“In the end, cooler heads prevailed – at least for now,” said North America Correspondent Anthony Zurcher on BBC News. After Donald Trump’s threats to launch attacks on Iran that would wipe out the “whole civilisation” in the country, both countries agreed a two-week ceasefire.

The President has since claimed that this could lead to a “Golden Age of the Middle East!!!”, while Vice-President J. D. Vance called the ceasefire a “fragile truce”.

As peace talks are expected to take place in Pakistan, both sides have claimed the ascendancy, though uncertainty surrounding key elements of the agreement, such as the Strait of Hormuz and Iranian nuclear capabilities, have left many sceptical of continued peace.

What did the commentators say?

This ceasefire move is “check, not checkmate”, said Jonathan Sacerdoti in The Spectator. In fact, we shouldn’t even consider this a proper ceasefire; it is merely a “fragile” and “conditional” “pause” in the conflict, which is “already under strain”.

“Beneath the surface, fundamental disagreements persist” in a logistical sense. There has been “no clearly defined start time” and “key uncertainties” remain. The proposed 10-point plan issued by Iran contains “discrepancies” between its Farsi and English versions, “most notably” over the state of uranium enrichment, as well as ambiguity surrounding movement through the Strait of Hormuz. “If this is the Third World War, it is not over.”

“It’s TACO Tuesday!”, said David Charter in The Times, using the Trump Always Chickens Out acronym coined last year during Trump’s “on-off tariff threats”. Even if the ceasefire holds, the US has “left in place a cadre of battle-scarred leaders, no doubt harbouring thoughts of revenge”.

As “king of the ultimatum”, Trump has “played fast and loose in pursuit of his goals”, isolating himself from “shocked” allies, who are now “on their guard” more than ever before. The “reckless” flip-flopping could have “far-reaching consequences for America’s standing in the world”. On the world stage, countries may come to fear America’s “increasingly unpredictable behaviour” more than its “terrifying” military might.

“Both sides have good reason to hope the talks succeed, despite the obstacles,” said The Economist. For the US, the war is “deeply unpopular at home”, and Trump is “keen to have it finished” before his mid-May summit with Xi Jinping in China. “For Iran, renewed fighting would be catastrophic,” with America and Israel expected to continue striking key economic assets. The only outlier may be Israel, which maintained that the ceasefire does not include Lebanon.

“Diplomatic jujitsu” will be required to bridge the gap between the views of a final peace agreement held by Iran and the US, said David E. Sanger in The New York Times. It is hard to imagine that a settlement between the nations could be reached in “two years, much less two weeks”. Neither Trump’s “tactic of escalating his rhetoric to astronomical levels” or the “down-to-the-wire” negotiations have resolved the “fundamental issues that led to the war”. It took the Obama administration two-and-a-half years to negotiate the 2015 nuclear accord – which Trump tore up in 2018 – “and that was in peacetime”. Notwithstanding, “this negotiation will be held under the sword of a possible resumption of hostilities.”

The last-minute ceasefire is “in theory, a victory for real-estate geopolitics”, said Senior Foreign Correspondent Adrian Blomfield in The Telegraph. However, “as any real estate agent knows”, the devil is in the detail, and “closer inspection suggests Mr Trump’s triumph may not be quite as unalloyed as he claims”. Iran’s position is stronger than before the war, and has now “agreed to allow shipping through the chokepoint”, but “on its own terms and has not relinquished its claim to control it”. The country may have agreed to a ceasefire, but its negotiating position, “rhetorically at least, is now more hardline than before the war began”.

What next?

“What is certain is that the clock has been reset yet again,” said Sacerdoti in The Spectator. Providing the ceasefire holds, the “decisive moment” will come in two weeks’ time, when the “temporary pause” ends and the “question of whether it can be extended, or gives way to renewed fighting, will be answered”.

“The talks in Islamabad will be complicated, to say the least,” said The Economist. Significant work needs to be done, as the positions of both sides “could not be further apart”. “If both sides stick to their current positions, the talks could end up at the same impasse they reached just before the war in February.”

If talks were to fail, we would likely see an “uneasy return to the status quo”. Iran would face American sanctions and the continued “threat of further American strikes”, as well as remaining a “menace” in the Gulf region, and have “strong motivation to build a bomb”. “That would be a bad outcome for everyone: a weakened, hostile regime; an impoverished Iran; and a lingering threat to the global economy.”

What happened

President Donald Trump’s two main envoys, his friend Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner, Tuesday held back-to-back negotiations in Geneva aimed at securing a nuclear deal with Iran and an end to Russia’s war in Ukraine. The indirect talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, mediated by Oman, were “more constructive” than previous talks and made “good progress” toward a “clear path ahead,” Araghchi told Iranian TV.

Who said what

Sending Witkoff and Kushner to solve two entrenched conflicts “in a single day in Geneva” has “raised questions not only about whether they are overstretched and outmatched, but about their serious prospects for resolving either of the twin crises,” Reuters said. Trump’s “diplomacy without diplomats” gambit, The New York Times said, was a “stark example” of his “conviction that the State Department and the National Security Council, the two institutions that have coordinated negotiations over global crises for nearly 80 years, are best left on the sidelines.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who heads both organizations, was not involved in Tuesday’s shuttle diplomacy.

“Some countries really welcome this informal structure” of transactional deal-making, said Asli Aydintasbas of the Brookings Institution, per the Times. But “I have not seen anyone hugely impressed with the diplomatic skills of the current team.” Having “Witkoff and Kushner tasked with resolving all the world’s problems is, frankly, a shocking reality,” Mohanad Hage-Ali of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut told Reuters.

What next?

The U.S.-Russian-Ukrainian talks are continuing for a second day, but “expectations were low for a breakthrough,” Reuters said. Today’s talks, the Times said, “were expected to focus on the fate of Ukrainian-held territory” that “Moscow wants under its control as the price for ending the war.”

President Donald Trump’s consistent prodding of Iran hasn’t developed into armed conflict, but some foreign analysts are fearful it could be on the horizon. The White House has been pressuring Iran over its nuclear program and recently dispatched a second aircraft carrier to the Middle East as military tensions heighten. Despite this, other experts say the prospect of war with Iran remains unlikely.

What did the commentators say?

Trump has long hinted at the idea of a strike against Iran, and his administration did attack the country’s alleged nuclear weapons armaments in 2025. But White House officials have “discovered that the U.S. could not conduct a major offensive as quickly as they had hoped without real risks to American forces, support from allies, and regional stability,” said The Atlantic. The administration also doesn’t appear to have a plan of attack, as it has “yet to outline to military commanders what it would want to achieve through strikes.”

This likely suggests that the “use of force is not imminent” in Iran, said The Atlantic. Trump has “no good options when it comes to using force,” said CNBC, largely because the U.S. does not have the troop presence built up near Iran to mount a full-on war. While American forces in the region are growing, they are “not adequate to support a significant long-term military operation in Iran which would be necessary to achieve any major military objective,” said Alireza Ahmadi, an executive fellow at the Geneva Center for Security Policy, to CNBC.

But Trump has never shied away from conflict, and things could continue to devolve if negotiations between the U.S. and Iran break down. If he did decide to go to war, or even launch a targeted attack, it would be “something much larger, likely” than “what the Israelis did in the 12-day war,” retired U.S. Army Gen. Jack Keane said on “The Cats Roundtable” radio show. The conflict could create “something that would be quite formidable, that would put the regime clearly on a pathway to regime collapse.”

What next?

Despite “ongoing diplomacy to ease tensions with Iran,” said Al Jazeera, the Trump administration appears to be moving ahead with shoring up its Middle East forces. Recent moves by the White House “put two carriers and their accompanying warships in the region.” This occurred just hours after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Trump in Washington, D.C., and “reaffirmed his preference for a diplomatic deal with Iran.” Trump “insisted that negotiations with Iran continue to see whether or not a Deal can be consummated,” the president wrote on social media.

Diplomatic negotiations have largely been positive, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said. But Iran also temporarily closed the Strait of Hormuz to “conduct military drills in the waterway,” causing concern since the “strait is the world's most vital oil export route,” said Reuters. And Iran may already be resigned to the fact that a U.S. attack is coming. The country is “preparing for the possibility” of an offensive move by the U.S., The Jerusalem Post reported; satellite images have shown a “larger push to create defensive layers to [Iran’s] nuclear and ballistic missile facilities,” said Jonathan Hackett, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, to the Post. This is likely in “anticipation of a possible U.S. strike.”

The next seven days are “make or break” for avoiding conflict between Iran and the US, said Sky News international affairs editor Dominic Waghorn. “Fingers are on the trigger and one misstep could lead to repercussions which will be felt beyond the Middle East.”

The US and Iran are set for diplomatic talks over a nuclear deal in Istanbul on Friday, along with counterparts from the Middle East including Turkey, Qatar and Egypt. Amid ongoing internal protests in Iran, and Donald Trump’s “massive armada” amassing off the coast, “the region is heading for a crunchpoint” if a deal cannot be reached.

What did the commentators say?

Middle Eastern diplomats are making “strenuous efforts” to “narrow the gaps” between Tehran and Washington, said The Washington Post. Previous talks have been frosty and “indirect”. If the proposed talks go ahead, the presence of many of the region’s foreign ministers “may help pave the way to direct negotiations between the US and Iranian envoys”.

The Iranian regime is confronting a “strategic reality it has never faced before”, said Sanam Vakil, director of Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa programme, in The Guardian. Its survival can no longer be taken for granted, with a “simultaneous crisis of domestic legitimacy and a credible threat of external attack” leaving it more vulnerable than ever before. Internally, it has suffered “economic decline, corruption, currency collapse and mass emigration”, and internationally its “regional projection of power has crumbled”. “And its revolutionary ideology, once a tool for mobilisation, now leaves it increasingly isolated in a region that has grown tired of ideological conflict.”

Even though Trump’s intentions towards Iran may be “muddied”, “clearly the momentum is heading for war”, said Chris Hughes in The Mirror. The president will consider only limited strikes, or no attack at all, if he forces Iran to “abandon its nuclear ambitions”. As his rhetoric has escalated, he has “backed himself into having to make a big decision”, and now has dwindling room to “ramp up pressure”. For spectators, it is a “nail-biting” time, but ultimately “it is hard to imagine so many hundreds of billions of pounds worth of killer machinery and personnel being sent to the Middle East without an offensive happening.”

Despite Trump’s “familiar language of escalation”, we should view recent developments as “brinkmanship”, rather than “preparation for war”, said Bamo Nouri in The Conversation. A war with Iran “would not be swift, cheap or decisive”, and any major attack could “backfire politically” at home, seen as breaking his campaign promise to scale back US intervention overseas and end the “forever wars”.

What next?

A breakdown of negotiations would have “terrible ramifications for both countries, the region and the world”, said Amin Saikal, an emeritus professor of Middle Eastern Studies, on The Conversation. Trump’s end goal may indeed be regime change, but the regime has so far always “found a way to work through challenges and threats to their existence”, and its security forces remain “loyal and solidly behind the leadership”.

There are three possible outcomes, all of which are “dangerous for the Iranian people”, said Vakil in The Guardian. A “forced compromise”, which would appear to Iran’s people as a “bargain for the sake of the regime’s survival”; a “controlled war” resulting in “prolonged instability”; and most concerningly, a total breakdown.

An “uncontrolled collapse”, could turn Iran into a “long-term source of instability”, and pave the way for a regime “more perilous” than the one it replaces. If Trump and President Masoud Pezeshkian fail to find common ground, “there are no real diplomatic brakes left”.

What happened

Israel believes some of Iran's enriched uranium survived last month's U.S. and Israeli airstrikes, and "may be accessible to Iranian nuclear engineers," according to The New York Times, citing an unnamed senior Israeli official. But the uranium is likely buried deep under rubble, the official said in a briefing for reporters late Wednesday.

Who said what

"As President Trump has said many times," the bunker-busting bombs dropped on Iran's enrichment sites "obliterated" the country's nuclear facilities, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said Thursday. The "question" now, said the Times, is how long it would take Iran to rebuild those capabilities, "especially after the top scientists in their nuclear program were targeted and killed."

Reaching the uranium "would take a very difficult recovery effort," The Associated Press said. And the Israeli official "said any attempts by Iran" to do so "would almost certainly be detected — and there would be time to attack the facilities again," said the Times.

What next?

The only way to confirm the true scale of the damage would be for Iran to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect its facilities, an official from the UN nuclear watchdog told the AP. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian last week suspended cooperation with the agency.

What happened

The chief United Nations nuclear inspector, Rafael Grossi, told CBS News Sunday that Iran could be enriching uranium again in a "matter of months." President Donald Trump, meanwhile, repeated on Fox News his initial assertion that Tehran's nuclear program was "obliterated like nobody's ever seen before," arguing that the bunker-buster bomb strikes he had ordered a week earlier "meant the end to their nuclear ambitions, at least for a period of time."

Who said what

Trump has been "furious about news coverage that has deviated from his claims about the bombing mission," especially reporting on a Defense Intelligence Agency initial damage verdict similar to Grossi's, The Washington Post said. In a new piece of "preliminary information" undercutting Trump's narrative, an intercepted communication recorded Iranian officials privately wondering why the U.S. attack was "not as destructive and extensive as they had anticipated," four U.S. officials familiar with the classified intelligence told the Post.

Former U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan, who helped negotiate the 2015 Iran nuclear deal Trump scrapped, said Sunday that a new deal was critical. He said it was likely Iran still retained "some stockpiles of enriched uranium" and centrifuges and called for a "full battle-damage" assessment "unfiltered from political interference."

What next?

Western governments are "scrambling to determine what's become" of Iran's supply of enriched uranium, Reuters said. Trump told Fox News he believed it was destroyed in the strike, while Grossi confirmed that Iran told his International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors it had planned to safeguard some of its nuclear materials, presumably including highly enriched uranium, before the U.S. attack.

What happened

President Donald Trump Wednesday doubled down on his initial assertion that Saturday's U.S. airstrikes had "totally obliterated" Iran's nuclear program. He dismissed a preliminary assessment from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency that the bunker-buster bombs had set back Iran's program by mere months and said the news organizations that reported it were "scum." The U.S. and Iran will hold talks "next week," Trump said, but "I don't think it's that necessary" to sign an agreement because "the war is done" and "we destroyed the nuclear."

Who said what

Trump is "going to extraordinary lengths to defend his claim" about Iran's "obliterated" nuclear program, "determined to cement the operation as a defining victory of his presidency," Axios said. The White House cited statements from Israel, an Iranian official and CIA Director John Ratcliffe saying the program was severely damaged, but "those comments fell short of Trump's hyperbole," The Associated Press said.

The dispute will likely "bedevil U.S. intelligence analysis and experts for many months" as they undertake the "slow and difficult process" of determining the full extent of the damage, The Wall Street Journal said. The lack of "reliable conclusions," the AP said, leaves a "breeding ground for competing claims that could determine how American voters view Trump’s risky decision to join Israel's attacks on Iran."

What next?

The Trump administration's "tour to convince lawmakers and Americans of the mission's success" continues Thursday with a news conference at the Pentagon and a classified Senate briefing on the attack, The Washington Post said. But the White House "plans to limit classified intelligence sharing with Congress after leaks" of the DIA assessment, so the Senate briefing could be "contentious."

What happened

The U.S. bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday damaged but did not destroy core components of Tehran's nuclear program and likely only set it back by months, not years, according to an initial assessment from the Pentagon's intelligence arm, shared with CNN and other news organizations Tuesday. The assessment, if accurate, contradicted President Donald Trump's repeated claim that the "bunker buster" strikes he ordered had "completely and fully obliterated" the Iranian facilities at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.

Who said what

The Defense Intelligence Agency judged that "at least some of Iran's highly enriched uranium, necessary for creating a nuclear weapon, was moved" before the U.S. strikes "and survived," The Associated Press said, and that Tehran's "centrifuges, which are required to further enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels, are largely intact." The DIA assessment "is that the U.S. set them back maybe a few months, tops," a person familiar with the report told CNN.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the DIA's "alleged 'assessment' is flat-out wrong" and was leaked to "demean" Trump. "Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration."

Trump "started using the word 'obliterated' before he received his first battle damage report" and has "closely monitored which members of his administration have used the same language," The New York Times said. Trump "had been eager to celebrate his success" at a NATO summit that started last night in the Netherlands, but his "upbeat demeanor" from the "fragile ceasefire" he cajoled and cursed Israel and Iran into accepting "crumbled" after the "damaging" intelligence findings became public.

What next?

The damage assessment by the DIA and other spy agencies "is ongoing, and could change as more intelligence becomes available," CNN said. The White House canceled classified top-level House and Senate briefings on the Iran strike Tuesday and rescheduled them for later this week, fueling speculation about the effectiveness of the attack. "They don't delay briefings that have good news," Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) told The Washington Post.

What happened

President Donald Trump said Sunday night that the U.S. bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday resulted in the "obliteration" of Tehran's nuclear program. The U.S. military and the United Nations said it was too soon to assess the damage. Vice President J.D. Vance insisted the U.S. was "not at war with Iran," just "Iran's nuclear program," and he and other Cabinet officials stated on TV that the Trump administration was not aiming for "regime change." But Trump Sunday night said toppling the "current Iranian regime" was certainly on the table.

Who said what

The Trump administration's "conflicting" messages about the scope of U.S. involvement "highlights the difficulty" it faces as it "tries to navigate the fallout" from "its massive strike on Iran" and "mollify the factions of the MAGA base" opposed to joining Israel's war, Politico said. This is a "risky moment for Trump," The Associated Press said, especially as he has long "belittled his predecessors for tying up America in 'stupid wars'" in the Middle East.

Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday that initial assessments indicated "extremely severe damage and destruction" at the three nuclear facilities — Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan — hit by 30,000-pound U.S. "bunker-buster" bombs and Tomahawk missiles. But Rafael Grossi, the head of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, said that "at this time, no one, including the IAEA, is in a position to assess the underground damage" at the sites.

U.S. officials also "conceded they did not know the whereabouts of Iran's supply of near-bomb-grade uranium," The New York Times said. A senior Iranian official told Reuters that the highly enriched uranium had been moved to undisclosed locations before the attack, a claim deemed probably true by outside experts and Israeli officials and bolstered by satellite photos.

What next?

At an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council Sunday, Iran's ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani said the U.S. had "recklessly chosen to sacrifice its own security merely to safeguard" Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Tehran's military will decide the "timing, nature and scale of Iran's proportionate response." U.S. intelligence officials had "already detected signs that Iran-backed militias were preparing to attack U.S. bases in Iraq, and possibly Syria," the Times said.

As Donald Trump keeps the world waiting, experts believe a US attack on Iran could pull Washington into a conflict even more perilous and lengthy than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some Iranian officials have said that Tehran has already prepared itself for a "full-blown, drawn-out war", said CNN, a military confrontation that would then dominate – and possibly outlast – Trump's presidency.

Trump's own camp is divided over whether to launch the US air force's "bunker buster" (or Ordnance Penetrator) missiles. They are the only weapons with the capability of hitting Fordow, Iran's most critical nuclear site, a uranium enrichment facility that's buried in a mountain.

Israel is dominating the air space over Iran but destroying Iran's nuclear capability requires "the kind of air attack that only the US air force can execute", said The New York Times. But US involvement could push Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to double down and start producing – and possibly even using – nuclear bombs.

What did the commentators say?

Escalation could happen quickly. "Any attack by the US will lead to a full-scale attack by the Iranians against US bases in the region," Trita Parsi, from the Quincy Institute foreign policy think tank in Washington, told CNN.

These bases are within easier missile reach of Iran than the targets that it is attempting to hit in Israel. If Americans are killed, or even injured, the US president will be under pressure to exact revenge.

"Soon enough, the only targets left for Washington to hit would be the Iranian regime's leaders, and the US would again go into the regime-change business," wrote former US ambassador to Israel Daniel C. Kurtzer and former National Security Council member Steven N. Simon on Foreign Affairs.

Unable to defeat Israel and the US through outright firepower, Iran would mobilise what remains of its proxies across Iraq, Yemen and Syria and try to exhaust its enemies in a war of attrition, as it did against Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the 1980s.

Nowadays, said Parsi, it would use cyberwarfare, drones and short-range missile attacks on oil tankers, which would make transportation in the Persian Gulf difficult, thereby driving up the price of oil, a way to hurt Trump at home. "The Iranian strategy may end up being just to try to sustain themselves, strike back as much as they can, and hope that Trump eventually tries to cut the war short, as he did in Yemen," Parsi said. Last month, the US signed a ceasefire deal with Yemen's Iran-backed Houthi rebels.

Tehran could also try to shut down trade and shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandab Strait, both global maritime chokepoints. The US could retaliate by bombing Iran's own oil industry, but that would make the "oil shock to the global economy even more severe", said Max Boot in The Washington Post.

What next?

At this week's G7 summit in Canada, French president Emmanuel Macron cautioned against "regime change with no plan" and pointed to Iraq in 2003 and the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya in 2011 as cautionary examples.

"As Tony Blair was warned by Iraq experts in 2002 – but decided to ignore – the removal of a longstanding authoritarian government unleashes unpredictable suppressed forces," said The Guardian. Disagreeing with Macron, Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, said: "We are dealing with a terrorist regime both internally and externally. It would be good if this regime came to an end."

If Iran's supreme leader were to be toppled, the country, which is made up of a mixture of ethnicities, religions, politics and incomes, could end up divided in a sort of Balkanisation. "Even now, as the regime totters, the uncertainty about what may come next may be its best chance of survival."

Potential replacements for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei include Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran's last monarch, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was overthrown during the 1979 revolution. He left Iran at the age of 17 but this week has been on US TV saying: "We see a leader who is hiding in a bunker like a rat. I have stepped in to lead this campaign at the behest of my compatriots. I have a plan for Iran's future and recovery."

Last Thursday night, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard's aerospace unit, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, held an emergency meeting at a military base in Tehran.

Hajizadeh and his officials had been warned not to congregate in one place, said Steve Bloomfield in The Observer, owing to the risk of an imminent Israeli attack, but they assumed that any raid would still be days off. It was a fatal miscalculation.

Their bunker was one of dozens of sites targeted that night by Israeli jets, which eviscerated the top ranks of Iran's armed forces and killed some of its leading nuclear experts. Israel has since continued to pummel the country's military and nuclear sites, along with energy infrastructure. Iran has responded by firing ballistic missiles at Israel, a few of which have penetrated its Iron Dome defences, killing dozens of people.

Donald Trump, who had previously stressed that the US was not involved, urged Iranians to evacuate Tehran on Tuesday, and demanded the regime's "unconditional surrender". Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei insisted Iran would never compromise with Israel, and threatened the US with "irreparable damage".

How did Israel plan the attack on Iran?

Israel's strike on Iran's nuclear and missile programmes was years in the planning, said The Times of Israel. The operation – dubbed "Rising Lion" – involved over 200 aircraft in the opening strikes, around two-thirds of the country's combat air force. Israel had spent months smuggling precision weapons systems and commandos into Iran. Mossad agents had set up a secret drone base near Tehran. These assets enabled Israel to take out Iranian air defences and hit missile launchers as they emerged from shelters, protecting Israeli pilots and helping them establish complete dominance of the skies over Iran.

Why did Israel attack now?

The attack was carefully timed by Israel, said Lina Khatib in Prospect. "Never in its history has the Islamic Republic been weaker." Its proxy forces in Gaza and Lebanon – Hamas and Hezbollah – have both been defanged, and the fall of the Assad regime in Syria has deprived it of a key ally. Even before last week, its air defences were in a parlous state owing to earlier Israeli strikes.

Trump had set a 60-day deadline for Iran to accept a nuclear deal presented by the US. That ran out last Thursday, giving Israel a perfect "opportunity to go for the jugular". "Ever the opportunist", Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu seized his chance, said The Guardian. He has long wanted to attack Iran, and doing so now had the added bonus of bolstering his weak position at home. You can hardly blame Netanyahu for wanting to stop Tehran's "mad mullahs" from getting their hands on a nuclear weapon, said Paul Baldwin in the Daily Express. "Handwringers" like Keir Starmer may witter about the need for de-escalation, but "they all know Israel has done them and the world a favour".

Will Israel succeed?

Israel may have felt that it had no choice but to act, said The Economist, but the all-out offensive is nevertheless "a huge gamble". Launched without overt US backing, it could have all sorts of unpredictable regional and global consequences. And there's no guarantee that it will even succeed. Israeli military strikes did manage to halt the nuclear weapons programmes of both Iraq and Syria – in 1981 and 2007 respectively – but Iran's is "much more advanced and dispersed than those ever were".

It has mastered the process of enrichment and its programme may just start again in the future in a more "virulent" form. In the meantime, Israel has no clear exit strategy from this war unless the Iranian regime falls or the US gets involved with its superior bunker-busting bombs. A protracted conflict will be hard for either side to sustain, said James Shotter in the FT. While Iran is burning through its supplies of missiles, Israel's stocks of interceptors are also limited.

What will happen next?

One possibility, said Michael Burleigh in The i Paper, is that Tehran, after some face-saving strikes on Israel, accepts defeat and returns to the negotiating table with the US.

Alternatively, it may lash out in desperation and seek to block the Straits of Hormuz, choking global trade. But the conflict may just drag on at a lower level, in a "tit-for-tat forever war".

Many in Washington fear that Trump may, as he has hinted, join the bombing campaign in an effort to kill off Iran's nuclear programme once and for all, said Gideon Rachman in the FT. It would be a dangerous move. Trump promised to be a peacemaker and cut deals. Only last month, in a speech in Riyadh, he "scorned the idea that outsiders can bring positive change to the Middle East by force". It would be a "supreme irony" if he found himself "dragged into another war for regime change in the Middle East".

As he headed off for this week's G7 summit in Canada, where rapidly growing tensions in the Middle East look set to dominate the agenda, Keir Starmer continued to call for de-escalation between Israel and Iran.

Tit-for-tat strikes are now in their fourth day, with little sign of either side being willing to back down. So "the risk of this operation unleashing an all-out regional war – and one that could even drag in Britain – looks higher than ever", said The Telegraph.

The PM has refused to rule out defending Israel from Iranian strikes, despite a warning from Tehran that doing so could lead to British bases in the region being targeted. A No. 10 spokesperson did, however, say that the UK would not support efforts aimed at regime change in Iran.

What did the commentators say?

The difficulty for the UK is that Israel is "mostly a strategic liability", said The Independent, "but it's also a very close ally in stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon".

"Helping Israel to stop the erratic and malevolent Iranian regime from making an atomic bomb is smart." But "being seen to do so, and protecting Israel against the consequences of its endeavours, is not."

The UK government is "trying to walk a tightrope" in its relations with Israel, said Bloomberg. While keen to "remain aligned with the US on security matters and uphold the UK's backing of Israel against Iranian threats", Starmer also faces "internal pressure" from his own party to take a tougher stance against Israel's actions in Gaza.

Relations between the two countries reached a new low last week after Britain sanctioned two hardline Israeli government ministers for repeatedly "inciting violence against Palestinian communities".

The Foreign Office on Sunday advised Britons against travelling to Israel or the occupied Palestinian territories. It was "one of the UK government's most severe warnings in recent memory", said The Guardian, "reflecting the growing threat to foreign nationals".

At the same time, the UK has also sent additional RAF Typhoon jets and refuelling aircraft to the region in what Chancellor Rachel Reeves called a "precautionary" move. "It does not mean that we are at war," she told Sky News, though she did say the government would act to protect British assets and "potentially" support its allies.

While the UK is "not currently planning to take part in defending Israel from Iranian counter-attacks", said The Telegraph, "Iran's allusion to Western 'supporters' suggests that British military bases in the region could also be considered legitimate targets by Tehran as it draws up plans for retaliation".

What next?

There is still a role Britain can play in the conflict "without risking the reputational damage" of direct military assistance to Israel, said The Independent.

Chief among these would be assisting in the defence of US military assets close to Iran in the Persian Gulf, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman, which are vulnerable to attack. In the event of this, UK intervention could be justified under Article 5 of the Nato treaty.

This would also set a precedent for other conflict hotspots, most notably in Ukraine, while avoiding the "geopolitical dirty linen".

But even if the UK does manage to stay out of direct involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict, British citizens could still feel the impact. There are fears that higher oil prices could lead to inflation and increased energy costs – as happened following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Reeves told the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg that the government will do "everything in its power" to protect people in the UK from knock-on economic effects of a regional conflict.

Perhaps the most surprising thing about Israel's aerial assault on Iranian military targets is how unsurprising Thursday night's bombardment may have been. After years of pressure against Iran's embryonic nuclear program and threats of violence by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the attack is as much a culmination of longstanding antagonism as it is a new and sudden development. Now, as a clearer picture of this long-anticipated strike emerges, military experts have also begun looking ahead.

With regional tensions already high after years of war in Gaza, violence in Lebanon and revolution in Syria, Israel's latest assault may lead the Middle East into further turmoil. And a global order already roiled by President Donald Trump may struggle to respond to this latest disruption.

What did the commentators say?

In the wake of Israel's attack, it is "likely" that Iran will make a "desperate run to nuclear breakout," said former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro at Foreign Affairs. Trump, in turn, will be "faced with a decision" that will "split his advisers and political base" — whether to "intervene militarily" after having spent years touting American isolationism. Trump claimed he "not only knew about the strikes" beforehand, but that they are being used to "coerce the Iranians into his preferred bargaining position" for nuclear treaty talks with the U.S., said Responsible Statecraft.

"More conventional missile and drone attacks are expected" from Iran, said the Financial Times. Iran could also "turn to asymmetric warfare" such as closing the Strait of Hormuz, which it has threatened to do in the past. Before this week's attack, White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff warned Republican senators that Iran could "unleash a mass casualty response" to any Israeli attack, said Axios. He highlighted concerns that "Israel's air defenses would not be able to handle an Iranian response involving hundreds of missiles."

With a nuclear Iran "unacceptable" and a permanent negotiated nuclear deal "highly unlikely," a military assault on Tehran was the "only viable option left," said Matthew Kroenig, the vice president and senior director of the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. Crucially, Iran is left with "few good options" for retaliation, given its proxies are "degraded" and Israel's Iron Dome is able to "demonstrably defend" against missile attacks. As such, this "will de-escalate quickly, like Trump's strike on Qasem Soleimani during his first term."

What next?

Violence between Israel and Iran is "now likely to top the agenda" at the G-7 summit scheduled to begin this weekend in Canada, said the Financial Times. With foreign leverage over Israel "limited," the question becomes whether nations like Canada, Britain and France, typically critical of the Netanyahu government, will "support any defense of Israel against Iranian retaliation." Meanwhile, Israel is "going alone" against Iran, said Daniel Mouton, a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative. "Regardless" of what led Israel to launch its assault, the attack will ultimately "exacerbate preexisting tensions" between Israel and the United States.

For now, expect a "rapid cycle of escalation" between Israel and Iran, said CNBC. The attacks and drone counter-strikes that have electrified the skies above both nations are "probably still the opening salvo," said Firas Maksad, the managing director for the Middle East and North Africa practice at Eurasia Group. And even if the Iranian military "quickly backs down," said Shapiro at Foreign Affairs, Israel should still brace for an "ongoing series of asymmetric attacks, such as cyber operations and terrorist attacks against its embassies, travelers and businesses."

What happened

Israel attacked Tehran and Iranian nuclear facilities and missile sites early Friday morning, killing the country's three top military leaders and at least two leading nuclear scientists. Israeli officials said the attack, involving 200 warplanes that hit more than 100 targets, was a "preemptive" strike on Iran's nuclear program. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Israel "took unilateral action" and the U.S. was "not involved in strikes against Iran."

Who said what

Iranian state media confirmed the deaths of Maj. Gen. Mohammad Bagheri, the chief of staff of Iran's armed forces; Gen. Hossein Salami, top commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps; and deputy armed forces commander Gen. Gholamali Rashid. Israel's strike dealt a "major blow to Iran's chain of command," The New York Times said, and escalated fears that the "long-simmering tensions between the heavily armed rivals could explode into a full-blown regional war."

A spokesperson for Iran's armed forces said both Israel and the U.S. "must pay a very heavy price" and would "receive a very forceful slap." But the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, did not mention the U.S. in a later statement, saying only that Israel "should anticipate a harsh punishment" for opening its "wicked and blood-stained hand to commit a crime against our beloved country."

"Should Iran retaliate," The Washington Post said, "it was not immediately clear whether the U.S. would assist Israel's defense, including shooting down Iranian drones and missiles as it did twice last year." A U.S. official said that decision was "up to the president." Iran subsequently fired about 100 drones in retaliation, which Israel said it was starting to intercept.

What next?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a video statement that "this operation will continue for as many days as it takes" to "roll back the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival." U.S. intelligence does not share Israel's view that Iran is close to building a nuclear weapon, and President Donald Trump said Thursday he had told Netanyahu "I don't want them going in" while his administration was negotiating a nuclear deal with Tehran. Iran said Friday morning it will not participate in U.S. talks scheduled for Sunday.

Israel appears to be preparing a preemptive military attack on Iran, putting the entire Middle East region on high alert.

An attack by Israel, thought imminent by US and European officials, would derail the ongoing negotiations between Washington and Tehran to phase out Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Iran has threatened to retaliate with a counterattack not only on Israeli targets but also on American military bases in Iraq. "In case of any conflict, the US must leave the region because all its bases are within our range, and we will target all of them," said Iran's Defence Minister General Aziz Nasirzadeh.

What did the commentators say?

Iran's retaliatory plan is an "immediate counterattack" similar to its October 2024 firing of 200 ballistic missiles at Israel, which sent the entire population into bomb shelters, said The Times of Israel.

In a threat to Israel and the US, Tehran has "vowed to unleash an 'unprecedented response'", said Newsweek. A Houthi source also told the news site that the Iran-backed militant group is "at the highest level of preparedness for any possible American escalation" and warned that a broader conflict "will drag the entire region into the abyss of war".

Fear of provoking Iran's allies and proxy forces is a real deterrent to the US. Donald Trump's "America First" policy means he is wary of letting the US get dragged into an uncontained conflict in the Middle East and of seeing his nuclear talks with Iran branded a failure. Last month, Trump said that he had urged Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, not to strike Iran while Washington is pursuing negotiations with the Islamic regime.

But Israel might not be deterred. These threats come after months of rising tensions during which Netanyahu has "pressed Trump to seize on what Israel sees as a moment of Iranian vulnerability", said The New York Times.

The feeling in Israel has been that a unilateral strike on Iran without US support "would be unthinkable", said The Telegraph. Israel appears to have the military capability to undermine Tehran's nuclear programme, but only with US support could they be sure of profoundly damaging it.

The UN nuclear watchdog's board of governors recently found that Iran had broken its non-proliferation agreement for the first time in 20 years and a "damning" report from the International Atomic Energy Agency last week cited a general lack of "co-operation" from Iran and raised concerns over "secret activities and undeclared nuclear material". Those findings put Iran in a weaker position but intelligence chiefs worry that "Trump might still strike a 'soft' deal with Iran that does not guarantee the Jewish state's long-term security – in order to establish his legacy as a peacemaker".

Such a deal might be "weeks away", according to a former Israeli government official quoted by Middle East Eye. There is also "little the US can do to prevent Israel from unilaterally bombing Iran if it chooses to do so". However, Netanyahu would rather "share the political responsibility" of an attack on Iran with the US and will wait while that possibility still exists.

What next?

A sixth round of negotiations between the US and Iran is scheduled for this weekend in Oman but a deal does not appear imminent. President Trump has said that he will not accept any uranium enrichment by Iran, whereas Iran insists that its long-standing nuclear programme is intended only for peaceful purposes.

Trump initiated direct talks with Iran on his trip to the Middle East in May despite opposition from Israel, which remains sceptical of any potential deal with Iran and prefers to continue conducting what Netanyahu's office described as "countless overt and covert operations" to stunt the growth of Iran's nuclear programme.

Critics of the Israeli PM believe he is motivated to remain in a state of crisis to hold together his weakening coalition government until the next election, due by October 2026 at the latest. Most Israelis believe Netanyahu is primarily interested in remaining in power, said The Times of Israel, citing a recent poll. Asked what the PM believes is his main goal, 55% said staying in power, while 36% said returning the Israeli hostages held by Hamas in Gaza.

President Donald Trump's trip to the Middle East featured bombastic proclamations of deals done and progress made, even as the details for many of the president's talking points remain unclear. He returns home this week after the high-profile, high-stakes tour that had him visit multiple Arab nations on the first international trip of his second term in office. Replete with splashy photo-ops and a roster of notable cameos, Trump stopped in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, skipping typical stops in allied nations like Israel and Turkey.

'Economic investments' over 'geopolitical strategy'

Trump's tour was "marked by pomp, opulent receptions" and "announcements of business deals with wealthy gulf states," said The New York Times. The "stated focus" of the trip was "trade and investment," The Economist said. The multi-billion dollar deals debuting alongside regional leaders "make for good headlines," even if "large chunks turn out to be illusory." Saudi Arabia, for instance, is "probably serious" about its investments in AI and sports but "may be less committed" to the $140 billion arms deal that nevertheless gave the superlative-loving Trump a "chance to tout the 'largest defense sale' in history."

The "optics" of Trump's visits helped showcase the "larger-than-life opulence of the region's richest petro-states," said CNBC, while demonstrating the extent to which those same nations want to "deepen their ties with the U.S. and advance their own economic agendas." Trump's trip "centered around economic investments, rather than broader geopolitical strategy," said Forbes. That was particularly true in light of the region hosting "multiple new projects by Trump's family businesses" as well. Broadly, the trip suggested a "shift toward transactional, less ideologically driven partnerships" in the region under Trump, Newsweek said. Eschewing stops in Israel and Turkey, which is set to hold peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, Trump's trip showed that his "loftiest targets — resolving the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine — remain elusive," NBC News said.

'Fuzzy' math on Trump's investments claims

There is "some doubt" about whether the numbers touted by Trump regarding his various overseas deals are "realistic" given the oil market and "weaker revenue for crude-producing countries," CNBC said. Despite Trump's claims that he'd "secured more than $2 trillion in investment agreements" during his tour, "at least" half a dozen of the deals listed by the White House from this trip were announced "before Trump even took office," said The Washington Post. Even including those pre-existing agreements, the administration's claim of trillions in total deals involves "fuzzy" math that included announcements "made months before the trip." Many of the alleged agreement totals are "inflated" and "possible spending is counted as actual," said Justin Alexander, the director of Khalij Economics, to Reuters. Moreover, "most of the solid deals" heralded by Trump "would have happened irrespective of who was in the White House."

Trump "needs good headlines" lately, Al Jazeera said. "Tariffs are kicking in, the prices are going up," and Trump's promise to lower costs for Americans presents a "little bit of a problem" for the White House — hence the deal-touting when he returned from the Middle East.

President Trump is "well positioned to secure a lasting deal" with Iran on its nuclear program, said Ivo Daalder in Politico. Unfortunately, it may be "on Iran's terms." Since 2018, when Trump scrapped President Barack Obama's Iran nuclear deal, Tehran has been enriching uranium and now has a stockpile at 60 percent purity. At this point, it could jump to the 90 percent purity required for a bomb whenever it chooses, and that has alarmed Israel, which considers a nuclear Iran an existential threat. Israel was reportedly planning to bomb Iran's facilities, but Trump insisted on talks first, bombs second. The "carrots and sticks" approach has brought Iran to the negotiating table, and U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff has met twice with Iranian diplomats in the past two weeks. But whatever deal emerges is likely to be a near clone of Obama's pact, which Trump derided as "the worst deal in history." Critics of the original deal may again be left wanting "something more stringent."

A tougher agreement is still within reach, said Arash Azizi in The Atlantic. Iran is in a "weak, even humiliating position," with Israel having humbled Iranian proxy militias in Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon. Internal discontent over the ayatollahs' "political repression and economic mismanagement" has swelled, and voices favoring engagement with the U.S. are gaining strength. There's hope Iran could accept "real concessions" that create a "more enduring" check on its nuclear ambitions.

Don't count on it, said Bret Stephens in The New York Times. Iran "has been playing Western diplomats for fools for decades." The heart of the problem isn't the level of nuclear enrichment, but the Iranian regime, with its "raging anti-Americanism and antisemitism" and its "long record of supporting terrorism." Rather than the same old deal, Trump should offer "normalization for normalization." The U.S. would lift sanctions and allow unfettered trade to bring prosperity to Iranians, if in exchange Iran renounced nuclear weapons, terrorism, and repression and became "a normal country." To add to the pressure, the U.S. could give Israel the bombers it needs to wipe out Iran's facilities in case of a no. But outsourcing our military muscle to Israel would be "a profound strategic error," said Dan Perry in The Hill. It sends the message that Trump's White House, like Obama's, "lacks the will to enforce its own red lines." The ayatollahs must understand that if they try to stall, their "cataclysmic rule" will be ended. "That message must come from Washington, not Tel Aviv."

President Donald Trump is nearing a self-imposed deadline for a deal to deter Iran's nuclear program. The next step might be negotiations — or an attack on Tehran's nuclear facilities.

Trump is "seriously considering" an Iranian proposal for "indirect" talks on the issue, said Axios. That is the carrot. The stick is that America is also "significantly boosting" its forces in the Middle East, moving bombers and an aircraft carrier strike group to the region in case the president orders military strikes. He recently gave Iran's leaders a two-month deadline to make a deal, "but it's not clear if and when that clock started ticking."

"The war drums are getting louder in Washington," said Sina Toossi at Responsible Statecraft. While the president has said he "wants a deal," hawkish factions connected to his administration are "promoting confrontation." But a war would "blow up Trump's broader agenda" and might motivate Tehran to push its nuclear program behind the threshold stage and actually build a weapon after decades of development. "That's not the legacy" Trump should want.

'Window of opportunity'

"It doesn't look like the administration is playing around," said Noah Rothman at the National Review. Israel's recent "decimation" of Iran's proxy groups Hamas and Hezbollah has arguably left the regime in Tehran more vulnerable than at any time since the 1979 revolution. An American attack on Iran would be "fraught" with risks, however. Iran could, for example, "activate terrorist assets" to strike targets inside Western countries. But there is a "window of opportunity" to neutralize Iran's nuclear program: "It won't be open forever."

"Is an attack likely? Yes," said Michael Rubin at 19FortyFive. The "chess pieces" are already moving into place. America has typically shown restraint toward the Islamic Republic, but Trump notably "does not constrain himself with diplomatic received wisdom." Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei may want the U.S. to attack, which might "rally Iranians around the flag to make up for his declining legitimacy." Even so, a confrontation is probably coming soon: "Time is ticking on a new conflict in the Middle East."

'On course to start a war'

It is "alarming to hear the drumbeat" for another war in the Middle East, said Daniel Larison at Eunomia. The Trump administration is asking too much of Iran: In addition to ending the nuclear program, the White House also wants the Iranians to "halt all support for allied groups throughout the region," as well as "withdraw all their forces from Iraq and Syria." Tehran won't agree to such "humiliating" terms. It's time for the American public to take notice: "The U.S. is on course to start a war with Iran for no good reason."

Trump has "yet to demonstrate a coherent strategy for dealing with Iran," said Imran Khalid at The Hill. The president "oscillates between threats and vague promises of negotiation" and in so doing actually encourages Iran to advance its nuclear program. Real diplomacy between America and Iran will take "trust, consistency and a willingness to compromise," but those qualities seem to be in "short supply."

The United States and Iran may face a confrontation soon after President-elect Donald Trump takes office. Officials around the world "expect Trump to face an Iran crisis in 2025," said Axios.

Iran's nuclear advances mean Trump will have to choose whether to "neutralize the threat" using diplomacy and pressure tactics — or whether to order a military strike. Trump arguably brought this situation upon himself: His decision in 2018 to abandon an Obama-era nuclear deal in favor of a so-called "maximum pressure" campaign "prompted Tehran to accelerate its nuclear program." Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons, but its progress makes it a "nuclear threshold state," said Axios.

Tehran is making preparations. Iran's military has "nearly doubled" the number of winter training exercises to "project strength" ahead of Trump's inauguration, said the Financial Times. The exercises feature "new weaponry and expanded participation of brigades engaged in realistic operations," said Brigadier General Ali Mohammad Naeini, spokesman for Iran's Revolutionary Guards. But Iran is under "mounting strain," with its proxy forces in Lebanon and Syria suffering humiliating defeats since the Israel-Hamas war began in 2023, said FT.

What did the commentators say?

The second Trump administration should implement a "Maximum Pressure 2.0" campaign against Iran, said Janatan Sayeh and Saeed Ghasseminejad at The Washington Examiner. Such a pressure campaign would include "economic, diplomatic, military, intelligence, and political measures" — including cooperation with Israel's covert campaigns inside Iran, as well as support for "antiregime Iranians" inside the country. Such efforts would build a foundation "for a future where a liberated Iran stands as a steadfast ally to the U.S.," the duo said. Iran's current weakness makes 2025 a "year of opportunity" for Trump.

Attacking Iran would be "wrong and illegal," said Daniel Larison at his Eunomia Substack. Iran's nuclear program has now advanced so far that an attack on its facilities "makes it more likely" that Tehran would make the final push to develop weapons, as a deterrent against outside forces. American leaders should "reject a military option that gives Iran an even bigger incentive to cross that line." American policymakers have talked about attacking Iran "for decades," Larison said. "The mindset that made the Iraq war possible is still very much with us."

What next?

Some observers see Trump as uniquely positioned to strike a deal. "Only Trump can go to Iran," said Sina Azodi at Foreign Policy. Trump is "widely known to be hawkish" where Iran is concerned, but has also claimed he is "not seeking a regime change." In his second term, Trump no longer has hard-liners like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo around to urge toughness against Iran. That presents a "unique opportunity" to improve U.S.-Iran relations, Azodi said.

Iran, meanwhile, is "vulnerable but determined," said David E. Sanger at The New York Times. Leaders in Tehran may be willing to make a "tactical retreat" on the nuclear program to avoid confrontation with the U.S., but they have "never been willing to shut down" all the country's nuclear facilities. The question, then, is "how much risk Trump is willing to take to achieve that goal."

Iran has again increased its stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels, according to a confidential report by the United Nations nuclear watchdog. 

The Islamic Republic now possesses 142.1kg uranium enriched up to 60% purity, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in a document seen by The Associated Press. That's an increase of 20.6kg since the last report in February. 

Uranium enriched to 60% is "just a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%", said AP News. Only about 42kg of uranium enriched to 60% is needed to create an atomic weapon, if the material is further enriched to 90%. IAEA chief Rafael Mariano Grossi has warned that Tehran has enough uranium enriched to near-weapons-grade levels to make "several" bombs.

But after direct conflict broke out for the first time with long-time foe Israel against the backdrop of the Gaza war, the Biden administration is "pressing European allies to back off plans to rebuke Iran for advances in its nuclear program", said The Wall Street Journal. The US is aiming to lower tensions with Iran, which it fears could become more unpredictable after the death of its president Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash last week.

What's the state of Iran's nuclear program?

Iran was one of the original signatories of the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the most important global agreement on nuclear weapons. In 2003, after the American invasion of Iraq, a fatwa by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei declared nuclear weapons to be "forbidden under Islam" and decreed that the Republic would never acquire them.

But the second Bush administration's "unrealistic insistence" that Iran agreed to "zero enrichment" of uranium turned it into "a matter of national pride", said The New York Times. 

During the Obama years, the regime kept enriching uranium and "adding to its stockpile", wrote John Ghazvinian, director of the Middle East Center at the University of Pennsylvania. 

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on nuclear weapons was negotiated in 2015, based on regulations established by the NPT. This lifted some sanctions against Tehran in exchange for strict limits on its nuclear activities.

However, Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the deal in 2018 and subsequently "campaigned on maximum pressure" on Tehran, which only "added to Iran's defiance".

The Biden administration has tried unsuccessfully to revive the deal, while Iran has "quickly stepped up enrichment", said AP News. Last September, it barred IAEA inspectors from monitoring its program. 

Iran is now "not far off" being nuclear-armed, said The Washington Post in April. A senior Iranian lawmaker and former military commander warned then that Iran could enrich uranium to the 90% threshold in "half a day, or let's say, one week".    Estimates of how long Iran would need to turn that enriched uranium into nuclear weapons "vary between months and about a year", said Reuters. 

Is Iran capable of building nuclear weapons?

The outbreak of direct conflict with Israel – a country with an "undeclared but widely acknowledged nuclear arsenal" and military superiority – has "provoked a change of tone in Tehran" on weaponisation, said Ghazvinian. 

The Republic had agreed to hold negotiations with the IAEA on 20 May – but those meetings "fell apart" after the helicopter crash that killed Raisi on 19 May, said AP News. But in a "sharp departure" from the nation's long-term policy, Iran's leading officials are now "openly threatening to build and test a nuclear bomb", said The Atlantic.

Raisi's death has "dramatically shifted the landscape", said Ghazvinian. It has "created an opportunity" for the hard-liners who are "far less allergic to the idea of going nuclear than the regime has been for decades". 

The war in Gaza, a possible change of US president in November and a "domestic power vacuum" in Iran after the death of Raisi, the assumed successor to the supreme leader, could create "a brief window in which Iran could pull out all the stops", said Ghazvinian, and "surprise the world by testing a nuclear device".

The country's thousands of advanced centrifuges and its large stockpile of enriched uranium has led some to adopt a "might as well" argument. "If we've already come this far, the argument goes, then why not just go for a bomb?"

'Why won't Biden enforce sanctions against Iranian oil?'

Brian Hook in The Wall Street Journal

Iran uses its oil income to underwrite a "war machine that is tearing apart the Middle East," says Brian Hook. And the Islamic Republic's oil exports just hit a six-year high. President Joe Biden has the "tools and authority at his disposal to undermine Iran's projection of power." Then-President Donald Trump "reimposed energy sanctions on Iran in 2018 when he left the Iran nuclear deal." The "sanctions remain in effect." Biden just has to enforce them. 

Read more

'Applying to college shouldn't be so complicated'

Bloomberg editorial board

Earning a college degree is a "pathway to success," says the Bloomberg editorial board. But the process of picking "from among hundreds of schools" and navigating a complicated application process that "prioritizes administrative busywork over academics" prevents "hundreds of thousands of low-income, college-ready students" from enrolling every year. Policymakers should encourage colleges to try "streamlining" with policies like guaranteeing admission to students based on test scores and grades. That would help remove needless "obstacles."

Read more

'Trump's naps are actually worrying'

David A. Graham at The Atlantic

Former President Donald Trump's "bouts of drowsiness" during his hush money trial started out as "comic fodder," says David A. Graham. We've moved on from "Don Snoreleone" wisecracks and normalized his "catnapping through a lurid trial." But we should be worried. If he can't stay awake with his "freedom on the line," will he be able to "focus on the intricacies of a spiraling regional war" or some new crisis "if he returns to the White House?"

Read more

'Biden cannot afford a boiling summer of protest'

Stephen Collinson at CNN

President Joe Biden was reticent, but he had to "throw himself into the politics" of the campus protests "triggered by outrage at the civilian carnage from Israel's war in Gaza," says Stephen Collinson. Biden can't afford turmoil that "bleeds into" his convention and the "final weeks of an already venomous clash with Donald Trump." He tried to thread the needle by arguing "people have a right to protest" but also to study safely without being "racially slandered."

Read more

"No move by any enemy against our sacred system goes unanswered," said Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, after Israel's deadly strike on the Iranian consulate in Syria two weeks ago. 

Iran answered with its first ever direct attack on its long-time foe Israel, launching a barrage of drones and missiles and crossing what for decades was an "unthinkable red line", said Politico. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran's powerful militia, claimed responsibility for the strikes, calling them retaliation for Israel's 1 April attack on the Iranian consular building in Damascus that killed several of its commanders and its chief regional official.

The Israeli military, with allies including the US and the UK, destroyed most of the Iranian missiles in "an impressive display of force", said Sky News's security and defence editor Deborah Haynes, utilising Israel's famed Iron Dome defence system. But such a feat "could not be guaranteed to be as successful" if Iran were to launch more attacks in response to any Israeli retaliation.

What did the commentators say?

Despite Iran's "superior numbers", Israel's military hardware is "far more sophisticated", said the Financial Times. That's why Khamenei has long avoided direct conflict with Israel, and "relied on asymmetrical warfare" and regional proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthi rebels in Yemen and Hamas in Gaza, as well as militias in Iraq and Syria.

This attack, although unprecedented, was a "clearly telegraphed" display of force, calibrated to restore Iran's deterrent and bolster its image among its proxies. Iran offered proof that it would "back its threats", but signalled that it wanted to avoid any escalation with the US, or a full-scale war with Israel.

That's a scenario the Islamic republic would likely not survive, said Daniel Markind in Forbes. The currency has "crashed" since the Damascus attack, losing 30% of its value. The country "faces potential economic peril", long battered by Trump-era sanctions, and is increasingly polarised, with rising discontent against the repressive regime and reluctance to go to war.

But this was still "a bigger attack than many analysts expected", said the BBC's international editor Jeremy Bowen. The fact that Israel and its allies shot down almost all of the drones may make it harder for Iran to restore its "sense of deterrence" lost in the Damascus attack. 

Indeed, the fact that Iran struck at all was evidence of an "increasingly emboldened" authoritarian state, said Haynes on Sky News. Iran has also won itself "a diverse array of allies around the world", from communist North Korea to socialist fellow oil-sanctioned Venezuela, said Richard Spencer in The Times.  

For all its militias, Iran "has little in the way of brute force to compete with the American navy or even the Israeli air force, if it comes to out-and-out combat". But Hezbollah, Iran's Lebanese proxy and greatest ally, "has no rival strong enough to disarm its massive arsenal of missiles pointed at Israel".

In fact, Israel's success could lead Iranian military officials to conclude "they need more powerful weapons", said David E. Sanger, a Middle East and superpower conflict reporter, for The New York Times. "And they may conclude that their logical next step is to move – overtly or covertly – toward a nuclear weapon."

Iran's "limited response" to the Damascus strike may well reflect "the imbalance of power in Israel's favour", said Trita Parsi, an Iran analyst and co-founder of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft think tank, on X. "But think further and you'll realise how this episode will strengthen those in Tehran who believe Iran must go nuclear."

What next?

The Iranians have signalled that, in their mind, "the incident is over", said Sanger, having avenged the deaths of its commanders. But "over" could simply refer to "an end to the missile barrage, not other forms of escalation".

Experts say Iran has "every incentive to proceed with its nuclear program, both to taunt the West and to build what it always calls its 'deterrent' against Israel", the region's other undeclared nuclear weapons state. The best case scenario would be that Iran "recognizes the danger" too.

But Netanyahu's Israel "has proven increasingly unpredictable", said Tamara Qiblawi on CNN. Iran's threats of more severe action in case of escalation "may fall on deaf ears in Israel, to its own peril".

Iran has denounced American and British military attacks on Yemen as "a clear violation of the country's sovereignty".

Washington and London launched air and naval strikes against military targets linked to Houthi rebels last night, in response to the group's attacks on ships in the Red Sea in support of Hamas in Gaza.

The Houthis, a group of rebels that control a large part of Yemen, are allies of Iran, because Saudi Arabia is their common enemy. So the US-UK attacks have raised fears of a direct confrontation between the West and Iran.

What the papers said

The Houthis were "quick to claim they would retaliate", said Deborah Haynes, security and defence editor of Sky News. "Any major counterattack could push the Western allies into direct confrontation with Iran."

Such a confrontation is "something both sides have said they want to avoid", she added. But the West's attacks are still a "high-risk balancing act", because "hit the Houthis too hard and their supporters, most notably Iran, would have to strike back more significantly".

 The Telegraph agreed that the air and sea strikes against Yemeni sites "run the risk of prompting retaliation in some form" from Iran, which "for years has built up the Houthis’ weapons supplies in its ten-year-long proxy war in Yemen against Saudi forces".

The "greatest fear", said The Guardian, is that in the "aftermath of the overnight strikes", the US, the UK and their allies are "a significant step closer to direct confrontation with Iran".

Any effort to "blunt" the Houthi threat to shipping is likely to require "aggressive action to stop the Houthis replenishing their arms supply", the paper added. And that "in turn means stopping ships coming from Iran".

The West "shouldn't fear a direct confrontation with Tehran", argued Con Coughlin, The Telegraph's defence and foreign affairs editor, last month. Iran and its Houthi "sidekicks" are "no match for the powerful armada of Western warships" assembled in the Red Sea. 

But a confrontation with Tehran in 2024 would be a more dangerous scenario than in the past, argued The New York Times, because Iran's power has increased significantly since Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Iran is "suddenly in an alliance of sorts with both Moscow and China", meaning it has two superpowers "not only as allies, but as sanctions-busting customers". The paper added that Iran is now a "screwdriver turn away" from possessing a nuclear bomb.

What next?

Many eyes will be on the economic fallout from the strikes. Oil prices rose on news of the American and British attacks, reported The Economist, and "if Iran becomes directly involved, they could rise much further".

This morning, the price of Brent crude – the international benchmark for oil prices – rose by 2% to almost $79 per barrel, while US West Texas crude increased by 2.1% to $73.55.

According to the BBC, the UK's Treasury has "modelled scenarios" including crude oil prices rising by more than $10 a barrel and a 25% increase in the cost of natural gas.

The government is concerned that ongoing attacks on shipping in the Red Sea could "further shrink the UK economy if disruption goes on to affect tanker traffic more widely", added the broadcaster.

Yahya Sarea, the military spokesperson for the Houthis, said the group "will not hesitate to target sources of threat and all hostile targets on land and at sea in defence of Yemen, its sovereignty and independence". He added that Israeli and other ships in the Red Sea would continue to be targeted by the group.

"Does it stop at this?" asked Mark Stone, US correspondent for Sky News.  It seems "unlikely", he suggested. But the West didn't want to take this action and "the Iranians too don't want war with the West", so "the only positive here is that no one actually wants conflict".

The US and Iran are completing an exchange-of-prisoners deal that analysts say could "open the door" to a de-escalation of tensions between the two nations. 

Five American-Iranian dual nationals are due to be released today following a year of careful negotiations mediated by the Gulf state of Qatar. The US will also free five Iranians held in US prisons on charges of violating US sanctions.

The exchange will take place after $6 billion of Iran's oil revenue, which had been frozen in South Korea, is transferred to bank accounts in Qatar. The funds will be monitored "to ensure Iran uses the money for goods" not currently under sanctions, reported the Financial Times (FT). 

What did the commentators say?

US President Joe Biden has "long been urged" to bring home Americans "widely regarded as hostages" and used by Iran as "political leverage", said the BBC's chief international correspondent, Lyse Doucet.

For Iran, the deal frees money earned from selling oil to South Korea, although "sources involved in this process insist these funds will be strictly controlled", said Doucet. "No funds will go into Iran," the sources stressed. "Only humanitarian transactions, including food, medicine, agriculture, paid to third party vendors, transaction by transaction."

The prisoner swap has already been condemned by leading US Republicans as "a ransom payment and sanctions relief", Doucet added. But there is still "enormous relief that some prisoners are finally coming home". 

Biden will be "patting himself on the back" over this deal, wrote columnist Daniel Johnson in The Telegraph. While it will mean "giving an evil regime" $6 billion, the sum is from oil revenues sequestered under sanction laws, allowing the president to claim that his deal "won't cost the US taxpayer a cent". But the reality is that Biden's "murky prisoner swap" will only "damage American prestige, encourage the Iranians to take more Western hostages, and help fund the regime's nuclear ambitions". 

Indeed, Biden's deal "lends credibility at a crucial moment to one of the most dangerous rogue states in the world", continued Johnson. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has already "provided a showcase for Iranian drones, a mainstay of Putin's assaults on cities", he claimed. By defying UN sanctions on Russia "with impunity", Iran has "inserted itself into yet another conflict with the West". Now the prisoner exchange "risks signalling weakness, not only to the Middle East, but to America's foes everywhere". 

But with the Russian-Ukrainian war continuing to rage with no end in sight, the US has a vested interest in making sure war does not break out in another part of the world, and it is "apprehensive about Iran's relations with Russia", said Al Jazeera. 

Speaking to the news site, Kaveh Moussavi, an Iranian human rights lawyer and former head of public interest law at Oxford University, said that Washington is "aware that Tehran is very heavily invested in the survival of the Russian regime" and is "keen to change that narrative and also ensure Tehran is at peace with its other neighbours in the Middle East". 

The prisoner swap and the release of the frozen Iranian oil fund may well have "eliminated a long-standing severe obstacle" for improving US-Iranian relations, argued Klaus W. Larres, from the University of North Carolina, in The Conversation. It will confirm to the Iranian regime that the US "is a reliable negotiation partner", which could prove to be a "crucial basis" for the reopening of formal nuclear negotiations and a return to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). 

The prisoner swap "might be a decisive step for the West in reaching a new informal nuclear limitation agreement with Iran", said Larres. In turn, it could help to stabilise the Middle East "by preventing an Israeli attack on Iran if Iran were to further develop a nuclear bomb".

What next?

It is hoped that the prisoner swap will "help build a degree of trust that creates conditions for further discussions on Iran's muscular nuclear programme", said the FT. 

Even as Iran has continued to enrich uranium, the two countries have been discussing how to de-escalate tensions; proposals include Iran agreeing not to target Americans and to cap its uranium enrichment at 60% purity, a level below weapons grade, while the US refrains from imposing additional sanctions that "further strangle the economy". 

The US has also reportedly been pushing Tehran to stop selling drones to Moscow, which Russian forces have used in the war against Ukraine. Tehran has denied exporting weapons to Russia to use in the war, and no agreement has been reached, according to people briefed on the talks, reported the paper. 

"Still, some believe the prisoner exchange can at least help contain a nuclear crisis and ease the risks of renewed Middle East conflict."

Israel has been blamed for an overnight drone strike on an ammunition factory in Iran as the long-running shadow war between the two countries threatens to break out into the open.

According to The Wall Street Journal, “US officials and people familiar with the operation” pointed the finger at Israel, as the Middle Eastern nation’s leaders work with Washington to find “new ways to contain Tehran’s nuclear and military ambitions”. The Israeli military declined to comment about the drone attack, in the central Iranian city of Isfahan on Saturday.

But Teharn’s “arch-foe” has “long said it is willing to strike Iranian targets if diplomacy fails”, Reuters reported.

How has the shadow war been fought?

Israel “is widely believed to have masterminded a series of operations inside Iran over the past decade to sabotage the country’s nuclear programme”, said the Financial Times. These covert operations “include assassinations of nuclear scientists and attacks on atomic sites, as well as smuggling out documents”.

In 2020, Iran accused Israel of orchestrating the assassination of its top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, regarded as the father of Iran’s atomic programme. Fakhrizadeh was shot dead while driving a car on a road outside Tehran, allegedly with a remote-controlled machine gun..

His death made headlines worldwide, but “both sides have been engaged in clandestine actions against each other” for many years, said BBC News’s Suzanna KIanpour. “Israel sees Iran, which calls for its elimination, as its biggest threat; Iran sees Israel as an enemy siding with the United States and a bulwark against its growth as a regional power”.

Could the war break out into the open?

With the nuclear deal between Tehran and the West also “looking increasingly unlikely to be restored”, said Al Jazeera, “further escalation might be a possibility”.

A former Iranian diplomat told Middle East Eye last week that domestic and global events – most notably the brutal crackdown on anti-government demonstrations in Iran and the invasion of Ukraine by its close ally Russia – had further undermined the already fraught negotations with the West.

Ukrainian officials have accused Iran of supplying hundreds of drones to Russia to attack civilian targets. Following Sunday’s drone strike in Isfahan, Mykhailo Podolyak, a senior aide to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, tweeted: “Explosive night in Iran. Did warn you.”

The strike is believed to be the first by Israel since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu returned to power last month, and came amid talks with Washington on new ways to counter Tehran.

In July, Joe Biden and Israel’s then PM Jair Lapid signed the Jerusalem Declaration, which pledged that both states would use all available means to ensure that Iran would never possess nuclear weapons.

“In plain language,” said Al Jazeera,“this means that the shadow war could become even more intense.”

Israel’s resolution to rein in Tehran may be further strengthened by Netanyah, who sanctioned “a series of bold operations inside Iran” before being ousted in 2021, said Middle Eastern Eye.

Yet even before Netanayhu’s recent return at the head of a hard-line nationalist coalition, the Israeli government had openly signalled a shift in tactics to deal with Iran and its proxies in the region. In June, Lapid’s coalition partner Naftali Bennett announced that Israel had begun implementing the “Octopus Doctrine”, under which Israel would no longer only attack its enemy’s allies, such as the Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian group Hamas, but also representatives of the Iranian power apparatus.

“We no longer play with the tentacles, with Iran’s proxies, we’ve created a new equation by going for the head,” Bennett told The Economist.

Western powers are considering their options to prevent Iran from expanding its nuclear programme as relations with the Islamic Republic reach a new low.

Tehran’s repressive protest crackdown, executions and support for Russia has tested international leaders, but the US and Europe are “keeping the door open to diplomacy” in order to “save what is left” of the nuclear deal signed in 2015, said the Financial Times.

There is a fear among world powers that there are “no credible alternatives to the accord”, leaving them grappling with the risk of “triggering a broader crisis by ending all avenues of diplomacy” while not wanting to “engage with Iran while it sells drones to Moscow and uses repression to crush civil unrest at home”.

UK support in the balance

Britain is “reconsidering its support” for the nuclear deal following the execution of a British-Iranian dual citizen earlier this month, said The Times. The former deputy defence minister of Iran, Alireza Akbari, was hanged by the Iranian government on charges of espionage on behalf of MI6, a charge he denied.

While sanctions from the UK against senior Iranian officials followed, Foreign Affairs Select Committee chair Alicia Kearns told the paper that the government is now “reappraising everything” in terms of Iran including the nuclear deal. She added that the “deal hasn’t worked” and hasn’t “significantly stopped Iran pursuing its nuclear ambitions”.

The UK is also deliberating whether it designates the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) a terrorist group, a move that would “risk a severing of diplomatic ties”, said the FT.

It would make it “even harder to revive the ailing international talks” aimed at saving the nuclear deal, said the BBC.

‘Britain should have nothing to do with it’

The nuclear deal was a “terrible idea even when Barack Obama cooked it up” in 2015, said The Telegraph. Attempting to revive it after Donald Trump ditched it was “dangerously stupid” and Britain “should have nothing to do with it”.

It is “good news” that “the UK is clearly much cooler on the deal now than it used to be” and the West should apply to Iran the “same energy and unity that has been applied to containing Putin”, said the paper in an editorial.

A revival of the deal would also be seen as a “gross betrayal” by those protesting in Iran, and it would pave the way for the regime to “make billions of dollars in oil exports”, said Patrick Wintour, diplomatic editor of The Guardian.

However, even if resurrecting the 2015 deal seems “out of reach”, diplomacy remains the “most effective pathway forward”, said Ellie Geranmayeh in The Washington Post. Without change “the world is headed inexorably for a new nuclear crisis” and Western powers need “to find a way to contain Iran’s nuclear threat before it becomes a broader crisis”.

President Biden has quietly declared the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action designed to curtail Iran's aspirations for nuclear weaponry "dead," in newly uncovered footage posted to Twitter. Biden's comments — reportedly made in early November as he shook hands during a pre-midterm election rally — came in response to a question from an unidentified woman who asked the president whether he would declare the Iran Nuclear Deal "dead."

"It is dead," Biden is heard admitting in the footage. "But we are not gonna announce it."

"Long story," the president added.

The Iran nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA, is the result of years of negotiations between Iran and a consortium of western nations, culminating in a 2015 treaty in which Iran committed to a non-weaponized atomic program in exchange for the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions. Although the United States certified that Iran was meeting its obligations under the treaty twice in 2017, then-President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the agreement in 2018 calling it "one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into." At the time Biden criticized the Trump decision as a "mistake," explaining that "It will isolate the United States from nearly every major world power. It will weaken our credibility and global leadership. It will allow Iran to garner international sympathy while doing nothing to reduce its harmful activities across the Middle East."

While Biden did not elaborate on why he wouldn't publicly announce the deal was dead, a National Security Council spokesperson told Axios on Tuesday that the JCPOA was simply "not our focus right now. It's not on the agenda," and said the White House was more focused on "practical ways to confront" Iran on its ongoing repression of protesters, and its support of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

During the 2020 presidential campaign, Democratic nominee Joe Biden repeatedly promised to get the U.S. back into a renegotiated nuclear agreement with Iran, after former President Donald Trump withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018. Painstaking negotiations appear to have reached a critical juncture this week, with the U.S. submitting a response to Iran's comments on the text of a final draft agreement. Here's everything you need to know about whether a new agreement will be signed, what is likely to be in it, and what it all means:

Why is a new agreement necessary?

Like nearly all GOP presidential candidates in 2016, Trump promised to tear up the JCPOA, better known as the Iran Deal, on day one. The basic parameters of the 2015 accord were sanctions relief and some degree of economic normalization for Iran in exchange for cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections regime, foregoing the pursuit of the highly enriched uranium needed to build a nuclear weapon, surrendering its existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium, and ensuring that existing nuclear facilities were involved in peaceful nuclear activities only. While many Republicans objected to the very idea of negotiating with Iran, others primarily opposed the "sunset provisions" under which certain restrictions expired (mostly at the end of 2030, but some earlier) without a renewal of the agreement.

Although the IAEA repeatedly affirmed that Iran was holding up its end of the bargain, the Trump administration pulled the U.S. out of the agreement in May 2018. Since then, Iran has elected a new hardliner president, Ebrahim Raissi, and inched closer to the point where its so-called "breakout time" — the amount of time needed to produce enough enriched uranium to build a working nuclear weapon — is numbered in weeks rather than months or years. Talks between Iran and the rest of the original parties to the deal, the so-called P5+1, resumed in 2021, but without the United States participating directly, and with the EU taking a lead role. The Trump administration's decision to unilaterally back out of the deal poisoned relations with Tehran so badly that it refuses to negotiate directly with Washington.

What are the sticking points?

The most problematic aspect of putting the Iran Deal back together is trust. When Iran signed the deal in 2015, it led to hopes that the country's economic isolation from the rest of the world would end, and that international companies could do business there. But when Trump reimposed many U.S. sanctions that had been lifted, and successfully discouraged other countries from allowing their firms to operate in Iran, it sent their economy into freefall. From Tehran's perspective, it must have guarantees that the U.S. cannot immediately plunge the Iranian economy into turmoil should a future U.S. president once again decide to scotch the deal. That's why Iran is demanding that it retain the enrichment capacity it has rebuilt since 2018. Reports suggest that Iran seeks to retain under IAEA supervision rather than destroy the supersonic centrifuges needed to resume enrichment, which would accelerate the country's breakout time in the event of a repeat of 2018. The Biden administration has also reportedly agreed to grant international companies a 2.5 year waiver period to continue business operations in the event that sanctions are reimposed.

Also at issue is an IAEA investigation, opened in 2018, into alleged Iranian nuclear activities at undeclared sites. Tehran wanted that probe closed out, but the Biden administration cannot force the IAEA's hand, since it is an independent agency that does not answer directly to Washington. Iranian negotiators also wanted the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps taken off the State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organization list. Tehran has reportedly backed off that demand. Israel, a close ally and client state of the U.S., has been maneuvering to head off a new agreement altogether, or at least to pressure the Biden administration not to soften its negotiating positions to get the deal across the finish line.

Israeli leaders fear that traditional nuclear deterrence would not work on Iran. The Obama administration's decision to forge ahead with an agreement opened a rift between the two countries, and President Biden, whose party is seeking to buck history in November by holding on to one or both chambers of Congress in the midterm elections, can hardly afford an electorally destructive public brouhaha with Jerusalem. However, concerns of a row with Israel must be balanced against the possibility that a deal, and the reemergence of Iranian oil supplies onto the global market, could drop U.S. gas prices further just in time for the elections.

What would a new agreement contain?

All publicly available reports suggest that what has been happening over the past 17 months is tinkering around the edges of the 2015 agreement. In all likelihood, a small number of provisions would be added to the original text of the JCPOA. What is unclear from today's vantage point is whether the original sunset provisions will remain, or whether that timeline will be pushed forward seven or eight years. The U.S. will not lift sanctions related to other Iranian activities in the region, but will unfreeze some Iranian assets. Iran, for its part, is reportedly set to release Western hostages held in the country.

The U.S. sent its response to Iran's comments on the draft text on Wednesday, and if Iran agrees to those terms, an agreement could be reached quickly. If, on the other hand, Iranian negotiators introduce new demands, or refuse to back away from U.S. red lines, the whole thing could collapse with no agreement in place and Iran drawing dangerously close to being able to produce a nuclear weapon. That makes the events of the coming days and weeks are particularly important. If an accord isn't reached soon, talks may not resume until after the U.S. midterm elections — by which time Iran may already have built a nuclear weapon.

Salman Rushdie and John Bolton are both still alive today — but that's possibly no thanks to Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Intelligence officials say that the man accused of stabbing novelist Salman Rushdie on Friday in New York was "in direct contact with members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on social media," Mitchell Prothero reports for Vice News. While "there's no evidence Iranian officials were involved in organizing or orchestrating the attack" on Rushdie, one official said the stabbing appeared to be a "guided attack," in which an intelligence service "talks a supporter into action, without direct support or involvement in the attack itself."

The assault on Rushdie came two days after federal prosecutors charged Shahram Poursafi, a member of the corps, with plotting to assassinate John Bolton, the former national security adviser to Donald Trump who is well-known for his hardline views on Iran. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was also reportedly a target of the scheme. "While much cannot be said publicly right now, one point is indisputable: Iran's rulers are liars, terrorists, and enemies of the United States," Bolton said.

Why would the Revolutionary Guard be targeting these men? Here's everything you need to know:

What is the Revolutionary Guard?

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — which includes the clandestine Quds Force — is "one of the most powerful paramilitary organizations in the Middle East," the Council on Foreign Relations says in a 2019 explainer. After the 1979 revolution that overthrew the shah and installed an Islamic government, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini set up the IRGC "to protect the new regime from a coup d'état, such as the one in 1953 that ousted the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadeq and restored the shah to power." The organization is charged with protecting Iran's Islamic government against all threats, and operates "beyond the bounds of the law and the judiciary." The corps commands at least 125,000 troops — estimates vary — outside the formal Iranian military structure, and includes naval, air force, and cyber command resources. It also runs the Basij Resistance Force, whose main function has been to crack down, sometimes brutally, on the regime's domestic opponents.

But the corps' influence can also be felt beyond Iran's borders. The organization "exerts influence elsewhere in the Middle East by providing money, weapons, technology, training, and advice to allied governments," the BBC says in a 2020 overview, and is known to back terrorist groups such as Lebanon's Hezbollah movement and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. (The force is also believed to have backed Hezbollah's 1994 bombing attack on a Jewish center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people.) Its attempts at violence have even reached American shores: "In 2011, the Quds Force was allegedly involved in a plan to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. by bombing a restaurant in Georgetown." Its power isn't just in its muscle, the BBC notes: "The IRGC is also thought to control around a third of Iran's economy through a series of subsidiaries and trusts."

Why are American leaders so concerned?

Arguably, the U.S. has been at war with the IRGC for much of the last two decades. After the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, the Quds Force "emerged as a shadowy but deadly threat to American troops," The Washington Post's William Branigin reported in 2011. It backed Iraqi Shiite militias, and the Pentagon said the organization participated in "smuggling sophisticated bombs and other weapons into Iraq for use against American troops."

That conflict came to a head during the Trump Administration. In 2019, Trump designated the corps as a "foreign terrorist organization," a status that was accompanied by wide-ranging sanctions against the group and its members. (President Biden has left that designation in place.) And in January 2020, Trump ordered the assassination of Quds Force Commander General Qassem Soleimani, saying the general was "developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region." That act continues to reverberate: The alleged assassination plot against John Bolton was reportedly intended as an act of vengeance for the Soleimani killing.

What will be the fallout from recent events?

The attack on Rushdie and the plot against Bolton (as well as an apparent assassination attempt on an Iranian-born journalist living in New York) come at the same time the United States is trying — and mostly failing — to re-establish an agreement to curtail Iran's nuclear program. That goal now will be harder to obtain.

Those incidents "have bolstered detractors of the nuclear deal," Nahal Toosi reports for Politico. "The news also underscores the tricky nature of the U.S.-Iran relationship, which is adversarial and deadly — even when the two countries are negotiating sensitive issues." Bolton certainly thinks it is time to end the negotiations. "The ayatollahs' malevolence is comprehensive, with nuclear weapons, assassination, and terrorism all elements in their full spectrum of capabilities," he wrote Monday in The Washington Post.

But Biden is "not indicating he will walk away from efforts to restore the nuclear agreement," Toosi reports. The underlying idea? Iran's government — and the IRGC in particular — is deadly enough with assassins and other thugs at its disposal, one anonymous official told Politico, but nuclear weapons would only make the government more dangerous. The weapons "would make all the other very serious problems we have with them — and we have many — far worse," the official said. So the negotiations will continue. Will the assassination attempts keep coming, as well?

1. The claim that the NHS ‘coped’ with Covid is not true – it’s drowning and damaged

Rachel Clarke at The Guardian

on a healthcare crisis

“Is truth the first casualty of pandemics?” asks Rachel Clarke at The Guardian, who “nearly choked in disbelief” in April 2020, when she heard the prime minister make a “deplorable” claim that “at no stage has our NHS been overwhelmed”. At that time, the UK’s death toll had reached the “dizzying number” of 26,771 lives lost to Covid. “The insensitivity of attempting to spin as ‘success’ such manifest horror took my breath away,” continues Clarke, a palliative care doctor. “The truth is, Covid caused a collapse of healthcare as we know it”. The health service was “overwhelmed”, though “it is easy to forget” how bad things were, given “much rewriting of history” has taken place in the past two years, she says. Ending free testing and self-isolation requirements “may be politically convenient for the government”, but “11,000 hospital beds in England remain occupied by patients with Covid”, while staff morale “has never been lower”. Clarke concludes: “false narratives about the NHS ‘coping’ are unhelpful and damaging.”

Read more

2. How P&O disgrace was predicted six years ago – but branded ‘racist’

Jane Moore at The Sun

on employment concerns

Jane Moore recalls a “pivotal moment” when she realised that the UK would leave the EU, she writes at The Sun. It was during a TV debate in 2017, when a member of the public made clear that “temporarily imported cheap foreign labour was a valid concern for those (of all nationalities and skin colours) who reside full-time in the UK”. Rather than “sympathise”, most of the panel “preferred to virtue-signal their right-on credentials” by regarding his comments “as racist”, she continues. Moore “thought of this man” this week when reading about the fire and rehire scandal at P&O Ferries. Eight hundred staff were “instantaneously replaced with cheaper overseas staff, many of whom are reportedly living in cheap hotels and, in some cases, tents”. And “a number of politicians are calling the actions” of P&O Ferries “‘disgusting’, but, just like those on that TV panel six years ago, they will never be replaced by imported cheap labour at a moment’s notice”. Those in government “have little understanding of its impact on the lives of ordinary, hard-working people”.

Read more

3. Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe: Twitter trolls wrong to call Iran detainee ‘ungrateful’ - the Government failed her

Daniel Bird at National World

on ‘a little perspective’

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe spent “a total of 2,173 days or more than 52,000 hours in detention through no fault of her own”, writes Daniel Bird at National World. The British-Iranian mother “was robbed of the opportunity to see her child grow up”, a fact that is “utterly heartbreaking”. But “for some, none of that is important”. Instead, what matters “is that she had the temerity to not thank the government for her release”. The hashtags “#ungratefulcow” and “#sendherback” have been trending on Twitter since Zaghari-Ratcliffe said she will not thank the foreign secretary for her release. Nazanin was “failed by successive UK governments and used as a pawn by the cruel and oppressive Iranian regime”. She was “caught in the crossfire of a decades-long diplomatic argument between the UK and Iran”, and “continually told by UK officials that she would be released – and she wasn’t”. Why, asks Bird, “should she be thankful?” No, “she didn’t thank an institution that failed to protect her”, he continues. If you think that’s being ungrateful, “I’d suggest that you take a deep breath and try to gain a little perspective”.

Read more

4. A new Iran deal leaves us meeker and weaker

Bret Stephens at The New York Times

on geopolitical arrangements

What President Biden thought the US would get out of a new nuclear deal with Iran a year ago “seemed reasonably clear to the administration”, writes Bret Stephens at The New York Times. “But today we live in a different world”, one “in which Russia and China”, both parties to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, “are definitely not our well-wishers”, and “Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates wouldn’t answer Joe Biden’s phone calls in the midst of the greatest geopolitical crisis of the 21st century”. And though the deal with Iran “is said to be mostly finalised”, “maybe the administration needs to think about the broader implications of a new deal a little more carefully before it signs on again”. And if the deal goes through, the administration will “stress that ‘all options are on the table’ should Iran choose to go for a bomb” – “except nobody in the region seems to believe that line or any other security assurances – hence the phone call snub”. “The principal geopolitical challenge the United States faces today is the perception […] that we are weak – diffident, distracted and divided”, Stephens says. “The Biden administration urgently needs to telegraph strength.”

Read more

5. Why Poland deserves to win the Nobel Peace Prize

Matthew Day at The Telegraph

on accommodating refugees

“It is almost impossible to convey the extraordinary way Poles have risen up to welcome the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees streaming into their country every week,” writes Matthew Day at The Telegraph. “The response has been largely bottom-up”, with friends and neighbours taking “responsibility to help those fleeing war”. “There is one simple, symbolic way the rest of the world could show its gratitude and admiration: awarding the Polish nation the Nobel Peace Prize”. It would be “difficult to think of a more deserving recipient in the world today – and I say that as a foreign correspondent who has written countless articles over the years shining a spotlight on the many ways in which this country is far from perfect”, Day continues. Poland’s actions have “restored some faith in humanity”. But “for some, this will not be enough”. People will note that that refugees from Belarus were shown “no kindness” last year, when “their way was blocked by barbed wire”. But “this situation is different”, says Day. The Ukrainians’ situation “has struck a powerful historical nerve among Poles”.

Read more

Iran has claimed responsibility for a missile attack that struck near a new US consulate complex in the northern Iraqi city of Erbil over the weekend.

The attack on Sunday “injured at least two people, blasted holes in nearby homes, and sent US forces running for cover”, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said that the target was an Israeli “strategic centre of conspiracy” in Erbil and that the attack was a response to an Israeli strike in Syria last week that killed two of its commanders.

The assault in Iraq “marked a significant escalation between the US and Iran” that threatens ongoing talks in Vienna aimed at reviving the Iran Nuclear Deal, said Associated Press (AP). “Hostility between the long-time foes has often played out in Iraq, whose government is allied with both countries,” the news agency added.

‘Strategic centres’

The attack by Iran’s top paramilitary force has drawn “harsh condemnation from the Iraqi government, which called it a ‘violation of international law and norms’”, said AP. The US State Department described the strike as an “outrageous violation of Iraq’s sovereignty”.

The missile was launched “several days after Iran said it would retaliate for the Israeli strike near the Syrian capital, Damascus”, the news agency continued.

Although Iran claimed its strike was intended to target Israeli operations in Iraq, the bombing represents “a rare publicly declared assault by Tehran against allies of Washington”, said Reuters. The “last time Iran fired missiles directly at US facilities was when it struck the Ain Al Asad air base in western Iraq in January 2020”, in retaliation for the US killing of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani”.

Iraq’s Foreign Ministry summoned the Iranian ambassador to Baghdad on Sunday to protest at the unprovoked strike on its territory. Israel’s military said it did not comment on reports in the foreign press, and the office of the country’s prime minister also declined to comment.

Escalation of force

US troops “stationed in a section of the Erbil International Airport complex” have previously “come under fire from rocket and drone attacks that Washington blames on Iran-aligned militia groups”, Reuters said. But “no such attacks have occurred in recent months”.

Although the latest missile strike was allegedly aimed at “sites used by Israel”, social media posts showed “missiles hitting the ground and large explosions” near the new US consulate in the northern Iraqi city, The Telegraph reported.

“Local television channel Kurdistan24, whose studios are not far from the US consulate, posted images on social networks of its damaged offices, with collapsed sections of false ceiling and broken glass,” the paper added.

The US, Iraq “and other nations condemned the missile strike as a destabilising act, as the Israeli military stepped up its defences and US officials considered how to respond”, said the WSJ.

The assault is “likely to create more regional resistance to American efforts to strike a new nuclear containment deal with Iran”, the paper continued. The US and Iran “have paused negotiations” amid the diplomatic fallout.

Ambassador Matthew Tueller, America’s top diplomat in Iraq, said that the “Iranian regime elements” behind the attack “must be held accountable for this flagrant violation of Iraqi sovereignty”.

‘Variety of hurdles’

According to The Times, the “missile barrage” suggests that “Tehran has little hope now of negotiating a nuclear deal to lift Western sanctions”.

The powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guards “are determined, if possible, to sabotage any rapprochement with the West” if “fraught attempts” to revive the agreement fail, the paper continued.

Negotiations to breathe life into the Barack Obama-era deal “have barely been worth the weeks and months of intensive negotiations in Vienna”.

“Key elements in Iran’s power structure do not want it” and “those who hoped it would at last bring Iran in from the cold seem increasingly deluded”.

World powers including the UK, France, China, Germany and Russia are involved in the nuclear talks. But the negotiations have already hit a “pause” over “Russian demands about sanctions targeting Moscow for its war on Ukraine”, said AP.

The talks have also “drawn criticism from Israeli and Persian Gulf leaders, who worry that a new deal will allow Tehran to continue to arm allies across the region and carry out its own missile strikes with impunity”, the WSJ reported.

The growing list of “hurdles” was “damping hopes that negotiators would be able to announce a revived deal soon”, the paper said.

France has warned that the missile strike on Iraq will almost certainly “put in danger the efforts to allow a return” to the agreement.

The French Foreign Ministry said that there was “an absolute urgency to conclude the negotiations, which are still open after almost a year, and to cease such irresponsible and dangerous activities”.

In Vienna, American and Iranian officials are racing to find a way back in to the abandoned 2015 deal to restrain Iran's nuclear program before Tehran's uranium enrichment advances so far it's no longer plausible to turn it back. Things have already gone so far, in fact, that some observers wonder whether the effort is still worth it.

Meanwhile, in Berlin, French and German officials are attempting to restart another set of talks that have languished since 2015, the so-called Normandy format talks between Russia and Ukraine. As with Iran, the clock is ticking before fatal rubicons are crossed that cannot be crossed back.

Apart from being showcases for the possibilities and limits of diplomacy, the two negotiations would seem to have nothing in common. But under the surface, they both reflect the decline in the nuclear nonproliferation regime over the past quarter century — and suggest the possibility that we stand on the brink of a wider spread of nuclear weapons.

To explain why, we have to take a trip back to 1994.

1994 was a banner year for nuclear non-proliferation efforts. It was the year the United States and North Korea entered into the Agreed Framework, which provided North Korea with light water reactors in exchange for them shutting down their existing nuclear power plant, which was far more useful for supporting a clandestine nuclear weapons program. The agreement was made at the last minute, averting a confrontation that could easily have led to war.

But within a decade, it was undone, with both the United States and North Korea blaming each other for violating its terms. North Korea acknowledged it had been conducting a secret nuclear weapons program with support from Pakistan, withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 2003, and within a few years had become a full-fledged nuclear power.

Also in 1994, Ukraine agreed to destroy the vast nuclear arsenal it inherited with the collapse of the Soviet Union, accepting the assurances of the Budapest Memorandum in exchange. Ukraine had limited choice in the matter — they had no operational control of the weapons, and both the United States and Russia firmly pressured them to relinquish them. Nonetheless, the agreement was widely hailed as a landmark of nonproliferation.

Once again, diplomacy failed to hold over the long term, but with very different consequences. Ukraine now faces overt coercion by Russia, its nuclear-armed neighbor, an outcome that was predictable — and predicted — in 1994.

The lesson American hawks tend to take from contrasts like the foregoing is that diplomacy is futile and America should rely instead on threats of force. If Iran doesn't give up its nuclear program, we should destroy that program militarily. If Russia doesn't stop threatening Ukraine, we should be prepared to repel them.

But this is a doctrine premised on frankly fantastic assessments of American power, and an appalling indifference to the terrible costs of war. Indeed, it doesn't even reckon with the ways in which America's penchant for interventionism has undermined the nonproliferation regime we claim to be enforcing. After our catastrophic war in Iraq, undertaken ostensibly to end the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, Libya revealed and dismantled its own clandestine nuclear program to avoid a similar fate. When NATO attacked Libya several years later, the lesson was well-learned in capitals around the world.

That lesson is the truly important one that connects Ukraine and Iran: Nuclear weapons are too indiscriminately destructive to be very useful as offensive weapons. But they are quite useful for states under threat from large and powerful neighbors, or from more distant but hostile great powers. In an era characterized by great power competition rather than cooperation, that obvious utility may be increasingly hard for diplomacy to overcome.

Consider Iran's rational assessment of their interests. They have been repeatedly threatened by American administrations. When they agreed with one American administration to accept restrictions on their nuclear weapons program, the next American administration promptly tore up the deal. Knowing nothing else, it would make sense for Iran to hedge their bets and preserve the option to follow the North Korea path simply to preserve a deterrent against a future American attack.

By the same logic, however, if the United States fails to restrain Iran by diplomatic means, it would be rational for Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other states in the region to consider their own deterrent capacity. Would they trust that the United States would remain robust in their defense against an Iran that, no doubt, would operate with greater impunity in a world where it operated from behind a nuclear shield? Looking at our response to the Ukraine crisis, they should rationally have their doubts.

Nor is the Middle East the only theater where the logic of nuclear proliferation could take hold. China has made it clear that the reabsorption of Taiwan is their paramount foreign policy priority, and their military capacity to achieve that goal by force continues to burgeon. America's ability to prevent an invasion, meanwhile, is increasingly in doubt, even as we have gotten closer and closer to formally committing to doing so. Taiwan's best security lies in its own ability to deter invasion. At some point, might they not consider nuclear weapons as an indispensable element in such a strategy?

Once you start making lists, it's hard to stop. If Ukraine is dismembered, should Poland trust NATO will protect them forever? And shouldn't Venezuela worry that one day an American president will decide to do what former President Donald Trump failed to do and rid himself of a troublesome annoyance?

From the U.K. and France to China and India, to Pakistan and Israel and North Korea, today's nuclear powers made their choices to cross the atomic rubicon to deter more-powerful neighbors and avoid being too dependent on more-powerful allies. Nuclear weapons couldn't solve all their foreign policy problems and were certainly no substitute for building the economic and demographic strength that sustains broader military capability. But they did preclude winding up in Ukraine's position.

For a surprisingly long list countries eager to avoid a similar fate, that might be reason enough.

A fresh round of negotiations aimed at salvaging Tehran’s 2015 nuclear deal with Western powers has ground to a halt over a sanctions row.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a framework of restrictions on Iran’s nuclear programme, was effectively scrapped in 2018 when Donald Trump reimposed “punishing sanctions on Iran’s economy”, Reuters reported.

Tehran “responded by breaching many of the deal’s restrictions and pushing well beyond them”, the news agency continued, and has repeatedly insisted that “it is up to Washington to make the first move by agreeing to lift sanctions” in order to resolve the row.

The latest

Former diplomats from 14 countries have teamed up to make a public plea for Washington and Tehran to show more flexibility in talks to revive the deal.

A failure to agree to fresh terms threatens to create a “corrosive stalemate” that will result in “a cycle of increased nuclear tension”, warned an open letter signed by high-profile figures including Jack Straw and six other British former foreign and defence ministers.

The letter, released by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, said that a final draft text of a renewed agreement was ready. “For US and European leaders to let slip the opportunity to defuse a nuclear crisis in the Middle East would be a grave mistake,” the signatories added.

Year-long talks in Vienna aimed at salvaging the deal agreed by Barack Obama back in 2015 “have in effect ground to a halt in a dispute over whether the West will lift the foreign terrorist organisation designation, and sanctions, against the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRCG)”, The Guardian reported.

The US has argued that the sanctions “do not relate to the nuclear deal”, but rather to the IRGC’s “long-term terrorist behaviour in the region”, including in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon.

1. Pro: no nuclear weapons

The text of the original agreement stated that the US would drop hugely damaging sanctions on Iran’s oil and financial sectors in exchange for “limits on Iran’s nuclear production capability and fuel stockpile over the next 15 years”.

Under the terms of the deal, “international restrictions on Iranian arms exports would remain in place for up to five years and the ban on ballistic missile exports could remain for up to eight years”, the Cato Institute think tank’s Christopher Preble explained.

Tehran had also “been building a heavy-water nuclear facility” that world powers insisted should be “dismantled because of the potential military use”, the BBC reported. Spent fuel from such a reactor “contains plutonium suitable for a nuclear bomb”.

As a compromise, “Iran said it would redesign the reactor so it could not produce any weapons-grade plutonium, and that all spent fuel would be sent out of the country as long as the modified reactor existed”, the broadcaster continued.

So all the wrangling resulted in a deal that largely “limited the Iranian programme to reassure the rest of the world that it would be unable to develop nuclear weapons”, said The Guardian.

2. Con: loss of influence

The US “paid a tremendous cost for what can only be described as a narrow – if understandable – focus on the minutiae of Iran’s nuclear programme” under then president Barack Obama’s deal with Tehran, according to Shadi Hamid, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute research group.

In an article in The Atlantic, Hamid argued that getting the deal over the line meant “dissociating” Iran’s nuclear ambitions from its “other activities in the region”, lessening US power to put an end to Tehran’s destabilising acts. US allies in the region were left feeling that Washington “hasn’t done nearly enough to counter Iran’s ambitions in the region”.

“Iran, due to its deteriorating economy, needed a deal more than the United States did,” Hamid continued. “Too much was subsumed and compromised” by Obama “due to the desire for a deal, an administration priority that took precedence over nearly everything else”.

Trump agreed that the deal “fell short of addressing Iran’s regional behaviour or its missile programme”, The Guardian said. He was “emboldened by a group of Iran hawks in his inner circle”, including John Bolton and Mike Pompeo.

3. Pro: more oil supplies

Iran’s economy was in a dire state when the deal was agreed, in part because the Middle Eastern country was unable to widely export its key natural resource, oil. But after the deal was agreed, government officials from major nations began visiting Iran to explore opportunities.

What followed was “the movement of huge supplies of oil from Iran, which was thought to be sitting on large stockpiles due to years of imposed sanctions”, Investopedia said. And this in turn “drastically improved” the economic situation for Iranian citizens.

The resumption of the talks in Austria this week fuelled hopes of “more oil exports” from Tehran, with oil prices sliding “more than 2% from recent seven-year highs”, Reuters reported.

4. Con: likely to collapse

According to United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), a pressure group led by a former Democratic senator and an ex-US ambassador, the 2015 deal was a failure from day one, because it “fails to guarantee the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme”.

The group argues that clauses in the original agreement give “Iran a clear pathway to nuclear weapons”, and cites the so-called “sunset clause” that would end “restrictions on its uranium-enrichment and plutonium-processing capacities” between 2026 and 2031.

Far from ensuring regional stability, “the deal emboldens and enriches an extremist anti-American terror state thereby furthering Iran’s expansionist and destabilising activities”, UANI argues.

And getting a new deal off the ground may also prove difficult for Joe Biden. Republican senators have “pledged to thwart a new Iran nuclear deal” if the president “does not present its terms to Congress for approval”, Al Jazeera reported.

The 33 lawmakers “opposed the initial 2015 deal”, the broadcaster said. A letter sent by leader Ted Cruz stated that they would use the “full range of options and leverage available” to ensure the government adhered to US laws governing any new agreement.

5. Pro: bargaining power

Greater economic cooperation with Iran would increase US influence in Tehran, and the deal also served to slow down North Korea’s missile testing.

The two pariah states have a “long history of cooperation”, said Mark Fitzpatrick, former executive director of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Iran “acquired Scud missiles from North Korea during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s,” he explained, and went “on to acquire the North Korean Nodong and Musudan systems in the 1990s and 2000s, respectively”.

This mutual cooperation “is a reason for ambitious diplomacy”, according to Fitzpatrick. “Resumed missile cooperation” between Iran and North Korea “lends itself to alarmism, but also offers further reasons to negotiate with Iran over its missile programme”.

6. Con: untrustworthy regime

A mainstay of Trump’s attacks on the deal was the suggestion that “Iran was cheating on the agreement” by maintaining covert nuclear facilities, The Guardian reported.

In 2015, then Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had previously said the agreement gave Iran a “path to the bomb”, unveiled “tens of thousands of secret files” that he said proved Tehran was developing nuclear weapons, USA Today reported.

He alleged that “Iran lied when it said it never sought to develop nuclear weapons”, and then “cheated by failing to reveal all its weapons programme information to an international watchdog group charged with monitoring the deal”, said the news site.

At the time, European guarantors of the agreement “pushed back against this, saying the documents underlined the importance of keeping it”, The Guardian reported.

Israel argues that the economic growth that lifting sanctions would bring is “a platform to fund and nurture a nuclear-capable, religious-extremist country”, Investopedia said, and that “a strengthened Iran could hinder peace and security in the region”.

The Biden administration restored a sanctions waiver for Iran's nuclear program Friday, but the Iranian foreign minister says it won't be enough to salvage the 2015 nuclear deal, The Washington Post reported.

The Trump administration withdrew from former President Barack Obama's 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018.

A senior State Department official said the Biden administration's decision to restore sanctions relief "is not a concession to Iran" or a "signal that we are about to reach an understanding" but that it will "enable some of our international partners to have more detailed technical discussions to enable cooperation that we view as being in our non-proliferation interests," CNN reported.

Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian was less optimistic. "Lifting some sanctions in a real and objective manner could be interpreted as the good will that Americans talk about," he said Saturday but added that the Biden administration's waiver is "not sufficient."

Ongoing talks in Vienna temporarily adjourned Friday.

The Week contributor David Faris has argued that the negotiations are "almost certainly doomed" and that when they "inevitably collapse, they will entomb decades of delusion and leave the mangled edifice of American foreign policy exposed." Read more at The Week.

If Iran doesn't come back to the nuclear deal, it will probably be America's fault.

We know this because Iran announced Wednesday it will rejoin talks to revive the 2015 agreement, under which Tehran curbed its development of atomic technologies in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. The news is something of a surprise: The election of hard-liner Ebrahim Raisi, who won the presidency in June, had diminished hopes that the U.S. and Iran might finally come to an agreement. Apparently there's still hope.

Now it's President Biden's turn to make a good-faith effort to restore the deal. The question is whether he will take advantage of the opportunity.

It's hard to say. Biden sensibly campaigned last year on a pledge to re-engage Iran, but he's done a bafflingly lousy job of following through. In February, the administration rejected a proposal in which the U.S. and Iran would simultaneously re-enter the nuclear agreement; America would ease back sanctions while Iran resumed compliance. Instead, the White House essentially told Iran: "You first." (That was audacious, considering that the original deal had been scuttled for no good reason by the United States under then-President Donald Trump in 2018.) Rather than accept those unbalanced terms, Iran chose to keep growing its stockpile of enriched uranium, an activity Tehran resumed a year after Trump's exit, though it still doesn't have enough to make a bomb.

This has led the United States — along with Israel — to make increasingly belligerent sounds toward Iran. Earlier this month, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid discussed the possibility of a "Plan B" option if the nuclear deal isn't resurrected. They left the details unmentioned, but it seemed clear the plan would involve some level of military or covert action against Iran's nuclear facilities. "If a terror regime is going to acquire a nuclear weapon we must act," Lapid said. "We must make clear that the civilized world won't allow it."

That's no surprise: Hawks in the U.S. and Israel have seemed positively eager for war with Iran for much of the last 20 years. But bluster and threats have mostly produced pushback from Tehran; the Obama administration diplomacy that produced the original deal was probably the biggest success America and its allies have had in restraining Iran's nuclear ambitions. The country's willingness to return to the negotiating table suggests Iran would prefer a revived agreement — peace — to continued sanctions or war.

Biden has said that's what he wants, too. Here's his chance to prove it.

Are we on the precipice of another Iran crisis? More than three years after former President Donald Trump torched the Iran nuclear deal for no particular reason, Tehran is now only weeks or months away from having enough fuel to build a weapon. If President Biden is interested in an outcome other than Iran testing a nuclear weapon, which would represent a monumental failure of American policy across five administrations, he needs to rethink the basic parameters of the negotiations that may soon take place in Vienna.

The Biden administration must first confront severely damaged American credibility. Iran was in full compliance with the terms of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action when Trump petulantly withdrew from the pact — which limited Iranian enrichment activities in return for sanctions relief — and imposed harsh new sanctions. Whether Trump's plan was to trap the next Democratic administration in an impossible, politically toxic bind, carry out an emotionally satisfying act of retaliation against former President Barack Obama, or indulge the D.C. foreign policy blob's fantasy of overthrowing the Iranian regime is known only to the Mar-a-Lago's most famous resident.

Trump's gambit failed predictably and spectacularly, because there was never a plan for what would happen next. Beltway hawks assumed the regime would come crawling back to the table and accept less than they secured in 2015. They did not, especially because Trump's maneuver destroyed any trust that Iranian elites had in the United States.

It's quite the mess that the Biden team inherited, but a new agreement will not be easy to put together. Put yourself in the shoes of new Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi. What benefit could there possibly be to returning to some tweaked version of the Iran Deal?

For starters, Trump himself is lurking in the background, threatening to run for the GOP nomination again in 2024, and if he or anyone like him were to be elected president, they would almost certainly torpedo any new agreement brokered by Biden. No sane leader would subject their country to such monumental uncertainty, particularly when the collapse of the last deal led to enormous economic hardship in Iran and left it deeply unprepared for the pandemic. Dealing with America these days is the diplomatic equivalent of taking out an adjustable-rate mortgage.

Having endured the crippling economic pressure applied by the U.S. and its allies, what else could Raisi have to fear from the United States? For nearly 20 years, American leaders have warned that "all options are the table." With near-celestial reliability, the U.S. is rumored to be on the verge of a bombing campaign, or signals that it will not stand in the way of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. And yet no leader in either country has resorted to such drastic moves, even as the hour of Iran's nuclear breakout draws ever nearer.

It's not just that the threat of force itself is empty. Tehran doesn't operate in some kind of information vacuum — they just watched along with everyone else as the United States withdrew its forces from Afghanistan, as part of a plan negotiated by a Republican president and then carried out by a Democratic one. Staying out of complicated military entanglements in the region is now one of the closest things Washington has to a bipartisan consensus on anything. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken can say whatever he wants, but it is farcical to think that anyone in Iran believes the U.S. has the appetite for anything other than haplessly firing off some cruise missiles in a snit.

The Islamic Republic has survived decades of U.S. scheming as well as material hardships shared by nearly the whole population. With each spasm of protest against brutality, corruption, and ineptitude, hopes are raised that this noxious regime will be washed away, only to be dashed against the brutal rocks of authoritarian resilience. Having suffered so much on the road to a nuclear weapon, now so tantalizingly close that they can practically smell the fallout, why would they stop without major concessions?

These realities demand an entirely new negotiating paradigm. The Biden team first needs to let go of the fantasy of a better Iran Deal, and clear out any dead-enders in the foreign policy team who believe the regime is one push away from crumbling. Thanks to the Trump administration's mindless blundering, Tehran is, in almost every conceivable way, in a stronger bargaining position today than it was in 2015, with even less incentive to believe American promises.

That means that if Iran is to halt work on its nuclear program and resume intrusive international inspections, it must have guarantees from some entity other than the United States that the country will not be plunged right back into economic immiseration even if it is in compliance with whatever terms it agrees to. Most importantly, the U.S. must make a binding promise not to use its power in the global financial and banking systems to bully other countries into not doing business with Iran.

Unfortunately, it is not clear that anyone in the White House sees things this way. Shortly after his inauguration, Biden refused Tehran's bid to restore the pre-Trump status quo, insisting that Iran come back into full compliance before the U.S. rejoins the pact and lifts sanctions. Tehran, understandably, balked at having to make the first move toward rapprochement after the Trump administration walked away from the deal on the flimsiest of pretexts. Maybe they thought outgoing Iranian President Hassan Rouhani no longer had the power to negotiate a binding agreement, which is not unreasonable. But it was disappointing, to say the least, to see the new Democratic administration pass up the opportunity without even trying.

Then in June, pre-ordained election results engineered by Iran's authoritarian rulers brought Raisi, a far more conservative and hawkish figure than Rouhani, to power. Raisi reportedly does not regard getting back into the JCPOA as a top-tier priority, preferring instead to rebuild the economy by deepening ties with Russia, China, and other regional countries. His faction distrusts the United States so thoroughly that negotiations, if indeed they happen, are going to be slow-going and painful.

Yet instead of rethinking its approach, the Biden administration is apparently intent on tying any new nuclear framework to other changes in Iranian policy, such as dismantling the country's missile program. That's a non-starter for Iran, and surely Biden knows it. Perhaps Washington believes Iran is years away from perfecting a weapon design and is content to drop the crisis into the lap of the next administration. Or perhaps they have concluded that they don't care that much whether Iran develops a nuclear weapon after all — a long overdue assessment but one that would not be publicly well received.

Yet any move toward nuclear breakout by Iran will cause absolute political mayhem in the U.S., making the hysterical reaction to the withdrawal of Afghanistan look calm and measured. If the president wishes to avoid that outcome, time is very much running out.

Iran is closer to a bomb than ever before. Is a new nuclear deal possible? Here's everything you need to know:

What is Iran's nuclear status?

Iran doesn't have nukes yet, but it is close to being able to build them. Since the Trump administration withdrew in 2018 from the 2015 nuclear deal — which brought U.N. nuclear inspections in exchange for sanctions relief — Iran has drastically increased the pace of its pursuit. It is currently about a month away from producing enough fuel for a weapon, although constructing a warhead and mounting it on a missile would take much longer. Some experts believe the country may be trying to become a "threshold state," able to build nukes whenever it decides to go all-out, while others think it is merely seeking leverage in negotiations to force the U.S. to return to the deal and lift sanctions. The original pact, between Iran and a group of world powers, restricted Iran to enriching uranium to just 4 percent potency, enough to run a nuclear power plant but far from the 90 percent required for a bomb. Now it has reportedly reached 60 percent, even as new President Ebrahim Raisi says his administration is willing to negotiate.

Who is Raisi?

Raisi, 60, is an ultra-conservative protégé of 82-year-old Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and a top candidate to succeed him as Supreme Leader. His black turban signals that he is a descendant of the Prophet Mohammed. A student protester when the Islamic Revolution broke out in 1979, he rose quickly to become a Tehran prosecutor and served on one of the four-judge panels, known as Death Committees, that retried several thousand dissident prisoners and condemned them to execution. Raisi took office in August after a low-turnout election heavily rigged in his favor, in which reformist candidates were barred from running. He immediately took a tough line against the U.S., saying at the U.N. last month that the "U.S. hegemonic system has no credibility" and that U.S. sanctions against Iran amount to "crimes against humanity."

What are the sanctions?

The U.S. has laid various economic sanctions on Iran since 1979, when Islamic-radical students overthrew the U.S.-supported shah and took U.S. Embassy workers hostage. At that time, the U.S. froze $12 billion in Iranian assets. Over the years, the sanctions have been increased many times by both the U.S. and the U.N. Security Council to punish Tehran for pursuing nuclear weapons technology, and by the 2010s, the Iranian economy was suffering severely. In 2015, desperate to get an international ban on selling Iranian oil lifted, the administration of President Hassan Rouhani clinched the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with the Obama administration as well as the U.K., France, Russia, China, and Germany. American conservatives denounced the deal as too lenient, and even though U.N. inspectors confirmed that Iran was complying, then-President Trump unilaterally pulled the U.S. out of the six-party pact and imposed the most debilitating sanctions yet in a "maximum pressure" policy. In just two years, Iran's inflation rate soared to 40 percent and the poverty rate doubled, to 30 percent.

What effect did that have?

It actually strengthened the power of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a military body that answers directly to the Supreme Leader and has championed the nuclear program. The Revolutionary Guard has clashed with Iran's pro-democracy reformers for decades, but the reformers have had enough popular support to win parliament seats and even the presidency, acting as a check on the Supreme Leader's extremism. Trump's sanctions undermined the reformers, by proving that the U.S. was not a reliable negotiator and by making Iran desperate for international financial outlets. Through its front companies, the Revolutionary Guard bought up financial and oil contracts that were used to evade sanctions. The Guard then controlled Iran's ability to sell oil under the table, enhancing its own power and status. That paved the way for an anti-U.S. hard-liner, Raisi, to take the presidency.

What has Biden done?

President Biden is seeking to revive the agreement, promising "full compliance" from the U.S. if Iran does the same. But he's also ratcheted up the pressure by imposing new restrictions, blocking Iran from using its assets held in South Korean and Japanese banks to buy COVID vaccines, and pressuring the U.K. to halt repayment of old Iranian debt. At this point, the Iranians no longer trust America's word. And the chaotic pullout from Afghanistan damaged the U.S.'s image as a nation whose military might is to be feared, and created doubt about its willingness to intervene abroad.

What's the next step?

Raisi insists that Iran will resume multination nuclear talks in Vienna "soon," but has not given a date. Yet with every passing month, the country gets closer to achieving breakout capability. Some believe Tehran is just stalling until it's capable of building a bomb. "We really don't have the level of deterrence we need, whether on the nuclear issue or in the region," U.S. diplomat Dennis Ross told Foreign Policy. "The Iranians are clearly not afraid of us any longer."

Ramifications of a nuclear Iran

If Iran were to become a nuclear state, or even hover at threshold status, the entire Middle East could be destabilized. Some analysts think that Sunni Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which see Shiite Iran as a dangerous rival, would likely seek nukes if Iran got them. Others argue that this "nuclear domino theory" isn't plausible, because it would require the Saudis to defy and even alienate its U.S. ally, and even Russia would be hesitant to see a nuclear arms race in the region. There's no doubt, however, that Israel, which itself has unacknowledged nuclear weapons, sees a nuclear Iran as an existential threat because of Ayatollah Khamenei's repeated calls for the annihilation of the Jewish state. Over the past decade, Israel has repeatedly sabotaged Iranian computer systems and assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists to set back the program. But if Iran gets further down the road this time, Israel may be tempted to pre-­emptively attack sites where uranium enrichment and bomb development are underway.

This article was first published in the latest issue of The Week magazine. If you want to read more like it, you can try six risk-free issues of the magazine here.

Ebrahim Raisi, Iran's president-elect, said on Monday it is "central to our foreign policy" that the United States lift its sanctions on the country.

Raisi, 60, is currently Iran's ultraconservative judiciary chief. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, is one of his mentors, and a panel led by Khamenei disqualified several reformist presidential candidates and those aligned with President Hassan Rouhani, who is considered to be more moderate. Because of this, millions of voters stayed home, The Associated Press reports, and Iran had its lowest voter turnout ever. Raisi won the election with almost 62 percent of the vote.

During his first press conference since the election, Raisi called himself a "defender of human rights," and said he will back the revival of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, but refuses to limit Iran's missile capabilities or support for area militias. "It's nonnegotiable," he said. Iran's missiles can travel 1,240 miles, and the country backs Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Talks regarding the nuclear deal are now underway in Vienna between Tehran and global powers, and when asked if he would meet with President Biden, Raisi flatly replied, "No." White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Monday told reporters the U.S. does not have diplomatic relations with Iran, and there are no plans "to meet at the leader level, so it's unclear that anything has actually changed on that front." Biden considers Khamenei the "decision leader," Psaki added, and this was "the case before the election, it's the case today, it will be the case probably moving forward."

In 2018, former President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. from the nuclear agreement. Today, Iran is enriching uranium at its highest level ever, 60 percent; weapons grade is 90 percent.

National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan isn't worried that Iran's new president will derail talks between Tehran and other world powers about possibly reviving the 2015 nuclear deal.

During an appearance on ABC News' This Week on Sunday, Sullivan was asked by host George Stephanopoulos if the election of Ebrahim Raisi will affect the chances of reaching a deal. Sullivan responded that no, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, will decide for the country. "He was the same person before this election as he is after the election, so ultimately, it lies with him," Sullivan added.

The negotiations are ongoing in Vienna, and it's believed that Khamenei has approved them because he wants to see sanctions against Iran lifted. Khamenei is seen as a mentor to the ultraconservative Raisi, Iran's former judiciary chief.

Sullivan said the most important thing the United States can do with Raisi as Iran's new president is "keep our eye on the ball. And that is — our paramount priority right now is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. We believe that diplomacy is the best way to achieve that, rather than military conflict. And so, we're going to negotiate in a clear-eyed, firm way with the Iranians to see if we can arrive at an outcome that puts their nuclear program in a box."

A major explosion that caused a power blackout at Iran’s main nuclear facility was “an act of nuclear terrorism” by Israel, Tehran has alleged.

Tensions between the two nations have escalated rapidly since the blast at the Natanz nuclear enrichment facility on Sunday, which intelligence sources say “dealt a severe blow to Iran’s ability to enrich uranium” and could set back production by “at least nine months”, The New York Times (NYT) reports.

Multiple Israeli news outlets have reported that Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency was behind the alleged sabotage, which appears to be the latest in “a years-long series of Israeli efforts” to undermine Iran’s nuclear programme “by a variety of means”, says The Washington Post.

Power outage

The Telegraph reports that the explosion at the “largely underground” nuclear enrichment facility came “the day after Iran’s National Nuclear Day, when it inaugurated new advanced centrifuges” – marking another breach of the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action since Donald Trump withdrew the US from the deal in 2018.

The heavily guarded site in Natanz, around 155 miles south of the capital, Tehran, was hit by an “electrical blackout” following the blast, which is thought to have “left some older centrifuges damaged”, The Washington Post adds.

Iran’s Nournews site has reportedly been told by an “informed official” in the Ministry of Intelligence that the individual behind the outage “has been identified” and that “necessary measures are being taken to arrest this person”.

Meanwhile, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has “vowed vengeance against Israel” for the attack, The Telegraph adds.

According to Iranian state media, Zarif said on Monday that “the Zionists want to take revenge because of our progress in the way to lift sanctions. They have publicly said that they will not allow this. But we will take our revenge from the Zionists.”

While Israeli media has all but confirmed that Mossad was behind the strike, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remained vague when asked by reporters about his country’s involvement.

“Iran has never given up its quest for nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them,” he said, adding: “I will never allow Iran to obtain the nuclear capability to carry out its genocidal goal of eliminating Israel.”

The attack on the Natanz site is by no means the first. More than a decade ago, “a joint Israeli-American cyberattack” on the facility was carried out in a bid to “slow Tehran’s progress toward nuclear weapons”, says the NYT.

The White House has denied any links to Sunday’s blackout, however. Spokesperson Jen Psaki told a press briefing that “the US was not involved in any manner”.

Nuclear friction

The attack comes amid ongoing talks between US and Iranian officials in Vienna about reviving the Iran nuclear deal. Representatives of the two countries are not meeting in person, with EU officials instead facilitating the negotiations, scheduled to last for ten days.

Lawmakers in Tehran have called on Foreign Minister Zarif to suspend the talks, arguing that “Iran should not be engaged in negotiations when it is under attack”, the NYT says.

“Talks under pressure have no meaning,” Abbas Moghtadaie, deputy chair of Iran’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said during a talk on the Clubhouse social media app on Monday. “This was a message we conveyed very clearly today.”

Meanwhile, Israel remains concerned that Iran could one day manufacture an atomic bomb, with Middle East correspondent Campbell MacDiarmid writing that “analysts suggested that the timing was not coincidental”.

Rather than aiming to “derail the talks”, the move is being interpreted as a sign that Israel is “willing to act independently to advance its interests”, MacDiarmid says. “The Natanz incident was the second apparent attack on Iranian interests since indirect talks over the nuclear deal started last week.”

Zarif’s pledge to take revenge against Israel “highlighted the risk of escalation in a years-long shadow war between Iran and Israel”, the NYT says.

The Natanz site is not far from the area where Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the scientists who American intelligence officials believe was behind Iran’s secret nuclear programme, was killed in December by a remote-controlled gun. Like the security failure that resulted in Fakhrizadeh’s death, “the attack this weekend was another humiliating indication that [Iran’s] programme has been penetrated by spies and saboteurs”, the paper adds.

“These incidents were timed and tied to the nuclear deal talks and Iran’s nuclear day events but that’s just tradecraft from the Israelis,” Joel Gulhane, Middle East and North Africa analyst at The Risk Advisory Group, told The Telegraph.

“As Netanyahu said, Israel’s strategic aims with regards to Iran’s nuclear programme are not bound by the nuclear deal,” Gulhane added. “Israel is demonstrating what it can do to Iran's nuclear programme if it needs to.”

Sunday's cyberattack on Iran's underground Natanz uranium enrichment facility, widely believed to be the work of Israel, has added another layer of uncertainty over the already delicate indirect talks between Iran and the U.S. on reviving the 2015 nuclear deal. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Monday threatened retaliation against Israel and "any power with knowledge" of the sabotage, but he said Iran will take part in scheduled Wednesday negotiations in Vienna, conducted through European and other parties to the nuclear accord.

Israel, whose government strongly opposed the 2015 deal and has criticized President Biden's efforts to resurrect it, has neither publicly denied or claimed responsibility for the cyberattack, which temporarily set back Iran's ability to enrich uranium at the facility. But Israeli media has heavily suggested the country is behind the sabotage, and U.S. and Israeli officials confirmed to The New York Times that Israel at least played a role.

The Biden administration has neither condemned nor celebrated the Natanz attack. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Monday "the U.S. was not involved in any manner" and has "nothing to add on speculation about the causes or the impacts," adding, "Our focus is on the diplomatic path forward."

It isn't clear if the U.S. was warned about the sabotage beforehand or whether Israel timed the attack to coincide with a visit to Israel by U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. Austin did not mention Iran at a news conference Monday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The talks to restart the agreement, which former President Donald Trump pulled out from in 2018, are at an early stage, and the U.S. and Iran don't agree about which U.S. sanctions would be lifted and under what conditions; Iran wants them lifted before it returns to compliance with the nuclear deal while the U.S. sees Iran's compliance as a precondition. At this point, both sides are committed to the negotiations.

Israel wants "to take revenge because of our progress in the way to lift sanctions," Zarif said. "We will not fall into their trap. ... We will not allow this act of sabotage to affect the nuclear talks."

While nothing is definitive, "all indications are pointing to the fact" that Israel was behind a cyberattack that knocked out power at Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment facility over the weekend, retired U.S. Navy Adm. William McRaven said Monday, and he finds the allegations "a little disturbing" given that the U.S. and other countries are currently trying to renegotiate the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

"Frankly, I'm not exactly sure what it accomplishes," McRaven told CNN's Jake Tapper. "It's a little bit of a shot across the bow, but Natanz will only be down for maybe a week or so."

McRaven didn't sound too worried about significant retribution from Iran, noting that Tehran doesn't often follow through on its threats, but he expressed concerns about whether this could hamper efforts to strike an agreement on the nuclear pact. However, the blame shouldn't be placed squarely on Israel, McRaven suggested. Tapper asked him if he thought it was plausible that Israel carried out the alleged "act of sabotage without informing the U.S. government, either before or after." That, indeed, "is the problem," McRaven responded. "It implies that [the U.S. was] either complicit or we were ignorant, and neither one of those is a good look for us," he said. Tim O'Donnell

A whole lot happened in relation to Iran's nuclear program this weekend.

For starters, on Sunday, Iran's underground Natanz facility started up new advanced centrifuges capable of enriching uranium more quickly. Hours later, a "suspicious" blackout struck the facility. Tehran claims there wasn't any lasting damage or pollution, but Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran's civilian nuclear program, called the power outage "nuclear terrorism" and details remain scarce.

Israeli media outlets, including Haaretz, are indicating the blackout was the result of an Israeli cyberattack, the latest sign of escalation between the regional rivals. The Associated Press notes these reports do not offer sourcing, but "Israeli media maintains a close relationship with [Israel's] military and intelligence," so, when coupled with past allegations of Israel targeting Iran's nuclear program, the possibility seems legitimate.

Meanwhile, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was in Israel meeting with his counterpart, Benny Gantz, who pledged to cooperate with the U.S. "to ensure that any new agreement with Iran will secure the vital interests of the world and the United States, prevent a dangerous arms race in our region, and protect the State of Israel."

World powers, including the U.S., will continue to negotiate with Tehran over its nuclear deal next week in Vienna, though it's unclear how the blackout will affect the talks, if it all.

European diplomats were yesterday rushing between US and Iranian officials in Vienna as talks got under way to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

Breathing new life into the deal negotiated by his former boss, Barack Obama, is seen by Joe Biden as “the first potential thaw in diplomatic relations between Tehran and Washington” since Donald Trump withdrew from the accord in 2018, The Wall Street Journal reports.

US and Iranian representatives are not meeting directly, but working through European intermediaries alongside officials representing other signatories to the deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), including Russia and China.

Both the Biden administration and Iran have said they want to re-enter the agreement, however “a carefully choreographed series of moves from Tehran and Washington would be required to make that happen”, Politico says.

The aim of the first talks, scheduled to last 10 days in the Austrian capital, is to “identify concrete measures” that the US and Iran “can take to return to compliance with the agreement”, the news site adds.

This includes “steps Iran would need to take in order to return to compliance with the deal”, Al Jazeera says, as well as “potential relief from US sanctions imposed on Iran for violating the agreement”.

Enrique Mora, a senior EU official overseeing the negotiations, described the joint commission meeting as “constructive” in a tweet sent after talks closed yesterday. Mora added that “there’s unity and ambition for a joint diplomatic process with two expert groups on nuclear implementation and sanctions lifting”.

Biden has pledged to restore the agreement by bringing Iran back into compliance with limits on uranium enrichment. But achieving a breakthrough is “further complicated” by presidential elections taking place in Iran in June, The Times reports.

Trump’s decision to pull out of the deal “badly undercut the position of Iranian moderates who supported it in the face of grave doubts from the regime and political hardliners”, the paper adds. Fears of the same thing happening again are likely to make Iranian officials keen to secure concessions from the US before any agreement.

US officials have made it clear that they do not “foresee any early breakthrough”, Al Jazeera reports, with State Department spokesperson Ned Price telling reporters on Monday that “we don’t underestimate the scale of the challenges ahead”.

“These are early days. We don’t anticipate an early or immediate breakthrough as these discussions, we fully expect, will be difficult”, Price added.

US officials also hope that the talks can be used as a springboard for “engaging Tehran on other issues of concern”, The Wall Street Journal says, including Iran’s missile programme, which is seen as “a threat to Middle East stability”.

The deal explained

The JCPOA was signed in July 2015 by Iran and six countries known as the P5+1. The countries are the United Nations Security Council’s five permanent members – the US, France, the UK, China and Russia – plus Germany.

The deal involved Iran agreeing to reduce its number of centrifuges – machines that enrich uranium – by two-thirds, while also reducing its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98% and limiting the stockpile’s level of enrichment at 3.67%.

Iran also agreed to give inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, access to its nuclear facilities. Prior to Trump’s withdrawal, the IAEA repeatedly found Iran to be honouring the deal.

Three years after Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed economic sanctions, the U.S. is set to take part in indirect discussions to revive the accord.

President Joe Biden has made it clear he wants to return to the 2015 deal, and next Tuesday that journey begins. Officials from all participating countries, including the U.S. and Iran, will meet in Vienna, the Wall Street Journal reports. However, U.S. and Iran officials will not meet face-to-face.

Iran is still pushing for the U.S. to lift sanctions. "Iran will suspend its steps (scaling back compliance with the deal's terms) as soon as (U.S.) sanctions are lifted and this is verified," Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said Friday in Iran's Fars News Agency, Reuters reports.

State Department spokesperson Ned Price said the talks are a "healthy step forward," AP reports. But Price noted they are in the early stages. "We don't anticipate an immediate breakthrough as there will be difficult discussions ahead."

The Biden administration announced Thursday that the U.S. is willing to sit down with other world powers to discuss returning to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

State Department spokesman Ned Price said the U.S. would accept an invitation from the European Union high representative to attend a meeting with Iran, Germany, and the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council "to discuss a diplomatic way forward on Iran's nuclear program." A State Department official told reporters that it's not yet clear if Tehran will agree to participate in the meeting.

The Iran nuclear deal, meant to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons, was abandoned in 2018 during the Trump administration. Iran is threatening to stop International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of its nuclear facilities next week, saying the U.S. needs to hold up some of its commitments made as part of the 2015 deal. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Thursday said if "Iran comes back into strict compliance with its commitments ... the United States will do the same."

Iran is ready to produce 20 percent enriched uranium at its underground Fordo nuclear facility "as soon as possible," Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran's civilian Atomic Energy Organization, said Saturday. "We are like soldiers and our fingers are on the triggers," he told Iranian state television. The 20 percent figure is much higher than the threshold set in the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, and though it's well below the grade required to make a bomb, The Guardian has previously reported the early stages of enrichment are the most challenging, and it gets easier over time.

The plan came to light Friday, and both Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency have since confirmed that Tehran has informed the agency of its preparations. The decision comes amid escalating tensions between Tehran and both Washington and Jerusalem following the assassinations of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani — which was carried out by the U.S. in a drone strike almost exactly one year ago — and Iranian nuclear physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, who founded the country's military nuclear program two decades ago.

Iran has blamed Israel for Fakhrizadeh's death, and the country's parliament subsequently passed a law calling for the production and storage of 20 percent enriched uranium, as well as an end to IAEA inspections, which are meant to ensure the country is not developing an atomic bomb. It does not appear Tehran has followed through on the latter step, however, The Associated Press reports. Salehi said the enrichment "should be done under IAEA supervision." Read more at The Associated Press and France 24.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Monday said if the United States returns to the Iran nuclear deal, his country will follow within an hour.

The deal was made during the Obama administration in 2015, lifting sanctions on Tehran in exchange for Iran reducing its uranium stockpile and dismantling its centrifuges. Rouhani said he will not discuss any changes to the accord or restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile program, The Guardian reports.

President Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018, and Rouhani made his comments on the same day the Trump administration sanctioned two Iranian intelligence officials for allegedly playing a role in the 2007 disappearance and presumed death of retired FBI agent Robert Levinson. President-elect Joe Biden has said he will rejoin the deal, believing it is one way to avert a nuclear crisis in the Middle East.

President-elect Joe Biden will not receive pressure from his European counterparts to rush back into the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Officials from France, Germany, and the United Kingdom told the Journal that their countries are still supportive of the deal, but they don't think it will be possible or even desirable to achieve a full return to the agreement before Iran's presidential elections in June. Like several analysts, they think it's better to wait and see how things unfold before giving up any leverage.

Diplomats in Europe reportedly believe Iran will elect a more hard-line president than the comparatively moderate incumbent, Hassan Rouhani. If Biden successfully hurries the U.S. back into the deal while Rouhani remains in office, it could lead to his successor quickly reversing it on Tehran's end, making it much more difficult to reach a broader agreement that would prompt Iran to reverse its expanded nuclear activities.

What Europe does seem to want is for the Biden administration to ease the tensions and sanctions that have defined President Trump's relationship with Iran and offer Tehran "some tangible economic benefits" before the vote, theoretically creating incentive for the next government to negotiate. Read more at The Wall Street Journal.