Nobel laureate decries Iran's crackdown amid US talks

Saudi Arabia's stance on negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program has shifted significantly in the past decade, moving from opposition to support as regional dynamics and the kingdom's priorities evolve, according to an analysis by the New York Times.

The writer pointed out that ten years ago, Saudi officials criticized the deal struck by former US President Barack Obama as weak and empowering Iran. However, it added, as a second Trump administration engages in talks with Iran on a potentially similar agreement, Saudi Arabia has expressed hope for a positive outcome, emphasizing the importance of regional stability.

The Riyadh-based writer, Vivian Nereim, attributed this change to several factors, including improved Saudi-Iranian relations and Saudi Arabia's ambitious economic diversification plans, which are threatened by regional tensions and potential conflict.

After years of severed ties, including a complete break in 2016, Iran and Saudi Arabia announced a formal reconciliation in 2023, with China mediating the detente.

The analysis concludes that Iran's increased regional outreach and the shared interest in avoiding escalation have contributed to the Persian Gulf states' support for the ongoing negotiations.

Earlier in the day, Alireza Enayati, Tehran's ambassador to Riyadh, said Saudi Arabia has a positive view of Iran's negotiations.

A day after the second round of nuclear talks between Iran and the United States concluded in Rome, Tehran’s major newspapers revealed the ongoing divide between reformists and hardline factions.

While reformist outlets welcomed what they described as swift progress and a move toward technical-level discussions, conservative dailies backed the negotiation team but renewed warnings against what they called US hostility and external opposition from diaspora critics.

Read the full report.

While reformist outlets welcomed what they described as swift progress and a move toward technical-level discussions, conservative dailies backed the negotiation team but renewed warnings against what they called US hostility and external opposition from diaspora critics.

On Sunday, Ham-Mihan, a reformist paper aligned with technocratic factions, described the shift to expert-level talks as evidence of agreement on core principles, such as Iran’s continued uranium enrichment.

It called this “a sign of rapid progress” but warned that it did not guarantee a final deal. “The stage reached suggests a framework is in place, but final terms will be decided in detail-oriented discussions,” the editorial said.

The paper also predicted the alleged indirect format of talks may soon shift to direct engagement, arguing that detailed negotiations are impractical through intermediaries.

Shargh, another reformist paper, featured interviews with four former officials and political figures. All welcomed the apparent momentum.

“If external spoilers are kept at bay, this can lead to tangible gains for the Islamic Republic,” said reformist activist Mohammad-Sadegh Javadi-Hessar, adding that European threats to trigger the snapback mechanism appear to have receded.

In contrast, the conservative Farhikhtegan focused on perceived foreign interference. Its lead story, titled “Lobbyists of Tension,” accused a range of organizations—including American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies—of undermining the talks.

It said, without evidence, that these groups, through “financial backing and intelligence ties,” aim to maintain pressure on Iran and shape US foreign policy against Tehran.

The paper also said that "Iranian dissidents abroad were spreading misleading information to derail the negotiations,” framing the process as vulnerable to outside manipulation.

The hardline Kayhan, viewed as reflecting the Supreme Leader’s position, struck a defiant tone. In a lengthy commentary, it warned that negotiations were historically a tool of colonial pressure and argued that only military and nuclear strength had forced the US to the table.

In another piece, Kayhan wrote that excluding Europe and regional states in the talks had allowed Iran to slow the pace and avoid compromise. The writer said “indirect talks humiliated the US, reinforcing Tehran’s standing.”

Saying that US enmity toward the Islamic Republic would persist regardless of the outcome, it added, “The world is watching a diplomatic clash between satanic and divine powers,” as resistance to diplomatic means continued.

It is still too early to definitively assess the ongoing negotiations with the United States and determine whether an agreement will be reached, according to Ebrahim Rezaei, the spokesperson for the Iranian parliament's National Security Committee.

Rezaei said, "We still have serious doubts about the ideas and intentions of the Americans and their will to reach an agreement."

However, Rezaei also mentioned a potential point of progress in the initial discussions. "In the initial negotiations, the Americans accepted Iran's right to enrichment, and we will by no means back down from uranium enrichment in Iran, for which blood has been shed,” he said without explaining whose blood.

Another member of the parliamentary committee, Yaghoub Rezazadeh, said on Sunday that that the indirect US talks have followed the Supreme Leader's guidelines, commending the Iranian negotiators for their regular briefings both before and after each round of discussions.

He said the committee will continue to assess the process in accordance with the so-called Strategic Action Law and the Supreme Leader's guidelines. Kazem Gharibabadi, deputy foreign minister, briefed the committee on the matter earlier in the day.

The Strategic Action Law to Lift Sanctions and Safeguard the National Interests of Iran, passed in 2020 aimed at more parliamentary influence on nuclear policy, mandated a rapid escalation of nuclear activities and a significant reduction in IAEA monitoring in reaction to the US' withdrawal from the JCPOA and the subsequent reimposition of sanctions.

Russia is not taking a passive stance on Iran's nuclear talks with the United States, nor is it acting unilaterally, Iran's ambassador to Moscow, Kazem Jalali, told Iranian media.

Jalali said that "the Russians have no complaints about not being present at the Iran-America negotiations," adding that "this shows that there is close coordination between Tehran and Moscow."