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.

In a policy shift that has unsettled officials in Israel, the United States under President Donald Trump is no longer conditioning Saudi Arabia's civil nuclear ambitions on normalization with Israel.

The move, first reported ahead of Trump's May 13 visit to Riyadh, marks a sharp departure from the Biden administration's approach, which had linked nuclear cooperation and security guarantees to a broader regional deal involving Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts.

Under Biden, Saudi nuclear talks were tied to progress on normalization with Israel, with Washington hoping Riyadh's leverage could help extract concessions from Israel toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.

But with normalization effectively frozen -- due largely to the war in Gaza and Saudi Arabia's insistence on Palestinian statehood -- the Trump administration has opted for a more transactional approach.

This decoupling is seen by some as a reflection of Trump's priorities.

Gregory Brew, a senior analyst with the New York-based Eurasia Group, said the policy shift "isn't too surprising" given Washington and Riyadh's mutual interest in forging closer ties.

He told RFE/RL that, for now, Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is content with "getting massive arms sales and a verbal commitment to assisting Saudi Arabia should it come under attack," even as normalization remains off the table until "the situation in Gaza is resolved and progress is made toward a Palestinian state."

For Trump, economic deliverables appear paramount -- and the Saudis seem to understand that.

Michael Horowitz, an independent analyst based in Israel, suggested that Riyadh may have tailored its offer to Trump's interests.

"I think they grasp what motivates Trump and played their cards well," Horowitz told RFE/RL. "Trump wants his first regional tour to be a success, which entails securing major announcements, including Saudi investments in the United States."

A Deal at Any Cost?

Trump is keen on securing major Saudi investments and ensuring the United States is involved in the kingdom's nuclear program, regardless of the implications for Israel or the Middle East.

"[Trump] will view this as a victory on two fronts -- without looking at the possible consequences regionally or for Israel -- particularly if he feels Israel is being ‘difficult' on other topics, including Gaza and Iran," Horowitz said.

While some disagree , tensions between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have been mounting, with the US president reportedly frustrated over Netanyahu's reluctance to align with Washington on key regional initiatives. For Israel, normalization with Saudi Arabia has been a strategic goal and a critical component of any future US-Saudi deal.

Now, that deal appears to be moving forward without Israeli input, presenting a "major setback" for Israel, according to Horowitz.

"What the Saudis are trying to secure is US approval for a program that does not follow [the] gold standard and would allow them to enrich uranium domestically. This is another layer of concern for Israel," he added.

Israeli leaders have also voiced doubts that a Saudi nuclear deal can pass the US Senate without Israeli involvement. But the Trump administration appears determined to press ahead.

The Iran Angle

Analysts warn the implications could reverberate across the region -- particularly in Iran, where nuclear talks with the United States remain fragile .

Washington says Tehran should abandon enrichment and instead import uranium, assuming it is even allowed to maintain a civil nuclear program. Iran, however, maintains that its enrichment capabilities are "nonnegotiable."

If the United States agrees to let Saudi Arabia enrich uranium, "it will have an even harder time arguing that Iran shouldn't do so itself," Horowitz said.

"This would be another clear signal that the United States isn't looking to ‘fully dismantle' the Iranian program as Israel demands, but to simply put limits," he added.

For the Saudis, the ability to enrich uranium is about more than energy -- it carries strategic weight. It keeps the option of weaponization on the table, serving as a form of deterrence.

"It presents a credible threat that any Iranian weaponization would likely trigger a similar response by Saudi Arabia," Brew said. "That's not something the Iranians would welcome."

The fourth round of nuclear talks between Iran and the United States has ended in Muscat, with Tehran suggesting a new round will be scheduled by Omani mediators.

Iranian Foreign Minister spokesman Esmail Baqaei wrote on X that the talks on May 11 were "difficult but useful" to help "better understand each other's positions and to find reasonable and realistic ways" to resolve differences.

"Next round will be coordinated and announced by Oman," he wrote.

There were no immediate comments from the White House or the State Department on the talks, but US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff had suggested earlier that the outcome of the Oman talks could decide whether diplomacy continues or collapses.

Deep divisions have emerged over red lines in the past several weeks that threaten to derail the negotiations.

Witkoff, who is Washington's chief negotiator, stated in an interview ahead of the talks that Washington's position is "no enrichment," meaning Iran must dismantle its nuclear program, including key facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan.

"If Sunday’s discussions do not yield positive results, we will have to explore alternative approaches," Witkoff warned, strongly implying that a lack of progress in Oman could end the current negotiation track.

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, who serves as Tehran’s top negotiator, has said enrichment is "nonnegotiable" and rejected the possibility of dismantling the nuclear program.

Speaking ahead of the talks in Oman, Araqchi said a deal can be reached with the United States if Washington’s goal is to ensure that Tehran does not acquire nuclear weapons.

“But if the goal of the negotiations is to deprive Iran of its nuclear rights, I state clearly that Iran will not back down from any of its rights,” he added.

Speaking ahead of the talks in Oman, Araqchi said a deal can be reached with the United States if Washington’s goal is to ensure that Tehran does not acquire nuclear weapons.

“But if the goal of the negotiations is to deprive Iran of its nuclear rights, I state clearly that Iran will not back down from any of its rights,” he added.

US President Donald Trump has warned of the possibility of military action if diplomatic efforts collapse, with Israel likely taking part in strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Iran has vowed to respond to any attack and has been showcasing its military capabilities in recent weeks, including the unveiling of a new missile and underground drone base.

Meanwhile, the United States in March deployed at least six B-2 bombers to Diego Garcia, a joint US-British military base on a remote island in the Indian Ocean. Last month, the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier was dispatched to join the USS Harry S. Truman, which is already stationed in the region.

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 examine how Iranians are rallying against a reported plan by the Trump administration to rename the Persian Gulf -- an issue experts say could damage the US president's standing among Iranians.

What You Need To Know

• Alleged US Plan To Rename Persian Gulf Draws Ire: A reported plan by US President Donald Trump to rename the Persian Gulf as the "Arabian Gulf" or "Gulf of Arabia" has sparked a rare unity of outrage among Iranians across the political spectrum -- including his supporters -- who see the name as a matter of national identity and historical legitimacy.

• Iran Touts New Missile: Iran this week claimed to have successfully tested a new ballistic missile, the Qassem Basir, which can reportedly reach Israel and evade advanced US defense systems like Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD). Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh said the missile, with a range of 1,200 kilometers, was improved after Iran's past attacks on Israel. The missile uses electro-optical seekers, making it resistant to jamming. Footage of the test was aired on state TV.

• Early Rolling Blackouts Hit Tehran: Iran is experiencing worsening electricity shortages, prompting early rolling blackouts in Tehran despite mild weather. Government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani cited rising demand for electricity, water, and gas as causes, and said the administration needs time to address the crisis. Experts warn that no short-term fix exists, with demand rising 7 percent annually and peak consumption exceeding generation capacity. Officials argue for nuclear energy to meet demand, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi saying Iran aims to build 19 reactors and is open to foreign investment if sanctions ease.

The Big Issue

Is Trump Alienating His Iranian Support Base?

The Associated Press on May 7, citing US officials, reported that Trump was planning to announce the name change during a scheduled trip to the Middle East next week.

Commentators, including Iranian supporters of Trump's Iran agenda, cautioned such a move could alienate Iranian Americans who support Trump's Iran policies and that it could even undermine nuclear negotiations.

Asked about the report, Trump told journalists he had not yet decided whether to change the name but was sure he would be asked about it on his Middle East trip. "I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings," he said in the Oval Office.

Why It Matters: The name "Persian Gulf" is a source of deep national pride in Iran, and any attempt to rename it is seen as an affront to the country's identity and history.

While the US government officially uses the term Persian Gulf, the military has occasionally used "Arabian Gulf" to align with Arab allies.

While the administration has yet to comment, there is precedent: Trump issued an executive order earlier this year to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the "Gulf of America," which led to a legal battle with the Associated Press, ending with a court ruling that defended press freedom.

What's Being Said: Analysts warn this could have real geopolitical consequences. For example, it could derail sensitive nuclear negotiations between Tehran and Washington or embolden Iran's regional rivals, especially regarding disputed territories such as Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb -- strategic islands in the Persian Gulf claimed by the United Arab Emirates but controlled by Iran.

Iran's conservative Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf hinted that Arab states in the region may have offered the US president an incentive in return for the name change.

"You might be able to buy shoes and clothes with dollars and dirhams," he wrote on X, referring to the Emirati currency, "but history and geography cannot be bought."

Meanwhile, Iran's former crown prince Reza Pahlavi said changing the Persian Gulf's name in the United States would be "an affront to the people of Iran."

"The Persian Gulf is our national inheritance, and the defense of its honor and its name is a national responsibility for each of us to bear in any way we can," he added.

Expert Opinion: Farzan Sabet, managing researcher at the Geneva Graduate Institute, blamed the Islamic republic, writing on X, "They have made Iran so weak and have lost so much influence in the West and beyond that many non-Arab states have already changed their usage. This is just one of the many humiliations Iranians have suffered due to their mismanagement."

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.

If there's one thing that transcends Iranians' personal beliefs and politics, it's the name of the body of water historically known as the Persian Gulf -- a name that has become a point of national pride amid efforts by some Arab states to rename it the Arabian Gulf.

So it came as little surprise that Iranians responded with outrage after a report that US President Donald Trump had endorsed the suggested name change.

The Associated Press reported on May 7 that Trump was planning to announce a change to either the "Arabian Gulf" or the "Gulf of Arabia."

The announcement, the AP report said, would come during Trump's visit to the Middle East next week.

Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi on May 7 dismissed the report as likely part of a "disinformation" effort to "provoke and agitate Iranians worldwide."

He warned that while such a move would carry "no validity or legal or geographical effect," it would "only bring the wrath of all Iranians from all walks of life and political persuasion in in Iran, the US, and across the world."

Can It Hurt Opposition Support For Trump Policies?

Behnam Taleblu, senior director of the Iran program at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), warned that the move risked alienating Trump's support among Iranians who back his strong stance against the Islamic republic.

"This decision will have the inadvertent effect of watering down [Trump's] pro-max pressure constituency inside and outside the US and Iran that has supported the White House's Iran agenda while bolstering voices skeptical of his approach," he wrote on X.

The State Department and White House have consistently used the name Persian Gulf in line with the official policy of the US Board on Geographic Names, which has rejected proposals to change it to "Arabian Gulf."

In contrast, US Central Command and the US Navy often use "Arabian Gulf" in regional communications and documents, especially to align with Arab partners, though their usage sometimes varies between "Arabian Gulf" and the more neutral "the Gulf."

Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran, noted that the US military has used the term "Arabian Gulf" for years. But, he added, "In my experience, there's one thing that unites Iranians: ensuring it's called Persian Gulf."

Indeed, Iranian-American organizations with sharply differing political views issued separate statements on X opposing any name change.

"There has always been and will only ever be one name for the Persian Gulf," declared the National Union for Democracy in Iran. The National Iranian American Council echoed the sentiment: "It's the Persian Gulf -- today, tomorrow, and forever."

The name of the waterway is a deeply emotional issue for many Iranians, tied to pride in their country's heritage as the heart of the ancient Persian Empire.

Tensions flared in 2017 during Trump's first term when he referred to it as the "Arabian Gulf," prompting then-President Hassan Rouhani to quip that Trump should "study geography."

At the time, Iran's former crown prince Reza Pahlavi wrote a letter to Trump urging him to refrain from referring to the "historically unchallengeable Persian Gulf" by any other name. Pahlavi's supporters have been reposting his letter on X, though some have questioned the veracity of the reported plan to change the name.

Implications Beyond National Pride

Some have argued that changing the name of the Persian Gulf in the United States can do more than just hurt the pride of Iranians, such as leading to a breakdown in nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington.

Abdolrasool Divsallar, a security expert and adjunct professor at the Universita' Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Milan, said the move would be "a very bad decision in a very bad time."

He argued that it would "certainly have major negative implications on the nuclear talks, likely to cause Iran's unexpected reactions."

Meanwhile, Iran-based political commentator Mostafa Najafi speculated that the move could affect the legal status of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb -- three small but strategically important islands in the Persian Gulf that are controlled by Iran but claimed by the United Arab Emirates.

"Tehran backing down in the face of Trump's potential move, encouraged by Arab emirs and monarchs, would deal a major blow to Iran's national security and regional standing," he wrote on X.

This comes months after Trump’s executive order in January to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.”

The AP declined to adopt the new terminology, prompting the White House to restrict its journalists from covering most official events.

In response, the AP filed a lawsuit against the administration. In April, a US district judge ruled that the First Amendment protects the wire service from government retaliation over editorial decisions and ordered that its full access to White House events be reinstated.

US President Donald Trump said on May 6 that he's ordering a halt to US air strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen after the Iran-backed group agreed to stop attacking ships on important shipping routes in the Middle East.

“We’re going to stop the bombing of the Houthis, effective immediately,” Trump said at the start of a meeting at the White House with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.

After Trump made the announcement, Oman said it had mediated the cease-fire, and confirmed that the US campaign was ending.

“In the future, neither side will target the other, including American vessels, in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait, ensuring freedom of navigation and the smooth flow of international commercial shipping,” Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi said on X, calling the agreement a “welcome outcome.”

The United States launched a campaign of air strikes in March, and Trump promised to use “overwhelming lethal force.”

That came after the Houthis said they would resume attacks on Israeli vessels sailing off Yemen in response to Israel's mounting another blockade on the Gaza Strip.

Trump said on May 6 that the Houthis had indicated to US officials that “they don’t want to fight anymore. They just don’t want to fight. And we will honor that, and we will stop the bombings.”

He said the announcement means the Houthis “will not be blowing up ships anymore.”

The Houthis have been firing at shipping in the Red Sea and at Israel since Israel began its military offensive in Gaza against Hamas, which has been designated by the United States and the EU as a terrorist organization, after the Palestinian militant group launched a deadly attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.

The statement from Oman did not mention whether the Houthis had agreed to stop attacks on Israel.

The head of Yemen's Houthi Supreme Political Council, Mahdi al-Mashat, said the group would continue to support Gaza.

Separately, the head of Yemen's Houthi supreme revolutionary committee, Mohammed Ali al-Houthi, said on X that the US halt of "aggression" against Yemen would be evaluated.

Israel’s military on May 6 launched air strikes against the Houthis that it said fully disabled the international airport in the Yemeni capital, Sanaa. Israel’s attacks were in retaliation for a Houthi missile strike on May 4 on Israel’s international airport.

Gregory Brew, a senior analyst with the Eurasia Group risk-analysis firm, said on X that the Houthis have not fired on a commercial ship since December.

“They are likely, however, to continue shooting at Israel,” Brew said.

From November 2023 until January 2025, the Houthis targeted more than 100 merchant vessels with missiles and drones. That has greatly reduced the flow of trade through the Red Sea corridor, which typically sees $1 trillion of goods move through it annually.

With reporting by AP and Reuters

Iran’s continued struggle with electricity shortages has led to the implementation of rolling blackouts in the capital, Tehran.

Power cuts have become a fixture of both summer and winter months, but rolling blackouts this year have started earlier than usual despite the temperatures being relatively low.

Government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani said during her weekly press conference on May 6 that the country was facing “multiple imbalances,” referring to rising demand for electricity, water, and gas.

She said the government of President Masud Pezeshkian “needs time” to address the energy shortage, without explicitly saying how much time was required. Experts say electricity consumption in Iran rises by about 7 percent, or 5,000 megawatts, every year.

Dalga Khatinoglu, an energy expert based in Azerbaijan, told RFE/RL’s Radio Farda that Iran has no short-term solution for its electricity shortage, and even if it were to triple or quadruple its power production, it might only reach a balance sometime in the next decade.

Meanwhile, Tehran city Councilor Jafar Bandi Sharibani accused the authorities of discriminatory practices by imposing longer blackouts in lower-income neighborhoods.

Electricity consumption in Iran peaked at over 72,000 megawatts in the Iranian year 1402 (March 2023-23), while actual power generation capacity in the summer maxed out at around 60,000 megawatts.

Mostafa Rajabi Mashhadi, a spokesperson for Iran’s state-run power distribution company Tavanir, said that electricity consumption nationwide in the last two weeks rose by 9,000 megawatts compared to the same period last year.

Despite sitting atop the world’s second-largest natural gas reserves, Iran continues to face recurring energy shortages in both summer and winter.

Generous energy subsidies keep household bills low, but they also fuel excessive consumption.

Amid the struggle to keep the lights on, proponents of Iran’s nuclear program argue the country needs nuclear energy to generate electricity.

US President Donald Trump has called for the “total dismantlement” of the nuclear program, but has said he is open to considering allowing Iran to maintain a civil nuclear program to generate electricity.

Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi last month said his country aims to build 19 more nuclear reactors -- a goal it has been pursuing since the 2000s. He teased that "tens of billions of dollars in potential contracts are up for grabs" and open to US investment, should Tehran and Washington reach a deal on Iran's nuclear program.

Iran says it has "successfully" tested a new ballistic missile that it claims can reach Israel and penetrate some of the most advanced missile-defense systems in the world.

Amid growing concerns in the West over Tehran's advancing nuclear and missile programs, Iran's state TV on May 4 aired footage of the Qassem Basir missile being tested and apparently hitting its target.

Iranian Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh said the solid-fueled missile has a range of 1,200 kilometers and can penetrate Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), an advanced anti-missile system that the United States deployed to Israel last year.

Nasirzadeh said the new missile was developed by addressing weaknesses revealed during operations True Promise 1 and 2 -- Iran's missile and drone attacks on Israel in April and October last year.

The minister asserted that the missile had been upgraded in both guidance and maneuverability to help it get through layers of air defense and claimed it was resistant to electronic jamming.

Tasnim news agency, which is affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), said Qassem Basir is an upgraded version of the Martyr Hajj Qassem missile, which was named after slain IRGC Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani and unveiled in 2020.

The missile was unveiled on the same day that Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen launched a missile attack near Israel's Ben Gurion Airport, injuring several people and briefly disrupting air traffic.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blamed the attack on Iranian support for the Houthis and pledged retaliation against both the Yemeni group and Tehran.

The missile notably evaded sophisticated air defense systems. Israel is said to have had two THAAD batteries and at least one Arrow 3 interceptor system in operation at the time of the attack.

Experts say the Qassem Basir missile marks the first usage by Tehran of optical seekers on a medium-range ballistic missile.

Russian-based weapons expert Yuri Lyamin noted that the new medium-range ballistic missile was now Iran's "most long-ranged" missile equipped with electro optical (EO) seekers, replacing the short-range ballistic missile Zolfaghar Basir.

Fabian Hinz, a researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, explained that -- in theory -- this missile uses its own camera to navigate by matching what it sees against stored visual information. This means there's no external radio signal to interrupt, making it effectively jamming-resistant.

Hinz told RFE/RL that the accuracy of Iranian missiles that struck Israel, especially last October, "was not great." He attributed it to potential signal jamming, which is what prompted Iran to work on developing missiles that use EO seekers.

Nasirzadeh warned that any military aggression from the United States or Israel would prompt a global response targeting their assets and bases.

He stressed that while Iran does not seek confrontation, it will respond "firmly" if challenged.

US President Donald Trump says the goal of negotiations with Iran is to ensure the "total dismantlement" of Tehran's nuclear program but would consider allowing Iran to maintain a civilian nuclear energy program.

In an interview with NBC on May 4, Trump said tearing down Iran's nuclear program would be "all I'd accept."

The comment marks the first time Trump has explicitly said what he hopes to do with Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran maintains is peaceful.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested last week that Washington would be open to letting Iran operate a peaceful civil nuclear program, saying, "There's a way to do it."

"You build the reactors and you import enriched uranium to fuel those reactors. That's how dozens of countries around the world do it," he told Fox News on May 1.

Trump appeared to echo Rubio's remarks, telling NBC that he would be "open to hearing it."

"Civilian energy, it's called. But you know, civilian energy often leads to military wars. And we don't want to have them have a nuclear weapon. It's a very simple deal," he added.

Trump said a civilian nuclear program would be used to generate electricity, but given Iran is an energy-rich country it would not really need it.

"My inclination is to say, 'What do you need that for? You have a lot of oil,'" he said.

Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran, said Trump's comments had made it clear the administration was not looking for a revamped version of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

"This interview calls that fantasy into question," he wrote on X.

Meanwhile, others insist Trump's comment suggests he is still undecided.

"Maybe one could argue that Trump's team still does not exactly know what it wants from Iran, but he himself desires a deal different from the JCPOA," wrote Iran-based foreign policy analyst Rahman Qahremanpour, referring to the 2015 nuclear deal.

Iran has rejected calls to dismantle its nuclear program and give up its ability to enrich uranium.

Responding to Trump's comment, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman on May 5 said Iran has "a right to peaceful nuclear energy" and dismissed Trump's oil remark.

"Iran's peaceful nuclear program goes back to the 1970s, when Iran had more fossil fuel and less consumption," Esmail Baqaei said during a weekly press conference.

"Therefore, some fallacious comments about Iran having access to expansive fossil fuel reserves and not needing nuclear energy have no basis in science or reality."

Iran and the United States have held three rounds of nuclear discussions since last month. Mediated by Oman, a fourth round was slated for May 2 in Rome but was postponed due to what Muscat called "logistical reasons."

British police have arrested eight men -- including seven Iranian nationals -- in two apparently unrelated counterterrorism operations, officers said on May 4, and authorities are attempting to determine if there are “any further risks” to the public.

"These were two major operations that reflect some of the biggest counter-state threat and counterterrorism operations that we have seen in recent years," Interior Secretary Yvette Cooper told reporters on May 4.

Specific details remained scarce regarding to two actions.

London's Metropolitan Police said five men, including four Iranians, were arrested on May 3 over a suspected plot to target a specific, undisclosed site. Authorities said they were still attempting to determine the nationality of the fifth suspect.

Separately, three Iranian nationals aged between 39 and 55 were arrested in London in a second operation that was not related to the first matter, the Metropolitan Police said.

The Iranian Embassy in London did not immediately comment on the arrests.

In the first incident, the men, aged 29 to 40, were detained in West London and in Swindon, Stockport, Rochdale, and Manchester, police said.

"The investigation relates to a suspected plot to target a specific premises. Officers have been in contact with the affected site to make them aware and provide relevant advice and support, but for operational reasons, we are not able to provide further information at this time," a police statement said.

Commander Dominic Murphy, chief of London police's Counter Terrorism Command, said, "We are exploring various lines of enquiry to...identify whether there may be any further risk to the public linked to this matter."

Authorities said the suspects are undergoing questioning and have not yet been formally charged.

In the second case, the three Iranian nationals were detained under the National Security Act, authorities said, without disclosing further details.

Searches were ongoing at their addresses, the police statement read.

The arrests come at a time of intensified tensions over suspected Tehran-supported activities in Britain.

Last year, Ken McCallum, the head of Britain's domestic spy service, said that since 2022, authorities had responded to 20 Iran-linked plots that potentially posed lethal threats to the public.

At the time, McCallum said hostile states, radicalized individuals, and the revitalized Islamic State (IS) terror group have combined to create “the most complex and interconnected threat environment we’ve ever seen.”

In March 2024, Pouria Zeraati, a presenter at a Persian-language media organization in London critical of the Iranian government, was stabbed in the leg outside his home in London.

Two men were later arrested in Romania and charged over the attack on Zeraati, a TV host for the Iran International news network.

With reporting by Reuters and AP

Since March 15, the United States has intensified its aerial campaign against Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels, claiming to have hit more than 1,000 targets.

Dubbed “Operation Rough Rider,” the campaign is intended to halt Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping and ratchet up pressure on Tehran amid ongoing nuclear negotiations.

But despite the scale of the strikes, analysts question whether the effort has made any lasting impact.

“The Houthis remain undeterred,” said Colin Clarke, director of policy and research at the New York-based Soufan Group, an intelligence and security consultancy.

He noted that, while some Houthi infrastructure has been destroyed and personnel killed, the group appears to have turned the campaign to its advantage.

“Any losses are likely short-term and temporary,” he told RFE/RL, citing a boost in Houthi recruitment and fundraising.

Jeremy Binnie, a Middle East defense analyst with the global intelligence company Janes, added that the Houthis’ continued ability to launch attacks -- particularly against Israel and US drones -- undermines US claims of degrading their capabilities.

“It is arguably getting increasingly embarrassing for the United States every time the Houthis launch an attack on Israel or shoot down an MQ-9,” Binnie said.

A recent admission by the US Navy that an F/A-18 fighter fell off the USS Harry S. Truman during a maneuver to avoid a Houthi strike has only reinforced perceptions that the group remains a potent threat.

Meanwhile, the group has continued launching missiles toward Israel, claiming responsibility on May 2 for two strikes that prompted the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to intercept both and activate nationwide sirens.

US Central Command insists that the campaign has degraded the pace and effectiveness of the group's attacks.

"Ballistic missile launches have dropped by 69 percent. Additionally, attacks from one way attack drones have decreased by 55%," CENTCOM said in a statement on April 27. "Iran undoubtedly continues to provide support to the Houthis. The Houthis can only continue to attack our forces with the backing of the Iranian regime."

Have The Attacks Impacted Relations With Iran?

Analysts warn that the strikes may be having the opposite effect on regional dynamics, driving the Houthis closer to Tehran rather than isolating them.

The group -- formally known as the Ansarallah movement and designated a terrorist organization by the United States -- is a key member of Iran’s so-called “axis of resistance,” a network of nonstate actors that has faced setbacks over the past year.

But since the Gaza war erupted in October 2023, the Houthis have elevated their role within that alliance, claiming attacks on Israel and Israeli-linked shipping in solidarity with Palestinians.

While their growing prominence has afforded them some autonomy, experts say they remain deeply reliant on Iran for weapons and strategic support.

“You know very well what the US military is capable of -- and you were warned,” US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted on X on May 1, addressing Iran directly. “You will pay the CONSEQUENCE at the time and place of our choosing.”

Still, Clarke argues that the strikes may have only deepened the Houthi-Iran alliance.

“If anything, the strikes have pushed the Houthis closer to Iran,” he said, casting doubt on whether a future nuclear agreement would change Tehran’s behavior.

Binnie echoed Clarke’s skepticism. “US officials might hope the campaign pressures Iran,” he said, “but it’s difficult to say if that is happening.”

A fourth round of nuclear talks between Iran and the United States was initially slated for May 3 in Rome but has been postponed due to what Omani mediators described as “logistical reasons.”

With weeks of sustained bombing behind it, the United States appears no closer to deterring Houthi attacks or weakening their political backing -- raising hard questions about the strategic value of the campaign.

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 the potential economic impact of a massive explosion at Iran's Shahid Rajaei port and whether it will impact Iranian trade and hopes for foreign investment.

What You Need To Know

• Trade Braces For 'Shock' After Port Explosion: The massive explosion at Iran's Shahid Rajaei port on April 26 is unlikely to cripple Iran's economy, but it poses a "big shock" to the country's international trade, analysts say. Iranian authorities say the blast was caused by "noncompliance with safety precautions and negligence," but it remains unclear what exactly caused the blast that killed at least 70 people and injured more than 1,000.

• Nuclear Talks In Rome Postponed: A fourth round of nuclear talks between the United States and Iran was postponed. Mediated by Oman, the talks have reached a crucial phase where bridging differences on key issues were expected to be discussed. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said in a statement on May 1 that the decision to postpone the talks in Rome had been taken based on the proposal of Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, who cited "logistical reasons" for the delay. He said the meeting was being rescheduled. State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce said the meeting had never been confirmed. The United States expects another round of talks "will take place in the near future," she said.

• Hijab Warning Text Message Raises Eyebrows: Some women in Tehran have received a text message from a state institution telling them that they have been observed in the city not complying with the mandatory hijab. The move has sparked widespread criticism, with many questioning how these individuals were identified and how their private phone numbers were obtained.

The Big Issue

Scaring Off Investors?

Analysts say the explosion will have major ramifications for not only Iranian trade through its busiest port but will also hinder the country's ability to attract investment.

The explosion obliterated over 10,000 shipping containers and set fuel storage tanks ablaze, causing a temporary suspension of foreign trade.

Paris-based economist Djamchid Assadi told RFE/RL's Radio Farda that while the explosion was unlikely to cripple Iran's sanctions-hit economy, it would have a "very negative" effect on both the supply of goods and securing foreign investment.

He said, regardless of whether the accident was caused by incompetence or sabotage, it raises questions about the level of safety in Iran's business environment.

"How can you hope to attract investment when you cannot ensure safety and security in that port?" Assadi argued.

While the authorities insist operations at the port have resumed, Azerbaijan-based energy and economy expert Dalga Khatinoglu said it will be a while before the port can return to business as usual.

"This will be a big shock to Iran's international trade," he told Radio Farda.

Why It Matters: The Shahid Rajaei port in Bandar Abbas is located near the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of the world's oil trade passes.

Commonly dubbed Iran's "golden gateway" to international commerce by Iranian media, Shahid Rajaei port manages about 85 percent of the nation's container throughput, over half of its overall trade, and 70 percent of its transit shipments.

What's Being Said: Hossein Zafari, a spokesman for Iran's crisis management agency, suggested the explosion may have resulted from improperly stored chemical materials within containers at the port.

Publicly available data indicate that shipments of chemical components used in missile propellant were received from China at the port in February and March. Nonetheless, a Defense Ministry spokesman has refuted claims that any military-related cargo, including missile fuel, was present at the explosion site.

Renowned Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi described the explosion as a symbol of "the collapse of a regime that has led Iran into ruin for nearly half a century" and demanded a referendum to "restore sovereignty to the people."

Expert Opinion: "There will be a big shock, particularly if administrative buildings in the terminal are also destroyed, which will cause a serious disruption to imports and exports," Khatinoglu 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.

Iran’s judiciary said it has executed Mohsen Langarneshin for allegedly spying for Israel and being involved in the high-profile assassination of an Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) colonel in 2022.

In a statement on April 30, the judiciary described Langarneshin as a “high-ranking spy” for Israel who had “supported several Mossad operations in Iran.”

In addition to his alleged involvement in the killing of IRGC Colonel Hassan Sayyad Khodaei in May 2022, Langarneshin was also accused of playing a role in a January 2023 drone attack on a military factory in Isfahan.

Iran’s judiciary also claimed that Langaranshin had met twice with senior Mossad intelligence officers -- once in Georgia and once in Nepal -- and described him as a “highly trained operative” who had undergone “extensive espionage training and was fully capable of carrying out assigned missions.”

Foreign-based Iranian human rights-focused news outlet HRANA said on April 28 that Langarneshin had made three separate requests for a retrial, all of which were rejected.

The HRANA report said he was moved to solitary confinement in the Ghezel Hesar Prison on April 29, a day before his execution, and allowed a final visit with his parents.

His father, Masud Langaranshin, released a video stating that his son had been sentenced to death “without a fair trial” and that the case was riddled with “inconsistencies and legal flaws.”

Quoting a source close to Langaranshin, HRANA claimed that “he was pressured during detention to make forced confessions” implicating him in the assassination of Sayyad Khodaei.

A shadowy figure in the IRGC, Sayyad Khodaei was killed by gunmen outside his home in Tehran. Israeli media have described Sayyad Khodaei as a key figure behind “plots to kill Israelis and Jews” and to attack Jewish interests around the world.

In an annual report on human rights, Amnesty International said on April 29 that Iran "arbitrarily" executed hundreds of people last year as authorities "used the death penalty as a tool of political repression against protesters, dissidents and ethnic minorities."

The death toll from a massive explosion at Iran’s key Shahid Rajaei port has hit 70, local authorities said, as the interior minister blamed “negligence” for the incident, which injured more than 1,000 people.

Eskandar Momeni told Iranian state television late on April 28 that “noncompliance with safety precautions and negligence” had caused the incident, though it was not immediately clear what started the fire at the hazardous and chemical materials storage depot.

Momeni said several “culprits have been identified and summoned” but did not share further details.

Mehrdad Hassanzadeh, the director of the crisis management office in the southern Hormozgan Province where the port is located, told state television that most of the injured had already been released from hospital.

On April 27, a day after the explosion happened, Hossein Zafari, a spokesman for Iran's crisis management organization, appeared to blame the blast on poor storage of chemicals in containers at the port.

Open-source data suggests that Iran took shipments of chemical ingredients from China used in missile fuel at the port in February and March. However, an Iranian Defense Ministry spokesman has denied that any cargo used for military use, including missile fuel, was being stored at the blast site.

The New York Times quoted an unnamed source with ties to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as saying the substance that exploded was sodium perchlorate, a key component in solid missile fuel.

Amid mounting criticism of officials over the incident, renowned Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi called for a “free and transparent referendum under international supervision to restore sovereignty to the people.”

In a post on Instagram, Panahi described the explosion as a symbol of “the collapse of a regime that has led Iran into ruin for nearly half a century.”

Iran's top diplomat has accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of trying to dictate US policy toward Iran after the premier renewed his call for the full dismantlement of Tehran's nuclear program.

Iranian and US negotiators concluded a third round of indirect talks over Iran's nuclear program on April 26, with a fourth round scheduled for May 3, likely in a European country.

Speaking in Jerusalem a day after the talks, Netanyahu said any deal with Iran must aim for the complete dismantling of the nuclear program and also address Tehran's missile capabilities.

"The real deal that works is the deal which removes Iran's capacity to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons," Netanyahu said, adding that a good agreement should also "bring in the prevention of ballistic missiles."

Writing on X, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said it was "striking…how brazenly Netanyahu is now dictating what President Trump can and cannot do in his diplomacy with Iran."

The Iranian diplomat maintained that his country was "strong and confident enough" to "thwart any attempt by malicious external actors to sabotage its foreign policy or dictate its course."

"We can only hope our US counterparts are equally steadfast," he added.

Netanyahu's comment came after a deadly explosion hit Iran’s Shahid Rajaei port, killing at least 46 people and injuring more than 1,000.

Some speculate that the explosion was linked to a shipment of a chemical ingredient used to make ballistic missile fuel, though Iran denies any sort of fuel was being stored in the container terminal.

Farzin Nadimi, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute, told RFE/RL's Radio Farda that the sharp orange color of the initial fire was consistent with burning sodium perchlorate, a component used in rocket fuel. Open-source data suggests Iran took shipments of the chemical at the port earlier this year.

According to various reports, the Donald Trump administration previously held Netanyahu back from launching strikes on Tehran's nuclear facilities. However, the US president has said he himself would be "leading the pack" toward war with Iran if he cannot clinch a deal.

Ali Shamkhani, a senior aide to Iran's supreme leader and former national security adviser, warned on April 28 that Israel would face "unimaginable consequences" if it attacked Iran's nuclear sites.

"The question is: Are these threats the result of Israel acting on its own, or are they coordinated with Trump to push forward negotiations with Iran?" he wrote on X.