “Yeah, that’s all I’d accept,” Trump confirmed.
The interviewer then, wrongly, suggested that Trump’s statement was inconsistent with Marco Rubio, his Secretary of State’s, suggestion that the U.S. “would accept… a peaceful, civilian nuclear program.”
Trump’s statement is not inconsistent with Rubio’s, though, because Rubio’s statement that Iran can have a civilian nuclear program by importing uranium enriched up to 3.67% but no longer by enriching their own, is consistent with Trump’s statement that Iran would have to dismantle its enrichment capability.
Though Trump’s statement may not be inconsistent with Rubio’s, it did, at this point, become a little confused with itself. Trump suggested that Iran has no need of a civilian nuclear program “to make electricity” because “they have so much oil, what do they need it for.” Trump then, confusingly repeated his earlier formulation, saying, “The only thing they can’t have is a nuclear weapon.” He said, “I think that I would be open to hearing” about a civilian nuclear program to generate energy before seemingly shutting it down again with the observation that “civilian energy often leads to military wars.”
The recent return by Washington to military threats and sanctions are not helping negotiations that seemed to be on a path to possible success. Trump’s latest remark that Iran has to fully dismantle its civilian nuclear program and stop all enrichment appears to take away any motivation for Iran to negotiate. Since Trump has said that “If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing,” it is imperative to clarify the confusion and the positions and get the fourth round of talks back on schedule.
Trump pushes for ‘total dismantlement’ of Iran’s nuclear program
RT | May 5, 2025
US President Donald Trump has said he wants Iran to completely scrap its nuclear program, as negotiations between the two countries have been postponed.
The president was asked by Kristen Welker on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday whether he was aiming to limit or completely abolish Iran’s nuclear program.
“Total dismantlement. Yes, that is all I would accept,” Trump said. He questioned the necessity of the Islamic Republic having nuclear technology for electricity generation.
“They have so much oil – why do they need it? … Civilian [nuclear] energy often leads to military wars. And we don’t want them to have a nuclear weapon. It’s a very simple deal,” he said.
“I just don’t want them to have a nuclear weapon because the world will be destroyed,” Trump added.
He made his remarks after Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al-Busaidi announced that the fourth round of indirect, mediated US-Iran talks, planned for Saturday, had been postponed indefinitely “for logistical reasons.”
The negotiations, previously described by both sides as constructive, have been overshadowed by tensions in Yemen, where the US and Britain have ramped up airstrikes against the Houthi militants.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to retaliate after a Houthi ballistic missile landed near Ben Gurion Airport outside Tel Aviv on Sunday, injuring eight people.
The Houthis said they were aiming for a “comprehensive air blockade” of Israel in solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza. Iran denied directing the attacks, calling such claims “misleading.”
Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 UN-backed deal on Iran’s nuclear program during his first term in office, accusing the Islamic Republic of secretly violating the agreement. Tehran has denied any wrongdoing but has since rolled back its own commitments under the deal and increased its stockpile of enriched uranium.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned last month that the country would resist any “pressure and threat” from the US.
Agent Waltz?
By Daniel McAdams | Ron Paul Institute | May 3, 2025
The Washington Post is reporting today that recently-ousted National Security Advisor Mike Waltz may have been involved in activities even more nefarious than inviting journalists onto highly sensitive Signal group chats. It appears that what really angered President Trump is less Waltz’s incompetence (or worse) in keeping sensitive military communications secure, but rather his taking an active role in doing the bidding of a foreign government.
As the Post reported, in advance of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s February visit to the United States the US National Security Advisor to President Trump…
… appeared to have engaged in intense coordination with Netanyahu about military options against Iran ahead of an Oval Office meeting between the Israeli leader and Trump, the two people said.
That means that Mike Waltz was working with a foreign government to maneuver President Trump into a situation where war seemed the only option left to deal with Iran. That kind of manipulation is a classic neocon move and one that Waltz’s ideological allies managed with great success against President George W. Bush regarding Iraq.
According to one insider quoted in the article, Waltz, “wanted to take U.S. policy in a direction Trump wasn’t comfortable with because the US hadn’t attempted a diplomatic solution.”
That means the former NSA was working with a foreign leader to limit the diplomatic and military options his boss could choose from, i.e. he was working to hobble the United States so as to achieve an objective of a foreign regime.
The WaPo piece continues…
‘If Jim Baker was doing a side deal with the Saudis to subvert George H.W. Bush, you’d be fired,’ a Trump adviser said, referring to Bush’s secretary of state. ‘You can’t do that. You work for the president of your country, not a president of another country.’
To his credit, President Trump recognized that Waltz was blowing Bibi’s smoke at him and rather than bite at the trap sprung for him the President saw through the game and became annoyed possibly at both of them. The fiasco one month later, where Waltz claimed that neocon scribbler Jeffrey Goldberg’s contact information had somehow been “sucked up” into his phone and then presumably spit out again when it came time to invite top Administration officials onto a call to discuss military strikes on Yemen, may have been the straw that broke Trump’s waning patience in the man.
Last month, the Grayzone published leaked audio of Israel lobby AIPAC’s CEO, Elliott Brandt, “describing how his organization has cultivated influence with three top national security officials in the Trump administration – Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Director Mike Waltz, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe – and how it believes it can gain ‘access’ to their internal discussions.”
Was the Waltz/Netanyahu trap for Trump the result of this “cultivated influence” that Brandt is bragging about? And if so, how much deeper does it go?
Whatever the case, it’s lucky for Waltz that he was “only” acting as an agent for our Greatest Ally ™ and Only Democracy in the Middle East ™. Otherwise he’d be soon enjoying the hospitality of Bukele’s All Male B&B rather than the rather more luxurious digs at 50 United Nations Plaza.
Featured Video
NEW FAUCI EMAILS EXPOSE ATTACK ON NATURAL IMMUNITY
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Fourteen Incredible Facts About 9/11
By Kevin Ryan | Dig Within | August 8, 2015
… What is known about 9/11 is that there are many incredible facts that continue to be ignored by the government and the mainstream media. Here are fourteen.
- An outline of what was to become the 9/11 Commission Report was produced before the investigation began. The outline was kept secret from the Commission’s staff and appears to have determined the outcome of the investigation.
- The 9/11 Commission claimed sixty-three (63) times in its Report that it could find “no evidence” related to important aspects of the crimes.
- One person, Shayna Steiger, issued 12 visas to the alleged hijackers in Saudi Arabia. Steiger issued some of the visas without interviewing the applicants and fought with another employee at the embassy who tried to prevent her lax approach.
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Bill Francis on European leaders’ shift in the… seversonebcfb985d9 on Villains of Judea: Philip Esfo… loongtip on Report warns that ‘Jewish terr… Craig Nelms on New study shows that toxic gas… loongtip on A Funny Thing Happened on the… loongtip on EU free trade pact on hold as… John Edward Kendrick on Regime Change In Iran Is The F… Bill Francis on Australia Passes New Hate Spee… seversonebcfb985d9 on Australia Passes New Hate Spee… Bill Francis on Britain’s AI Policing Plan Tur… loongtip on Miami Beach Resident Questione… loongtip on Israeli agricultural export co…
Aletho News- Trump aims to create new UN and own it, Brazil’s Lula warns
- UN rapporteur says Israeli demolition of UNRWA compound reflects broader attack on UN system
- From Proxy to Disposable: The US Betrayal of the Syrian Kurds
- Six injured in stabbing spree at Kurdish rally in Antwerp, victims stabbed ‘indiscriminately’
- US pledges to ‘starve’ Iraq of oil revenue if pro-Iran parties join new government
- Is China a threat to Greenland?
- South Korea’s Prime Minister Proposes US Send Special Envoy to North Korea — Report
- Pentagon downgrades China threat, shifts focus to homeland, hemisphere
- Ireland Moves to Legalize Spyware Use by Police
- NEW FAUCI EMAILS EXPOSE ATTACK ON NATURAL IMMUNITY
- If Americans Knew
- Another Gaza baby freezes to death on Netanyahu’s watch – Not a ceasefire Day 106
- Oppose Israel’s Abuses While You Still Can
- UNRWA Heads Tell Ha’aretz: ‘We Don’t Radicalize Palestinians – Their Lived Existence Does’
- Plans Call for “New Rafah” Built in Israel’s Image — Without Palestinians
- Posing as priest, reporter is spat at many times, highlighting anti-Christian sentiment in Israel
- Leaked Documents: “Planned Community” in Rafah Would Force Palestinians Into Israeli Panopticon
- ‘Permits of Humiliation’: How Israel Strangles Christian Education in Jerusalem
- “The world sees death, destruction and injustice – and they see dollar signs” – Not a ceasefire Day 105
- War criminal Netanyahu kills 11 in Gaza, joins Board of Peace – Not a ceasefire Day 104
- Another baby dies of cold in Gaza, as Rafah crossing remains locked down – Not a ceasefire Day 103
- No Tricks Zone
- Polar Colding…Antarctica Saw Its Coldest October In 44 Years!
- New Study: Sea Levels Rose 20 Times The Modern Rate During The Roman Warm Period
- As German Gas Storage Dips Dangerously Low…Shortage Hardly Avoidable
- New Study: Brazil’s Relative Sea Level Was 2+ Meters Higher And SSTs 3-4°C Warmer 6000 Years Ago
- Philosopher Schopenhauer: Climate Science Certainty Stems From Stupidity, Ignorance
- New Study: Species Extinction Rates Declining Since 1980 – ‘Climate Change Is Not An Important Threat’
- Denmark Places Climate Protection Above Animal Welfare, Poisoning And Culling Cows
- New Study: Greenland Was 3-7°C Warmer And Far Less Glaciated Than Today 6000-8000 Years Ago
- German Media Report That Current Frigid Weather Can Be Explained By Arctic Warming!
- Berlin Blackout Shows Germany’s $5 Trillion Green Scheme Is “Left-Green Ideological Pipe Dream”
Aletho News 
