Sources close to the US administration have said that Iran would be gone by September if it does not agree to a nuclear deal and begin dismantling its nuclear program, Daily Express reported.
"There is a clarity of purpose here. Iran's time is running out,” the tabloid cited an unnamed official with links to the Trump administration.
"If it (Iran) doesn't respond to President Trump's generous terms in return for allowing a full audit of its nuclear capabilities and the dismantling of those capabilities, Iran will be gone by September. It's as simple as that."
US President Donald Trump warned Iran of potential bombing if an agreement is not reached. Trump has also reportedly ordered the deployment of additional strategic air squadrons and a second aircraft carrier group to the Middle East.
Tweet unavailable
A former senior Iranian lawmaker has criticized the United States and other Western powers for using the term “proxies” to describe militant groups in the Middle East backed by the Islamic Republic.
Mahmoud Abbasszadeh Meshkini, a hardliner, told the semi-official ISNA news agency: “Western powers, in an effort to deny the political virtues that the Islamic Republic of Iran has offered to the world, have turned to labeling tactics—using the term ‘proxy’ to describe heroic and resilient nations.”
Tehran refers to groups such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah and various Shi’ite militias in Iraq as part of the “Resistance Front,” while providing them with extensive financial, military, and political support.
The United States has called on Iran to stop funding and arming these groups as part of a peace proposal put forward by President Donald Trump since his return to the White House.
But Meshkini pushed back, saying, “If by the term ‘proxy’ the United States means that people around the world, inspired by the Islamic Republic of Iran, have come to value freedom, independence, and resistance—and have gained self-confidence—then we will strive to make the whole world our proxy.”

The White House is seriously considering an Iranian proposal for indirect nuclear talks, even as the US military significantly increases its presence in the Middle East, according to two US officials who spoke to Axios.
The deliberations come as Trump has repeatedly expressed his preference for a nuclear deal with Iran but warned that a failure to reach one within a timeframe he has set could lead to military action. The exact start date of Trump's reported two-month deadline to Iran remains unclear.
The consideration of indirect talks follows Iran's formal response to a letter sent by Trump to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in March. Iran rejected direct US talks as well as negotiating over its missile program and its support for armed regional groups, which the US has insisted must be part of any discussions.
While Trump had proposed direct negotiations, Iran has reportedly agreed only to indirect discussions mediated by Oman, which has previously played a mediating role between the two nations.
The US officials cited by Axios added that the Trump administration believes direct talks would be more effective but is not dismissing the Iranian proposal or Oman's potential role as mediator.
"After the exchange of letters, we are now exploring next steps in order to begin conversations and trust building with the Iranians," one of the US officials told Axios, emphasizing that no final decision has been made and internal discussions are ongoing.
More than one year of indirect talks with the Biden administration failed to produce an agreement. Those who believe Tehran might be playing for time see its demand for Omani mediation as a tactic to drag out negotiations until the end of the Trump administration.
Sources indicate an internal debate within the White House, with some officials believing a negotiated agreement is still possible, while others view further talks as futile and advocate for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.
In a parallel move, the Pentagon is undertaking a substantial buildup of forces in the Middle East. The deployment would provide Trump with readily available military capabilities should he decide diplomatic efforts have failed.
The diplomatic maneuvering occurs against a backdrop of escalating rhetoric between Washington and Tehran.
Trump recently threatened to bomb Iran if a deal is not reached, prompting a sharp response from Khamenei, who warned of a "heavy blow in return" if Iran were attacked.
Iran has also lodged a formal protest via the Swiss embassy, which represents US interests in Iran, vowing a "decisive and immediate" response to any threat.
Tensions are further fueled by Iran's increased uranium enrichment, bringing it closer to becoming a nuclear threshold state, although Tehran maintains it does not seek nuclear weapons.
The Pentagon confirmed on Tuesday the deployment of additional troops and air assets to the region, with two aircraft carriers, the Truman and Vinson, remaining in the area.
Last week, B-2 stealth bombers were sent to the Diego Garcia military base in the Indian Ocean, a move a US official indicated was linked to Trump's deadline.
"Should Iran or its proxies threaten American personnel and interests in the region, the US will take decisive action to defend our people," Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement.
A threatened Iranian attack on British military facilities in the Chagos islands would spark a wider Middle East conflict, according to former UK military intelligence commander PhilipIngram.
His warning comes after Iranian forces recently called for a preemptive strike on the Diego Garcia UK-US pacific security outpost.
Ingram told Daily Mail,“Iran has the capability on paper to strike Diego Garcia. They know the US would respond by destroying the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps across Iran."
According to an Iranian military official cited by The Telegraph, Iran would strike the British-American naval base in the Indian Ocean if it is attacked by the US.
Dismissing the possibility of such an attack, Ingram said, “I think Iran is using rhetoric to threaten the Chagos Islands. They will have observed the debate in the UK and elsewhere about the islands' future.Fortunately, it is merely words on Tehran's part and intended to signal strength to their regional allies.”
The White House is seriously considering Iran's proposal for indirect nuclear talks, while significantly increasing US forces in the Middle East, Axios reported on Wednesday, citing sources.

In his Eid al-Fitr sermon, Ali Khamenei once again voiced concern about the possible resurgence of anti-government protests in Iran, using his signature rhetoric to warn of a "new sedition."
But the fundamental question remains: who is the real seditionist? Is it the Iranian people protesting the country’s dire conditions—or is it Khamenei himself, who has held power for over three decades? Who is responsible for the current state of affairs that has him so worried? Who has ruled the country and made all major decisions over the past 36 years—ordinary citizens or Khamenei himself?
Khamenei labeling public protests as "sedition" and dismissing demonstrators as seditious is nothing new. This has always been his approach. He has never been willing to acknowledge that Iranian citizens are reacting to the country's deteriorating conditions, which are a direct result of his policies as supreme leader. He has consistently refused to recognize these protests as legitimate, branding them as riots in order to justify their suppression.
He views the citizens who took to the streets in dozens of cities during the 2017, 2019, and 2022 uprisings as being influenced by foreign enemies. But is this really plausible? Khamenei refuses to accept that these protests are domestic and popular in nature. He uses the label of unrest to delegitimize them.
If Khamenei is worried about new protests, he should understand that this fear stems from his own actions. The country’s current state—one that the majority of people reject—is the product of 36 years under his rule, and a decade before that under Khomeini.

For 46 years, no one else has governed Iran. Even the monarchy, which the Islamic Republic continues to criticize and compare itself to, fares better in many metrics. In contrast, the Islamic Republic has dragged the country backward.
After 46 years in power, it is no longer acceptable for the Islamic Republic to measure itself against a government from half a century ago. And even when this comparison is made, in the minds of many Iranians, the Pahlavi era wins, while the Islamic Republic is clearly the loser.
While other nations have advanced in less time, Iran under the Islamic Republic has stagnated or regressed. Dubai and Qatar have achieved modern prosperity in under 46 years. China, now an economic superpower, began its development path after the Islamic Republic came to power—but unlike Iran, it made real progress. The Islamic Republic squandered these decades, pushed the country into ruin, and sacrificed three generations in the process—yet refuses to step aside. Meanwhile, those who object to these conditions are called seditious.
When Khamenei assumed power in 1989, the exchange rate was 1,200 rials to the US dollar. After 36 years of his leadership, it has surpassed one million—a depreciation of 87,000 percent. This isn't mere exaggeration; it’s verifiable with a basic calculation. And still, he labels public protests as sedition and threatens suppression—though such threats have long lost their force.
In just the past four years, the dollar has surged from around 200,000 rials to 1,040,000—more than a fivefold increase. So why wouldn’t people expect the currency to plunge further, possibly hitting one billion rials, if the current trajectory and war-driven policies continue?

Given this economic collapse—and the fact that widespread poverty and dissatisfaction are direct consequences of Khamenei’s rule—how can he possibly justify calling protesters seditious?
Even some of Khamenei’s own allies, like former deputy parliament speaker Mohammadreza Bahonar, have admitted that inflation has hovered at 40 percent for the past seven years. Inflation, in essence, is a legalized form of theft by the state—citizens go to sleep at night and wake up to find their savings eroded.
Even former president Hassan Rouhani, a figure deeply entrenched in Iran’s security apparatus, has openly stated that the people are unhappy.
When individuals who played key roles in cracking down on the 2017 and 2019 protests now speak of widespread dissatisfaction, how can Khamenei still claim these movements are foreign-led?
Many Islamic Republic officials have warned that the public will once again take to the streets—an outcome of the government’s own policies. If anything needs to change, it is the behavior of those in power, not the people.
Numerous insiders have acknowledged the failures of the Islamic Republic’s domestic and foreign policies, especially regarding the US and Israel. Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guard’s staunch anti-American and anti-Israeli stance has not only devastated the economy but also edged the country closer to a potentially catastrophic war.
Sanctions, largely driven by Tehran’s belligerent foreign policy, have primarily harmed ordinary Iranians—while enriching commanders of the Revolutionary Guard.
Mohammad Hossein Adeli, a former Central Bank governor, revealed that in just one year, efforts to circumvent sanctions—managed by the Revolutionary Guard—cost the country $50 billion.
Where did that money go? Beyond international middlemen, much of it ended up in the hands of IRGC commanders and oil smuggling networks. They call it “bypassing sanctions,” but in practice, it’s looting the nation while claiming sacrifice and heroism.
Naturally, the Guard will seek to protect this $50 billion racket—so it continues echoing anti-American policies. After all, it’s the people who pay the price, not the IRGC.
The reality is that through flawed domestic and foreign policies, the Islamic Republic has pushed Iran into a full-blown crisis. Public frustration and anger towards the ruling system is undeniable. The responsibility for this crisis rests squarely on Ali Khamenei and the government he leads.
Ultimately, public protests driven by economic collapse, corruption, and authoritarianism cannot be ignored—and they will inevitably erupt again. But the core question remains: in a country where even officials acknowledge the people's dissatisfaction, who is the real source of sedition—the people, or Ali Khamenei?






