Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

A ‘Trump deal’? Juggling war, ‘easy war’ and negotiation

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 24, 2025

Trump clearly is in the midst of an existential conflict. He has a landslide mandate. But is ringed by a resolute domestic enemy front in the form of an ‘industrial concern’ infused with Deep State ideology, centred primarily on preserving U.S. global power (rather than on mending of the economy).

The key MAGA issue however is not foreign policy, but how to structurally re-balance an economic paradigm in danger of an extinction event. Trump has always been clear that this forms his primordial goal. His coalition of supporters are fixed on the need to revive America’s industrial base, so as to provide reasonably well-paid jobs to the MAGA corps.

Trump may for now have a mandate, but extreme danger lurks – not just the Deep State and the Israeli lobby. The Yellen debt bomb is the more existential threat. It threatens Trump’s support in Congress, because the bomb is set to explode shortly before the 2026 midterms. New tariff revenues, DOGE savings, and even the upcoming Gulf shake-down are all centred on getting some sort of fiscal order in place, so that $9 trillion plus of short-term debt – maturing imminently – can be rolled over to the longer term without resort to eye-watering interest rates. It is Yellen-Democrat’s little trip wire for the Trump agenda.

So far, the general context seems plain enough. Yet, on the minutiae of how exactly to re-balance the economy; how to manage the ‘debt bomb’; and how far DOGE should go with its cuts, divisions in Trump’s team are present. In fact, the tariff war and the China tussle bring into contention a fresh phalanx of opposition: i.e. those (some on Wall Street, oligarchs, etc.) who have prospered mightily from the golden era of free-flowing, seemingly limitless, money-creation; those who were enriched, precisely by the policies that have made America subservient to the looming American ‘debt knell’.

Yet to make matters more complex, two of the key components to Trump’s mooted ‘re-balancing’ and debt ‘solution’ cannot be whispered, let alone said aloud: One reason is that it involves deliberately devaluing ‘the dollar in your pocket’. And secondly, many more Americans are going to lose their jobs.

That is not exactly a popular ‘sell’. Which is probably why the ‘re-balance’ has not been well explained to the public.

Trump launched the Liberation ‘Tariff Shock’ seemingly minded to crash-start a restructuring of international trade relations – as the first step towards a general re-alignment of major currency values.

China however, wasn’t buying into the tariff and trade restrictions ‘stuff’, and matters quickly escalated. It looked for a moment as if the Trump ‘Coalition’ might fracture under the pressure of the concomitant crisis in the U.S. bond market to the tariff fracas that shook confidence.

The Coalition, in fact, held; markets subsided, but then the Coalition fractured over a foreign policy issue – Trump’s hope to normalise relations with Russia, towards a Great Global Reset.

A major strand within the Trump Coalition (apart from MAGA populists) are the neocons and Israeli Firsters. Some sort of Faustian bargain supposedly was struck by Trump at the outset through a deal that had his team heavily peopled by zealous Israeli-Firsters.

Simply put, the breadth of coalition that Trump thought he needed to win the election and deliver an economic re-balance also included two foreign policy pillars: Firstly, the reset with Moscow – the pillar by which to end the ‘forever wars’, which his Populist base despised. And the second pillar being the neutering of Iran as a military power and source of resistance, on which both Israeli Firsters – and Israel – insist (and with which Trump seems wholly comfortable). Hence the Faustian pact.

Trump’s ‘peacemaker’ aspirations no doubt added to his electoral appeal, but they were not the real driver to his landslide. What has become evident is that these diverse agendas – foreign and domestic – are interlinked: A set-back in one or the other acts as a domino either impelling or retarding the other agendas. Put simply: Trump is dependent on ‘wins’ – early ‘wins’ – even if this means rushing towards a prospective ‘easy win’ without thinking through whether he possesses a sound strategy (and ability) to achieve it.

All of Trump’s three agenda objectives, it turns out, are more complicated and divisive than he perhaps expected. He and his team seem captivated by western-embedded assumptions such as first, that war generally happens ‘Over There’; that war in the post Cold War era is not actually ‘war’ in any traditional sense of full, all-out war, but is rather a limited application of overwhelming western force against an enemy incapable of threatening ‘us’ in a similar manner; and thirdly, that a war’s scope and duration is decided in Washington and its Deep State ‘twin’ in London.

So those who talk about ending the Ukraine war through an imposed unilateral ceasefire (ie, the faction of Walz, Rubio and Hegseth, led by Kellogg) seem to assume blithely that the terms and timing for ending the war also can be decided in Washington, and imposed on Moscow through the limited application of asymmetric pressures and threats.

Just as China isn’t buying into the tariff and trade restriction ‘stuff’, neither is Putin buying into the ultimatum ‘stuff’: (‘Moscow has weeks, not months, to agree a ceasefire’). Putin has patiently tried to explain to Witkoff, Trump’s Envoy, that the American presumption that the scope and duration of any war is very much up to the West to decide simply doesn’t gel with today’s reality.

And, in companion mode, those who talk about bombing Iran (which includes Trump) seem also to assume that they can dictate the war’s essential course and content too; the U.S. (and Israel perhaps), can simply determine to bomb Iran with big bunker-buster bombs. That’s it! End of story. This is assumed to be a self-justifying and easy war – and that Iran must learn to accept that they brought this upon themselves by supporting the Palestinians and others who refuse Israeli normalisation.

Aurelien observes:

“So we are dealing with limited horizons; limited imagination and limited experience. But there’s one other determining factor: The U.S. system is recognised to be sprawling, conflictual – and, as a result, largely impervious to outside influence – and even to reality. Bureaucratic energy is devoted almost entirely to internal struggles, which are carried out by shifting coalitions in the administration; in Congress; in Punditland and in the media. But these struggles are, in general, about [domestic] power and influence – and not about the inherent merits of an issue, and [thus] require no actual expertise or knowledge”.

“The system is large and complex enough that you can make a career as an ‘Iran expert’, say, inside and outside government, without ever having visited the country or speaking the language – by simply recycling standard wisdom in a way that will attract patronage. You will be fighting battles with other supposed ‘experts’, within a very confined intellectual perimeter, where only certain conclusions are acceptable”.

What becomes evident is that this cultural approach (the Think-Tank Industrial Complex) induces a laziness and the prevalence of hubris into western thinking. It is assumed reportedly, that Trump assumed that Xi Jinping would rush to meet with him, following the imposition of tariffs – to plead for a trade deal – because China is suffering some economic headwinds.

It is blandly assumed by the Kellogg contingent too that pressure is both the necessary and sufficient condition to compel Putin to agree to an unilateral ceasefire – a ceasefire that Putin repeatedly has stated he would not accept until a political framework was first agreed. When Witkoff relays Putin’s point within the Trump team discussion, he stands as a contrarian outside the ‘licensed discourse’ which insists that Russia only takes détente with an adversary seriously after it has been forced to do so by a defeat or serious setback.

Iran too repeatedly has said that it will not be stripped naked of its conventional defences; its allies and its nuclear programme. Iran likely has the capabilities to inflict huge damage both on U.S. forces in the region and on Israel.

The Trump Team is divided on strategy here too – crudely put: to Negotiate or to Bomb.

It seems that the pendulum has swung under intense pressure from Netanyahu and the Jewish institutional leadership within the U.S.

A few words can change everything. In an about face, Witkoff shifted from saying a day earlier that Washington would be satisfied with a cap on Iranian nuclear enrichment and would not require the dismantling of its nuclear facilities, to posting on his official X account that any deal would require Iran to “stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program … A deal with Iran will only be completed if it is a Trump deal”. Without a clear reversal on this from Trump, we are on a path to war.

It is plain that Team Trump has not thought through the risks inherent to their agendas. Their initial ‘ceasefire meeting’ with Russia in Riyadh, for example, was a theatre of the facile. The meeting was held on the easy assumption that since Washington had determined to have an early ceasefire then ‘it must be’.

“Famously”, Aurelien wearily notes, “the Clinton administration’s Bosnia policy was the product of furious power struggles between rival American NGO and Human Rights’ alumni – none of whom knew anything about the region, or had ever been there”.

It is not just that the team is insouciant towards the possible consequences of war in the Middle East. They are captive to manipulated assumptions that it will be an easy war.

April 24, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

April 23, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

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.

April 23, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

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

April 23, 2025 Posted by | Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

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.

April 22, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , | Leave a comment

‘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  

April 22, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Carnegie Endowment cancels Iran FM’s speech under ‘orchestrated pressure’ from Israel lobby: Report

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi
Press TV – April 21, 2025

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) cancels Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s keynote address at its 2025 Nuclear Policy Conference.

Citing sources familiar with the matter, Iran Nuances reported that the cancellation on Monday followed an “orchestrated pressure” campaign from “Israeli-affiliated hawkish elements” and officials of former US presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

Araghchi was scheduled to deliver a virtual address at the conference, which will bring together politicians, diplomats, and nuclear experts from around the world to discuss critical challenges in nuclear nonproliferation, arms control, disarmament, deterrence, energy, and security.

Iran’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations confirmed in a statement that Araghchi’s speech has been canceled.

According to the mission, the cancellation occurred after the conference organizers decided to change the format of the Iranian foreign minister’s speech to a debate.

Expressing regret over the matter, the mission said that the full text of the now-canceled speech will be made available to the news media.

April 21, 2025 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

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.

April 20, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Israel is the sole obstacle to nuke-free West Asia, says Iran’s FM

Press TV – April 19, 2025

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says Israel is the only obstacle to the realization of a nuclear weapons-free West Asia, warning that the occupying regime is fomenting Iranophobia while committing genocide in the region.

Araghchi made the remarks on Saturday in Rome during a meeting with his Italian counterpart, Antonio Tajani. The two met ahead of the second round of indirect talks between Iran and the United States, mediated by Oman at its embassy in the Italian capital.

Reaffirming Iran’s commitment to diplomacy, Araghchi urged all parties to seize the opportunity for a “logical and reasonable understanding” that would recognize Iran’s legitimate rights and lift “unjust and illegal sanctions.”

He emphasized Iran’s peaceful nuclear intentions, reiterating the country’s rejection of weapons of mass destruction based on its religious and national values and defensive doctrine.

The Iranian minister also thanked Tajani for Italy’s coordination in facilitating the talks and conveyed Easter greetings to the Italian people.

Tajani welcomed Araghchi and expressed Italy’s strong interest in deepening ties with Iran. He said hosting the talks was of great value to Rome and stressed Italy’s readiness to assist the negotiations in any possible way.

Araghchi arrived in Rome earlier in the day for talks on Tehran’s civilian nuclear program and termination of Washington’s unlawful sanctions against the country.

Iran had ruled out direct negotiations with the US under pressure or threats of war but stated that it remains open to indirect talks.

April 19, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Ties with Russia, China key to global peace – Iranian foreign minister

RT | April 19, 2025

Iran, Russia, and China intend to deepen their cooperation in order to promote global peace and security, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said in an exclusive interview with RT.

Tehran has been strengthening its ties with Moscow and Beijing in recent years, joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in 2023 and the BRICS group in 2024. Military cooperation has also expanded, most recently through joint naval drills conducted by the three countries off Iran’s coast in March.

Given the current international climate, working closely with Moscow and Beijing is “a necessity” for Tehran, Araghchi told the broadcaster on Saturday.

“We have started trilateral talks between Iran, Russia and China on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program for some time now,” he said, adding that two such meetings have already taken place. “We are ready to continue these talks and expand them to other issues,” the minister added.

Araghchi expressed confidence that “Iran, China and Russia – in a coordinated move – can take effective steps towards international peace.” The three partners “are serious about this,” he insisted.

Tehran’s top diplomat also said that bilateral “relations between Iran and Russia have never been so close and so strong” than at the current moment.

“We now have a comprehensive strategic partnership agreement that raises the level of our relations to a strategic level. Major economic projects are underway between us. The volume of trade between us has increased tremendously,” he said.

Despite harsh Western restrictions slapped on both Iran and Russia, the two countries “are not waiting for the sanctions to be lifted, but we are expanding our relations in this situation,” Araghchi noted.

“We have the same and close positions on many international issues. I do not want to say that there are no disagreements between us. Sometimes there are also differences of opinion, but in most cases we have close positions with each other and, most importantly, we are in constant exchange of views,” he said.

Earlier this week, Russia’s Federation Council, the upper house of the country’s parliament, unanimously ratified the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement between Russia and Iran, which was signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Peseshkian in January. The pact stipulates that the two nations will develop equal and mutually beneficial cooperation in the fields of politics, defense, economy, security, trade, investment, energy, infrastructure and other areas.

April 19, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Russia, China to Discuss Guarantees on Iran Deal with US – Iranian Lawmaker

Sputnik – 19.04.2025

The United States will not be the only one providing guarantees for a potential Tehran-Washington agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, Iranian lawmaker Alaeddin Boroujerdi said ahead of the second round of US-Iran talks in Rome.

Russia and China will discuss with the US the issue of “more reliable guarantees” for Tehran, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a member of the Iranian parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy, said.

“During the negotiations between Tehran and Washington, guarantees will not only be provided by the US. Countries such as Russia and China will enter into negotiations with the United States on more reliable guarantees,” Boroujerdi said, as quoted by the Iranian state agency SNN.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was on an official visit to Moscow on Thursday and Friday, and in the next few days, according to the Iranian state news agency IRNA, Araghchi will visit China.

During his visit to Russia, the Iranian diplomat held a meeting and talks with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, conveying to him a message from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Araghchi also held talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The parties discussed regional and international cooperation, as well as the situation around the US-Iran talks, the first round of which took place on April 12 in Oman.

Indirect talks between US Presidential Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff and Araghchi took place in the Omani capital on April 12. According to the US special envoy, they were positive and constructive. Araghchi also described the atmosphere of these talks as constructive and calm, and announced that the second round of talks between the Islamic Republic and the United States would be held on April 19.

April 19, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Israeli officials head to Paris to ‘influence US position’ on Iran talks

The Cradle | April 18, 2025

Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer and Mossad chief David Barnea traveled to Paris for a meeting with US envoy Steve Witkoff, which will focus on the current nuclear talks between Washington and Tehran.

“Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer secretly flew to Paris to meet with US envoy Steve Witkoff for talks on the Iranian nuclear issue,” three Israeli sources told Hebrew outlet Walla on 18 April. Axios reported that Barnea will also be participating.

“Israel wants to clarify its positions and try to influence the American position in the talks,” the Walla report added.

One source cited in the report said that Witkoff is looking to negotiate a deal in which Tehran agrees to no longer enrich uranium.

According to three sources speaking with Iran International, Iran proposed during the last round of talks the idea of a cap on its uranium enrichment – as was the case in the 2015 nuclear deal under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which US President Donald Trump withdrew from in 2018 during his first term.

The report says the proposal includes Iran temporarily lowering enrichment to 3.67 percent – the level from the 2015 deal. In exchange, Washington would allow Tehran to access frozen assets and export oil in the first phase.

Phase two would see the US lift additional sanctions and block the “snapback” mechanism, which allows for the immediate reimposition of sanctions on Iran by the UN Security Council, according to the report. Iran would, in exchange, allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to resume inspections of nuclear sites, including “surprise” inspections.

Witkoff called on Iran to end its enrichment and said the president has ordered a “tough deal,” contradicting an earlier statement signaling US openness to a cap on Iranian uranium enrichment.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on 16 April that the Islamic Republic’s enrichment of uranium is “non-negotiable.”

Trump has repeatedly threatened a bombing campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities if a deal is not reached in the current talks, which are coinciding with his continued “maximum pressure” policy of sanctions on Iran.

Tehran has demanded an end to US pressure and threats, and says talks will continue in an indirect manner.

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Trump recently “waved off” an Israeli proposal for a joint attack on Iran.

“I wouldn’t say ‘waved off,’” Trump said in response. “I’m not in a rush to do it. If there’s a second option. I think it would be very bad for Iran, and I think Iran is wanting to talk. I hope they’re wanting to talk. It’s going to be very good for them if they do. Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon. It’s pretty simple,” he added.

Israel has for years been devising plots for a large-scale attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Tel Aviv has recently said that the only US–Iran deal it would find acceptable is one that completely eliminates Tehran’s nuclear program.

The next round of US–Iran talks will be held on 19 April in Rome.

April 18, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »