Trump visit highlights delicate but evolving Saudi-Iran relationship

In a statement by lawmakers addressed to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the group said that Iran's rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — including nuclear research, development, and peaceful use — are non-negotiable and fully verifiable under the IAEA safeguards.

Read by presidium member Ahmad Naderi during a public session, the statement said, "According to Article 4 of the Treaty on the NPT, the great nation of Iran is entitled to three inalienable rights: first, the right to research and development; second, the right to produce; and third, the right to utilize nuclear energy."

The lawmakers argued that in accordance with this article of the NPT, "the Islamic Republic faces no limitations in nuclear research and development and can proceed with enrichment up to 93% based on its scientific, medical, and industrial needs."

The lawmakers also criticized the IAEA for what they called four decades of obstructing Iran’s peaceful nuclear development, and for relying on what they called politically motivated intelligence, particularly from Iran's archenemy, Israel.

Last month, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said in an interview with Le Monde that Iran was “not far” from being able to produce an atomic bomb, describing the country’s progress as “pieces of a puzzle” that could potentially come together.

Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and remains under IAEA monitoring.

Also on Wednesday, Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf condemned US President Donald Trump’s recent remarks in Riyadh in which he referenced Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program and Tehran's support for military proxies, calling them “delusional” and blaming US policies for instability in West Asia.

Speaking at the Parliamentary Union of the OIC Member States in Jakarta, Indonesia, Ghalibaf said, “The root of chaos in the West Asia region lies in the US regime’s support for the Zionist mafia.”

Responding to Trump’s allegations, also in Riyadh, that Iran is the region’s main source of instability, while offering a conditional nuclear deal, Ghalibaf said, “His remarks show he lives in illusion.”

“We advise him to open his eyes to the reality that resistance holds a deep place in the hearts of the people,” Ghalibaf said in reference to Tehran-backed regional armed groups.

“Instead of worrying about Iran’s internal affairs, he should be concerned about his own popularity, which has plummeted to historic lows for an American president,” Ghalibaf added.

The speaker also criticized the US for decades of hostile actions against Iran, including the 1953 coup, support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, the downing of an Iranian passenger plane in 1988, and the assassination of Revolutionary Guard commander General Qassem Soleimani.

“The Islamic Republic has withstood maximum pressure and continues to challenge the global hegemonic system. Even US universities are feeling the impact of this resistance message,” he said, alluding to recent campus protests over the war in Gaza across the US.

Ghalibaf maintained that Iran does not seek nuclear weapons and called for regional security through cooperation among neighbors, “free from the interference of non-regional powers.”

“Iran is not a warmonger, but we will never surrender. We are brothers with our neighbors and reject US efforts to stir division to boost its arms sales,” he said.

“It is unclear what was discussed over the past month. There is no detail on substance or format, nor any indication of whether an agreement is likely,” Vatan Emrooz wrote in its editorial following the fourth round of talks in Oman last weekend.

“The US’s repeated calls to halt enrichment cast doubt on its seriousness … Perhaps the only objective at this point is to ensure the talks do not collapse,” the editorial added.

While the ultra-conservative daily was more subdued than usual, the message was clear: the process, not the outcome, is what matters.

Kayhan, a hardline paper closely aligned with the Supreme Leader’s office, also struck a defiant tone, giving a rare front-page place to foreign minister Abbas Araghchi who said Tehran will not negotiate enrichment.

Muted optimism, missing details

Other outlets—across both reformist and conservative camps—offered a more coordinated and cautiously positive framing, though still with limited substance. Etemad and Jomhouri Eslami both described the talks as successful but provided no insight into what had actually transpired.

The only notable detail was Etemad’s assertion that the latest round of talks were both direct and indirect, clearly contradicting the official line that the negotiations had been strictly indirect.

Two prominent political commentators, Mohammad Sadeq Javadi-Hesar and Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, acknowledged the information vacuum but urged against equating public messaging with actual policy.

"The outcome of the fourth round of talks has isolated warmongers and opponents of Iran," Javadi-Hesar wrote in Etemad on Monday.

Falahtpisheh went one step further, commenting on US politics. “If both sides have decided to continue negotiations, it means that Steve Witkoff’s statement before the talks, about ending enrichment in Iran, was aimed at silencing opposition within the US.”

A Consortium on the Table?

One potentially significant development came via Khorassan, a conservative daily, which reported that Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi had proposed a regional “nuclear consortium” involving Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE—with the United States as a symbolic shareholder.

Khorasan quoted Witkoff as describing the idea as “a surprise that can be considered.” Such an arrangement, the paper asserted, could address regional security concerns about Iran’s nuclear transparency and dilute fears of its technological monopoly.

Most upbeat was the Reform-aligned daily Sharq, which described the talks in Oman as a new life to diplomacy. And most eloquent, perhaps, was the centrist outlet Ham-Mihan, printing “back to square one” on its front page.

Iran will not accept zero enrichment or transfer of its enriched uranium abroad, the daily wrote in its editorial, unless there is a phased agreement and verifiable US sanctions relief.

Speaking at the US-GCC summit in Riyadh, Trump said, “I want to make a deal with Iran. But for that to happen, it must stop sponsoring terror, halt its bloody proxy wars and permanently and verifiably cease its pursuit of nuclear weapons.”

Iran maintains its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Last month, the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog, Rafael Grossi, said: “Iran is not far from having a nuclear problem. They don’t have it, we know it, but the material for it is already there. To make a few warheads.”

Trump accused his predecessor, President Joe Biden, of emboldening Iran and undermining US allies in the Persian Gulf. “Everyone at this table knows where my loyalties are,” he said. “Those days are over.”

The summit in Riyadh took place during the first leg of Trump’s tour of the Persian Gulf as the US seeks to revitalize ties with regional allies and broker new economic and security partnerships. Trump traveled to Doha on Wednesday.

During the visit in Riyadh, Trump also announced a $600-billion investment agreement with Saudi Arabia, covering sectors from energy and defense to mining and technology.

On Tuesday, Trump, speaking before Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and other top Saudi and US officials, delivered a wide-ranging speech criticizing Iran while expressing willingness to strike a new nuclear deal.

Framing Tehran as the main obstacle to regional peace, Trump said, “The biggest and most destructive of these forces is the regime in Iran,” blaming it for destabilizing Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, and Yemen.

He contrasted Iran’s decline with the Persian Gulf’s growth, noting that while “you have been constructing the world’s tallest skyscrapers,” Iran’s infrastructure is “collapsing into rubble.”

“If Iran’s leadership rejects this olive branch,” he warned, the US would impose massive maximum pressure to stop it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Iranian officials swiftly pushed back. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, speaking on the sidelines of a cabinet meeting in Tehran on Wednesday, dismissed Trump’s remarks as provocative and misleading.

“Trump tries to portray Iran as the source of insecurity. But who killed 60,000 people in Gaza? Are we the ones spreading chaos?” Araghchi asked, in comments aired by state television, referring to US support of Israel in its war on Iran-backed Hamas in Gaza.

He rejected Trump’s threat of renewed pressure, saying, “The policy of maximum pressure has already failed.”

Araghchi added that Iran remains committed to dialogue and is awaiting further coordination by Oman, which has been mediating backchannel talks between Tehran and Washington.

“It is America that, through its sanctions over the past forty-some years, along with its pressures and its military and non-military threats, has hindered the progress of the Iranian nation; the one responsible for the economic problems is America,” he said.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei also denied that nuclear negotiations were at an impasse.

“The fact that both Iran and the US want the talks to continue means the negotiation process is still ongoing,” he said.

He said details about the next round of talks will be announced by Oman soon.

President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Tuesday evening, “If we stand together, America will be powerless against us.”

In a surprise move during his stay in Riyadh, Trump also announced the lifting of US sanctions on Syria, following a landmark meeting with Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa—the first such encounter between leaders of the two nations in over two decades.

“We’re taking them all off. Good luck Syria, show us something very special,” Trump said at a US-Saudi investment forum.

The US leader also touted a recent ceasefire with Yemen’s Houthi rebels, a key Iran ally, and a diplomatic breakthrough in South Asia, where American mediation reportedly helped de-escalate tensions between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan.

As the summit convened on Wednesday, Saudi Foreign minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud said Riyadh fully supports the US-Iran nuclear talks and hopes for positive results.

"Regarding the nuclear file, there is full support for the ongoing talks between the United States and Iran. We hope that these talks will lead to a positive outcome that ensures the stability of the region."

Oman’s Deputy Prime Minister for International Affairs, Al Sayyid Asaad Tariq Taimur Al Said, also expressed optimism that a nuclear deal with Iran could still be reached.

Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa echoed that sentiment, saying continued dialogue would “bolster stability and improve prosperity across the region.”

Whether Oman’s mediation can bridge the divide remains to be seen.

Before traveling to Saudi Arabia on May 12, Trump reaffirmed his opposition to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, while praising Iranian negotiators for being, in his words, very reasonable and very intelligent.

Despite pillorying Tehran at length in a speech in Saudi Arabia the next day, the comments suggested an openness to continued dialogue—even amid mounting pressure from within his own ranks.

Trump’s position reflects a carrot-and-stick strategy: applying sanctions while keeping the door open for a potential deal. Yet, internal divisions are growing.

Middle East envoy and chief negotiator Steven Witkoff told Breitbart last week that no level of uranium enrichment should take place in Iran—opposing the allowances made under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Witkoff’s remarks echo those of hawkish Republicans who reject even limited enrichment under international monitoring. Witkoff once again aligned himself with that position, signaling that any new deal could be more restrictive than the 2015 deal.

In the same interview, however, Witkoff distanced himself from advocates of military action, accusing them of a “bias toward war.” He emphasized that Trump prioritizes diplomacy, arguing that critics underestimate the risks of armed confrontation.

The messaging—hardline on enrichment, moderate on military force—underscores the absence of a unified Republican policy.

Trump himself has sent conflicting signals. In an interview with Hugh Hewitt on 7 May, he reaffirmed his desire to end Iran’s uranium enrichment but also indicated a willingness to hear justification for maintaining some nuclear infrastructure.

Elusive positions

A week—and one more round of talks—later, we are none the wiser about the Trump administration’s red lines.

US vice president J.D. Vance has taken a more flexible position, suggesting a tightly monitored, limited centrifuge program could be acceptable. His stance diverges from that of US secretary of state Marco Rubio and Witkoff’s latest, betraying disagreement at the very top.

In Tehran, the message has been more consistent—in public at least. The right to enrich uranium is non-negotiable, foreign minister Abbas Araghchi posted on X on the eve of the fourth round of talks.

Enrichment, in reality, is what gives supreme leader Ali Khamenei the leverage he has always sought to face his western ‘enemies.’

Khamenei’s strategy, as far as can be surmised from his decisions in the last two decades, is to remain close to the nuclear threshold without crossing it, standing on the brink without falling into the abyss of war.

Despite this impasse, both sides agreed to extend the negotiations, signaling a desire to avoid blame for their collapse. Still, the fundamental disagreement over enrichment remains unresolved.

Witkoff has also called for the talks to address Iran’s regional conduct, particularly its support for armed groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis. He argues any deal should reduce the Islamic Republic’s hostile actions against the US and Israel.

These positions are yet to be formalized, but the rulers in Tehran appear to have used whatever influence they have with the Houthis to calm the Red Sea and ease pressure on Iran’s negotiators.

But the link between nuclear diplomacy and regional security remains tenuous.

Fraught issue

Historically, the US strategy on Iran’s nuclear program has fluctuated. The Bush administration failed to enforce a zero-enrichment model; the Obama administration accepted a 3.67% cap to delay Iran’s breakout capacity. Trump’s second-term ambitions appear to aim higher—but face the same practical limits.

UN nuclear chief Rafael Grossi asserted recently that completely eliminating Iran’s program may no longer be achievable.

Also significant is public opinion in the US. In a recent poll by the University of Maryland, more than two-thirds of respondents said they preferred a negotiated deal to curb Iran’s nuclear activities, with only 14% backing military action.

On this point at least, and for now, President Trump appears to be reflecting the popular will, letting diplomacy run its course while pursuing his maximum pressure campaign of sanctions, hoping to force Iranians to blink first.

Unclear to nearly all watching the talks—and perhaps even to those involved in it—is how far and how long he is willing to go without visible results.

Tehran as obstacle to regional peace

"The only thing still standing between this region and its unbelievable potential was a small group of rogue actors and violent thugs seeking constantly to drag the Middle East backward and into havoc, mayhem and indeed, into war. Unfortunately, instead of confronting these destructive forces, the last US administration chose to enrich them and empower them and give them billions and billions of dollars.

"Our task is to unify against the few agents of chaos and terror that are left and that are holding hostage the dreams of millions and millions of great people.

"The biggest and most destructive of these forces is the regime in Iran, which has caused unthinkable suffering in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Yemen and beyond. There could be no sharper contrast with the path you have pursued on the Arabian Peninsula than the disaster unfolding right across in the Gulf in Iran."

A Persian Gulf of contrasts

"While you have been constructing the world's tallest skyscrapers in Jeddah and Dubai, Tehran's 1979 landmarks are collapsing into rubble and they had it going for a little while under a much different system but those buildings are largely falling apart.

"Iran's decades of neglect and mismanagement have left the country plagued by rolling blackouts lasting for hours a day ... While your skill has turned dry deserts into fertile farmland, Iran's leaders have managed to turn green farmland into dry deserts as their corrupt water mafia ... causes droughts and empty river beds. They get rich."

Syria and Lebanon

"Countless lives were lost in the Iranian effort to maintain a crumbling regime in Syria. Look at what happened with Syria and Lebanon, their Hezbollah proxies have pillaged the hopes of a nation whose capital Beirut was once called the Paris of the Middle East.

"Can you imagine all of this misery and so much more was entirely avoidable?

"If only the Iranian regime had focused on building their nation up instead of tearing the region down.

"In Syria, which has seen so much misery and death, there is a new government that will hopefully succeed in stabilizing the country and keeping peace. That's what we want to see in Syria, they've had their share of travesty, war killing many years.

"I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance."

Enmity or peace with Iran

"In the case of Iran, I have never believed in having permanent enemies. I am different than a lot of people think. I don't like permanent enemies ... I want to make a deal with Iran.

"But if Iran's leadership rejects this olive branch and continues to attack their neighbors, then we will have no choice but to inflict massive maximum pressure drive Iranian oil exports to zero like I did before."

"(The US will) take all action required to stop the regime from ever having a nuclear weapon."