Iranian state-run daily accuses Europe, IAEA of disrupting US talks
Iran's state-run Tehran Times newspaper says Iran-US talks were postponed after the UN nuclear watchdog's chief Rafael Grossi provided "misleading information and reports to the American side" under pressure from Britain, France and Germany.
"(Grossi) aims to create the impression that what Iran says about the status of its peaceful nuclear activities is not accurate," the report said, citing unnamed sources.
"(October 7 was) an attack that would have never happened because the money was given by Iran to Hamas. Iran had no money when I was president. They were out of money. They were bust," US President Donald Trump said in a White House event on Thursday.
"They weren't giving it to Hamas. They weren't giving it to Hezbollah. They weren't giving it to anybody," he added.
"In fact, I put sanctions on last night. Any oil that anybody takes from Iran is not allowed to do business in the United States of America."
An apparent sole focus for US-Iran talks on Tehran's nuclear program could make any deal resemble one President Donald Trump exited in 2018 for allegedly being too soft on Tehran, a leading American expert on Iran said.
Ilan Berman, a former CIA and Pentagon consultant now senior vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council told Iran International that early signs could point to a deal that does not address the issues which led to that pullout.
"The same concerns that prompted the Trump administration to withdraw from the JCPOA — limited duration, narrow scope, and overly generous concessions to Tehran — are once again at the center of the conversation."
"Ballistic missiles are the most likely delivery mechanism for a future nuclear weapon. Excluding them from the deal, as was done in 2015, is a critical flaw," Berman added.
"It’s a concession that should never have been made — and repeating it now would be a serious mistake."
The advancement of talks to discussions between Iranian and US specialist teams on technical matters which began on April 26 could signal that major political decisions have been already made, Berman said.
"When negotiations reach the expert level, it typically means that the parties have already achieved consensus on key issues and are now refining the technical details."
"By that measure, the talks are moving swiftly. While I’m uncertain whether a deal will be finalized within the next two months, there’s no question this process is progressing significantly faster than previous negotiations."
President Trump’s informal 60-day deadline for reaching a new deal might also favor Tehran, Berman added.
"There are three-time pressures shaping this process: the approaching snapback deadline at the UN, the looming US midterm election cycle and the pace of Iran’s nuclear advancements. Each factor limits Washington’s options and strengthens Tehran’s bargaining position."
Berman warned that a desire for quick political victories — especially after diplomatic disappointments with Russia and Hamas — could lead the administration to make premature concessions in the Iran file.
Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff is handling all three dossiers.
"The current team is handling multiple high-stakes portfolios simultaneously, and that’s deeply concerning," Berman said. "When you try to solve Russia, Gaza and Iran all at once, you risk compromising the depth and quality of each."
Berman also raised concerns about the precedent a new agreement might set for nuclear non-proliferation in the broader Middle East.
"If Iran retains the right to enrich uranium, regional rivals such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey will demand the same," he warned.
"That undermines the integrity of the global non-proliferation regime."
Saudi Arabia could move toward normalization with Israel if the Jewish state successfully destroys Iran’s nuclear program without provoking retaliation, The Jerusalem Post reported on Thursday, citing unnamed Israeli officials.
“In the event that Israel actually succeeded in destroying Iran's nuclear program, some top Israeli officials believe the Saudis would be so enthusiastic about the removal of that threat that they would move to normalize with Jerusalem simply based on that radical outcome and the new cornerstone of regional stability,” the report said.
According to the report, Riyadh is not fundamentally opposed to an Israeli airstrike on Tehran’s nuclear program—so long as it fully succeeds and leaves Saudi Arabia unharmed. Their main concern is that a partial or failed strike would provoke Iranian retaliation or push Tehran to accelerate its nuclear efforts.
This risk is why Saudi Arabia continues to prefer diplomacy and has sent top officials to improve relations with Iran, the report said.
“Yet, if Israel took the high risk and rolled out a perfect outcome that did not harm Riyadh and removed the Iranian nuclear threat, the Saudis might very well shift from their risk-averse standard position to wanting to get closer to Israel as its broader protector and ally,” the report added.
A US lawmaker said on Thursday that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth does not have the constitutional authority to declare war on Iran, after he warned Tehran of military consequences for supporting Yemen’s Houthis.
“I support this administration, but the Secretary of Defense doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to declare war on a sovereign country,” Republican Representative Thomas Massie wrote on X.
“A planned military attack on Iran is an Act of War and requires a vote of Congress according to the US Constitution.”
Saudi Arabia could move toward normalization with Israel if the Jewish state successfully destroys Iran’s nuclear program without provoking retaliation, The Jerusalem Post reported on Thursday, citing unnamed Israeli officials.
“In the event that Israel actually succeeded in destroying Iran's nuclear program, some top Israeli officials believe the Saudis would be so enthusiastic about the removal of that threat that they would move to normalize with Jerusalem simply based on that radical outcome and the new cornerstone of regional stability,” the report said.
According to the report, Riyadh is not fundamentally opposed to an Israeli airstrike on Tehran’s nuclear program—so long as it fully succeeds and leaves Saudi Arabia unharmed. Their main concern is that a partial or failed strike would provoke Iranian retaliation or push Tehran to accelerate its nuclear efforts.
This risk is why Saudi Arabia continues to prefer diplomacy and has sent top officials to improve relations with Iran, the report said.
“Yet, if Israel took the high risk and rolled out a perfect outcome that did not harm Riyadh and removed the Iranian nuclear threat, the Saudis might very well shift from their risk-averse standard position to wanting to get closer to Israel as its broader protector and ally,” the report added.
