Iran offered to cut enrichment but keep stockpile - Kan News

The Treasury Department said the measures target networks involved in Iranian oil exports as well as procurement channels supporting the country’s ballistic missile and advanced conventional weapons programs.

“Iran exploits financial systems to sell illicit oil, launder the proceeds, procure components for its nuclear and conventional weapons programs, and support its terrorist proxies,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said.

“Under President Trump’s strong leadership, Treasury will continue to put maximum pressure on Iran to target the regime’s weapons capabilities and support for terrorism, which it has prioritized over the lives of the Iranian people.”

A significant portion of the designations focused on vessels operating in Iran’s so-called “shadow fleet,” which US officials say transports sanctioned petroleum to foreign markets.

Among them was the Panama-flagged HOOT, accused of shipping Iranian liquefied petroleum gas to Bangladesh in 2025, and the Barbados-flagged OCEAN KOI, which Treasury said has carried millions of barrels of Iranian fuel oil and condensate over the past year.

Treasury also designated individuals tied to Iran’s drone and missile infrastructure.

Mohammad Abedini and Mehdi Zand, employees of Qods Aviation Industries, were sanctioned for allegedly providing technical support in Russia for Iranian-designed Mohajer-series unmanned aerial vehicles.

Two other Qods Aviation employees—Mehrdad Jafari and Ebrahim Shariatzadeh—were cited for supporting UAV activities abroad, including in Venezuela.

In addition, companies in Türkiye and the United Arab Emirates were targeted for allegedly facilitating payments and procurement of sensitive machinery and missile precursor chemicals for entities linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ aerospace arm.

The sanctions were imposed under multiple executive orders related to Iran’s energy sector and weapons proliferation, and form part of what the administration describes as a continuing campaign of maximum pressure.

The action comes as negotiators prepare to meet in Geneva on Thursday for what officials on both sides have described as a potentially pivotal round of discussions, amid reports that Washington has set informal timelines for progress.

US President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff told a private gathering on Tuesday that the administration is demanding any nuclear deal with Iran remain in effect indefinitely, Axios reported on Wednesday, citing a US official and two others with knowledge of the comments.

“We start with the Iranians with the premise that there is no sunset provision. Whether we get a deal or not, our premise is: you have to behave for the rest of your lives,” Axios quoted Witkoff as saying at a gathering of AIPAC donors in Washington, according to the sources.

Witkoff added that the US-Iran negotiations are currently focused on nuclear issues, but if a deal is reached the Trump administration would seek follow-up talks on Iran’s missile program and its support for regional militia groups, the report said.

At that stage, the United States would want other countries in the region to participate in the talks, he said.

Witkoff also said that two key issues in the current nuclear talks are Iran’s ability to enrich uranium and the fate of its existing stockpile of enriched uranium, according to Axios.

Negotiators are set to meet in Geneva on Thursday in discussions that could prove decisive, particularly if reports are accurate that Washington has set informal deadlines for progress.

Public messaging inside Iran reflects both anticipation and unease as officials brace for what could be a pivotal round.

Late Tuesday, just before departing for Geneva, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi struck an optimistic tone.

“We have a historic opportunity to strike an unprecedented agreement that addresses mutual concerns and achieves mutual interests,” he wrote on X. “A deal is within reach, but only if diplomacy is given priority.”

Government-aligned newspapers such as Iran and Etemad described the talks as “an exit route for both sides” and “the last resort to prevent military confrontation.” The phrasing carried urgency — and an implicit acknowledgment of rising stakes.

At the same time, outlets close to security circles worked to downplay the prospect of imminent war.

Tabnak, run by a former IRGC commander, and Nour News, affiliated with senior adviser Ali Shamkhani, dismissed Western reporting on possible US military action as “media terrorism inspired by Trump’s manifesto in The Art of the Deal.” The suggestion was clear: Washington’s threats are part of a pressure campaign, not a prelude to attack.

The heightened tone followed President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, in which he referenced Iran’s nuclear and missile programs — remarks that reverberated quickly across Iranian media and political circles.

Other commentary reflected a careful hedge. Fararu and Iranian Diplomacy, which is close to the Foreign Ministry, outlined potential military scenarios—from limited symbolic strikes to targeted attacks on infrastructure or senior officials—but argued that the cost of escalation makes a prolonged conflict unlikely.

Official rhetoric has remained firm. ISNA reported that Iran warned the United Nations it would “respond swiftly to any aggression,” including attacks on “all assets and military bases of belligerent parties in the region,” which Tehran would treat as legitimate targets.

Yet markets betrayed public sensitivity to the tension. The dollar climbed to 1,660,000 rials amid the renewed uncertainty.

Among the more measured assessments was an article in Fararu by Mohsen Jalilvand, who argued that “there will be no war,” and that the likelihood of regional countries joining a confrontation is “near zero.”

Still, he acknowledged the impasse. “There is a wide gap between the demands of the two sides,” he wrote, warning that even if sanctions were lifted immediately, “it would take at least 15 years for the country to return to normal conditions.”

His closing note captured the broader sentiment: “We cannot afford excessive optimism.”

"We are ready to address concerns but we are not ready to give up our right for peaceful use of nuclear tech," Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said in an interview with India Today TV.

He added that Tehran is not developing long-range missiles.

"We are not developing long range missiles. We have limited range to below 2000kms intentionally," he said. "We don’t want it to be a global threat. We only have (them) to defend ourselves. Our missiles build deterrence."

Across Iran and the diaspora, many stayed up through the night to follow the speech via satellite television and livestreams, many hoping to detect signals about the likelihood of a US military strike in the coming days.

By morning, Persian-language social media reflected a swirl of alarm, anticipation and skepticism.

In his address, Trump accused Tehran and its proxy forces of spreading “terrorism and hatred” and said Iran continues to pursue missile and nuclear capabilities despite years of US pressure.

“As president, I will make peace wherever I can, but I will never hesitate to confront threats to America wherever we must,” he added.

For some Iranians, the balance of menace and ambiguity less than two days before the third round of talks between Tehran and Washington suggested escalation was near.

“President Trump issued the order for a military strike and put the final nail in the coffin of the Islamic Republic,” one user wrote on X. “In the coming hours, we will certainly witness very important events.”

Another focused on Trump’s reference to ballistic missiles—an issue Tehran insists should not be part of current negotiations—arguing it signaled the likelihood of military action may be greater than that of a deal.

“When Trump explicitly declares that the missiles of this criminal cult will soon reach American soil, it means that all paths of diplomacy have reached their final dead end,” a third wrote.

Yet others pushed back against what they saw as over-interpretation.

One user described the speech as “a bucket of cold water poured over warmongers,” arguing that Trump largely repeated familiar themes without announcing new measures.

“This speech, in no way, met the expectations of those who were waiting for a new step,” he wrote.

Another suggested Washington’s military buildup in the region told a different story than the speech itself. “The negotiations are less about reaching an agreement and more a tool for managing public opinion and buying time to prepare militarily,” he argued.

The divergence in reactions underscored the high stakes ahead of Thursday’s talks in Geneva, widely seen as a potentially decisive round amid reports that Washington has set informal timelines for progress.

Iranian officials sought to project steadiness.

President Masoud Pezeshkian said negotiations were proceeding under the guidance of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and expressed hope the country could move beyond its current state of “neither war nor peace.”

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi struck a similar dual tone. “

The Islamic Republic is prepared for both war and peace,” he told India Today, warning that any confrontation could quickly escalate into a “devastating” regional conflict while insisting that a “fair, balanced, and just” agreement remains attainable.

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, however, warned that Iran would respond forcefully if the United States took military action while talks are underway.

Outside official circles, analysts also offered competing readings. Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran, wrote on X that Trump appeared to be laying “public groundwork” for a military strike.

While there was “a brief nod to diplomacy,” he said, most of the speech underscored “the threat and the lethality of the regime,” suggesting limited optimism about negotiations.

As interpretations ricocheted across platforms, one post seemed to capture the broader mood: “These words reeked of war. May God preserve Iran.”