Khamenei's chief of staff says Trump ‘begged’ for talks with Tehran

Iran’s nuclear chief said on Saturday that indirect negotiations with the United States have made “some progress,” but dismissed any demand to eliminate uranium enrichment as “a disturbed dream” meant for Israeli audiences.

“Talk of zero enrichment is mostly for the Zionist community,” Atomic Energy Organization head Mohammad Eslami said during a visit to northern Iran. “These are rumors with no bearing on the realities of the talks.”

Read more here.

“Talk of zero enrichment is mostly for the Zionist community,” Atomic Energy Organization head Mohammad Eslami said during a visit to northern Iran. “These are rumors with no bearing on the realities of the talks.”

The fifth round of indirect talks between Tehran and Washington took place last week in Rome, part of ongoing efforts mediated by Oman since April.

Eslami said Iran remains committed to expanding its nuclear energy program, including new reactors and domestic production of radiopharmaceuticals. He emphasized that the program is peaceful and transparent, despite what he called foreign pressure.

Tehran signals no retreat on enrichment

Echoing that stance, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said earlier on Saturday that uranium enrichment has always been a red line for Iran. “The right to enrichment is tied to rejecting domination — no one in Iran will accept being told we don’t have this right,” he said during a visit to Ruhollah Khomeini's mausoleum. Araghchi added that Tehran has consistently upheld its position in both past and present negotiations.

Araghchi also repeated that Iran considers nuclear weapons religiously and strategically unacceptable. “We’ve always been a standard-bearer of nuclear disarmament,” he said, accusing Western nuclear states of failing to uphold their obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

MPs say enrichment is non-negotiable

In parliament, lawmakers are voicing firm support for the government’s nuclear position. “The negotiating team has moved forward well within the defined red lines,” said Ebrahim Azizi, head of the national security and foreign policy committee. “Enrichment is a foundational right — we’ve never negotiated over the principle of enrichment, and we won’t.”

Mehdi Esmaeili, a conservative MP from Miyaneh, also warned that “external pressure will never force Iran to retreat from its rights.” He said Iran’s pursuit of a full nuclear fuel cycle is “a strategic goal of the revolution” and rooted in national consensus.

Trump: Iran deal could happen soon

At the White House on Friday, US President Donald Trump said he believed a deal with Iran could be reached “in the not-too-distant future.” He argued that Iran “does not want to be blown up” and would prefer to resolve the standoff diplomatically.

“If we can have a deal without bombs being dropped all over the Middle East, that would be a very good thing,” Trump told reporters. “We want them to have a successful, safe nation — but they cannot have a nuclear weapon. It’s very simple. And I think we’re fairly close.”

The head of Iran’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Ebrahim Azizi said on Saturday that Parliament is satisfied with the Foreign Ministry’s conduct in ongoing nuclear negotiations, praising strong coordination and alignment with national interests.

Azizi said the negotiating team has performed well “within the framework of the red lines and objectives set for them,” and emphasized that uranium enrichment remains a core principle for Iran that is not open to compromise.

“There has been no negotiation over the principle of enrichment, and any proposal that ignores this right is neither acceptable nor worthy of discussion,” he said.

Azizi added that Parliament, the Foreign Ministry, and the negotiating team are in close contact, with lawmakers actively monitoring and overseeing the talks.

Truckers across at least 150 cities are protesting high fuel costs, stagnant freight rates, and inadequate insurance coverage.

Truck drivers currently pay a subsidized rate of 3,000 rials per liter for diesel—equivalent to about 1.5 cents per gallon—based on GPS-tracked mileage and approved cargo waybills.

However, starting 21 June, a new three-tier pricing system will increase fuel costs for usage beyond allotted quotas, with prices soaring to as high as 250,000 rials per liter at market rates.

While officials say the changes are intended to combat fuel smuggling, drivers argue that the quotas fail to reflect actual freight demands and warn that the higher costs could threaten their livelihoods.

Video footage from across the country shows major highways emptied of heavy traffic, underscoring the breadth of the disruption. With 552,307 registered drivers and only a small fraction working under corporate fleets, efforts to suppress the strike are confronting structural limits.

According to official data, just 29,648 of Iran’s 433,388 active trucks are owned by transport companies—less than 7 percent. In contrast, private ownership remains dominant, a legacy that has proven resistant to change even after a similar strike in 2018 prompted state efforts to build up firm-controlled fleets.

A dispersed workforce with a central role

This dispersed nature has made the current strike harder to contain. The government has registered over 700 new transport firms since 2017, doubling corporate truck ownership in six years. Yet this growth has not shifted the balance of control: the private sector still owns the overwhelming majority of the country’s heavy freight fleet.

Strikes in high-traffic provinces have compounded the impact. Tehran alone sees more than 3.8 million truck trips annually, roughly 10 percent of the national total. Isfahan follows closely, alongside key industrial and transit hubs such as Fars, Khuzestan, and Khorasan Razavi.

Despite reported arrests and interrogations in multiple provinces, the strike shows no signs of resolution. The Islamic Republic’s response—focused on intimidation and attempts at corporate centralization—has not brought drivers back to work.

The strike has laid bare a logistical and political reality: the road freight sector, so vital to the Iranian economy, remains fundamentally outside the state’s immediate command.

Iranian and US officials held their first round of indirect talks in Oman on April 12. That leaves just two weeks before President Donald Trump’s reported deadline expires.

Without a deal, the E3—France, Germany, and the United Kingdom—are expected to trigger the dispute resolution mechanism at the next board meeting of the UN nuclear watchdog in June. That would lead to the automatic return of UN sanctions on Iran by October.

“Delay in decision-making amounts to surrendering to a scenario of war and economic collapse,” wrote attorney Massad Saliti in Iran Diplomacy, an outlet close to the Foreign Ministry.

“If the Iranian government fails to find a diplomatic solution within this short window, pressure from the United States, Europe, and Israel could threaten the country's stability to an unprecedented degree,” he added.

Saliti outlined three challenges Iran could face beyond Washington’s maximum pressure campaign if talks fail: first, the E3 may “snap back” all UN sanctions; second, Israel may strike unilaterally; and third, domestic unrest could flare up, fueled by deepening economic isolation.

None of these scenarios appear imminent. Officials in Tehran and Washington have so far maintained cautious optimism that negotiations will bear fruit. But as Trump said Wednesday, everything could change with “one phone call.”

He put it more bluntly on Friday: “Iran does not want to be blown up. They would rather make a deal. And I think that could happen in the not-too-distant future.”

Europeans’ Role

Disagreements with Europe may also complicate Iran’s separate negotiations with the US, wrote foreign policy commentator Jalal Khoshchehreh in Khabar Online.

“Iran, the United States, and Europe remain firmly entrenched behind their respective red lines, making meaningful concessions difficult,” he argued, calling the situation “alarming for all parties involved.”

Still, one hopeful sign remains, Khoshchehreh wrote---that Washington and Tehran are actively looking for ways to keep talks alive. For once, he said, US officials sound more pragmatic than their E3 counterparts.

The E3’s hard line, he argued, may be both a reaction to and a reflection of their diminished influence. But their stance would matter little if Washington and Tehran reach a deal.

“It is Tehran and Washington that must sign any potential agreement. Therefore, despite the E3’s nay-saying in tandem with Tel Aviv, if the two main parties find a ‘balance point’ between their red lines, others will have no choice but to follow,” Khoshchehreh wrote.

Saliti went further.

“Iranian officials," he wrote, "should make the most of the remaining time to … urgently and transparently reach a comprehensive and lasting agreement—one that addresses all aspects of Iran’s nuclear program, missile activities, and regional engagements.”