China backs JCPOA-style Iran deal – Iranian state media

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has rejected reports that its senior commanders are overseeing the US-Iran nuclear talks, according to Fars News Agency, which is affiliated with the IRGC.

The report followed a tweet on Monday by Mahmoud Sadeghi, a reformist politician and former lawmaker, who wrote: “The advantage of this round of Iran-US talks is that the foreign minister is working under the direct supervision of the Supreme Leader and a team of senior IRGC commanders, while the president and cabinet are barely involved. If a deal is reached, there will be no room for doubt, unlike the JCPOA.”

Fars quoted informed sources as saying the talks are being led by the Foreign Ministry in line with official state policy, and that IRGC commanders are not involved.

The hacker group, named ShadowBits, also said to have obtained information about the employees of the MCI.

Digiato, a website active in Iran’s tech news industry, initially reported the breach but later removed the article.

ShadowBits shared an image of the Digiato article in a Telegram post and said that “pressure from intelligence agencies” led to its removal.

The group added that the data includes personal information such as names, surnames, date and place of birth, national ID numbers, birth certificate numbers, and full postal addresses.

London-based security expert Nariman Gharib confirmed the breach through his research, adding that telecom companies like MCI have close ties to the country’s intelligence and security agencies, and that telecom data is often used for surveillance of citizens.

Kayhan’s editorial, responding to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by John Kerry and Thomas Kaplan that suggested President Donald Trump now has an opportunity for a broader nuclear deal with Iran due to Tehran’s weakened regional position, dismissed the analysis as based on false premises and a fundamental misunderstanding of Iran’s strengths.

Tehran has seen its regional influence weakened, with Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis under increasing pressure, and Bashar al-Assad no longer in power in Syria.

"Mr. Kerry, although you still seem to dream of leading the world, there is ample and undeniable evidence that today’s America is no longer the powerful nation it once was," Kayhan wrote. "How can a country whose president speaks of hardship, whose senators describe this as the worst period in its history, and whose people stand in line for food and shelter, expect to pressure others?"

In contrast to Kerry's portrayal of Iran's weakened hand, Kayhan argued that the Islamic Republic is in the center of regional and global developments and continues its path with "authority and dignity."

Kerry's original article had argued that "Ten years after the last nuclear agreement with Iran, the balance of forces has changed dramatically... Iran, often a master of miscalculation and geopolitical malpractice, has backed itself into a corner, and that paradoxically boosts the odds for a peace initiative." He also called on President Trump to seek a deal that "prevents Iran from ever possessing a potentially lethal nuclear program."

"So Mr. Kerry! Accept the reality: It is not Iran that is in the corner of the ring; it is America that is counting down," Kayhan editorial read.

Also on Tuesday, Tasnim News Agency, a media outlet affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, analyzed the reasons behind Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's approval of indirect negotiations with the United States.

The author, Mehdi Khodaei, refuted three common interpretations for this decision: that it was due to Trump's threats, that Iran had no other choice, or that it was imposed upon Khamenei by the government or other high-ranking officials.

It argued that Iran's willingness to engage in indirect talks is not out of fear or frustration, as Iran possesses the capability to respond and doubts the US would initiate a conflict.

Witkoff’s remarks on Monday suggested that any new deal could closely resemble the Obama-era JCPOA, which President Donald Trump withdrew from in 2018.

In a tweet on Tuesday Witkoff seemed to have backtracked from his earlier statement.

“A deal with Iran will only be completed if it is a Trump deal," the special envoy said and added, "...meaning that Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program."

On Monday, Witkoff had said in an interview with Fox News’ Hannity that Iran's uranium enrichment would not be eliminated entirely but rather scaled back to the JCPOA’s limit of 3.67 percent. “They do not need to enrich past 3.67 percent,” he said.

Ha also added that “This is going to be much about verification on the enrichment program, and then ultimately verification on weaponization. That includes missiles—the type of missiles that they have stockpiled there—and it includes the trigger for a bomb.”

This particular demand would be within reach, as Tehran has repeatedly has called for a US return to the original terms of the JCPOA.

So what was new in Witkoff’s remarks in his interview with Fox?

First, the Trump administration is seeking a broader inspection regime than the one included in the JCPOA. This could entail access not only to declared enrichment facilities, but also to potential sites involved in warhead development. Iran has consistently resisted such expanded oversight, and this will likely be a point of friction in the talks.

Second, Witkoff explicitly mentioned Iran’s ballistic missile program—a domain left mostly untouched by the original nuclear deal. Including missile oversight would require access to Iran’s extensive military research and development infrastructure, which Tehran has long refused to open to outside inspection.

The logic for including missiles is clear. If Iran were to produce nuclear warheads, ballistic missiles would be its most viable delivery system. Iran has already built thousands of such missiles. While they may not be highly advanced, when armed with nuclear warheads, they could pose a significant threat to the region, including Israel, Greece, and potentially other parts of southern and eastern Europe.

Witkoff had hinted at the administration’s limited goals in an earlier interview with Tucker Carlson in March. However, other senior officials, including the Secretary of State and the National Security Adviser, have publicly pushed for the complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program.

One unresolved issue is also the fate of nearly 300 kilograms of highly enriched uranium that Iran has stockpiled. According to a report by The Guardian on Tuesday, the United States has proposed transferring the material to a third country, such as Russia—a move Tehran is likely to oppose. The issue was reportedly raised during recent talks in Oman between Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Witkoff, but Iran insisted the stockpile remain under UN supervision inside the country..

Ultimately, the central question is how quickly and how far Tehran is prepared to go in reaching a deal, specially if the US insists on zero enrichment—and whether the Trump administration is willing to compromise on its tougher demands during the bargaining process.

"Iran has to get rid of the concept of a nuclear weapon. They cannot have a nuclear weapon," President Trump said on April 14. "I think they're tapping us along because they were so used to dealing with stupid people in this country."

“They've got to go fast, because they're fairly close to having one, and they're not going to have one,” he added. “If we have to do something very harsh, we'll do it. And I'm not doing it for us, I'm doing it for the world. These are radicalized people, and they cannot have a nuclear weapon.”

Regional support for US-Iran nuclear talks is broader than during the talks for the 2015 deal, former Iranian lawmaker Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh said on Tuesday, according to ILNA.

“All countries in the region, except Israel, have welcomed these negotiations — even during the JCPOA, that level of support didn’t exist,” he said, calling it a clear sign that the region wants stability and expanded economic ties.

Falahatpisheh, former head of parliament’s national security committee, also criticized the use of indirect talks and urged a move to direct negotiations. He added that Iran has no ideological objection to economic cooperation with the United States.