We have a very big decision to make on Iran, Trump says

A potential nuclear deal with Iran that leaves even symbolic uranium enrichment intact would be seen by US adversaries as a sign of retreat rather than a decisive strategic outcome.

Even at one percent, the capacity to enrich uranium would carry significant strategic implications, when viewed against the backdrop of a large US military deployment at a moment when Iran is in its weakest position for a long time.
Such an agreement could raise broader questions about American deterrence and regional influence. It risks projecting hesitation rather than strength.

At home, it might weaken President Trump’s leverage with Congress and embolden political rivals during the remainder of his presidency.

Regionally, it could unsettle Washington’s preferred strategic order and potentially give geopolitical competitors, including China, greater room to maneuver.
Rather than embodying the doctrine of “peace through strength,” it could resemble something closer to “peace through fear.”

The longer decisive action is delayed and deadlines pass without enforcement, the more the balance may shift in Tehran’s favor.

There is little reason to rely on the optimistic rhetoric of Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi. His tone and posture remain broadly consistent with the period before the twelve-day war.

The Omani foreign minister’s visit to Washington—coming just a day after talks that both he and his Iranian counterpart publicly described in positive terms—also deserves attention.
Muscat has long played a quiet mediating role between Tehran and Washington, and such diplomatic movements may signal that negotiations remain fluid despite public messaging on both sides.

Taken together, the signals pointing toward confrontation appear stronger than those pointing toward a durable agreement.

The victim, Vahid Lazer Monouchehri, had gone missing since widespread protests on January 8,9.

His body was handed over to relatives on Thursday with marks of gunfire and blows from a butcher’s cleaver, the family said.

Manouchehri was buried the following day under tight security in the village of Lazerban near Tonekabon, in Iran’s northern Mazandaran province.

Born on April 14, 1985, Monouchehri was a father of one and originally from Lazerban but had been living alone in Tehran. His family says they were unaware that he had taken part in the protests.

“There was no idea exactly when, where, or under what circumstances Vahid was killed,” the family said.

On Thursday, the Kahrizak forensic medical center contacted the family and asked them to travel to Tehran to collect their son’s body.

When they asked about the cause of death and why they were being contacted only after such a long delay, they say they were told: “There are many bodies here and we don’t know; just come and take the corpse.”

After arriving at Kahrizak, the family received the body along with a death certificate stating that the cause of death was “respiratory failure.”

Before handing it over, however, security officials required them to sign a written pledge not to present any account of his death other than the explanation given in the certificate.

The family then transported the body to his hometown. As it was being washed and prepared for burial, they say they discovered clear signs of severe violence: bullet wounds on his back, deep cuts to his side and a head riddled with shotgun pellets.

“It seems he was shot in the back, fell to the ground, and then officers shot him in the head at close range and hacked his body with a butcher’s cleaver,” a source close to the family said.

“The injuries make clear that the cause of death was not respiratory failure, but a state-ordered killing.”

The family also reported that the heart and kidney areas had been surgically opened and crudely stitched with large sutures. It remains unclear by whom or under what circumstances the procedure was carried out.

"They should make a deal, but they don’t want to quite go far enough, and it’s too bad," Trump told reporters in Texas.

"Look, we’ve been playing with them for 47 years, and that’s a long time. They’ve been blowing the legs off our people, blowing the face off our people, the arms. They’ve been knocking out ships one by one. And every month, there’s something else."

"You can’t put up with it too long. We’re not happy with the negotiation. They just don’t want to, they don’t want to say the key words 'we’re not going to have a nuclear weapon'. They have to say 'we’re not going to have a nuclear weapon' and they just can’t quite get there."

Trump said Iran wants "to enrich a little bit. You don’t have to enrich when you have that much oil. So, so I’m not happy with the negotiation. I say no enrichment, not 20%, 30%. They always want 20%, 30%. They want it for civilian, you know, for civil, civil. I think it’s uncivil. So I’m not happy with it."

"But they’re not getting to the right answer. And we’re not gonna see people... 47 years we’ve been doing this with them," he added.

"Iran has agreed to give up its stockpile of enriched material - zero accumulation - and allow for full verification by the IAEA of its nuclear program," CBS News reported citing Oman's foreign minister Badr Albusaidi who acts as a mediator in Iran-US talks.

"The most important achievement is the agreement that Iran will never possess nuclear material capable of producing a bomb. This is entirely new—unlike the deal negotiated during President Obama’s time—and makes the enrichment debate less relevant. With zero stockpiling, it becomes impossible to build a bomb, regardless of enrichment levels. This key point has often been overlooked by the media, and I want to clarify it from a mediator’s perspective," Oman Foreign Minister said in an interview with Face the Nation.

Asked about the rest of the stockpile in Iran, Albusaidi said there is an agreement on that too.

"There's no accumulation. So there will be zero accumulation, zero stockpiling and full verification. That is also equally important achievement. I think a full and comprehensive verification by the IAEA which is the agency in charge of of this this file," he added.

Oman Foreign Minister also said Tehran is open to negotiations for the rest of issues, including missile program.

"Iran, I believe, is open to discussing all issues, including ballistic missiles, though it insists this round remain focused on the nuclear file. Other matters can follow in due course under an appropriate framework. For now, the priority is to finalize a clear nuclear deal that defines each side’s obligations. We have also discussed and tentatively agreed that non-nuclear concerns could be addressed through a regional dialogue between Iran and its neighbors," he said.

US Senator Lindsey Graham on Friday expressed deep skepticism over potential nuclear talks with Iran, mediated by Oman, warning that any deal would face tough Senate scrutiny regardless of party.

“To any dealmaker regarding Iran: please understand your deal will have to come to the Senate and be tested. When it comes to matters like this, it’s not about a political party to me. I am going ask the hard questions no matter who presents the deal,” he posted on X. “To say I’m suspicious that the ayatollah and his regime will change and keep their word is the biggest understatement in history. I would also caution, beware of anything that comes from Oman.”

“It is clear to me that the best and only long term answer is to stand with the Iranian people and demand regime change,” Graham added.