Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

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.

May 11, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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.

May 6, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran says US ‘not serious’ about nuclear talks after Trump imposes new sanctions

The Cradle | May 2, 2025

The Iranian Foreign Ministry affirmed on 2 May that Tehran is committed to continuing the diplomatic process and negotiations regarding its nuclear program but that it “will not accept pressure and threats that violate international law and target the rights of the Iranian people.”

In a statement, the ministry condemned the continued illegal sanctions on Iran and the “pressure on its economic partners,” viewing them as “further evidence that the United States is not serious about adopting a diplomatic approach toward Iran.”

It also stressed that the continuation of these policies “will not change Iran’s firm positions in defending its legitimate rights,” and that “testing failed methods will only lead to a repetition of past failures.”

The Foreign Ministry went on to say that the Iranian negotiating delegation, during the first three rounds, attempted to “reach a fair agreement that guarantees the rights of the Iranian people, within the specified frameworks that allow Tehran to use peaceful nuclear energy.”

Tehran entered indirect negotiations with Washington following US President Donald Trump’s letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, to “resolve a fabricated crisis through diplomacy, based on good faith,” the statement added.

The Ministry’s statement came after Trump announced on Thursday that all purchases of Iranian oil or petrochemical products must stop, warning that any country or individual continuing such trade would face immediate secondary sanctions and be barred from doing business with the US.

“They will not be allowed to do business with the United States of America in any way, shape, or form,” he wrote on Truth Social on Thursday.

Secondary sanctions are a powerful tool for the US because of the size of its economy.

Trump’s comments follow the postponement of the latest US talks with Iran over its nuclear program.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry announced on Thursday that the fourth round of talks, which were due to take place in Rome on Saturday, had been rescheduled at the suggestion of the Sultanate of Oman for “logistical reasons.”

Sources speaking with Al Mayadeen he explained that the postponement came “against the backdrop of the conflicting positions taken by the US administration regarding the talks, and Washington’s efforts to change the general framework for negotiations that had been previously agreed upon.”

In a related development, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio asserted on 1 May that Iran must “walk away” from both uranium enrichment and the development of long-range missiles.

“They have to walk away from sponsoring terrorists, they have to walk away from helping the Houthis (in Yemen), they have to walk away from building long-range missiles that have no purpose to exist other than having nuclear weapons, and they have to walk away from enrichment,” Rubio said in an interview with Fox News.

His comments came as the fourth round of nuclear negotiations between Tehran and Washington, set to take place in Rome on Saturday, were postponed.

An Iranian official cited by Reuters said a new date for the talks would be set “depending on the US approach.”

Tehran has repeatedly affirmed that both its uranium enrichment and its defense capabilities are non-negotiable in the talks with the US.

May 3, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran: French threat to reimpose sanctions is ‘economic blackmail’

Press TV – April 30, 2025

Iran’s ambassador to the UN has lambasted the French foreign minister’s open threat to reimpose sanctions lifted under a 2015 deal on Tehran’s nuclear program.

“Resorting to threats and economic blackmail is entirely unacceptable and represents a clear breach of the principles enshrined in the UN Charter,” Amir Saeid Iravani wrote in letters to UN chief General Antonio Guterres and Security Council head Jérôme Bonnafont.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said on Monday that his government along with Germany and Britain “will not hesitate for a single second to reapply all the sanctions” lifted a decade ago if European security is threatened by Iran’s nuclear activities.

Iravani said France’s threat to trigger the so-called snapback mechanism despite its own failure to honor its commitments contradicts the fundamental principles of international law that preclude a party from claiming rights under an agreement while simultaneously failing to fulfill its obligations.

“Such an action is legally and procedurally flawed, unacceptable, and invalid, and would undermine the credibility of the Security Council,” he added.

The snapback mechanism is triggered simply by the assertion of significant non-compliance on the part of a participating state, a prerogative the West might abuse based on its accusations.

Iravani further reaffirmed Iran’s commitment to diplomacy and constructive engagement, but “genuine diplomacy cannot be conducted under threats or pressure”.

“If France and its partners are truly interested in a diplomatic resolution, they must abandon coercion and respect the sovereign rights of States under international law.”

Iravani said France’s credibility on non-proliferation is fundamentally undermined by its own record as it continues to modernize and expand its nuclear arsenal, remains silent about, and is complicit in the Israeli regime’s undeclared nuclear weapons program.

France has also yet to fulfill its disarmament obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), he added.

The ambassador rejected the French foreign minister’s accusations that Iran sought to acquire nuclear weapons,

“Allegations that Iran is ‘on the cusp’ of developing nuclear weapons are entirely unfounded and politically irresponsible. The Islamic Republic of Iran has never pursued nuclear weapons, and its defensive doctrine has not been changed,” Iravani said.

“Iran unequivocally rejects all weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), including nuclear arms,” he said. “As a founding member of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Iran remains fully committed to its obligations under the treaty.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), he said, “continues to monitor and verify the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. Its reports have consistently verified that there has been no diversion of nuclear material for non-peaceful purposes.”

Barrot’s allegations about Tehran’s peaceful nuclear program reflect either a fundamental misunderstanding or deliberate distortion of Iran’s legal rights under international law, Iravani said.

The claims also demonstrate a selective interpretation of facts and exemplifies a persistent pattern of double standards by a country that bears specific responsibilities as a permanent member of the Security Council, he added.

April 30, 2025 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | , , , , | 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

US imposes sanctions on Chinese buyers of Iranian oil

Press TV – April 16, 2025

The United States has imposed sanctions on Chinese importers of Iranian oil despite being involved in talks with the Islamic Republic to sort out differences over its nuclear program.

The US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) said in a statement on Wednesday that it had targeted the Chinese importers of Iranian oil in a new round of sanctions issued against Tehran.

It said that the Shandong Shengxing, a so-called “teapot” refinery based in China’s Shandong province, had been designated for receiving dozens of Iranian oil shipments worth more than $1 billion.

The sanctions also targeted the China Oil and Petroleum Company Limited (COPC), an entity the Treasury claimed has been functioning as a front company for Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps to collect oil export revenues from China, including payments made by Shandong Shengxing.

OFAC said it had also designated one Cameroon-flagged and four Panama-flagged tankers for their role in transporting billions of dollars worth of Iran’s oil to international markets, including to China-based refineries.

The tankers’ owners and operators, based in Panama, Malaysia, the Marshall Islands, and Hong Kong, were also targeted.

The new sanctions are the sixth such action taken by the US government against Iran since February 4, when US President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum ordering a campaign of maximum pressure on the country.

They came despite the fact that Iran and the US have launched negotiations to settle disputes about Tehran’s nuclear program. The indirect talks started last weekend in Oman’s capital, Muscat, and will continue on Saturday in Italy’s Rome.

However, the sanctions are a first under Trump in his second term to directly target China and its imports of oil from Iran. Beijing has repeatedly said that it does not recognize US sanctions.

April 16, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Details of Iran’s nuclear demands revealed – media

RT | April 15, 2025

Iran is ready to provide assurances that it is not seeking to weaponize its nuclear program in exchange for US sanctions relief, the country’s top diplomat has said, as quoted by the Tehran Times. Seyed Abbas Araghchi headed the Iranian delegation during indirect talks with US envoy Steve Witkoff in the Omani capital, Muscat on Saturday.

The meeting was the first diplomatic engagement between Washington and Tehran in years, with discussions focusing on Iran’s nuclear program and the potential easing of US sanctions.

According to the news outlet, Araghchi stated that Iran wants a “win-win agreement” and “would not, under any circumstances, agree to dismantle its nuclear program.”

He said, however, that the country is “willing to take steps to provide assurances against the militarization of its nuclear activities.” This would include allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency access to the country’s nuclear sites.

In return, Tehran wants US sanctions on several sectors to be removed without the possibility of being brought back “under other pretexts,” according to the Tehran Times.

The publication said it learned that Witkoff acknowledged that the US needs to make concessions. During the talks, the envoy reportedly did not mention the potential dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program, nor did he reference the original deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which US President Donald Trump withdrew from in 2018 during his first term in office.

In an interview with Fox News on Monday, Witkoff stopped short of calling for Tehran to dismantle its nuclear program, despite demands from other US officials, including White House National Security Adviser Mike Waltz.

“The conversation with the Iranians will be much about two critical points,” Witkoff said. The first is the verification of uranium enrichment, “and ultimately verification on weaponization, that includes missiles, type of missiles that they have stockpiled there, and it includes the trigger for a bomb.”

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), however, has since insisted that Iran’s military capabilities are off limits.

“National security and defense, and military power are among the red lines of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which cannot be discussed or negotiated under any circumstances,” IRGC spokesman Ali Mohammad Naini said on Tuesday, as cited by various media outlets.

The next round of talks between Iran and the US is expected to take place on April 19.

April 15, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Policy Reversal: Why Is the U.S. Softening Its Position on Iran?

By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – April 5, 2025

In Recent Days, the Trump Administration—Known for Its Hardline Stance on Iran—Has Shown Unexpected Shifts in Rhetoric.

U.S. Special Envoy for Middle East Affairs Steven Whitcoff, who previously advocated for a policy of “maximum pressure” on Tehran, now speaks of the need for “confidence-building” and “resolving disagreements.” This sharp turn in foreign policy strategy raises many questions: What exactly prompted Washington to change its approach? What factors influenced the decision to soften its stance? And most importantly—does the U.S. have a real plan of action, or is this just a temporary tactical maneuver?

An analysis of the situation suggests that the policy shift is tied to a combination of factors—from the failure of sanctions to the Trump administration’s domestic political calculations. Additionally, Iran’s response and that of the international community play a key role in determining how events will unfold.

The Failure of “Maximum Pressure”

In 2018, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), expecting that harsh sanctions would force Iran to make concessions. The Trump administration believed economic strangulation would either lead to regime change in Tehran or its surrender on the nuclear issue. However, these calculations proved wrong.

Instead of backing down, Iran responded by escalating its nuclear activities. According to the IAEA, Tehran has significantly increased its stockpile of enriched uranium and begun developing more advanced centrifuges. Moreover, the country strengthened ties with Russia and China, finding alternative ways to bypass sanctions. As a result, the “maximum pressure” policy not only failed to achieve its goals but, from Washington’s perspective, worsened the situation by bringing Iran closer to developing nuclear weapons.

Now, Washington seems to have realized that isolating Iran hasn’t worked and is attempting to shift to diplomatic methods. The question, however, is whether it’s too late—Tehran, hardened by bitter experience, is unlikely to agree to new negotiations without serious guarantees.

Another reason for the policy shift may be domestic U.S. issues. Facing economic challenges and a lack of clear successes, President Trump urgently needs a foreign policy win that can be framed as a major achievement of his so-called “new approach.” A full-scale war with Iran is too risky—a scenario that could spell disaster for both the region and the U.S. itself. Thus, the administration is likely betting on a temporary agreement that can be marketed as a “diplomatic breakthrough.” However, this approach risks new problems—if the deal proves short-lived, it will further erode international trust in the U.S.

Internal Divisions in U.S. Leadership

The rhetorical shift also reflects deep divisions within the American leadership. While some officials, like Steven Whitcoff, advocate for negotiations, others—including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz—continue to insist on Iran’s complete abandonment of its nuclear program. These contradictions indicate a lack of a unified strategy.

Part of the administration appears to recognize the futility of further pressure, while another faction remains committed to a hardline approach. This division makes any long-term U.S. strategy unstable—a change in administration or even a shift in Congressional power dynamics could undo any agreements reached. Such confusion weakens the effectiveness of U.S. policy and gives Iran additional leverage.

Iran’s Response: Why Tehran Doesn’t Trust the U.S.

Iranian leaders remain deeply skeptical of Washington’s new overtures. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has repeatedly stated that “threats and bribes do not work on Iran.” The experience of the 2015 JCPOA showed that the U.S. could abandon the deal at any moment, even if Iran fully complied.

After Washington’s unilateral withdrawal, Tehran lost faith in American guarantees. Now, Iran’s leadership demands not only sanctions relief but also legally binding commitments to prevent the U.S. from reneging again.

The situation is further complicated by internal political struggles in Iran. Conservative factions, empowered after the JCPOA’s collapse, oppose any concessions to the West. Additionally, Iran has adapted to sanctions by finding alternative oil markets and deepening cooperation with China and Russia. This reduces the effectiveness of U.S. pressure and diminishes Tehran’s incentives to compromise.

Even Washington’s closest allies, like Israel, have expressed discontent with the policy shift. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated he distrusts new negotiations with Iran and views any concessions as dangerous.

European nations, however, have long called for renewed dialogue. Germany, France, and the UK—who remained in the JCPOA after the U.S. exit—hope for de-escalation. Yet their influence is limited, as key decisions are made in Washington and Tehran.

Currently, negotiations remain at an impasse. The U.S. offers dialogue but maintains sanctions, while Iran refuses concessions without guarantees. Experts believe Trump is attempting a “good cop, bad cop” tactic, similar to his approach with North Korea. However, unlike in 2015, Tehran is no longer willing to negotiate under pressure. Iranian leaders recognize that time is on their side—the longer the U.S. fails to achieve its goals, the weaker its position becomes.

A Way Out?

An exit from the deadlock—which the U.S. created in its relations with Iran—was discussed during recent trilateral talks between China, Russia, and Iran in Beijing. The meeting produced a comprehensive initiative to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue, based on five principles:

  1. Peaceful Solutions Over Sanctions: All parties must reject coercive pressure and illegal restrictions, prioritizing dialogue. Conditions for renewed negotiations must be created while avoiding escalatory steps.
  2. Balancing Rights and Obligations: Iran must uphold its commitment against nuclear weapons development, while the international community recognizes its right to peaceful nuclear energy under the NPT.
  3. Returning to the JCPOA as a Foundation: The initiative calls for renewed focus on the JCPOA, urging the U.S. to demonstrate goodwill and rejoin the process.
  4. Dialogue Over UN Pressure: Premature involvement of the UN Security Council would undermine trust and stall progress. Confrontational mechanisms would negate years of diplomacy.
  5. Gradual Steps and Mutual Compromises: Forceful methods are ineffective—only equal consultations can produce a compromise respecting all parties’ interests and global demands.

The softening of U.S. rhetoric is a clear sign that “maximum pressure” has failed. Yet without real concessions and guarantees, negotiations are unlikely to yield a breakthrough. Iran has learned to play the long game, leaving Washington with a choice: serious, equal-footed dialogue or further escalation with unpredictable consequences. For now, the situation remains in limbo, with neither side willing to make the first move.

Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RAEN), Expert on Arab World Affairs

April 5, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran, Russia, China reject ‘unlawful’ US sanctions after tripartite meeting

The Cradle | March 14, 2025

China, Russia, and Iran released a joint statement on 14 March demanding an end to “unlawful” US sanctions against the Islamic Republic after meetings in Beijing between the three countries, which were aimed at jumpstarting stalled nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington.

The three countries “emphasized the necessity of terminating all unlawful unilateral sanctions” after talks hosted by Beijing on Friday morning, according to the joint statement read out by Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaxou.

“The three countries reiterated that political and diplomatic engagement and dialogue based on the principle of mutual respect remains the only viable and practical option in this regard,” read the joint statement.

Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov Sergey Alexeevich and Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibadi were also present.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry revealed on 12 March that Beijing would host the high-level talks regarding the nuclear issue with Russia and Iran this week, coinciding with growing tension between Washington and Tehran over the Iranian atomic energy program.

Russia also signaled earlier this month that it was willing to help facilitate negotiations between Iran and the US.

US President Donald Trump has been pushing for nuclear negotiations with the Islamic Republic while simultaneously issuing threats and imposing harsh economic sanctions against the country.

Iranian officials, including President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, have announced their refusal to engage in negotiations under pressure, in line with the position taken by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

A letter written by Trump addressing the supreme leader, which has yet to be published, has reportedly been handed over to Araghchi by Anwar Gargash, the diplomatic advisor to UAE President Mohammed Bin Zayed (MbZ).

On 7 March, Trump said: “I’ve written them a letter, saying I hope you’re going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing for them. There are two ways in which Iran can be handled – militarily, or you make a deal.”

Khamenei said in response that “bully governments … insist on negotiations” which are “not aimed at solving problems; they aim at domination.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported last month that Iran significantly increased its stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium by 92.5 kilograms (203.9 pounds) since its previous report in November.

A closed-door UN Security Council (UNSC) meeting attended by representatives of the US, UK, France, and other countries was held on Wednesday. After the meeting, the UK deputy ambassador to the UN, James Kariuki, accused Iran of “dramatically” enriching uranium towards weapons-grade level and said western countries will “take any diplomatic measures to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon,” including the reimposition of sanctions.

Tehran insists that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful, in line with a religious fatwa against weapons of mass destruction, as well as the fact that it is a signatory in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Yet it faces constant threats of attack from Israel. Reports from last month cited US intelligence estimates as saying that Israel is strongly considering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, which could potentially come this year.

March 14, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s ingenuity vis-à-vis Russia, Iran

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 10, 2025  

Through the past three year period, Moscow claimed that it faced an existential threat from the US-led proxy war in Ukraine. But in the past six weeks, this threat perception has largely dissipated. The US President Donald Trump has made a heroic attempt to change his country’s image to a portmanteau of ‘friend’ and ‘enemy’ with whom Moscow can be friendly despite the backlog of a fundamental dislike or suspicion. 

Last week, Trump turned to the Iran question for what could be a potentially similar leap of faith. There are similarities in the two situations. Both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian are quintessential nationalists and modernisers who are open to westernism. Both Russia and Iran face US sanctions. Both seek a rollback of sanctions that may open up opportunities to integrate their economies with the world market. 

The Russian and Iranian elites alike can be described as ‘westernists’. Through their history, both Russia and Iran have experienced the West as a source of modernity to ‘upgrade’ their civilisation states. In such a paradigm, Trump is holding a stick in one hand and a carrot on the other, offering reconciliation or retribution depending on their choice. Is that a wise approach? Isn’t a reset without coercion possible at all? 

In the Russian perception, the threat from the US has significantly eased lately, as the Trump administration unambiguously signalled a strategy to engage with Russia and normalise the relationship — even holding out the prospects for a mutually beneficial economic cooperation. 

So far, Russia has had a roller coaster ride with Trump (who even threatened Russia with more sanctions) whose prescriptions of a ceasefire to bring the conflict in Ukraine to an end creates unease in the Russian mind. However, Trump also slammed the door shut on Ukraine’s NATO membership; rejected altogether any US military deployment in Ukraine; absolved Russia of responsibility for triggering the Ukraine conflict and instead placed the blame squarely on the Biden administration; openly acknowledged Russia’s desire for an end to the conflict; and took note of Moscow’s willingness to enter into negotiations — even conceded that the conflict itself is indeed a proxy war. 

At a practical level, Trump signalled readiness to restore the normal functioning of the Russian embassy.  If reports are to be believed, the two countries have frozen their offensive intelligence activities in cyber space. 

Again, during the recent voting on a UN Security Council resolution on Ukraine, the US and Russia found themselves arrayed against Washington’s European allies who joined hands with Kiev. Presumably, Russian and American diplomats in New York made coordinated moves. 

It comes as no surprise that there is panic in the European capitals and Kiev that Washington and Moscow are directly in contact and they are not in the loop. Even as the comfort level in Moscow has perceptively risen, the gloom in the European mind is only thickening, embodying the confusion and foreboding that permeated significant moments of their struggle. 

All in all, Trump has conceded the legitimacy of the Russian position even before negotiations have commenced. Is an out-of-the-box thinking conceivable with regard to Iran as well?  

In substantive terms, from the Russian perspective, the remaining ‘loose ends’ are: first, a regime change in Kiev that ensures the emergence of a neutral friendly neighbour; second, removal of US sanctions; and, third, talks on arms control and disarmament attuned to present-day conditions for ensuring European and global balance and stability. 

As regards Iran, these are early days but a far less demanding situation prevails. True, the two countries have been locked in an adversarial relationship for decades. But it can be attributed entirely to the American interference in Iran’s politics, economy, society and culture; an  unremitting mutual hostility was never the lodestar, historically. 

A constituency of ‘westernists’ exists within Iran who root for normalisation with the US as the pathway leading to the country’s economic recovery. Of course, like in Russia, super hawks and dogmatists in Iran also have vested interests in the status quo. The military-industrial complex in both countries are an influential voice. 

The big difference today is that the external environment in Eurasia  thrives on US-Russia tensions whereas, the intra-regional alignments in the Gulf region are conducive to US-Iran detente. The Saudi-Iranian rapprochement, a steady and largely mellowing of Iran’s politics of resistance, Saudi Arabia’s abandonment of of jihadi groups as geopolitical tool and its refocus on development and reform as national strategies — all these mould the zeitgeist, which abhors US-Iran confrontation. 

This historic transformation renders the old US strategy to isolate and ‘contain’ Iran rather obsolete. Meanwhile, there is a growing realisation within the US itself that American interests in West Asia no longer overlap Israel’s. Trump cannot but be conscious of it.   

Equally, Iran’s deterrence capability today is a compelling reality. By attacking Iran, the US can at best score a pyrrhic victory at the cost of Israel’s destruction. Trump will find it impossible to extricate the US from the ensuing quagmire during his presidency, which, in fact, may define his legacy. 

The US-Russia negotiations are likely to be protracted. Having come this far, Russia is in no mood to freeze the conflict till it takes full control of Donbass region — and, possibly, the eastern side of Dniepr river (including Odessa, Kharkhov, etc.) But in Iran’s case, time is running out. Something has to give way in another six months when the hourglass empties and the October deadline arrives for the snapback mechanism of the 2015 JCPOA to reimpose UN resolutions to “suspend all reprocessing, heavy water-related, and enrichment-related activities” by Tehran. 

Trump will be called upon to take a momentous decision on Iran. Make no mistake, if push comes to shove, Tehran may quit the NPT altogether. Trump said Wednesday that he sent a letter to Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, calling for an agreement to replace the JCPOA. He suggested, without specifics, that the issue could quickly lead to conflict with Iran, but also signalled that a nuclear deal with Iran could emerge in the near future.

Later on Friday, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that the US is “down to the final moments” negotiating with Iran, and he hoped military intervention would prove unnecessary. As he put it, “It’s an interesting time in the history of the world. But we have a situation with Iran that something is going to happen very soon, very, very soon. 

“You’ll be talking about that pretty soon, I guess. Hopefully, we can have a peace deal. I’m not speaking out of strength or weakness, I’m just saying I’d rather see a peace deal than the other. But the other will solve the problem. We’re at final moments. We can’t let them have a nuclear weapon.”

Trump aims at generating peace dividends out of any normalisation with Russia and Iran, two energy superpowers, that could give momentum to his MAGA project. But cobwebs must be swept away first. Myths and misconceptions have shaped contemporary Western thinking on Russia and Iran. Trump should not fall for the phobia of Russia’s ‘imperialistic’ ambitions or Iran’s ‘clandestine’ nuclear programme.

If the first one was the narrative of the liberal-globalist neocon camp, the second one is a fabrication by the Israeli lobby. Both are self-serving narratives. In the process, the difference between westernisation and modernisation got lost. Westernisation is the adoption of western culture and society, whereas, modernisation is the development of one’s own culture and society. Westernisation can at best be only a subprocess of modernisation in countries such as Russia and Iran.

Trump’s ingenuity, therefore, lies in ending the US’ proxy wars with Russia and Iran by creating synergy out of the Russian-Iranian strategic partnership. If the US’ proxy wars only has drawn Russia and Iran closer than ever in their turbulent history as quasi-allies lately, their common interest today also lies in Trump’s ingenuity to take help from Putin to normalise the US-Iran ties. If anyone can pull off such an audacious, magical rope trick, it is only Trump who can,   

March 10, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia ready to facilitate US-Iran negotiations – Kremlin

RT | March 4, 2025

Russia is ready to broker talks between the US and Iran, including on Tehran’s nuclear program and its regional proxy network, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Bloomberg on Tuesday.

Trump expressed interest in talking to Iran about those issues, both in his phone call to Putin in February and via representatives at the high-level US-Russian meeting in Riyadh just days later, the news agency wrote, citing anonymous officials.

“Russia believes that the United States and Iran should resolve all problems through negotiations,” Peskov told Bloomberg when asked about such contact.

Moscow “is ready to do everything in its power to achieve this,” he added.

US President Donald Trump returned to his “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran last month, just weeks after Moscow and Tehran signed a landmark strategic partnership agreement. Trump’s executive order said that Washington would ramp up sanctions on Iran, aiming to disrupt its nuclear program, conventional missile deployment, and network of regional proxy groups.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry has said the country is building up its defenses, citing regular threats from US ally Israel.

“The Israeli regime’s FM and other officials keep threatening Iran with military action while the West continues to blame Iran for its defense capability. This is outrageous & irrational,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said last week. Given that Israel is “addicted to aggression and lawless behavior,” it is “responsible and essential to maximize our defense capabilities,” he stressed.

The day before, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar warned that a “military option” should be on the table to stop the potential weaponization of Tehran’s nuclear program.

Israel and the West have long seen Iran’s uranium enrichment activities as a secret attempt to develop nuclear weapons – allegations that Tehran has repeatedly denied.

While Trump has touted harsher sanctions, he has also signaled that he is interested in signing a “verified nuclear peace agreement” with Tehran.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has stressed that talks with the US are unlikely to bear fruit, citing the prior nuclear deal Trump unilaterally left during his first presidency.

March 4, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pro-Israel Think Tank WINEP Outed as ‘Dark Money’ Operation Driving US Wars

By Robert Inlakesh | MintPress News | February 26, 2025

The AIPAC-aligned Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), which often refers to itself simply as The Washington Institute, was recently outed as a “dark money” think tank for its lack of transparency on donors and is continuing to push the United States to engage in conflicts overseas to Israel’s benefit. Its case raises questions about how the Israel Lobby functions through think tanks across the board, shaping U.S. foreign policy behind closed doors.

WINEP has a long history of shaping U.S. foreign policy. It was deeply involved in the neoconservative push for regime change in Iraq, joining calls for the Clinton administration to topple Saddam Hussein as early as 1998. They also pushed for U.S. military intervention and helped justify the eventual invasion in 2003.

At the beginning of the year, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft unveiled the “Think Tank Funding Tracker,” a one-of-a-kind project that examined the funding sources of the top 50 U.S. think tanks since 2019 and rated their transparency from 0 to 5. WINEP and 16 others—including the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)—received a zero transparency rating, exposing its reliance on “dark money” contributions.

While WINEP claims “to be funded exclusively by U.S. citizens” on its website, it does not publicly disclose its donor list. Its AIPAC roots were first exposed in 2006 by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer in The London Review of Books, where they described WINEP as an AIPAC cutout advancing Israel’s agenda under the guise of independent research. The pair wrote at the time that “The Lobby created its own think tank in 1985, when Martin Indyk helped found WINEP. Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims instead that it provides a “balanced and realistic” perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case. In fact, WINEP is funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda.”

This claim that AIPAC created WINEP was later corroborated by former AIPAC official MJ Rosenberg, who wrote in HuffPost : “How do I know? I was in the room when AIPAC decided to establish WINEP.” The now-deceased WINEP co-founder, Martin Indyk, was also the head of the Saban Center for Middle East Studies, funded by Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban.

Recent U.S. foreign policy developments have only strengthened WINEP’s influence. The Biden administration’s unwavering support for Israel’s war on Gaza, including a $14 billion emergency military aid package, aligns with WINEP’s long-standing push to ensure that U.S. military assistance to Israel remains untouchable. WINEP actively shaped public discourse as the war progressed, with Executive Director Robert Satloff praising Biden’s refusal to support an early ceasefire, calling it “correct and courageous.”

When House lawmakers convened hearings in late 2023 to attack the administration’s Iran policy, their rhetoric mirrored WINEP’s narratives, particularly opposition to any sanctions relief. Witnesses from WINEP-adjacent institutions like FDD and JINSA were brought in to reinforce the case for a more aggressive posture toward Iran. Meanwhile, WINEP continues to push for U.S. military leverage in post-Assad Syria, another key policy area where the Biden administration has quietly followed its recommendations by maintaining a military foothold and targeting Iranian assets with airstrikes.

WINEP’s revolving-door relationship with the U.S. government does little to shed its reputation for shaping policy. In May 2023, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan delivered a keynote address at WINEP’s annual Soref Symposium, praising Satloff’s “extraordinary work.” Sullivan’s participation wasn’t just symbolic—it reinforced WINEP’s position as an informal but essential policy hub. This is evident from the administration’s embrace of the Abraham Accords, another WINEP priority.

Former WINEP fellow Dan Shapiro was appointed the State Department’s senior advisor for regional integration, carrying out the think tank’s long-standing vision for Arab normalization with Israel. WINEP is currently led by Michael Singh, Robert Satloff, Dennis Ross, and Dana Stroul. Stroul, who serves as WINEP’s Research Director, returned to the position after serving as the Biden administration’s deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East from 2021 to 2024. During her tenure, she played a central role in Washington’s anti-Iran initiatives, the response to the Gaza war, and shaping U.S. Syria policy.

Beyond WINEP, the broader issue of think tank influence is now facing increasing scrutiny. In 2023, lawmakers introduced the Think Tank Transparency Act, which requires policy organizations to disclose foreign government funding and contractual agreements. While WINEP does not receive direct funding from Israel, watchdogs have highlighted that its pro-Israel agenda is sustained through wealthy American donors closely linked to AIPAC. Using domestic contributions to advance a foreign policy agenda has enabled WINEP to operate without falling under the scrutiny of foreign lobbying laws, even as its “scholars” shape U.S. positions on Iran, Syria, and the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Currently, the two primary issues on WINEP’s agenda are how to best leverage American influence to shape outcomes in post-Assad Syria and how to assure regime change in Iran. Indicative of the think tank’s influence is that not only was its hardline Syria strategy the exact model used by the U.S. to aid regime change in Damascus, but its chief researcher was taken on as a senior official by the previous administration.

As demonstrated by the Quincy Institute’s new report, the lack of transparency over who exactly finances the AIPAC lobby’s “cutout” think tank presents serious questions about who is actually shaping U.S. foreign policy and to whose benefit.

March 2, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »