Listen to the complete interview (about 27 minutes):
Real Audio Windows Media

RFE/RL: As underscretary of state for public affairs and public diplomacy, what are the main opportunities and challenges you are facing in fulfilling your mission?

Karen Hughes: I really view my job and the way I describe it in simple terms is [that] I'm focusing on America's conversation with the world. And I say "conversation" because I think sometimes the world thinks we speak at them, rather than listening to them. So I've tried to focus a great deal on listening and engaging in dialogue.

And as I travel the countries I try to meet with people. I meet with a wide sector of people, young professionals, people in low-income neighborhoods. Many people have told me that I've gone places where an American has never gone before. I try to appear on television shows where they've never interviewed an American before, to really reach out. The core of public diplomacy is, I believe, people-to-people programs and exchanges and ways that we can actually reach out to people.

I have three strategic goals for the way I look at, the way I constantly ask my staff to look at, our public-diplomacy efforts and I'll just go through them all quickly. The first is I believe it's very important that America continue to offer the world a positive vision of hope and opportunity that’s rooted in our values, our belief in freedom, our commitment to human rights, our belief in the worth and dignity and equality and value of every single person in the world. I saw a focus-group interview [with] a young man in Morocco and he said: "For me, America represents the hope of a better life." And I think it's vitally important that our country continue to offer that hope to people everywhere, whether it's people in Afghanistan, or Uzbekistan, or Iran -- that we've got to offer that hope that’s rooted in our fundamental values again. The most fundamental of all is that we believe every person matters, every person counts, and every person has the right to live a life that’s meaningful and to contribute.

A second strategic imperative is to work to isolate and marginalize the violent extremists and to undermine their efforts to impose their vision of ideology and tyranny on the rest of us. And so we work very hard to encourage interfaith dialogue, to talk about the fact that we think people of all faiths share certain beliefs -- in the value of human life, for example. And the violent extremists obviously don't value human life -- they've targeted innocents and committed horrible crimes against innocent civilians across the world. So I think it's very important that we, as a world community, as an international community, draw a very clear contrast between our vision -- which is for education and openness and tolerance and inclusiveness -- and the extremist vision, which is a very narrow, rigid ideology. Essentially they say, "You have to agree with us, or we want to kill you." And so it's very important that we draw that distinction in very stark terms.

And the final strategic imperative is that I believe it's very important for America to foster a climate of common interests and common values between Americans and people of different countries and cultures and faiths across the world. And that's particularly important at this time when we are engaged in a worldwide war against terror. One of our former ambassadors, when I met with him, said to me: "Karen, you know, American foreign policy can't be just seen as focusing on common threats. We have to focus on common interests and common values." And I find as I travel the world we do have a lot in common, even though we don't always recognize that. If you ask a lot of people around the world "what's most important to you," frequently they’ll say their faith, their family, their sense of social justice and responsibility. If you ask Americans "what's most important to you," we'll say "our faith, our family, our communities." Often, though, if you ask the people in other parts of the world "do you think Americans value faith and family," they don't understand that about us. So I think it's very important that we talk and engage in dialogue so that we understand that we do have a lot in common.

I'm a mother. I have a son who I love dearly and a daughter, and I want the best for them. I want them to be educated; I want them to have a chance to travel around the world and meet other people; I want them to grow up and have an opportunity for a job and a productive, meaningful life. And that's what parents across the world want for our children. And so I think it's very important that we reach out in that spirit to the rest of the world.

RFE/RL: You just spoke about the importance of having a dialog between the United States and the Muslim world. Do you see a role that international broadcasters could play in that dialogue?

Hughes: Absolutely. I'm here at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and I was just told that of the 28 countries where you broadcast, I think, 18 have majority Muslim populations. And so that's a very important voice for our values going into those countries. Your mission here is to provide the truth and to provide audiences in those countries with information that is accurate. One of the challenges, I think, that I face in my job, one of the things I say, is that I want people to be able to decide for themselves. And I think that's very different from the extremists that we face. The extremists want a very narrow, rigid view of the world. They basically say, "it's our way, or you're wrong."

We want people to decide for themselves, and I think that's a very powerful point, particularly for young people. Young people want to learn; they want to make up their own minds; they want to explore; they want to hear a variety of news and information. And broadcasting helps provide that credible source of news and information, often in countries whose governments control the news or control information about what is happening within their own borders. So your service provides open information and an opportunity for young people to decide for themselves.

Another big part of my strategy is to try to empower our own citizens. We have in America 6-7 million Muslim-Americans, and I believe they are a very important bridge to the wider Muslim, Islamic world because many of them are from cultures around the world, came from those countries, and so know both cultures, know both their home culture and their now American home culture. And so I think they are an important bridge.

I was in Germany not too long ago, and I was meeting with a group of Muslims who live there and this woman was telling me how isolated her community is. And I said, "Well, could I come meet and maybe talk with people in your community?" And she looked at me and kind of shook her head and said: "No, not really." I was kind of taken aback and I said, "What do you mean?" And she said, "Well, we wouldn't want our own government officials to come and meet with us, so why would we want yours?" Because there is such a hostility, a sort of disconnect, the community feels very isolated there. And I said, "what if I sent a group of Muslim-American citizens over here to meet and talk with you?" And she said, "that'd be great!"

And so, beginning next week, we're going to be sending Muslim-Americans to different regions of the world to meet with Muslim communities and begin a dialogue. And so I think one of my roles is to help empower those voices and to let Muslim communities across the world hear different points of view and hear debates, and I know that's one of the things that our broadcasting encourages is: "Let's look at...." [and] "We've got to talk about...."

We have in America separation of church and state, but that doesn't mean -- I think I'm worried that sometimes freedom of religion has come to mean freedom from religion. And I don't think that's what was intended. America has people of many different faiths -- Muslims work and worship and practice their faith very freely in my country. And so do many Jewish citizens. So do many Christian citizens of all different denominations. And some Americans choose to practice no faith at all, and that's fine too. So we have a very diverse and tolerant society. And I think it's important that we allow and, through our broadcasting, that we allow discussion of these kinds of issues.

RFE/RL: There are countries in the world that you can visit, where you can talk directly to people. But there are countries, like Iran, that are much more difficult to visit. Do you have different strategies for communicating with people in more isolated societies?

Hughes: That's where broadcasting [into Iran] becomes even more important, because Radio Farda does reach an audience that we're not able to reach. President Bush has recently requested supplemental funding for additional broadcasting into Iran and also for an opportunity to try to begin some people-to-people exchange programs, where we could begin to try to have some exchanges. That's going to be difficult and we recognize that.

So our broadcasting becomes very important in terms of being able to establish a dialogue, and some of the correspondents here were sharing with me that you hear from many of your listeners within Iran, that they would call and leave messages or they would send e-mails. I think that's a very important dialogue.

We, of course, have many Iranians in America and they are in touch with people in Iran. For example, recently, I reached out to them and had conference calls with them to get their points of view about events in Iran and how we might better engage with the people of Iran. But clearly it's a problem.

In societies such as Cuba, for example, as well. Again we try to broadcast into Cuba, but we don't have formal relations, therefore we don't have formal exchanges. We, again, have a lot of Cuban-Americans who communicate to some extent with family back at home. So we have to adapt our strategies to each country. By and large, however, I think that in today's world, it's very different than public diplomacy was in the Cold War. In the Cold War, as you know because Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty was such a vital part of it, we were broadcasting news and information into societies that were largely closed, that were hungry for that information. That's still the case in Iran today, or in places like Cuba.

However, in much of the world -- particularly across much of the Middle East, for example -- there's no longer an information deficit. In fact there is an explosion of information, and it's a completely different world that we're dealing with because a lot of it is propaganda, a lot of it is not true, a lot of it is rumor and myth and it goes around the world instantly on the Internet. I remember one of the great ironies that I saw recently of the modern communications age was when one of Saddam Hussein's ministers -- the minister of information -- was standing outside Baghdad, saying that American troops weren't there [while] you could see on your television screen that, yes in fact they were, and you could see Baghdad in the background.

And so today, in today's world, when we see on our television stations pictures from around the world in an instant what we're vying for, I think, is attention and credibility in the midst of an often-crowded communications environment and that's why it is so important, I think, that our broadcasting is committed to telling the truth and to portraying truthful, accurate information without bias, without propaganda, without slant, but providing the truth to people across the world.

RFE/RL: You earlier indicated that you have made several trips to Afghanistan and you are a good friend of the Afghans, especially the women. Are there any concerns about what seems to be a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan with advances by the Taliban and especially the anti-U.S. rioting that took place recently? And you are also welcome to make any statement for Afghan listeners.

Hughes: Well, thank you so much. Afghanistan stole my heart on my first visit to Afghanistan several years ago. I was so impressed by the great courage, particularly of the women there who have been through so much after years of war and years of the Taliban rule. Yet I met women who, despite threats of really their life in some cases, were having home reading classes to teach little girls to read because little girls were forbidden from going to school or learning to read. And I met women who just had so much courage, who had lost husbands at war and yet had been struggling to try to support their families.

Of course, everywhere I went, the people were so gracious, so warm. You’d meet people who had virtually nothing and yet they would offer you everything. They’d invite you to their home, and serve you tea and greet you with great warmth. I really admire the courage of the people of Afghanistan.

And I found when I was in Afghanistan that the people of Afghanistan were very grateful. Everywhere I went, they said two things to me. They said: “Tashakkour” -- “Thank you.” And then they said “don’t leave,” because they very much want a chance at peace and stability.

I think what we are seeing now is some Taliban remnants try to take advantage of a situation there as NATO takes the lead of the operations for the coalition there. I think we are seeing increased presence of NATO in the southern part of Afghanistan, and so we are encountering some Taliban forces that we had not encountered before because we hadn’t had that kind of presence in the southern part of the country.

I saw the American ambassador to Afghanistan interviewed about the riots. He said he thought it was more of a crowd that got out of control, and was just sort of in a very ugly, feisty bad crowd dynamics. Because he said his experience is still by and large the same as mine, and that is that the majority of the Afghan people want the presence of American forces and coalition and NATO forces in Afghanistan, because they know that is the best hope to have peace and prosperity in their future.

I am looking forward to going back to Afghanistan. I again think the people there very much want.... They are very entrepreneurial. I remember seeing, I would see piles of rubble from the destruction of war and then every few feet the bricks had been cleaned up and someone had put up a sign and they were going into business. I think that’s a very moving tribute to the spirit and the character of the Afghan people.

We are committed to Afghanistan. America is committed to Afghanistan. NATO is committed to Afghanistan. And we want Afghanistan to succeed. It’s fairly exciting that we have a democratically elected government there. I had the privilege of attending President [Hamid] Karzai’s inaugural and watching the Supreme Court under the new constitution administer the oath of office to the new president, the chief justice. I couldn’t help but think, you know, two years ago none of this was here. There wasn't a constitution; there wasn't an elected president; there wasn’t.... Now we have a parliament with a number of women in parliament. I am looking forward to visiting with some of them on my next trip to Afghanistan.

RFE/RL: There seems to be a problem between two important allies in the war against terrorism -- Pakistan and Afghanistan. Using your status in the administration in promoting communication and dialogue, can you influence this? Can you do anything about it?

Hughes: Well, I certainly hope I can. I’ve been to both countries. I was in Pakistan not too long ago. I led a group of business leaders to Pakistan to help raise money for recovery from the horrible [October 2005] earthquake there.

I am aware that there are tensions and, unfortunately, there are some very difficult regions along the border between the [two] countries. Americans ask me all the time, why haven’t we caught [Al-Qaeda leader] Osama Bin Laden if he is there? I have flown over that country. As you know, it is extremely rugged. It’s hard to imagine. I remember flying over some of those mountains and thinking there is no way anyone could live there. And then they had put me on night-vision goggles and I looked down and there were hundreds of fires where people had campfires, where people were living all throughout those mountains and they go for miles and miles, and it was incredibly rugged and incredibly hostile territory and incredibly difficult to imagine. And of course, [there are] long traditions and long grievances. So it’s difficult. But I certainly hope that America, our government could in some way perhaps encourage better relations.

RFE/RL: You have spoken about the importance of faith, at least of telling the world that Americans are people of faith. How important is sensitivity to religious issues in your communications strategy, especially sensitivity to Islam? And would you talk a little bit about the role of this interfaith dialogue you have been active in? How that is involved in your strategy?

Hughes: I think it is absolutely vital, because as a communicator I understand that the way that you really communicate with people is that you have to speak in ways that are relevant to their lives. And so if you are speaking with someone whose faith is the most important thing in their life, which it is for many people across our world, you can’t just ignore that factor.

I was one of the people who advocated that the president visit the mosque in the aftermath of [the] September 11[, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington] to send a signal that we understood that we have many Muslims in America who are very peaceful citizens, who are proud Americans, and that this was not about the faith of Islam, but this was about some people who were violent extremists, who were trying to use the cloak of religion to try to cover acts that were really acts of murder. So I was an advocate of that, and I think it’s very important that we show the world that America is a very tolerant and diverse society where people are welcome to practice their faith.

It’s interesting, I was in Morocco last week and I was talking with a couple of people who had been on exchanges and I asked them what their feeling was in America. And they said they felt so free -- they couldn’t believe how free they felt. A woman who wore cover told me how sometimes when she travels to Europe and other places, she feels as if people stare at her and look at her as is she is a little different or a little suspect. And yet she said in America she felt totally free, and she didn’t have that feeling in America. Because we are a very diverse and very welcoming country and society.

And I think it is important that we seek to foster interfaith dialog and that’s one of the things that President Bush asked me when I took this job. He said, "meet with religious leaders, foster conversations among religious leaders." I’ve attended a number of interfaith conferences. Because again you have to recognize that faith is very important to many people’s lives. So if you exclude that from your conversation, you are excluding something that is very important to many people.

The other thing is that the world’s major faiths have many things in common. The world's major faiths all believe that we should try to live in peace and love for each other, that we should love God and love our neighbor. All believe and teach that life is precious and that the taking of innocent life is wrong. It’s important that we talk about these things. Sure, we have differences. We have important theological differences. But we also have much in common. And I think it is very important that we foster that kind of dialogue.

RFE/RL: The United States has been accused of having allies that are undemocratic even as America promotes democracy and freedom. How do you answer critics who charge that the United States preaches one thing but practices another?

Hughes: President Bush made it very clear in his second inaugural address that he felt that America had to stand for freedom everywhere in the world and that, in the aftermath of September 11, America had reevaluated our national security, had looked at the situation around the world and had realized that when you have regions where there is a freedom deficit, then you often have the kind of conditions that can be taken advantage of. You have a kind of hopelessness, you have a sense of simmering anger that can lead people to get on airplanes and do crazy things like flying them in the buildings full of innocent people. He recognized that we had to address that.

So in the aftermath of September 11, the president made it our policy to foster freedom everywhere, to foster democracy, to encourage the democratic aspirations of people, because -- again -- we feel that’s in our national interests as well as in their interests. He said we have no monopoly on freedom in America. We believe that men and women were endowed by their creator with certain rights, as our Declaration [of Independence] says, and among them are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- in other words, to freedom. And so we have an obligation to stand for that everywhere. He also said we recognize that will come in different ways in different places, and that the pace of change will be different in different places.

For example, in some place like Egypt, we spoke up and commended the step of having a multiparty presidential election. I remember being in Egypt and talking with a young man -- he was not much older than my son -- and he had just voted for the first time in the presidential election and I said, “did you have a choice of candidates?” And he said “yes.” And that was the first time that there had been a choice like that.

Then they had parliamentary elections that were not as open and not as free. And we expressed our concerns about that. So when there are crackdowns against people who are trying to peacefully exercise their right to speak out, we will speak up and say that we disagree with that.

Again, we recognize that the pace of change will be different in different places. There will be slow steps in some places. In other places, there will be bigger steps. But what we are seeing across the world, we hope, and what we are trying to encourage, is the advance, greater liberties, greater freedoms.

The women of Kuwait, for example, now have the right to vote and the right to run for office. So we are seeing advances.

We’ve seen elections in the Palestinian territories. [We] didn’t agree with the positions of the government of Hamas that was elected there. Yet we absolutely agree that the Palestinian people have a right to make a choice. Once they make that choice, however, the international community can say: "Well, we don’t agree with some of the actions of that government. We don’t agree with a government that refuses to renounce terror and that refuses to recognize its neighbor’s right to exist, and that refuses to live up to previous obligations under the peace process. But we do agree that it is good for the people to get involved, to make their voices heard.

And so slowly, but surely, we believe that freedom is on the advance. We have in the world today many more democratic nations than we had in the past. So we are making progress, and the United States will continue to stand for greater freedom, for greater human rights, and for the voices of those people in their societies to speak out and influence the direction of the governments of their societies.

RFE/RL: Central Asia is exactly a region with a "freedom deficit," as you put it. Does it pose a dilemma for the United States, as on the one hand most of the governments in Central Asia are undemocratic, and, on the other, they are strategically important in the war against terrorism? Is it a dilemma for the United States whether to support them and to cooperate with them in the war against terrorism or do you see undemocratic governments as a cause of terrorism?

Hughes: I think I would separate the two slightly in that President Bush has said we want to work across the world with people who want to crack down in the fight against terrorism. We want to work on a lot of different levels. We work with the governments, for example, to try to withhold funding to terrorist organizations. We try to share intelligence. We try to share law enforcement. And that is a global strategic issue with which we work with governments across the world.

I hope most governments in the world want to protect their citizens. President Bush believes that the most fundamental responsibility of government is to try to protect its citizens’ right to not have airplanes fly into buildings where you are just going to work one day. So we work in cooperation with governments across the world to try to share information and intelligence to protect the lives of our citizens.

At the same time, we speak very proudly on behalf of human rights. And when we see governments repressing the human rights of their people, we speak out against that. When we see, for example, as we have recently in Russia, independent media being shut down and harassed and driven out of the country, we speak out against that. So we seek to foster in countries around the world a climate of opportunity for people to participate.

We recognize that in Central Asia that’s a very great challenge. So, one of the things I work to do in my area is to foster the kind of exchanges, the kind of growth of civil society, to try to have people come to the United States and meet with civil-society organizations with the hopes that they can go back to their country and help form those kinds of civil-society organizations. We recognize that in many countries, it’s very difficult to do. It’s difficult for citizens to peacefully assemble and try to either express their political views or even express nonpolitical, charitable [views], to assemble together. But we work. And again, some of this is a process that takes a great deal of time.

As people here in the Czech Republic know very well, it takes time sometimes. But we are confident that as we work to exchange people and exchange ideas, as we work to support civil-society institutions, as we work to support education programs, as we work to broadcast truth and information into these societies -- that ultimately will help to empower people, so that they themselves have the information and the skills and the strength to make their societies a better place.

High-stakes nuclear talks between the United States and Iran have already entered the technical phase after just two rounds of negotiations mediated by Oman.

A third round of talks, along with separate technical discussions, is scheduled for April 26 in Muscat.

The progress has fueled speculation, particularly in Iran, that the administration of US President Donald Trump has dropped its demand for the dismantlement of Tehran's nuclear program in favor of simply capping it.

But analysts caution that it's far too early to draw such conclusions.

While the shift to technical discussions might suggest a softening of US demands, analysts say dismantlement could still be the underlying objective -- or at least a point of leverage.

"I never thought that dismantlement was a credible goal," said Richard Nephew, who served as the lead sanctions expert on the US team that clinched the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

"But if this is still in the Trump administration's heads, then the long-term perspective is still bleak."

He noted that technical negotiations also took place during the talks that eventually led to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), even when US demands remained maximalist.

Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), sees the current trajectory not as a concession but as strategic pressure.

"A Trump doctrine on Iran takes shape where it gives Iran a choice: Either you dismantle your nuclear program or the US and/or Israel will dismantle it for you," he said.

Is Iran Running Down The Clock?

Some, particularly proponents of dismantlement, argue that the Islamic republic is dragging out the negotiations to run down the clock on the return of UN sanctions.

Britain, France, and Germany have threatened to trigger the "snapback" mechanism of the JCPOA -- re-imposing UN sanctions against Tehran -- if it fails to reach a deal with the United States by the end of June. However, that mechanism expires in October.

Both analysts agree Iran sees value in prolonging the process to stall pressure, avoid snapback sanctions, or simply buy time.

"There is only a certain amount of pressure that comes to beat that clock, because even after snapback expires, you still have a hostile United States with its national sanctions campaign," Nephew said.

"Iran wants to clinch a decent deal, but they'll take wasted time -- and delayed military action -- as a consolation prize," he added.

Brodsky offered a sharper view, calling the negotiations "a shield" that Tehran uses to protect its nuclear work from further scrutiny or action.

"Iran only loses should the negotiations collapse," he said. "The United States, however, does not need the talks as much as Iran does."

What Would A Good Iran Deal Look Like?

Despite skepticism over whether dismantlement is still a realistic demand, analysts agree a deal that limits Iran's nuclear activities can still be credible, if it includes key safeguards.

"The JCPOA gives us a lot of advice here," said Nephew. "You'd need three things: verification of the cap, physical limitations so that they can't quickly exceed it, and a credible risk of consequences if they cheat."

He noted that while Iran is unlikely to scrap its advanced centrifuges again, as it did under the 2015 deal, "there is still space that a deal could be found."

Brodsky, however, is doubtful that any deal short of full dismantlement can truly prevent Iran from using its nuclear program as leverage.

He views even low-level enrichment -- such as the 3.67 percent limit under the JCPOA -- as a threat.

"Its right to enrich uranium to 3.67 percent under the JCPOA was part of [an] extortion racket," he said, referring to Iran teasing nuclear weapons acquisition.

"The continuation of this negotiation process leads some observers to believe the United States has conceded a right to enrich uranium to Iran," Brodsky said. "I believe the Trump administration is still defining the contours of what an acceptable deal would look like."

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi issued a public call for renewed diplomacy with the E3 -- France, Germany, and the UK -- amid mounting tensions and their exclusion from ongoing nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States.

In a post on X on April 24, Araqchi acknowledged that relations with the E3 are “currently down,” describing the status quo as “lose-lose” for both sides.

He emphasized that “placing blame is a futile exercise” and instead urged a return to dialogue and cooperation, not only on nuclear issues but across all areas of mutual interest.

Araqchi offered to visit Paris, Berlin, and London for direct talks.

“The ball is now in the E3's court,” the Iranian foreign minister wrote, “how we act at this critical junction is likely to define the foreseeable future.”

The foreign minister’s outreach comes as the E3 have been sidelined from the latest round of nuclear negotiations, which are being mediated by Oman rather than European powers.

The E3 were key players in earlier efforts to revive the 2015 nuclear deal, but this time they've been sidelined.

The E3 have threatened to trigger the re-imposition of UN sanctions on Iran if no agreement is reached with the United States by the end of June. The “snapback” of UN sanctions is a provision under the effectively defunct 2015 nuclear deal, which formally expires in October.

Iranian state media have welcomed the E3’s exclusion, with The Tehran Times even accusing them -- without evidence -- of backing UN nuclear chief Rafael Grossi for secretary-general in exchange for helping to “demonize” Iran and justify a return to UN sanctions.

Iranian and US negotiators agreed to hold a third round of high-stakes talks on Iran's nuclear ambitions, a positive signal amid mixed White House messages about potential military action and new demands on Tehran.

The April 19 meetings, held in Rome, were the second time that top-level negotiators from Washington and Tehran had met this month.

There was no immediate comment on the outcome of the Rome talks from the US delegation, which was headed by White House special envoy Steve Witkoff.

But news agencies quoted senior US officials as saying the sides “made very good progress” in the Rome discussions.

"Today, in Rome over four hours in our second round of talks, we made very good progress in our direct and indirect discussions," said an unidentified US official -- who also confirmed a statement by Iran that the two sides agreed to meet again next week.

AP also quoted a US official as confirming that Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Araqchi had spoken face to face.

Iran's foreign minister said the two sides had agreed to meet again on April 26 in Oman, where the first round took place.

"I believe technical negotiations at the expert level will begin in Oman on Wednesday [April 23)] and next Saturday we will meet in Oman and review the results of the experts' work to see how close it is to the principles of an agreement," Araqchi told Iranian state TV.

"It was a good meeting, and I can say that the negotiations are moving forward. This time we managed to reach a better understanding on a series of principles and goals," he said.

The United States and other Western countries have long accused Iran of trying to build nuclear weapons.

Tehran has consistently denied the allegations, insisting that its efforts are aimed at civilian purposes, such as electricity generation.

Conflicting Messages

Following his return to the White House in January, US President Donald Trump, who had previously withdrawn from a 2015 accord known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), revived a "maximum pressure" campaign of sanctions against Iran.

Last month, he sent a letter to Iran's supreme leader urging renewed talks while warning of military action if diplomacy failed.

In the past week, Trump and other White House officials have sent sometimes conflicting messages about the US approach to the talks. The White House has ordered heavy, long-range bombers to the region, along with a second aircraft carrier.

"I'm not in a rush" to use the military option, Trump told reporters on April 17. "I think Iran wants to talk."

On April 18, he told reporters: "I'm for stopping Iran, very simply, from having a nuclear weapon. They can't have a nuclear weapon. I want Iran to be great and prosperous and terrific."

In an interview days earlier on Fox News, Witkoff said that the United States was open to Iran having some sort of limited nuclear program.

But he then walked back that position in a social media post, suggesting that the entire program needed to be dismantled.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meanwhile, said he hoped the Iranian talks would be “fruitful.”

“We would all prefer a peaceful resolution and a lasting one,” he said after meetings in Paris.

But, he added, “It has to be something that not just prevents Iran from having a nuclear weapon now, but in the future as well.”

Israel's Role

Israel’s role in the debate over Iran’s nuclear ambitions is also critical. Israeli officials have vowed to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and Israel has not ruled out an attack on its nuclear facilities in the coming months, according to multiple news reports.

Trump has reportedly told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Washington did not support such a move.

Former officials and experts have long said that Israel would need significant US military support –- and weapons –- to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and stockpiles, some of which are in underground facilities.

With reporting by RFE/RL's Radio Farda, AP, AFP, and Reuters

Iranian and US negotiators will hold a second round of indirect talks on April 19, a week after concluding discussions that both sides described as “constructive” and “positive.”

While the first round was hosted in Oman, the second will take place in Rome. Omani diplomats will continue to mediate the talks.

Here’s where things stand ahead of the next round of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program -- with the possibility of military action still looming.

Witkoff's Reversal On Enrichment Limits

US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, who is leading the US negotiating team, caused a stir when he publicly reversed his position on Iran’s nuclear program.

On April 15, he said Iran would need to limit its uranium enrichment to 3.67 percent -- the cap set by a 2015 nuclear deal that US President Donald Trump withdrew from in 2018.

But within hours, Witkoff walked back the comment after a backlash from hard-liners who favor dismantling Iran’s program. In a statement on social media, he said Iran “must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.”

The about-face appeared to confuse Iranian officials. Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, Iran's chief negotiator, responded that Washington’s “true position must be clarified at the negotiating table.”

Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear program is peaceful and has ruled out dismantling it.

Jalil Roshandel, director of the Security Studies Program at East Carolina University, told RFE/RL’s Radio Farda that the Trump administration is unlikely to maintain its hard-line stance.

“Trump can get a win by accepting the 3.67 percent limit in exchange for other concessions, such as extending the UN sanctions sunset clause set to expire in October,” Roshandel said.

Expanding The Scope Of A Deal

Another sticking point is whether a potential deal will focus solely on Iran’s nuclear activities or also address its missile program.

In an April 15 interview with Fox News, Witkoff said the Rome talks would also cover “verification on weaponization,” including missiles.

But Iran has long refused to negotiate over its missile arsenal, which it considers a vital part of its defense strategy.

The Islamic republic used drones and missiles in two attacks on Israel last year -- the second of which was described as the largest single ballistic missile attack in history.

Mark Fitzpatrick, a former US diplomat and a nonproliferation expert, said expanding the scope of talks could complicate progress.

“It's not surprising that the Trump team would want to put missiles back on the table,” Fitzpatrick told Radio Farda. “But it would make negotiations much more difficult because of Iran's steadfast position that missiles are essential to its defense and deterrence posture.”

European Powers Sidelined

Britain, Germany, and France -- collectively known as the E3 -- are also signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal and played a key role in previous attempts to revive it.

This time, however, they appear to have been completely sidelined. Even though the next round of talks will be held in Italy, it will be Oman -- not the Europeans -- handling mediation.

State-affiliated media in Iran have welcomed the E3’s exclusion. The Tehran Times, an English-language newspaper, claimed -- without evidence -- that the three nations are so frustrated by “their exclusion” that they offered Rafael Grossi, head of the UN nuclear watchdog, their backing to become the next UN chief if he helps “demonize” Iran.

The paper argued that this move is aimed at justifying the return of UN sanctions -- something the E3 have threatened by the end of June if Tehran fails to reach a deal with the United States.

US Military Pressure In The Region

Trump has repeatedly warned that he would resort to military action against Iran’s nuclear program if a deal isn’t reached.

Amid rising tensions -- and a US bombing campaign targeting Tehran’s allies in Yemen -- Washington is bolstering its military presence in the Middle East.

Last month, the United States dispatched at least six B-2 bombers to a joint US-British military base on Diego Garcia, a small island in the Indian Ocean. This week, the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier was sent to reinforce the USS Harry S. Truman already stationed in the region.

Analysts believe Iran takes Trump’s threats seriously, but it remains unclear whether Tehran is willing to risk air strikes on its key nuclear sites.

Trump has said Israel would play a leading role in any such attack.

According to The New York Times, Israel had been preparing to launch air strikes against Iran -- with US assistance -- as early as May, but was held back by Trump in favor of pursuing diplomacy.

With reporting by Reza Jamali and Hannah Kaviani of RFE/RL’s Radio Farda

Iran’s foreign minister has called for Russia to play a role in high-stakes negotiations over the fate of Tehran’s nuclear programs, as he cast doubt on US intentions ahead a new round of talks.

Speaking on April 18 alongside Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Abbas Araqchi said he still believed an agreement was possible.

The Iranian diplomat was set to meet with White House special envoy Steve Witkoff in Rome on April 19, for a second round of talks over Iran’s atomic programs.

"Although we have serious doubts about the intentions and motivations of the American side, in any case we will participate in tomorrow's negotiations," Araqchi said during a joint appearance in Moscow.

Last week’s first round of talks in Oman was the highest-level negotiations between Tehran and Washington since US President Donald Trump abandoned a landmark nuclear deal in 2018.

Western countries, including the United States, have long accused Iran of trying to build nuclear weapons. Tehran has consistently denied the allegations, insisting that its efforts are aimed at civilian purposes, like electricity generation.

Earlier in the week, Witkoff called for an end to all of Iran’s uranium enrichment programs. International inspectors say Tehran has managed to refine its uranium stocks to 60 percent -- which is close to the threshold at which uranium is considered weapons-grade.

Araqchi responded on April 16, saying that Iran's enrichment efforts were not up for discussion.

"If there is similar willingness on the other side, and they refrain from making unreasonable and unrealistic demands, I believe reaching an agreement is likely," Araghchi said.

Since taking office in January, Trump has ratcheted up the pressure on Iran, including by sending more US Air Force and naval assets to the region. But he’s also forced direct talks with Iranian officials.

“I’m not asking for much,” Trump said in comments earlier this month, “but they can’t have a nuclear weapon.”

With reporting by Reuters

The US military said it destroyed a key Yemeni fuel port held by Houthi rebels, who said the air strikes also killed 20 people and wounded 50 others.

The US military’s Central Command said its forces took action on the port of Ras Isa to eliminate a source of fuel for the Iran-backed Houthi rebels and deprive them of revenue.

“The objective of these strikes was to degrade the economic source of power of the Houthis, who continue to exploit and bring great pain upon their fellow countrymen,” Centcom said in a statement.

“This strike was not intended to harm the people of Yemen, who rightly want to throw off the yoke of Houthi subjugation and live peacefully,” Centcom said.

The US air strikes have hammered the Houthis in a campaign launched by President Donald Trump on March 15 to end their attacks on civilian shipping and military vessels in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

Houthi attacks have hampered shipping through the Suez Canal -- a vital route for world seaborne traffic -- forcing many companies to send their ships around the tip of southern Africa.

The Houthis denounced the attack.

“This completely unjustified aggression represents a flagrant violation of Yemen’s sovereignty and independence and a direct targeting of the entire Yemeni people,” the Houthis said in a statement carried by the Houthi-controlled SABA news agency. “It targets a vital civilian facility that has served the Yemeni people for decades.”

Health Ministry spokesman Anees Alasbahi said the preliminary death toll stood at 20, including five paramedics.

There were also "50 wounded workers and employees at the Ras Issa oil port, following the American aggression," he said on X.

"The death toll is likely to rise as body parts are still being identified," he added.

The number of dead represented one of the highest reported death tolls since Trump vowed that military action against the rebels would continue until they are no longer a threat to shipping.

The Ras Isa port lies along the west coast of Yemen on the Red Sea.

Centcom said ships have continued to supply fuel via the port despite Washington designating the rebels a foreign terrorist organization earlier this year. The Centcom statement did not specify the source of the fuel.

US State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce commented earlier on April 17 about China's participation in Yemen. Bruce told journalists that the Chinese satellite firm Chang Guang Satellite Technology Company was "directly supporting” the Houthis.

Bruce said their actions and Beijing's support of the company, “is yet another example of China's empty claims to support peace.”

With reporting by AP and Reuters

Tehran is ready to ease US concerns over its nuclear activities but scrapping uranium enrichment is off the table, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said as the two sides prepare for a second round of talks this weekend over Iran's nuclear program.

Araqchi told reporters after a weekly cabinet meeting in Tehran on April 16 that Iran's enrichment is a "real, accepted matter."

"We're ready to build confidence in response to possible concerns, but the principle of enrichment is nonnegotiable," he said, days ahead of the second round of talks with the United States on April 19, which Iran's state broadcaster announced would take place in the Italian capital, Rome, and not in Oman as previously thought.

Araqchi's comments came in response to a statement by US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on April 15 saying Iran "must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program."

But hours earlier, Witkoff had told Fox News that the Donald Trump administration was seeking to cap Iran's uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent -- the limit set in the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump abrogated in 2018.

"Iran must not possess nuclear weapons, and it should not enrich uranium beyond 3.67 percent," Witkoff said.

His apparent reversal came after a conservative backlash on social media, with the administration being accused of repackaging the 2015 deal, which is formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

"We applaud Special Envoy Witkoff's statement," wrote Mark Wallace, chief executive of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), a US-based nonprofit, after Witkoff changed his tone.

"It is clear under the Trump Doctrine that Iran must verifiably dismantle its nuclear program or the US and Israel will do so," said Wallace, a former US diplomat.

Araqchi, who will travel to Moscow on April 17, noted Witkoff had made "different comments" since the conclusion of the first round of talks but added Washington's "true position must be clarified at the negotiating table."

Trump has made it clear Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, but he has not explicitly commented on whether that involves curbing Iran's nuclear program or fully dismantling it. In the meantime, his administration has been sending out mixed messages.

Quoting an unnamed US official, the Axios news website on April 16 attributed the lack of clarity to ongoing internal discussions.

"The Iran policy is not very clear mainly because it is still being figured out. It is tricky because it's a highly politically charged issue," the official said, according to Axios.

Former US diplomat and nonproliferation expert Mark Fitzpatrick said a deal would be unlikely unless the Trump administration relaxed its position.

"Trump would have to change the position of no enrichment to a position of low enrichment," he told RFE/RL's Radio Farda.

"Iran is not going to go to a 'no enrichment' and it's certainly not going to accept it, but it would be willing to negotiate the levels of enrichment. And yes, this would be like the negotiations under the JCPOA," he added.

With reporting by Hannah Kaviani of RFE/RL's Radio Farda

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appeared to back the continuation of nuclear discussions between Tehran and Washington, though he said he is neither "overly optimistic nor overly pessimistic" about the talks as they head toward a second round this weekend.

In his first public comments on the initiation of talks between Iran and the United States last weekend, Khamenei on April 15 said Iranian negotiators need to proceed with caution.

"A decision was made [to enter the talks] and has been carried out well in the initial steps. Going forward, we need to move carefully. Our red lines -- and the other side's -- are clearly defined," Khamenei said at a gathering of the senior members of the three branches of power.

"The negotiations may or may not lead to a result. We are neither very optimistic nor very pessimistic about these talks. Of course, we are very pessimistic about the other side, but we are optimistic about our own capabilities," he added.

Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, urged officials "not to tie the country's affairs" to the negotiations.

The first round of talks, which were mostly carried out indirectly, were held in Muscat on April 12, with the next round scheduled for April 19.

Italy was initially set to host the second round, but Iran later said Oman would continue to host the talks. None of the parties involved have elaborated on why the venue was changed.

US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff said on April 14 that any diplomatic agreement reached with Iran will be centered on details related to verification of the country's uranium enrichment and weapons programs.

"This is going to be much about verification on the enrichment program, and then ultimately verification on weaponization," Witkoff said in an interview on Fox News. "That includes missiles, the type of missiles that they have stockpiled there, and it includes the trigger for a bomb."

Tehran and Washington held the first round of nuclear talks over the weekend in Oman, both saying afterward that the talks were "positive" and "constructive."

The Iranian Foreign Ministry on April 14 said a second round of talks between the United States and Iran will be held in Oman on April 19.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei was quoted by Iranian state news agency IRNA as saying that it was decided that Muscat will continue to host the talks.

The comment contradicted a statement by Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani, who said the talks would be held in Rome. Tajani said Italy received the request from the interested parties and announced Rome would be the venue.

Tehran also confirmed on April 14 that Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi will visit Moscow ahead of the next round of talks.

Separately, Iran confirmed on April 13 that Rafael Grossi, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), will travel to Iran on April 16.

Araqchi met Witkoff met briefly after the first round of talks ended, adding to optimism relations between the two countries have taken a step forward.

US President Donald Trump has said he wants to ensure Iran will never acquire nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful and wants a deal that leads to the lifting of sanctions that have battered its economy.

Trump has said that in the absence of a deal, there will be military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, with potential Israeli involvement.

Estimates suggest Iran could enrich sufficient uranium for a single bomb in less than a week and enough for several bombs within a month.

Meanwhile, the European Union on April 13 introduced sanctions on seven Iranian prison and judicial officials over Tehran's detention of nationals from the bloc.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said the sanctions were in response to Iran's "state-sponsored hostage-taking" of European citizens.

On Iran's nuclear program, she said there was a need for a swift resolution because the October deadline to reimpose UN sanctions on Tehran is approaching.

European powers have warned Iran that they will trigger the 2015 nuclear deal's "snapback mechanism" to reimpose UN sanctions if it fails to reach a new deal with the United States.

With reporting by AP and AFP

Pakistan has called on Iran to take swift action following the killing of eight Pakistani nationals in the southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchistan.

The victims, all workers at an auto repair shop in the town of Mehrestan, were reportedly shot dead by unidentified armed assailants on April 11. The attackers are said to have tied up the victims before executing them at close range and fleeing the scene.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif condemned the killings and urged Iranian authorities to apprehend and punish those responsible.

"The Iranian government must immediately arrest those involved in the killings, ensure they receive severe punishment, and uncover the motives behind this brutal act," he said.

He also emphasized the need for the immediate repatriation of the victims' bodies to their families in Punjab, Pakistan, where all eight men were from.

The attack has sparked outrage in Pakistan, with officials calling for enhanced security measures to protect Pakistani citizens working in Iran.

Iran has officially condemned the killings as an "act of terrorism." Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baqaei said in a statement on April 13 that Iranian security and judicial authorities are committed to identifying and prosecuting the perpetrators.

The Iranian Embassy in Islamabad also strongly condemned the incident, labeling it a "cowardly and inhumane attack" while emphasizing terrorism as a shared threat to regional peace and security.

Some reports allege the separatist group Baloch National Army (BNA) has claimed responsibility for the killings, alleging the victims were linked to Pakistani intelligence agencies. RFE/RL has not been able to independently verify this.

The BNA has a history of targeting Pakistani nationals and has carried out similar attacks in the past as part of its campaign against Islamabad's influence in the region.

Iran and Pakistan have frequently accused one another of allowing militants to launch cross-border attacks from their territory.

In January last year, nine Pakistanis were killed in Sistan-Baluchistan province.

Armed opposition groups to the Islamic republic -- such as Jaish al-Adl -- have a long history of launching attacks in the Iranian province.

Nuclear talks in Oman marked the first formal engagement between Iran and the United States in years, and though progress may have been slight, it was enough to signal a willingness to temper tensions through diplomacy rather than military action.

Iranian and US negotiators agreed on April 12 to continue their high-level talks over Tehran's nuclear program on April 19, with the venue likely moving to Europe from the Middle East.

Axios on April 13 cited sources as saying the second round would likely be in Rome, but there has been no official comment on the potential site.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One late on April 13, US President Donald Trump said he had met with advisers and that "we'll be making a decision on Iran very quickly," without being specific.

Going into the high-stakes meeting in Oman, Washington had insisted the talks would be direct, while Tehran maintained otherwise.

In the end, there was a bit of both.

The talks were largely held indirectly, with Omani diplomats shuttling between rooms. However, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff briefly met at the conclusion of the talks.

"So, both sides came out with their basic requirements met," Gregory Brew, a senior Iran analyst at the New York-based Eurasia Group, told RFE/RL's Radio Farda.

However, he warned against overanalyzing the outcomes of the meeting, adding, "It's still not entirely clear what was achieved beyond simply establishing a basis for further discussions."

Araqchi called the brief words he had with Witkoff "diplomatic courtesy." That was enough to bring a palpable optimism to the region, already on edge with the conflict in Gaza and a regime change in Syria.

Iran's regional rival Saudi Arabia, which was skeptical of the 2015 nuclear deal and hailed Trump for abrogating it in 2018, has welcomed the Oman talks. Bahrain and Qatar followed suit with their own statements of encouragement.

Tough Calls Necessary

Analysts say a deal on Iran's nuclear program is possible -- if Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is willing to make difficult decisions.

Despite constitutionally holding ultimate authority over all state matters, Khamenei has developed a reputation for avoiding direct accountability.

"Khamenei still appears to be unwilling to take responsibility, as seen in his recent public comments in which he says he against talks and that negotiations can be held but he won't take responsibility for the outcomes," Fereshteh Pezeshk, an international relations analyst based in Washington, told Radio Farda.

Iran is in a precarious position. Its network of regional proxies is at its weakest, and its economy is reeling under US sanctions, with the cost of living rising and purchasing power declining.

"The domestic situation in Iran is also slightly increasing the odds of a deal," Pezeshk said.

Adding to the pressure are threats of military action from Trump if no agreement is reached. While Iranian officials publicly dismiss the possibility of war, analysts say Tehran takes the threat seriously.

The Road Ahead

Mehrzad Boroujerdi, a professor of political science at the Missouri University of Science and Technology, described the Oman meeting as "warm-up talks" during which critical topics were left untouched.

"They likely agreed on a timetable and general topics of discussion, but the important issues will come up in future talks," he told Radio Farda.

Boroujerdi added that both Tehran and Washington appeared to have "pulled back from their maximalist demands", paving the way for a workable deal.

The format of the next round of talks has not been disclosed, but critics of indirect negotiations argue that Washington must insist on direct engagement, citing previous failures of indirect diplomacy.

"The US should be making clear: if there are no direct, substantive talks in the next round, there will be no negotiation," Jason Brodsky, policy director at the nonprofit United Against Nuclear Iran, wrote on X. "This is how Tehran stalls and strings things out."

Another unresolved question is whether Trump seeks to curb Iran's nuclear program or dismantle it entirely. Tehran has firmly opposed shutting down its nuclear program but has repeatedly insisted it does not seek nuclear weapons and is willing to offer assurances.

Still, there seems to be a real willingness to strike a deal, and Iran arguably needs it more than the United States.

Reaching an agreement, however, depends on whether Iranian decision-makers "show wisdom and courage," Pezeshk said.

For now, both sides seem prepared to keep talking, but there is only so much time left.

With reporting by Golnaz Esfandiari, Reza Jamali, and Mohammad Zarghami of RFE/RL's Radio Farda

Iranian and US negotiators agreed to a second round of high-level talks over Tehran's nuclear programs next week after meeting on April 12 for more than two hours of what both sides described as a "positive" and "constructive" session.

"The discussions were very positive and constructive," the White House said after the meeting in the Omani capital of Muscat.

It said special US envoy Steven Witkoff underscored "that he had instructions from President [Donald] Trump to resolve our two nations’ differences through dialogue and diplomacy, if that is possible."

"These issues are very complicated, and special envoy Witkoff’s direct communication today was a step forward in achieving a mutually beneficial outcome," the statement said, adding that "the sides agreed to meet again" on April 19.

Later, Trump, responding to reporters' questions about the talks, said, "I think they're going OK."

"Nothing matters until you get it done, so I don't like talking about it. But it's going OK. The Iran situation is going pretty good, I think," he told reporters aboard Air Force One.

The indirect meetings -- mediated by Oman -- are the first by officials from both countries on the issue in years and come amid spiraling tensions and mounting military threats from Washington.

Officials said the delegations were situated in separate room and exchanged messages through Omani Foreign Minister Said Badr.

Oman, on the southeastern coast of the Arabian Peninsula, has served as an intermediary between Iran and Western nations, including during talks that led to the release of several foreign citizens and dual nationals held by Tehran.

Witkoff's counterpart in the talks was Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, who also said the sides will meet again next weekend.

While the two sides didn't meet face to face during the talks, Araqchi briefly spoke with Witkoff -- in the presence of the Omani foreign minister -- after the meeting in what he described as a "diplomatic courtesy."

Araqchi said the meetings took place in a "productive, calm, and positive atmosphere." Iran's Foreign Ministry said the talks had been "constructive."

"[Witkoff's] desire in the negotiations was for the general framework of the agreement to be established in the shortest possible time," Iran's top diplomat said after revealing the first direct interaction between the two nations since the Obama administration.

Days before the talks, Trump issued a new warning saying that "if necessary," the United States "absolutely" would use military force against Iran -- with Israel poised to play a leading role.

Iran's response has been defiant, signaling the high stakes for both nations and the broader Middle East.

How Did We Get Here?

The talks mark another chapter in the fraught relationship between Iran and the United States, which has been defined by cycles of diplomacy and confrontation.

The 2015 nuclear deal -- formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- once offered hope for detente, but Washington's withdrawal in 2018 during Trump's first term triggered a spiral of sanctions and uranium enrichment by Tehran.

European powers tried to salvage the JCPOA by launching what they called the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges, which was meant to facilitate non-dollar transactions with Iran to avoid violating US sanctions and dissuade Tehran from scaling back its commitments.

In practice, only one transaction was made through the mechanism, and it was eventually scrapped in 2023.

Iran's economy, which had been boosted by the JCPOA, took a big hit as Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign bit and significantly reduced Tehran's oil sales.

Shortly after Joe Biden succeeded Trump in the White House in 2021, Iran and the United States began holding a series of indirect talks to revive the nuclear deal. A draft agreement was prepared by the European Union, which serves as the coordinator of the JCPOA, but it was never signed.

Talks stalled in 2022 and remained frozen -- until now.

What's At Stake?

Trump has been clear about what he wants: Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. But it remains unclear whether he wants to restrict Iran's nuclear activities or completely dismantle it.

Iran is willing to offer assurances that it's not looking to acquire a bomb but has rejected the idea of entirely scrapping its nuclear program.

Despite trying to project confidence and claiming it can neutralize US sanctions, Tehran desperately needs a deal.

Iran's economy is arguably in the worst shape it has ever been, with the national currency hitting new lows against the dollar on an almost daily basis. Iranian's purchasing power has dwindled and blackouts have become a fixture of summer and winter despite Iran's global status as an energy-rich nation.

For the United States, preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority.

Iran is enriching uranium at 60 percent purity, which is widely regarded as near-weapons grade. It has also accumulated enough uranium to build several bombs, should it choose to do so.

Tehran insists its nuclear program is peaceful and has never pursued weaponization. However, with the Trump administration continuing to raise the possibility of military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, a growing number of Iranian officials have teased that Tehran would develop nukes if cornered.

Estimates suggest Iran could enrich sufficient uranium for a single bomb in less than a week and enough for several bombs within a month.

Ahead of the talks in Oman, Washington has sought to up the pressure even further. On April 9, the US Treasury announced sanctions on five entities and one person based in Iran for their support of Iran's nuclear program, including the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI).

Mohammed Ghaedi, a lecturer at George Washington University's department of political science, told RFE/RL's Radio Farda that the new sanctions are unlikely to have much of an impact on Iran's nuclear program since they target AEOI's assets in the United States, which aren't many.

The new sanctions, he argued, mostly serve to strengthen the United States' leverage against Iran during negotiations.

On April 9, Trump again warned that, in the absence of a deal with Iran, the United States would resort to military action to neutralize Tehran's nuclear program.

"Israel will obviously be very much involved in that. They'll be the leader of that," he said.

Ali Shamkhani, a top aide to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, replied that continued threats of military confrontation would compel Iran to expel UN inspectors and "transfer enriched uranium to secure sites."

Who Are The Negotiators?

Araqchi is a career diplomat who has served as both a senior and lead nuclear negotiator. He was heavily involved in the JCPOA talks and led indirect negotiations with the United States to revive it.

Trump's envoy Witkoff, meanwhile, is a billionaire real estate investor, who lacks diplomatic experience but has taken on a central role in high-stakes negotiations since joining Trump's team.

On April 11, Witkoff stopped in St. Petersburg, Russia, for meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin. State news agencies said the meetings lasted more than four hours.

"The theme of the meeting -- aspects of a Ukrainian settlement," the Kremlin said in a statement after the meeting.

Witkoff also met with Kirill Dmitriev, a Kremlin adviser and head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund. Dmitriev has taken on a prominent role in direct talks with Washington, where he traveled last week.

Following the Oman meetings, Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia's ambassador to international bodies in Vienna, called the US-Iran talks "encouraging" in a Telegram post.

"[Witkoff] is managing a lot of different files and may be out of his depth in technical discussions that are likely to dominate the Oman meetings," Gregory Brew, senior Iran analyst at the New York-based Eurasia Group, told RFE/RL.

"Araqchi is a skilled diplomat with years of experience," he said. "Unless Witkoff is backed up by a strong staff with expertise, it may complicate discussions."

Oman's discreet diplomacy has often bridged gaps between the two sides, including back-channel negotiations that led to the JCPOA. Now, Muscat is poised to host discussions once more, with both sides wary but aware of the risks of failure.

With reporting by RFE/RL correspondent Kian Sharifi, Reuters, and AP

Iranian and US negotiators wrapped up more than two hours of high-level talks over Tehran's nuclear programs, with Iranian officials describing the effort as "positive" and "constructive."

The US delegation, which was headed by White House envoy Steve Witkoff, issued no immediate statement on the outcome of the April 12 talks, which were held in the Oman capital, Muscat.

The meetings are the first by officials from both countries on the issue in years, and come amid spiraling tensions and mounting military threats from Washington.

Witkoff's counterpart in the talks was Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi.

Days before the talks, Trump issued a new warning saying that "if necessary," the United States "absolutely" would use military force against Iran -- with Israel poised to play a leading role.

Iran's response has been defiant, signaling the high stakes for both nations and the broader Middle East.

Iran's semiofficial Tasnim news agency quoted unnamed officials as saying the atmosphere in the talks was "constructive," and said the two sides had agreed to meet again next week.

Witkoff and Araqchi also “briefly spoke in the presence of the Omani foreign minister” at the end of the talks, Iranian state TV reported. That would mark a direct interaction between the two nations locked in decades of tensions.

How Did We Get Here?

The talks mark another chapter in the fraught relationship between Iran and the United States, which has been defined by cycles of diplomacy and confrontation.

The 2015 nuclear deal -- formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- once offered hope for detente, but Washington's withdrawal in 2018 during Trump's first term triggered a spiral of sanctions and uranium enrichment by Tehran.

European powers tried to salvage the JCPOA by launching what they called the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges, which was meant to facilitate non-dollar transactions with Iran to avoid violating US sanctions and dissuade Tehran from scaling back its commitments.

In practice, only one transaction was made through the mechanism, and it was eventually scrapped in 2023.

Iran's economy, which had been boosted by the JCPOA, took a big hit as Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign bit and significantly reduced Tehran's oil sales.

Shortly after Joe Biden succeeded Trump in the White House in 2021, Iran and the United States began holding a series of indirect talks to revive the nuclear deal. A draft agreement was prepared by the European Union, which serves as the coordinator of the JCPOA, but it was never signed.

Talks stalled in 2022 and remained frozen -- until now.

What's At Stake?

Trump has been clear about what he wants: Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. But it remains unclear whether he wants to restrict Iran's nuclear activities or completely dismantle it.

Iran is willing to offer assurances that it's not looking to acquire a bomb but has rejected the idea of entirely scrapping its nuclear program.

Despite trying to project confidence and claiming it can neutralize US sanctions, Tehran desperately needs a deal.

Iran's economy is arguably in the worst shape it has ever been, with the national currency hitting new lows against the dollar on an almost daily basis. Iranian's purchasing power has dwindled and blackouts have become a fixture of summer and winter despite Iran's global status as an energy-rich nation.

For the United States, preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority.

Iran is enriching uranium at 60 percent purity, which is widely regarded as near-weapons grade. It has also accumulated enough uranium to build several bombs, should it choose to do so.

Tehran insists its nuclear program is peaceful and has never pursued weaponization. However, with the Trump administration continuing to raise the possibility of military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, a growing number of Iranian officials have teased that Tehran would develop nukes if cornered.

Estimates suggest Iran could enrich sufficient uranium for a single bomb in less than a week and enough for several bombs within a month.

Ahead of the talks in Oman, Washington has sought to up the pressure even further. On April 9, the US Treasury announced sanctions on five entities and one person based in Iran for their support of Iran's nuclear program, including the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI).

Mohammed Ghaedi, a lecturer at George Washington University's department of political science, told RFE/RL's Radio Farda that the new sanctions are unlikely to have much of an impact on Iran's nuclear program since they target AEOI's assets in the United States, which aren't many.

The new sanctions, he argued, mostly serve to strengthen the United States' leverage against Iran during negotiations.

On April 9, Trump again warned that, in the absence of a deal with Iran, the United States would resort to military action to neutralize Tehran's nuclear program.

"Israel will obviously be very much involved in that. They'll be the leader of that," he said.

Ali Shamkhani, a top aide to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, replied that continued threats of military confrontation would compel Iran to expel UN inspectors and "transfer enriched uranium to secure sites."

Who Are The Negotiators?

Araqchi is a career diplomat who has served as both a senior and lead nuclear negotiator. He was heavily involved in the JCPOA talks and led indirect negotiations with the United States to revive it.

Trump's envoy Witkoff, meanwhile, is a billionaire real estate investor, who lacks diplomatic experience but has taken on a central role in high-stakes negotiations since joining Trump's team.

On April 11, Witkoff stopped in St. Petersburg, Russia for meetings with Putin. State news agencies said the meetings lasted more than four hours.

"The theme of the meeting -- aspects of a Ukrainian settlement," the Kremlin said in a statement after the meeting concluded.

Witkoff also met with Kirill Dmitriev, a Kremlin adviser and head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund. Dmitriev has taken on a prominent role in direct talks with Washington, where he traveled last week.

"[Witkoff] is managing a lot of different files and may be out of his depth in technical discussions that are likely to dominate the Oman meetings," Gregory Brew, senior Iran analyst at the New York-based Eurasia Group, told RFE/RL.

"Araqchi is a skilled diplomat with years of experience," he said. "Unless Witkoff is backed up by a strong staff with expertise, it may complicate discussions."

Oman's discreet diplomacy has often bridged gaps between the two sides, including back-channel negotiations that led to the JCPOA. Now, Muscat is poised to host discussions once more, with both sides wary but aware of the risks of failure.

With reporting by RFE/RL correspondent Kian Sharifi, RFE/RL's Radio Farda, and AP

Welcome back to The Farda Briefing, an RFE/RL newsletter that tracks the key issues in Iran and explains why they matter.

I'm RFE/RL correspondent Kian Sharifi. In this edition I'm looking at concerns about the rising number of executions in Iran and the deteriorating human rights situation.

What You Need To Know

• Executions On The Rise In Iran: Iran continues to rank second worldwide in annual executions, Amnesty International has said in its latest report. Executions have risen steadily since 2020, largely driven by drug-related offenses. Activists argue the Islamic republic also uses the death penalty as a tool to silence dissent and suppress political opposition.

• Nuclear talks in Oman: Iranian and US negotiators will hold talks in Oman on April 12 on Tehran's nuclear program, though it remains unclear whether the talks will be direct or indirect. Both sides have framed the rendezvous as a meeting to test the waters and see whether formal negotiations can be held.

• Argentina Seeks Arrest Warrant For Khamenei: Argentina is pursuing legal action against Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for his alleged role in the 1994 AMIA bombing, which targeted a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, killing 85 people and injuring hundreds. Prosecutor Sebastian Basso has requested an international arrest warrant for Khamenei, alleging he issued a fatwa authorizing the attack carried out by operatives of the US-designated Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah.

The Big Issue

Tool To 'Silence' Critics

Executions in Iran reached their highest level since 2015, with at least 972 recorded in 2024, according to Amnesty International. The surge helped drive a global increase in capital punishment, with Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia accounting for 91 percent of known executions last year.

Amnesty Secretary-General Agnes Callamard said Iran and Saudi Arabia used the death penalty "to silence those brave enough" to challenge the authorities. She also pointed to drug-related offenses as a major contributor to the spike in executions.

Why It Matters: Rights groups say Iran's justice system is marked by a lack of transparency and due process.

Many of those executed are convicted in trials that fall short of international legal standards, with allegations of forced confessions, restricted access to lawyers, and vague charges such as "enmity against God."

What's Being Said: Raha Bahreini, a human rights lawyer and spokeswoman for Amnesty International, said the real number of executions in Iran is likely higher.

She told RFE/RL's Radio Farda that because Iran is not transparent, Amnesty International relies on documented reports of executions collected by groups that monitor human rights violations in Iran.

Bahreini noted that while the world is moving toward abolishing the death penalty, a handful of countries are driving the surge in executions -- including Iran, which accounted for 64 percent of executions in 2024.

Expert Opinion: "The authorities in the Islamic republic use the death penalty as a tool to create an atmosphere of terror and fear," Bahreini said.

That's all from me for now.

Until next time,

Kian Sharifi

If you enjoyed this briefing and don't want to miss the next edition, subscribe here. It will be sent to your inbox every Friday.

US President Donald Trump has again threated to use military force if Iran does not agree to end its nuclear program and said Israel would be the "leader" of a potential military strike.

Trump told reporters on April 9 at the White House that "if necessary," the United States "absolutely" would use military force. He made the comments after being asked about talks between US and Iranian officials scheduled to take place this weekend in Oman and how long they may last.

"We have time," Trump said, adding that there's no definitive timeline for the talks to come to a resolution.

"When you start talks, you know if they’re going along well or not," Trump said. "And I would say the conclusion would be when I think they’re not going along well. So that's just a feeling."

Trump announced the talks on April 8 during an Oval Office briefing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu said he supports Trump's diplomatic efforts to reach a settlement with Iran. He added that Israel and the United States share the same goal of ensuring that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon.

Trump said that if the use of military force is necessary, "Israel will obviously be very much involved in that."

Both sides have framed the talks in Oman as an exploratory meeting to see if negotiations can be held. Trump said the talks would be "direct," while Iran has described the engagement as "indirect" talks.

The United States will not be "asking for much" at the talks, Trump said, repeating his oft-stated position that Iran "can't have a nuclear weapon."

The United States is increasingly concerned as Tehran appears to be closer than ever to having a nuclear weapon. Iran has long maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

The United States and other world powers in 2015 reached a comprehensive nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. But Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States in 2018, calling it the "worst deal ever."

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth voiced hope that US-Iran talks could be resolved peacefully after Reuters reported on April 9 that as many as six B-2 bombers had relocated to a US-British military base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia.

Asked if the B-2s were meant to send a message to Iran, Hegseth said: "We'll let them decide." He called the bombers "a great asset," telling reporters during a trip to Panama that they send a "message to everybody."

The US Treasury Department earlier on April 9 issued new sanctions targeting Iran's nuclear program. Five entities and one person based in Iran were designated for new sanctions in connection with their alleged support of Iran's nuclear program, the department said in a news release.

The designated groups include the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran and subordinates Iran Centrifuge Technology Company, Thorium Power Company, Pars Reactors Construction and Development Company, and Azarab Industries Company.

In his comments to reporters at the White House, Trump said the people of Iran "are so incredible," but the government is a "rough regime."

"I want Iran to be great," Trump said. "The only thing that they can’t have is a nuclear weapon. They understand that."

With reporting by Reuters and AP