Italy says ready to host Iran-US talks in Rome

The statement, read aloud by parliamentary presidium member Ahmad Naderi during an open session, described the UK’s move as “reckless and hostile”.

“The UK’s potential designation of the IRGC violates fundamental principles of international relations and will provoke lawful, reciprocal action by the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Naderi said.

The parliament’s response came amid rising tensions between Tehran and London following the arrest and charging of three Iranian nationals in the UK under its National Security Act.

British authorities allege the men acted on behalf of Iranian intelligence and conducted surveillance targeting journalists from Iran International, a London-based Persian-language broadcaster critical of the Islamic Republic.

The charges follow counter-terrorism raids earlier this month in which eight people, including seven Iranian nationals, were detained.

UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said on Monday that the Islamic Republic poses an “unacceptable threat” to Britain’s domestic security.

“We will not tolerate growing state-backed threats in the UK,” Cooper told parliament.

Amid pressure from lawmakers, UK officials are reviewing options to strengthen legal measures against IRGC affiliates.

A government terrorism advisor on Monday proposed new powers to sanction individuals and entities linked to the IRGC, calling for measures to criminalize public displays of support, including insignia, and expand arrest and deportation capabilities under what he termed a "Statutory Alert and Liability Threat (SALT)" notice.

The Iranian parliament’s statement listed a long history of grievances against the UK, including the 1953 CIA- and MI6-backed coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, the occupation of Iran during World War II, the 1917 famine, and British support for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war.

“These black marks in British history against the Iranian people are undeniable and shameful,” the statement said.

It also warned that if the UK proceeds with the designation, Iran would respond under Article 7 of a 2020 domestic law mandating reciprocal measures.

According to the law, British military forces and bases in West Asia and the Persian Gulf could be labeled as hostile entities and subjected to retaliatory measures.

“The Revolutionary Guards are a constitutional and sovereign force charged with defending Iran’s territorial integrity,” the statement read. “Labeling them as terrorists amounts to aggression against Iran’s national sovereignty and a breach of the UN Charter.”

Lawmakers in Tehran ended the session with chants of “Death to England,” and Parliament Deputy Speaker Hamidreza Haji Babai said: “The British have never stood with the Iranian people. They have always been our enemy.”

The UK has not formally designated the IRGC a terrorist organization, though it has imposed sanctions on many of its commanders and affiliated institutions. The United States added the IRGC to its list of foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) in 2019.

Former CIA Director and US CENTCOM Commander David Petraeus said on Tuesday that a new nuclear deal with Iran may be achievable, but the idea that Iran could be reintegrated into the international community the way Syria has been is “overly optimistic.”

Asked at the Qatar Economic Forum whether Iran could be “brought back into the fold” like Syria, Petraeus responded: “That’s overly optimistic.”

He said there is “a chance that there could be a nuclear deal that doesn’t have some of the shortcomings of the previous nuclear deal,” which could lead to phased sanctions relief and, over time, a more constructive role for Iran in the region.

“That could lead to them being a more constructive player in the region than they certainly have been for many decades,” Petraeus said, pointing to damage caused by Iran's regional armed allies, including actions by the Houthis.

He also noted signs of movement in nuclear diplomacy: “No enrichment whatsoever is the US opening. Maybe that ends up being for three years… but you can actually see this deal starting to come together.”

“A CIA director learns really quickly that you have to deal with the world the way it is, not the way you'd like it to be,” he added. “And I never thought that regime change was at all realistic, frankly.”

Read more here.

An Iranian conservative newspaper warned on Tuesday that nuclear negotiations between Tehran and Washington may soon face a pause, citing the US position on no uranium enrichment.

“It is not unlikely that we will see a pause in the talks altogether,” Khorasan daily wrote in a front-page editorial, accusing the United States of shifting from earlier compromises toward a strategy aimed at achieving “zero enrichment” in Iran.

The paper argued that this new stance is tied to a broader US agenda that combines increased pressure through sanctions with demands for a total rollback of Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

“Zeroing out oil exports was the tool; zeroing out uranium enrichment is the goal,” it said, referring to Washington’s efforts to block Iranian crude sales and dismantle its nuclear program in parallel.

Khorasan said that Trump no longer shows the eagerness for a quick deal that was evident during earlier rounds. “He and his team may now believe that rushing would reduce the chances of securing an optimal agreement,” the paper said, suggesting that Trump is betting on Europe’s triggering the snapback mechanism and more domestic turmoil in Iran to force greater concessions later.

The editorial concluded that it remains unclear whether Washington’s “zero enrichment” demand is a maximalist bargaining chip or a firm red line. “Either way,” the paper warned, “it will shape the tone and trajectory of future negotiations.”

“There’s a chance that there could be a nuclear deal that doesn’t have some of the shortcomings of the previous nuclear deal that could enable the lifting of sanctions progressively and so forth as confidence is built,” Petraeus said during a panel discussion at the Qatar Economic Forum 2025.

“And that could lead to them being a more constructive player in the region than they certainly have been for many decades.”

Asked whether Iran could be “brought back into the fold” like Syria, Petraeus responded: “That’s overly optimistic.”

He pointed to Iran’s role in supporting its allied forces in the region such as the Houthis in Yemen. “Assuming Iran then also stops some of the terrible activities that they’re doing through proxies in the region which have been so destabilizing, then you can start to see the contours of something that could be much more positive.”

Petraeus said there are signs of narrowing differences between Washington and Tehran, and a possible compromise could include restrictions on uranium enrichment for a limited period.

“Maybe that ends up being for three years and then you have an opportunity to do something small again. But you can actually see this deal starting to come together,” he said.

Amid indirect Iran-US talks, US President Donald Trump has insisted Iran must fully cease enrichment, leading Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to warn on Tuesday that talks look unlikely to progress under those conditions.

On Sunday, Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff told ABC News: “We cannot allow even one percent of an enrichment capability. Everything begins from our standpoint with a deal that does not include enrichment. We cannot have that.”

On the question of regime change, Petraeus dismissed it as unrealistic. “You have to deal with the world the way it is, not the way you would like it to be. And I never thought that regime change was at all realistic, frankly.”

Iran’s Tasnim news agency, which is affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said on Tuesday that a reported quote about the cancellation of indirect talks with the United States was fabricated.

The report comes after UAE-based outlet The National cited an unnamed Iranian official as saying Tehran had not accepted Oman’s invitation for a fifth round of talks in Rome. According to that report, Iranian officials were uncertain about the usefulness of further talks due to Washington’s insistence on “zero enrichment.”