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.

Iran has never been closer to developing a nuclear weapon. US pressure on the Islamic republic has rarely been more intense.

With tensions high and trust scarce, Iranian and American negotiators are set to meet in Oman on April 12 in a bid to resolve a deepening nuclear crisis.

The discussions come amid escalating threats from Washington, including President Donald Trump's warning on April 9 that 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 region when the delegations meet.

"In earnest & with candid vigilance we are giving diplomacy a genuine chance.
U.S. should value this decision formed despite their prevailing confrontational hoopla," Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said in a post on X on April 11.

The format of the meeting has become a point of contention, with the United States insisting the talks will be direct and Iran claiming otherwise.

Format aside, the road to these talks has been long and uncertain.

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 (INSTEX), which was meant to facilitate non-dollar transactions with Iran to avoid violating US sanctions and dissuade Iran 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. People's purchasing power continues to dwindle 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?

The Iranian negotiating team is led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, 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.

Steve Witkoff, Trump's Middle East envoy, will serve as Washington's chief nuclear negotiator. A billionaire real estate investor, Witkoff lacks diplomatic experience but has taken on a central role in high-stakes negotiations since joining Trump's team.

On April 11 Witkoff made a surprise stop in Russia, a close ally of Iran, while en route to Oman. He met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg for talks that state news agencies later said 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, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund.

"[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. Unless Witkoff is backed up by a strong staff with expertise, it may complicate discussions," he added.

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.

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

US President Donald Trump surprised almost everyone when he announced in an Oval Office briefing -- with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sitting right beside him -- that high-level direct talks on Iran's nuclear program were scheduled for April 12 in Oman.

It is unclear whether Iran wanted to keep it quiet, but Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi felt the immediate need to clarify in the middle of the night Tehran time that talks would be indirect, contrary to what Trump had said.

Regardless of the format, both sides have framed the rendezvous as an exploratory meeting to see if negotiations can be held.

But beneath the headlines lies a deeper strategic debate: What exactly should the United States demand from Iran's nuclear program -- tight oversight or total dismantlement?

Trump has been clear about what Washington's end-goal is: Iran can never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. What he hasn't explicitly talked about is whether that means imposing restrictions on Iran's nuclear program or completely dismantling it.

Instead, senior members of his administration have been doing the talking, but they've been sending contradictory messages.

Steve Witkoff, Trump's Middle East envoy who will be leading the US delegation in the Oman talks, said last month that Washington wants to "create a verification program so that nobody worries about weaponization of [Iran's] nuclear material."

The implication was that the United States wants to curb enrichment and establish an oversight mechanism to ensure Iran's nuclear program remains peaceful -- something that Iran claims has always been its intention.

But national-security adviser Mike Waltz struck a different chord days later, charging that the administration wants "full dismantlement," adding, "Iran has to give up its program in a way that the entire world can see."

What Should The US Aim For?

Proponents of full dismantlement of the nuclear program say it is the only surefire way to ensure Iran won't ever acquire nukes.

Behnam Taleblu, senior director of the Iran program at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), argues Trump should not entertain arms control.

"Rather than seeking to limit Iran's atomic program, it should be forced to junk it altogether," Taleblu told RFE/RL.

He conceded that going for dismantlement is "high risk" but argued it is achievable and necessary through pressure such as stepping up sanctions and holding joint military drills with Israel.

Indeed, the US Treasury on April 9 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).

And if talks are futile, Taleblu said, Trump should be ready to walk away.

"The Islamic republic will only seriously consider surrender if it knows America has a credible exit option," he added.

A major supporter of the complete dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program is Netanyahu, who has floated the idea of a "Libya-style agreement," which Tehran has long rejected.

Others argue that any demand for Iran to fully dismantle the program would be seen in Tehran as political suicide.

"US demands for full dismantlement or a ‘Libya-style' deal that involves Iran breaking apart its entire nuclear program would be a nonstarter for Tehran," said Gregory Brew, senior Iran analyst at the New York-based Eurasia Group.

He argued that aiming for implementing a verification scheme to keep Iran's nuclear program in check "would, at the very least, provide a basis for further discussions."

But if Washington is intent on tearing down Iran's nuclear program, "talks will be over fast, and the risk of military escalation will go up," Brew added.

Is Iran Ready To Risk War?

The 2015 nuclear deal, which Trump withdrew from in 2018, formally expires in October. With it gone, the UN Security Council (UNSC) will lose the power to reimpose sanctions on Iran.

So, the West is running out of both time and patience.

Trump has warned Iran that it will bomb it if no agreement is reached. France, also a permanent member of the UNSC and a signatory to the 2015 deal, has expressed concern that the absence of a new agreement would make the prospect of military confrontation "almost inevitable."

The United States has been flexing its muscles and beefing up its military presence in the region. It has been launching air strikes against the Iran-backed Houthi rebels for weeks, using some of its most sophisticated hardware against a group that does not even have an air force to speak of.

"The deployments offer the United States a credible military threat that can serve to put more pressure on Iran," Brew said. "The United States is clearly signaling that it is prepared to escalate if talks fail or if Iran advances its nuclear program to weaponization."

The stakes for the regime are very high, he added.

But Taleblu believes the Islamic republic is ultimately risk-averse and won't want to risk a military confrontation.

"There are instances in history, admittedly not many, where the regime has significantly backtracked on a stated security goal it sunk significant capital into," he asserted. "In instances where Tehran senses strength and a willingness to grow penalties and impose costs over time that could meaningfully threaten the regime, it has backed down."

The stage is set for diplomacy in Oman. As the clock ticks, the question is who will blink first.

US President Donald Trump said the United States will hold high-level "direct" talks with Iran at a "very big meeting" this week while warning Tehran it would be in “great danger” if the talks on its nuclear program don’t succeed.

Iran's foreign minister confirmed that a meeting was set to take place on April 12, but the talks would be "indirect."

"Iran and the United States will meet in Oman on Saturday for indirect high-level talks," Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on X on April 7 shortly after Trump commented on the talks.

"It is as much an opportunity as it is a test. The ball is in America's court."

Iran has insisted on indirect negotiations, saying it would not hold direct talks as long as Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign on Tehran is in effect.

Araghchi later told Iran's semiofficial Tasnim news agency that US envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff would be at the talks, but the two would speak only through a mediator.

Trump told reporters at the White House that talks were taking place "on a very high level, almost the highest level," and emphasized that no intermediaries were involved.

He did not say who would represent the United States. Witkoff has not commented publicly on whether he would attend the talks.

"We have a very big meeting, and we'll see what can happen. I think everybody agrees that doing a deal would be preferable," Trump said in an impromptu press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"If talks with Iran aren't successful, I think Iran will be in great danger," Trump said, insisting that the Islamic republic must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

Netanyahu briefly weighed in, expressing support for a Libya-style deal with Iran --a reference to a 2003 agreement in which the African nation agreed to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Iran maintains its nuclear program is for civilian purposes and has previously rejected the possibility of a Libya-style agreement.

Trump earlier this month called for "direct talks" with Tehran, saying they were "faster" and offered a better understanding than using intermediaries. Trump suggested then that a new agreement with Iran could be "different and maybe a lot stronger" than the 2015 nuclear deal.

He had previously sent a letter to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calling for negotiations and warning of military action if diplomacy failed.

Iranian President Masud Pezeshkian on April 5 said that Tehran was willing to engage in dialogue on an "equal footing." The following day Araghchi said in a statement that Tehran was prepared to hold indirect talks.

After abrogating the nuclear deal in 2018 during his first term as president, Trump reimposed sanctions on Iran that had been lifted under the agreement. Iran retaliated by accelerating its nuclear program and is currently enriching uranium at 60 percent purity, which is described as near weapons-grade.

The 2015 deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), has a snapback mechanism that allows for the return of UN sanctions on Iran. But once the deal expires in October, world powers lose the ability to trigger the mechanism.

Trump has threatened to bomb Iran if there is no agreement on Tehran's nuclear program. Iran has warned that it will deliver a "strong" response to any aggression and has suggested that it will develop a bomb if attacked.

Washington has been sending mixed messages about whether it wants to restrict Iran's uranium enrichment or fully dismantle Tehran's nuclear program.

Iran has not commented on Trump's assertion that direct talks have already started.

Nour News, a website affiliated with Ali Shamkhani, a senior adviser to Iran's supreme leader, described Trump's remarks as "a calculated effort to shape public opinion" aimed at portraying Washington as the party taking diplomatic initiative and Tehran as the side opposed to dialogue.

Iran's foreign minister rejected US proposals for direct negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, days after US President Donald Trump called for face-to-face talks.

In a statement released on April 6 by the Foreign Ministry, Abbas Araghchi said Tehran was prepared to hold indirect talks with Washington.

"Iran keeps itself prepared for all possible or probable events, and just as it is serious in diplomacy and negotiations, it will also be decisive and serious in defending its national interests and sovereignty," he was quoted saying.

Araghchi's comments came three days after Trump called for "direct talks" with Tehran, saying they were "faster" and offered a better understanding than using intermediaries.

Last month, Trump sent a letter to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calling for negotiations and warning of military action if diplomacy failed.

Iranian President Masud Pezeshkian, meanwhile, said on April 5 that Tehran was willing to engage in dialogue on an "equal footing."

In 2015, Iran reached a landmark deal with United States, France, China, Russia, and Britain, as well as Germany, to curtail its nuclear activities.

The 2015 agreement -- known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action -- eased punishing sanctions that had restricted Iran's economy.

During Trump's first term in office, however, the United States withdrew from the agreement and reinstated punitive sanctions.

Iran rejects Western allegation that it is seeking to build nuclear weapons, insisting its programs are only aimed at civilian purposes like electricity generation.

With reporting by AFP

Iran's national currency, the rial, tumbled to a record low against the US dollar, as US President Donald Trump's "maximum pressure" strategy against the Islamic republic's economy continued to take its toll.

As of April 5, a dollar cost more than 1 million rials on exchange markets, as currency shops reopened for the day following closings for the Persian New Year, Nowruz.

AP reported that on Ferdowsi Street in Tehran, the heart of Iran's currency markets, some traders had turned off their shops' electronic signs displaying current rates as anticipation grew that the rial would likely drop further.

"We turned it off since we are not sure about the successive changes of the rate," Reza Sharifi, a worker at one exchange, told AP.

Trump has reinstated the "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran's economy that he initiated during his first term as Washington seeks to pressure Tehran to negotiate over its nuclear program.

Tehran claims its nuclear sector is intended solely for civilian purposes, while the United States accuses Iran of attempting to develop nuclear weapons.

"The maximum pressure campaign devastated Iran's economy and denied it critical resources. A nuclear Iran is not an option," US lawmaker Mike Lawler (Republican-New York) said on April 1.

Democratic lawmakers have also acknowledged the threat posed by Iran but stressed the importance of diplomacy.Trump in 2018 withdrew the United States from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal signed with world powers and reinstated sanctions that had been lifted in return for restrictions on Tehran's nuclear program.

When the deal went into effect, the rial traded at 32,000 to the dollar.

Trump has threatened to bomb Iran if it fails to reach a deal with Washington. Tehran has dismissed the threat, describing it as an "affront" to peace and security.

Iran in late March delivered a formal response to a letter sent by Trump letter proposing direct talks to reach a new nuclear deal.

Iran has dismissed direct negotiations as long as the "maximum pressure" campaign is in effect, but conflicting remarks out of Tehran have led some experts to speculate that such talks could resume.

Public outrage is mounting in Iran as the country's struggling economy worsens under the crippling US sanctions, placing pressure on reformist President Masud Pezeshkian, who was elected in 2024, an outcome that raised hopes of better relations with the West.

"This [the economic downturn] will make the prospects of change in the [Iran] impossible in the eyes of the people…. An angry and hungry society can take to the streets at any moment," Saeed Peyvandi, a professor of sociology at Paris 13 University, told RFE/RL's Radio Farda in February.

A pensioner who gave only his first name, Saeed, because of fears of reprisal, told AP that if Iran ceased its hostile policy toward the outside world, financial relief could be possible.

"If we want to live a comfortable life, we should maintain good ties with our neighbors. We shouldn't bare our teeth at them. They will do the same," he said.

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

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will travel to the United States on April 6 to meet with President Donald Trump for discussions on Iran and new US trade tariffs, the Israeli leader's office said.

"The two leaders will discuss tariffs, efforts to bring back Israeli hostages (from Gaza), Israel-Turkey relations, the Iranian threat, and the fight against the International Criminal Court," Netanyahu's office said, referring to The Hague-based court that has accused him of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Both Trump and Netanyahu have rejected the ICC allegations as "baseless."

The White House did not immediately comment on Nethanyahu's upcoming visit.

US media had quoted four Israeli officials and a White House official earlier in the day as saying Netanyahu was expected to visit the White House on April 7.

The right-wing Israeli leader is considered a close ally to Trump. Along with the ICC accusations, Netanyahu has come under international criticism for the conduct of the war in the Gaza Strip.

Trump, other US officials, and Netanyahu have defended Israeli military actions in the territory, which came after a deadly incursion into Israel by the Hamas movement, which is considered a terrorist organization by the United States and European Union.

The trip will mark the second official visit to Washington by Netanyahu since Trump took office on January 20. He held meetings with the US leader in early February, making him the first foreign visitor to the White House during Trump's second term in office.

After that visit, Trump signed an order on February 4 to restore his "maximum pressure" policy on Iran aimed at hurting its oil exports and slowing its nuclear program.

US sanctions on Iran's energy sector have been in place since 2018, when Trump during his first term withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions that had been lifted under its terms. Iranian oil sales plummeted as a result.

Also during Netanyahu's visit, Trump announced a controversial proposal calling for the United States to take over control of the Gaza Strip and economically develop the war-torn Palestinian coastal area. Under the plan, the Palestinian civilian population was to be relocated to other countries in the region.

Israel, like most other nations, is facing a rise in tariffs under Trump's newly announced trade policy. The tariff rate against Israeli products is 17 percent, and Netanyahu will likely seek to strike a new agreement with the US leader.

Netanyahu's visit comes following of a day of protest on April 5 against Trump's policies throughout the United States. Demonstrations were held at some 1,200 sites in all 50 states, organized by more than 150 groups. The rallies appeared to go off peacefully, with one of the main organizers saying about 600,000 people took part.

With reporting by AFP and Reuters

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 how Iran's threats to go nuclear and its insistence on indirect talks with the United States are frustrating the West, with France warning military action is becoming "inevitable."

What You Need To Know

• Doubling Down On Nuclear Threats: Ali Larijani, a senior aide to Iran's supreme leader, has warned that military action against the Islamic republic would push Tehran to develop nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, France has raised the alarm over Iran's nuclear program, warning that if there is no deal by October military confrontation would be "almost inevitable."

• Alleged Bank Hacking Fuels Outrage: Iran's Sepah Bank was allegedly hacked by the Codebreakers group last week, exposing the data of 42 million customers, including high-profile accounts. Sepah Bank has denied any breach, insisting its systems are secure and "unhackable." The breach has fueled online outrage over economic inequality and Iran's cybersecurity weaknesses. The alleged compromised data includes information related to members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).

• Sociologist Faces Backlash After Criticizing Khamenei: Iranian sociologist Mostafa Mehraeen sparked controversy after publishing two open letters criticizing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In the first, he urged Khamenei to acknowledge mistakes, apologize, and step down, leading to legal action and a court summons. In his second letter, he questioned Khamenei's belief in his divine mission. In an interview with RFE/RL's Radio Farda, he praised the "strength" of Iranian society, crediting it for giving him the "courage" to address Khamenei.

The Big Issue

Friends Or Enemies -- Pick One

Larijani, a senior adviser to Khamenei, said on April 1 that the United States could either approach Iran as an economic partner or treat it as the enemy.

"They can talk about economic benefits and have fair cooperation with Iran on economic issues that benefit both," he said in a televised interview.

But Larijani, a former parliament speaker and ex-national security adviser, added that military threats against Iran would only make matters worse.

"If America or Israel attacks Iran under the pretense of nuclear issues, Iran might move toward making an atomic bomb," he said.

Why It Matters: US President Donald Trump has threatened to bomb Iran if there is no agreement on Tehran's nuclear program.

The 2015 nuclear deal, which Trump withdrew from in 2018, is set to expire in October. Once the deal expires, world powers will not be able to reimpose UN sanctions on Iran.

Acknowledging that, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot on April 2 warned in parliament that in the absence of a new deal, "a military confrontation would appear to be almost inevitable."

Iran has rejected Trump's proposal for direct negotiations, saying it will only agree to indirect talks unless the US president drops his "maximum pressure" campaign. However, Trump claimed on April 3 that he thinks Iran has reconsidered its stance.

Barrot said "our priority" is to reach an agreement that "verifiably and durably constrains" Iran's nuclear program.

But contradictory messages have been coming from the United States, with Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff calling for the "full dismantlement" of the program.

Fabian Hinz, a researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said recent military drills and the unveiling of missile bases suggest Tehran believes military threats are credible. The United States beefing up its presence in the Middle East has certainly contributed.

He told RFE/RL's Radio Farda that a military strike would only "buy time" rather than destroy Iran's nuclear capability, since "knowledge can't be bombed."

Hinz argued that if Iran's nuclear program is attacked it would likely continue covertly. He added that identifying and targeting supply chains in Iran could "disrupt the program really heavily."

What's Being Said: Larijani's comments, particularly on the potential to develop a bomb, has caused a flurry of reactions inside Iran.

Reformist analyst Ahmad Zeidabadi said the Islamic republic "only makes matter more difficult for itself and easier for America and Israel" when officials keep touting Iran's military strength and the ability to weaponize the nuclear program.

Culture Minister Abbas Salehi rejected the possibility of Iran going nuclear, insisting Khamenei's fatwa against developing a nuclear weapon would not change based on current affairs because it was rooted in "religious principles."

Expert Opinion: "From an Iranian perspective, it would make sense to take all of Trump very seriously, because he killed one of the highest-ranking members of the regime," said Hinz, referring to the 2020 killing of IRGC Quds Force general Qassem Soleimani.

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 lawmakers and experts at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing underscored a rare bipartisan consensus -- preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons as a top priority.

However, divisions remain over how far Washington should go in applying pressure versus pursuing diplomacy.

Republican lawmakers strongly supported the Donald Trump administration’s decision to reinstate the “maximum pressure” campaign that defined his Iran policy during his first term as US president.

“The maximum pressure campaign devastated Iran’s economy and denied it critical resources. A nuclear Iran is not an option,” Subcommittee Chairman Mike Lawler (Republican-New York) said on April 1.

Democratic lawmakers also acknowledged the threat posed by Iran but stressed the importance of diplomacy.

“There is bipartisan understanding of the danger posed by Iran as the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism. We must combine pressure with diplomatic engagement,” Ranking Member Gregory Meeks (Democratic-New York) said.

Three expert witnesses provided testimony on the challenges posed by Iran and the potential consequences of US strategies.

Norman Roule, a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, warned that Iran is advancing its nuclear program and could produce a weapon within months if left unchecked.

“Iran is closer than ever to producing a nuclear weapon,” Roule warned, adding that military strikes could only delay its program. He called for a comprehensive approach that combines sanctions, military readiness, and diplomacy.

Claire Jungman of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) highlighted the economic toll that sanctions have taken on the country, noting that its economy remains fragile due to inflation and currency devaluation.

She stressed the importance of targeting Iran’s oil trade with China in violation of US sanctions and leveraging its economic vulnerabilities to weaken its support for regional proxies like the US-designated Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah.

Dana Stroul of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy noted that military strikes could escalate into broader conflict and urged Washington to pair pressure tactics with robust diplomacy.

She added that “the pillars of Iran’s security strategy”, including its nuclear program, proxy network, and arsenal of missiles and drones, are “more vulnerable today than ever.”

Trump has threatened to bomb Iran if it fails to reach a deal with Washington. Tehran has dismissed the threat, describing it as an “affront” to peace and security.

Iran last week delivered a formal response to Trump’s letter proposing direct talks to reach a new nuclear deal. Tehran has dismissed direct negotiations as long as the “maximum pressure” campaign is in effect.

Axios reports that the White House is “seriously considering” Iran’s proposal for indirect talks while boosting its military presence in the Middle East.

Addressing Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Committee Chairman Brian Mast (Republican-Florida) said Trump “will work with you to peacefully end” Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

“Or, President Trump will destroy your nuclear weapons and ballistic missile program. You get to choose the remedy,” he said.

Iran maintains its nuclear program is peaceful, but there are growing calls in Iran to weaponize it as a form of deterrence against the United States and Israel.

Later on April 2, the Trump administration announced sanctions against individuals and companies it claims are helping the Iranian-backed Houthis, a rebel group designated as a terrorist organization by the United States.

The Houthis, formally known as the Ansarallah movement, seized power in Yemen in 2014 by toppling the internationally recognized, Saudi-backed government. The Trump administration last month launched strikes against Houthis rebels, who have been target shipping in the Red Sea, a crucial transportation corridor.

The Trump administration sanctioned two Russia-based Afghan brothers who assisted an Iran-based financier l in orchestrating shipments of stolen Ukrainian grain from Crimea to Yemen.

It also blocked eight digital asset wallets used by the Houthis to transfer funds associated with the group’s activities.

The US military has announced a second aircraft carrier group will deploy to the Middle East to respond to regional threats to stability as US forces continue to hit Iran-linked Huthi fighters in Yemen from its ships in the Red Sea.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement on April 1 that the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson will join the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman in the Middle East "to continue promoting regional stability, deter aggression, and protect the free flow of commerce in the region."

The Carl Vinson has been ordered to arrive from the Indo-Pacific following completion of a scheduled exercise, Parnell said without saying when it would get there.

The announcement comes as US forces hit Huthi fighters in Yemen with near-daily air strikes in a campaign aimed at ending the threat they pose to civilian shipping and military vessels in the region.

"The United States and its partners remain committed to regional security in the CENTCOM AOR (area of responsibility) and are prepared to respond to any state or non-state actor seeking to broaden or escalate conflict in the region," Parnell said. CENTCOM is the US military command responsible for the region.

Parnell added that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth continues to make clear that “should Iran or its proxies threaten American personnel and interests in the region, the United States will take decisive action to defend our people.”

The Huthis, which the United States has designated as a terrorist group, began targeting shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden after the start of the Gaza war in 2023, claiming solidarity with Palestinians.

Huthi attacks have prevented ships from passing through the Suez Canal, forcing many companies to send their goods on a costly detour around the tip of southern Africa that takes considerably longer.

President Donald Trump vowed on March 31 that strikes on the Huthis will continue until they are no longer a threat to shipping.

"The choice for the Huthis is clear: Stop shooting at US ships, and we will stop shooting at you. Otherwise, we have only just begun, and the real pain is yet to come, for both the Huthis and their sponsors in Iran," Trump said on his Truth Social platform.

Trump added that the Huthis had been "decimated" by "relentless" strikes since large-scale air strikes began on March 15, saying that US forces "hit them every day and night -- Harder and harder."

The large-scale air strikes began after Trump warned the Huthis that "hell will rain down upon you" if they did not stop their extremist actions, including missile launches against Israel.

Trump has also said that "there will be bombing" if Iran does not reach a deal on its nuclear program.

Huthi officials said at least 12 civilians were killed and another nine injured in the US attacks, but the claims could not be independently confirmed. The officials vowed revenge without specifying how it would carry it out.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on March 16 said the attacks were “a message to Iran” to stop supporting the Huthis, and Hegseth said Iran "is on notice" that Huthi attacks on American ships, aircraft, and troops will not be tolerated.

With reporting by AFP

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned of a "strong" response following a threat by US President Donald Trump that "there will be bombing" if Tehran doesn't agree to talks on its nuclear program as concern grows over escalating rhetoric between the two countries.

Speaking after Trump reiterated his threat of adopting measures ranging from fresh sanctions and tariffs to military action, Khamenei said in a sermon marking Eid Al-Fitr on March 31 that any attack by the United States would "surely receive a strong reciprocal blow."

The Iranian leader, however, added that he did "not really expect mischief from abroad."

The comment suggests Khamenei does not expect an attack but rather sabotage operations like explosions and assassinations, said Damon Golriz, a lecturer at The Hague University of Applied Sciences.

"He's effectively pointing the finger at Israel here," Golriz told Radio Farda, adding that Trump's remark on Iran and US officials talking was "important."

Switzerland's ambassador to Iran, who represents US interests and acts as an intermediary between Washington and Tehran, was summoned on March 31 by Iran's Foreign Ministry to express the regime's determination to respond "decisively and immediately" to any US threat.

Since Trump returned to the White House, his administration has consistently said Iran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons and has previously warned that military action is on the table should Iran reject Trump's outreach.

Iran has long maintained that its program is for peaceful use, but Iranian officials have also threatened to pursue a weapon as tensions amid a growing standoff with the United States over sanctions and renewed bombing in the Gaza Strip following the collapse of a cease-fire in Israel's war against Iran-backed Hamas, which is deemed a terrorist organization by the United States and the EU.

Trump again threatened Iran in an interview with NBC News on March 30 just days after Tehran rejected holding direct talks with Washington over its rapidly expanding nuclear program.

While high-ranking Iranian officials had previously spoken against the idea of holding nuclear talks with the United States, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said specifically on March 30 that Tehran would not enter direct negotiations with Washington, though it is willing to continue talks indirectly in line with an injunction from Khamenei.

"If they don't make a deal, there will be bombing," Trump said in the NBC interview by phone.

"There's a chance that if they don't make a deal, that I will do secondary tariffs on them like I did four years ago," he added.

But Trump also said US and Iranian officials are "talking," without offering details.

Mohammed Ghaedi, a lecturer at George Washington University's department of political science, told Radio Farda that Trump was "saber-rattling" and "exercising brinksmanship."

"I think it highly unlikely that Trump will bomb Iran, not least because he vowed on the presidential campaign trail not to drag the United States into a war," he told Radio Farda.

The latest trading of threats was preceded by a round of diplomacy that failed to bring the sides any closer.

An Emirati delegation delivered a letter to Tehran from Trump proposing nuclear talks with the United States earlier this month, but hours before it arrived Khamenei had already dismissed the prospect of talks with the Trump administration.

The letter gave Tehran a two-month window to decide on holding talks.

Similar comments were made by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi on March 27 when he said Tehran had sent a formal written response to Trump via Oman that maintained Iran will not hold direct negotiations as long as Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign is in effect.

A report in February by the UN's nuclear watchdog said Iran has accelerated its production of near weapons-grade uranium.

Iran's economy has been reeling from years of sanctions, particularly after Trump in his first term pulled the United States out of a landmark nuclear deal with Iran and reimposed sanctions.

Tehran is looking to find ways to ease those sanctions or have them removed entirely, but the public rejection of Trump's letter could lead to new pressure from Washington and other powers who are worried about Iran's nuclear program.

With the 2015 nuclear deal set to formally expire in October 2025, world powers that are still part of the pact have just a few months before they lose the ability to reimpose UN sanctions on Iran.

With reporting by RFE/RL's Kian Sharifi, AP, Reuters, and AFP

Iranian President Masud Pezeshkian publicly rejected holding direct negotiations with Washington over its rapidly expanding nuclear program, which had been proposed in a letter from US President Donald Trump and delivered to Tehran earlier this month.

“Although the possibility of direct negotiations between the two sides has been rejected in this response, it has been emphasized that the path for indirect negotiations remains open,” Pezeshkian said in televised remarks on March 30, referring to Trump’s letter.

While high-ranking Iranian officials had previously spoken against the idea of holding nuclear talks with the United States, Pezeshkian’s comments mark Iran’s first formal rejection of the US call for negotiations.

Since Trump returned to the White House, his administration has consistently said that Iran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons and they have previously warned that military action is on the table should Iran reject Trump’s outreach.

Pezeshkian’s remarks now help set the stage for a further rise in tensions between Tehran and Washington over the country’s nuclear program.

Iran has long maintained that its program is for peaceful use, but Iranian officials have also threatened to pursue a weapon as tensions amid a growing standoff with the United States over sanctions and renewed bombing in the Gaza Strip following the collapse of a cease-fire in Israel’s war against Iran-backed Hamas, which is deemed a terrorist organization by the United States and the EU.

A report in February by the UN’s nuclear watchdog said that Iran has accelerated its production of near weapons-grade uranium.

An Emirati delegation delivered a letter to Tehran from Trump proposing nuclear talks with the United States earlier this month, but hours before it arrived Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had already dismissed the prospect of talks with the Trump administration.

Similar comments were made by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi on March 27 when he said that Tehran had sent a formal written response to Trump via Oman which maintained that Iran will not hold direct negotiations as long as Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign is in effect.

“This official response includes a letter in which our position regarding the current situation and Mr. Trump's letter has been fully explained to the other party,” Araqchi said.

In his televised comments, Pezeshkian offered the most direct acknowledgement yet that Tehran has rejected direct talks, although he left the door open for indirect negotiations with the United States and trust-building efforts.

“We don’t avoid talks; it’s the breach of promises that has caused issues for us so far,” Pezeshkian said. “They must prove that they can build trust,” he said, referring to the United States.

Iran’s economy has been reeling from years of sanctions, particularly after Trump, in his first term, pulled the United States out of a landmark nuclear deal with Iran and reimposed sanctions.

Tehran is looking to find ways to ease those sanctions or have them removed entirely, but the public rejection of Trump’s letter could lead to new pressure from Washington and other powers who are worried about Iran's nuclear program.

More sanctions could also be coming if Tehran doesn't reach an agreement.

With the 2015 nuclear deal set to formally expire in October 2025, world powers that are still part of the pact have only have a few months before they lose the ability to reimpose UN sanctions on Iran.

With reporting by the Associated Press

Iran said it has given a "restrained" response to a letter by US President Donald Trump proposing direct talks over a new nuclear deal, as Tehran continues to insist on indirect negotiations.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on March 27 that Iran delivered its formal written response to Trump via Oman, maintaining that Tehran will not hold direct negotiations as long as Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign is in effect.

"This official response includes a letter in which our position regarding the current situation and Mr. Trump's letter has been fully explained to the other party," Araqchi said.

Trump’s letter was delivered to Iran by an Emirati official on March 12. Some observers have argued that Iran’s decision to reply via Oman was due to concerns over the relationship between the United Arab Emirates and Israel.

Others, however, have pointed to Trump’s rapport with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying that Israel will be made aware of the contents of Iran’s letter by Washington.

Reports say Trump’s letter included a proposal for direct negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program and threats that failure to reach a deal would have severe consequences. Washington has not ruled out air strikes against Iran’s nuclear program.

Indirect Talks A No-Go

Ali Shamkhani, a top adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Tehran’s response was “restrained.”

“It has been said in the letter that Iran is ready for indirect negotiations and if talks are held on equal footing, there is readiness to take further steps to negotiate,” said Shamkhani, a former national-security adviser.

Ali Vaez, Iran Program director at the International Crisis Group, says Tehran’s insistence on indirect talks will not go down well in Washington because Trump cares about the optics of face-to-face negotiations.

“Trump has no interest in indirect negotiations,” Vaez told RFE/RL’s Radio Farda. “Any indirect talks through mediators, no matter how good they progress, will be vulnerable.”

Hossein Mousavian, a former Iranian ambassador to Germany, wrote on X that he believes Iran delivered “an ambiguous response” and “addressed all the key points in Trump’s letter.”

Vaez, however, criticized Iran’s negotiation tactics, arguing that decision-makers in Tehran “have no understanding” of how Trump operates.

“You cannot be ambiguous with Trump and his representatives. This type of diplomacy doesn’t work with this administration,” he said, adding that Iran needs to table a clear proposal for direct talks.

“Iran’s approach is a waste of time, and in the worst-case scenario, it’ll bring us to a dead-end where you can no longer have a peaceful resolution,” Vaez said.

The Islamic republic insists its nuclear program is peaceful, but there have been growing calls among hard-liners to weaponize it.

Trump pulled the United States out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran during his first term in office, arguing that it did not go far enough to rein in Iran's threat, such as restricting its missile program and ending support for its regional proxies.

Iran says it is willing to talk to lift US sanctions, but it has categorically ruled out talks over the missile program and regional activities.

With reporting by Elaheh Ravanshad of RFE/RL's Radio Farda

Kourosh Sehati was working for the UK-based Iran International TV station when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Now, the broadcast journalist aims to fight on the front lines in Ukraine, the Eastern European country he calls his “second home.”

Sehati is the first known Iranian to apply to join Ukraine’s Foreign Legion, a military unit of the armed forces composed of foreign volunteers. The Foreign Legion has not yet approved his application.

In an interview with RFE/RL’s Radio Farda, Sehati said he wanted to defend Ukraine against what he called “the club of dictators and invaders.”

That was a reference, he said, to Russian President Vladimir Putin and his key allies, including Iran’s clerical rulers, the Belarusian authoritarian leader Aleksandr Lukashenko, as well as North Korea and China.

The 46-year-old’s decision to fight in Ukraine was also deeply personal.

“I have an attachment to Ukraine because my wife is Ukrainian and our kids are half Ukrainian,” he told Radio Farda, adding that his family lives in London.

Sehati announced his decision to fight in Ukraine on March 18, writing on X that he had enlisted to “fight the criminal Putin and his backers.”

Russia 'Hurt' Iran

Beyond his personal ties to Ukraine, Sehati’s opposition to Moscow is rooted in Iran’s historical grievances against Russia.

“Russia has hurt Iran a lot over the last 200 years,” said Sehati, who worked for Voice of America’s Persian Service and holds US citizenship.

Persia and tsarist Russia fought a series of wars in the 19th century, culminating in Tehran ceding much of the Caucasus to Moscow.

The Russian Empire also vied for control of Iran’s natural resources and occupied Iranian territory.

In the mid-1940s, the Soviet Union supported short-lived ethnic Kurdish and Azeri republics in northwestern Iran. Although the republics were swiftly dismantled, they contributed to ethnic tensions that persist to this day.

Not All Iranians Support The Islamic Republic

Since the start of Russia’s war in Ukraine, Iran has supplied Moscow with drones that have been used to strike Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.

While both Tehran and Moscow deny it, there is substantial evidence suggesting otherwise. There are also growing concerns that Iran could provide Russia with missiles for use in Ukraine.

Sehati said one of his motivations for enlisting was to challenge perceptions about Iranians.

“I’m trying to send a message of solidarity between Iranians and Ukrainians so that Ukrainians don’t associate Iranians with the Islamic republic’s actions,” he said.

A rights activist who was arrested several times for his political activities, Sehati fled Iran to Turkey in 2004. He was granted the status of political refugee and later moved to the United States.

Not Murder, But Self-Defense

Sehati was 10 when the Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988 and has no prior combat experience beyond the two-year mandatory military service he completed in Iran.

Sehati said he is looking forward to receiving "professional training" and admitted he has never killed anyone in battle. But he is mentally prepared.

“It’s like when someone breaks into your home with a weapon and tries to attack you. What do you do?” Sehati said. “Defending yourself is legitimate self-defense, not murder.”

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Kourosh Sehati was on the frontlines and receiving professional training. Sehati has confirmed that he has not been deployed and has not yet received any training. According to a statement from the press service of the International Legion of Defense of Ukraine, his application to join the force has not yet been approved.