US President Donald Trump on Thursday directed Vice President JD Vance to focus on alleged Democratic corruption rather than Iran talks, saying Washington no longer needed a deal with Tehran and that the Iranian regime was collapsing.
“We don't need a deal with Iran. Those days have long since passed,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We've got their money, Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, and we've got their Strait!”
He asked Vance to devote his “complete and total attention” to the domestic effort.
Vance had been leading efforts to secure a ceasefire and resume nuclear negotiations. But Trump has privately criticized the June memorandum of understanding the vice president helped negotiate, questioning whether it was a costly mistake, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing two officials.
The officials said Trump believed the arrangement had given Iran time to regroup and collect oil revenues before Washington imposed a naval blockade.
In separate remarks to Salem on Thursday, Trump said Tehran’s public defiance concealed the extent of its economic difficulties.
“The regime is collapsing,” he said. “Their economy is gone. They're not paying the soldiers.”
‘No hesitation’ to use force
Trump also said he was prepared to use military force to stop Iran from threatening US allies and vessels. Asked whether he would hesitate to do so, he replied: “No. No hesitation.”
Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency reported Thursday, citing official sources, that Sirik in Hormozgan province had been struck in an “enemy” attack. It described the strike as military in nature but gave no details about the target, damage or casualties.
Separately, US Central Command called reports that it had told Israel to prepare for renewed war with Iran “mere speculation,” Al Jazeera reported.
Israeli public broadcaster Kan had reported that warnings about a possible resumption of fighting were conveyed to Israeli military representatives in the United States and through military channels to Israel and Persian Gulf countries.
Regional governments continued pressing for negotiations. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called for talks to begin as soon as possible during a meeting with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday, Turkey’s presidency said.
Meeting on the sidelines of the COP31 summit in Antalya, Erdogan urged a swift end to the conflict and pledged continued support for regional peace efforts.
President Donald Trump may have paid a heavy political price for his war with Iran, but last week's sweeping election defeat has done little to clarify what he will do next.
Voters across America did not simply hand Democrats control of Congress. The wave reached further down the ballot, flipping hundreds of state legislative seats from Arizona to New Hampshire and giving Democrats control of states and localities few thought possible.
Last Tuesday was a referendum on much of what has happened since Trump took office for the second time in January 2025. The war was a powerful accelerant.
From the beginning, the administration has seemed intent on alienating voters and turning wins into losses. Its approach to immigration, overseen by figures such as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, helped turn what had been a Republican strength into a political liability.
Trump imposed, paused and reimposed a slew of punishing tariffs at a time when voters were already struggling. Headlines about alleged self-dealing and conflicts of interest, including the decision to accept a $400 million Boeing jet from Qatar's royal family, added to the damage.
In 2024, Republicans successfully portrayed Democrats as out-of-touch insiders; by 2026, they were facing similar accusations themselves.
All of this significantly weakened Trump's domestic political standing and tarnished the Republican brand. The controversies sucked oxygen from the most pressing issue on American voters' minds: the affordability crisis.
On the eve of the war, Trump's approval rating stood at 42 percent. When gas prices shot up, Republicans had little credibility left with working voters in states such as Ohio, Iowa and Texas. By last week's elections, his approval had fallen further, to 37 percent.
Iran was a major factor, not least because of the lack of clear deadlines or a convincing explanation to the American public of why the country was at war. Whatever the administration's strategic arguments, the average American voter had more immediate concerns.
Vice President JD Vance, whose political identity is closely tied to MAGA, has argued that the war was the reason Republicans lost up and down the ballot. “The reason we lost is the war,” Vance wrote the morning after the election.
The immediate verdict is that the war has been a political loser for Trump and the Republican Party. The long-term verdict on the argument Trump has made from the start—that Iran cannot be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon—is less clear.
The president himself acknowledged the political costs in an interview with 60 Minutes after the election: “Is it a good decision for today and tomorrow? Maybe not, but I have to go with what's right for our country.”
What comes next is anybody's guess. After meeting with Qatar's prime minister this week, Trump declared that Iran “militarily, is effectively over” and called further strikes “quite unlikely.”
Trump has also signaled a pullback from Israel, Iran's principal regional adversary: a shift Vance says voters are demanding. On Election Day itself, the president announced that the US would stop sending Israel its roughly $4 billion in annual aid by the end of this year.
Democrats, meanwhile, will use every tool at their disposal to prevent the US military from extending its operations, starting with the power of the purse. “We are going to end the war,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has promised.
But America's mercurial president is difficult to predict and has a habit of saying one thing and doing another when it comes to Tehran. With the political damage already done, he could ramp up the pressure, keep the blockade in place or pursue a peace deal. Trump likes options, and he likes leverage.
After last week's Everything Election, those options remain on the table, even if the political room to pursue them has narrowed.
Iran’s leaders say no talks can begin until Washington accepts seven conditions. But Tehran has never published them, its own officials list them differently, and several are demands no US president could meet, while the one issue Washington cares most about is ruled out.
The conditions are back at the center of the war’s diplomacy this week. On Thursday Hossein Taeb, a cleric who ran the Revolutionary Guards’ intelligence organization until 2022 and now heads the Basij paramilitary force, gave the most detailed account yet of how messages are moving between the two sides.
Days before the US midterm elections, he said, a Trump representative went to Vladimir Putin, and a Russian envoy then flew to Tehran with a written message for Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei. The envoy waited for a reply. Khamenei, Taeb said, calmly ordered that it be sent “at a suitable time.”
Then came a phone call between Putin and Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, and Rezaei’s trip to Moscow, where he handed Putin a letter from Khamenei on November 5.
“Our position is that Iran’s seven conditions must first be met and accepted by the other side,” Taeb said. Only then would Iran decide how, and about what, to negotiate.
His account sits awkwardly beside his colleagues’. Rezaei told Al Mayadeen this week that there are no negotiations of any kind and that reports of talks are “lies.” On X he told Washington to stop “manufacturing FAKE NEWS about imaginary talks” and wrote that it was “time to SURRENDER to the seven conditions.”
Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who formally leads Iran’s negotiating team, told Al Jazeera on Wednesday that Tehran had given Washington “a clear and transparent response” and was waiting for an official reply.
The US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner met Putin in the Kremlin on Thursday, mainly to discuss Ukraine after talks in Abu Dhabi. Neither side has said whether Iran came up.
Rezaei announced the seven conditions on September 23, after a meeting with President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, and said they had been put in writing and handed to Pakistan and Qatar. Iran later offered to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within seven days if they were met, then within two.
Iran has never officially released the text. Officials say the conditions grew out of the Islamabad understanding of June, which Hassan Ghashghavi, spokesman of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, says the presidents of both countries signed. Trump has disowned it.
No official list exists. Pieced together from what officials have said, it usually runs: an end to the war on all fronts, especially in Lebanon, the lifting of sanctions, the release of frozen assets, an end to the US naval blockade, compensation for war damage, guarantees against future attacks, and Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz.
But the list moves. Vahid Ahmadi, a member of the same committee, includes “the management of the Strait of Hormuz” by Iran under a new route agreed with Oman. Ghalibaf, listing them on Wednesday, added guaranteed waivers for Iranian oil sales. The armed forces chief, Ali Abdollahi, has set out five conditions of his own, including recognition of Iranian authority over Hormuz and a new regional security framework. Some reports include a reduction of US forces in the region. “Sometimes we may mention some conditions,” Rezaei said in September, “but Iran has seven.”
On October 11 Rezaei said Washington had “agreed to some” of them. This week he said there was no response at all.
An end to war “on all fronts.” This asks Washington to stop wars that Iran’s allies are fighting. Ahmadi says the condition now covers not only Lebanon but “the other resistance fronts,” meaning Hezbollah, the Houthis and militias in Iraq. Lebanon already has its own track. A US-brokered framework between the United States, Israel and Lebanon in June led to direct talks between Israel and Lebanon. Tehran is tying its own deal to a war fought by a group it arms and funds.
Lifting sanctions. No US president can do this alone. Many US sanctions on Iran are written into law by Congress. United Nations sanctions returned in late September 2025 under the nuclear deal’s snapback mechanism. The European Union and Britain impose their own. Lifting sanctions under the 2015 nuclear deal took two years of negotiation. Iran is asking for it as a condition for starting to talk.
Frozen assets. Iran’s own figures do not agree with anyone else’s. Tasnim and the central bank put the total at about $24 billion; other estimates run past $100 billion. Some of the money is tied up in US court judgments won by victims of attacks blamed on Iran, and the $6 billion moved to Qatar in 2023 was frozen again after the Hamas attack on Israel that October.
Ending the blockade. The US blockade of Iranian ports began on April 13, after Iran choked traffic through Hormuz. The condition asks Washington to lift its response while Iran keeps the closure that caused it. Iran’s only offer in return is to reopen a waterway it closed.
Reparations. The government spokeswoman has put Iran’s losses at $270 billion without a breakdown. Trump has rejected paying anything. Tehran is demanding compensation while its own missiles and drones struck its neighbors. The UAE alone absorbed close to 3,000 attacks in the first months of the war, the Financial Times has reported.
Guarantees against attack. No US president can bind his successor, which is the lesson Iranian officials themselves draw from Trump’s exit from the 2015 deal. The same officials who say Washington cannot be trusted are demanding a promise from it.
Iranian control of Hormuz. The strait is an international waterway. A condition that Iran “manage” it, approve routes or collect tolls is not a term for ending a war. It is a claim to a power Iran did not have before the war began.
The issue Washington says the war was about is missing. Rezaei said this week that the nuclear file “is not under discussion,” and that “not even a particle” of Iran’s enriched uranium would leave the country.
The result is a list that asks Washington to give up every lever it holds, sanctions, the blockade, its forces and the money, before talks begin, while Iran keeps the two things the other side wants most: the closure of Hormuz until the end, and its nuclear material for good.
Officials have sold the conditions at home as the terms of a victory. Rezaei told Washington it was “time to SURRENDER to the seven conditions Iran has repeatedly set out.” Taeb told his audience that the 40-day war decided the elections in Israel and the United States, and that Trump would have to withdraw his forces or face “a wider social movement” at home.
Ghalibaf said on Wednesday that Tehran wants to end the state of “neither war nor peace,” but that this might come through “sustainable deterrence” rather than talks.
The cost of the stalemate falls on Iranians. Ghalibaf himself complained that the blockade has cut access to food and medicine. Taeb said gasoline output fell to about 102 million liters a day during the war against consumption of about 135 million, and that Iran still imports some seven million liters a day. Inflation reached about 77 percent in October.
A supermarket refrigerator might seem an unlikely instrument of geopolitical confrontation. Yet France’s attribution of cyberattacks targeting refrigeration systems to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards brings a distant war into Europeans’ everyday lives.
With supermarkets in several other European countries also affected, this is more than a bilateral dispute between Paris and Tehran.
It raises a question Europe can no longer postpone: how should it respond to attempts to make European societies bear the costs of confrontation in the Middle East?
On November 10, France summoned Iran’s ambassador after publicly assigning responsibility for the attacks to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Tehran denied the allegations.
French prosecutors have requested international arrest warrants against several individuals linked to the Shahid Kaveh cyber unit. France’s decision to name the institution it holds responsible marks a political threshold.
Disrupting refrigeration can destroy stock, interrupt distribution and impose costs on businesses. It can also undermine public confidence in the authorities’ ability to protect ordinary routines.
This does not establish that the attackers could generate nationwide food shortages. But the implications extend beyond the immediate damage: civilian infrastructure can become vulnerable to a conflict that many Europeans consider geographically remote.
One dimension of France’s confrontation with Tehran is the deterioration of bilateral relations. French engagement with Iran has combined diplomatic dialogue and economic interests with disagreements over nuclear proliferation, regional security and human rights.
Iranian security institutions, however, appear to regard France’s diplomatic and cultural presence with suspicion.
The closure of the French Language Centre in Tehran, condemned by Paris in September, and reported attacks against embassy personnel illustrate the deterioration. Cultural institutions that maintain connections between societies have become pressure points in disputes between states.
Information operations exploiting social tensions in France can serve a similar purpose, increasing the domestic costs of confronting Tehran.
Tehran has long been suspicious of foreign engagement with Iranian civil society, often interpreting cultural contact and public criticism as potential subversion. Such an approach further narrows the space for normal diplomacy.
Another dimension concerns France’s military alliance with the United States, which exposes it to Iranian pressure despite its diplomatic opposition to the war.
France also maintains close security relationships with Washington’s partners in the Persian Gulf, including Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, countries that have faced Iranian retaliation in a war they did not seek.
These relationships help explain why Tehran may regard European states as part of the strategic infrastructure sustaining American power in the Middle East. Several European countries host US military bases, making them potential targets in a confrontation that extends beyond the region.
Iran’s top security official, Mohsen Rezaei, reinforced those concerns on Wednesday, warning that Tehran could strike US military bases in Europe and on distant islands if Washington attacked Iran again.
Such threats illustrate the possibility of horizontal escalation: widening a confrontation geographically and expanding the range of potential targets. Pressure on European territory could be intended to influence Washington indirectly while encouraging European governments to constrain American military action.
Cyber operations are particularly suited to this form of pressure because they can disrupt civilian activity while allowing those responsible to conceal or deny their involvement. Responsibility can remain contested even when governments believe their intelligence establishes a convincing chain of attribution.
Beyond cyber operations, Iran’s announcement that it has lifted its self-imposed 2,000-kilometer missile-range limit adds another dimension to this signaling.
The announcement does not, by itself, establish the deployment of reliable longer-range capabilities. It nevertheless suggests that previously asserted geographical restraints should no longer be taken for granted.
Europe should assess these developments together without treating them as identical threats. Cyber sabotage, hostage diplomacy, intimidation of diplomats, information operations and missile signaling involve different methods and require different responses.
Their possible convergence matters because each can contribute to an effort to deter European involvement through the threat of retaliation.
A credible European response must combine collective political action with practical protection. European governments should share evidence, coordinate investigations and strengthen the security of vulnerable commercial systems. Where responsibility is established, sanctions should target the institutions and individuals involved.
Existing measures also need effective enforcement; otherwise, successive announcements risk becoming largely symbolic. Businesses, meanwhile, need clear security guidance. Diplomatic statements alone cannot protect vulnerable equipment.
Maintaining dialogue with Tehran presents a further difficulty. Official denials by Iran’s Foreign Ministry do not necessarily reflect the activities of its security apparatus, often described as the country’s “deep state.”
Iranian intelligence networks have been accused of exploiting diplomatic access and cover for operations abroad. This creates a challenge for European governments seeking to preserve diplomatic engagement while guarding against the misuse of diplomatic privileges.
Diplomatic channels remain necessary to reduce the risk of miscalculation, but they require scrutiny and safeguards. Europe should make clear both the consequences of further attacks and the possibilities for de-escalation.
France’s attribution could become a European wake-up call if it leads to a common policy that protects civilian infrastructure, supports regional partners and preserves diplomatic engagement while guarding against its exploitation by Tehran’s security apparatus.
The Group of Seven (G7) foreign ministers warned on Wednesday that they would continue coordinating economic and political pressure on Iran if diplomatic efforts failed to produce an agreement addressing Tehran's nuclear program and regional security concerns.
In a joint statement following their November 9–10 meeting in Paris, the ministers expressed support for regional mediators seeking a lasting diplomatic settlement while reiterating that Iran must never be allowed to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon.
"Absent a diplomatic solution, we committed to continuing our coordination to economically and politically constrain the Iranian regime's ability to sow instability in the region and around the world," the ministers said.
The foreign ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain and the United States, alongside the European Union's foreign policy chief, called on Tehran to resume full cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to restore transparency over its nuclear activities.
They also reaffirmed their commitment to enforcing UN sanctions reinstated against Iran in September 2025 through the snapback mechanism and urged other UN member states to implement the measures.
G7 raises alarm over alleged Iranian plots abroad
The ministers expressed grave concern over Iran's alleged involvement in violent plots targeting citizens and territories of G7 countries, specifically citing a September incident at a British military air base used by US forces.
"We also expressed grave concern over Iranian involvement in violent plots against many of our citizens and territories," the statement said.
The ministers acknowledged Britain's attribution of Iranian involvement in a September 27 incident at RAF Fairford, an air base in Gloucestershire that has hosted US bombers.
"Iran should be in no doubt that we are united and remain committed to safeguarding our sovereignty," they said.
British counterterrorism police arrested several suspects following a security alert at RAF Fairford after reports of suspicious vehicles approaching the base.
Two British nationals were subsequently charged under Britain's National Security Act, including one accused of assisting a foreign intelligence service believed to be Iranian.
On November 10, the US Justice Department separately announced charges against three men over an alleged network linked to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and implicated in attacks and attempted attacks in Europe and the United States, including the suspected RAF Fairford plot.
Iran has denied involvement, and the allegations have not been established in court.
Separately, US military aircraft were relocated from RAF Mildenhall, another British air base, amid security concerns.
The Associated Press reported Tuesday that 13 American aircraft, including aerial refueling tankers, had departed the base in eastern England for other military facilities in Europe.
A US official told AP the move was a precaution in response to a threat but did not identify its source. The Wall Street Journal reported that the threat was linked to Iran, citing people familiar with the matter.
There has been no public confirmation that the incidents involving the two bases were connected.
G7 rejects Iranian restrictions on Strait of Hormuz
The ministers strongly condemned Iranian attacks on neighboring countries and civilian vessels, as well as disruptions to international trade and energy supplies caused by restrictions on maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
They called on Tehran to cease attacks against commercial shipping and respect its obligations under international humanitarian law.
The G7 reaffirmed its opposition to "any tolls, fees, illegal costs, discriminations or any limitation imposed on maritime transit through the Strait."
The ministers also emphasized the importance of US Central Command's operations to clear naval mines and escort civilian vessels through the waterway.
They recognized a separate French-British initiative aimed at facilitating the resumption of commercial shipping, including by helping verify the removal of mines.
The statement underscored the importance of restoring safe and unrestricted passage through the strategic waterway, a major route for global energy exports that has faced severe disruption during the conflict involving Iran, the United States and Israel.
G7 demands end to Iranian support for armed groups and Russia
The ministers urged Tehran to stop supporting nonstate armed groups across the Middle East, specifically calling for an end to Iranian weapons supplies and other assistance to Yemen's Houthis.
They condemned continued Houthi strikes against Saudi Arabia, including attacks affecting civilians and infrastructure, and called for an immediate halt to military operations.
On Lebanon, the G7 reiterated that the disarmament of Hezbollah and other nonstate armed groups was essential to bringing all weapons under the authority of the Lebanese state.
The ministers also condemned Iran's military assistance to Russia in its war against Ukraine, alongside North Korean military support and Chinese supplies of weapons-related materials and equipment.
They said G7 members intended to continue taking action against countries enabling Russia's military campaign.
The US Treasury Department confirmed on Tuesday that Secretary Scott Bessent had relocated from his Washington home to a military base following threats against his life from Iran.
"Threats against Sec. Bessent reached more than an advanced stage, which is why he and his family made the move," a senior Trump administration official told Fox News Digital.
The New York Times first reported the relocation, citing three people familiar with the matter. Reuters subsequently confirmed the move through two sources, while Fox News Digital obtained confirmation from the Treasury Department.
Security concerns intensified after photo of residence published
A person familiar with the matter told Reuters that concerns about Bessent's safety intensified after The Wall Street Journal published an aerial photograph of his residence in Washington's Georgetown neighborhood.
The photograph made it possible to identify the property's location, the source said, heightening security concerns amid the threats attributed to Iran.
"The news media has an obligation to act responsibly amid growing threats against public officials," the person told Reuters.
The military base where Bessent and his family relocated has not been publicly identified.
Treasury says Bessent will not be deterred
A senior administration official told Fox News Digital that the threats reflected the effectiveness of Washington's economic pressure campaign against Tehran, arguing that Iran was targeting the official responsible for the strategy.
A Treasury spokesperson told Fox News Digital that Bessent would "not be deterred by the Iranian regime's threats."
Bessent has overseen Operation Economic Outcast since August, a campaign combining financial sanctions and restrictions on trade to pressure Tehran over its military activities and the disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
US intelligence warns Iranian plots have advanced
The reported threats follow a warning from a senior US intelligence official that Iranian plots targeting American personnel and citizens had reached an advanced stage.
Reuters said it reviewed a memorandum containing the warning late last month.
The New York Times also reported that US officials had identified specific threats they considered serious.
The newspaper said US officials assessed Iran's ability to carry out large-scale attacks in the United States and other overseas locations as limited.
Iran has previously denied involvement in plots to attack officials or other individuals on American soil.
Bessent oversees US blockade and sanctions on Iran
The Treasury Department's economic pressure campaign has targeted Middle Eastern bank branches and financial services companies that Washington says facilitate transactions involving Iran.
The measures operate alongside a US naval blockade of Iranian ports, intended to restrict Tehran's oil revenue and pressure it to halt attacks on commercial shipping and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
The waterway, a major route for global energy exports, has faced severe disruptions since the United States and Israel launched their military campaign against Iran on February 28.
Washington has also expanded its efforts beyond maritime routes. On November 7, US Central Command announced Task Force Iron Gate, a new initiative to disrupt shipments of advanced weapons, dual-use technologies and sanctioned materials across Iran's land borders and the Caspian Sea.