Iran and Oman are reportedly close to finalizing a new framework governing commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most strategically important maritime chokepoints.

According to reports, the proposed arrangement would route inbound vessels through Iranian territorial waters and outbound traffic through Omani waters, with no tolls during an initial 60-day period. The agreement could significantly increase Iran's role in managing shipping through the strait and reshape regional geopolitics.

The United States has not officially responded to the reports, while Vice President JD Vance has warned that negotiations with Iran remain complex. Analysts say any agreement may only provide a temporary solution as political divisions continue within both Iran and the United States.

Iran-Oman Near Strait of Hormuz Shipping Deal | Will the U.S. Accept the New Framework?

Fresh military exchanges between the US and Iran have once again cast doubt over the future of the recently announced ceasefire and Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). While both sides continue to accuse each other of violating the agreement, experts believe the biggest obstacle is not the latest strike, but decades of deep-rooted mistrust.&nbsp;Speaking to WION, Peter Kuznick, professor of history and director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, said the recent incident in the Strait of Hormuz is unlikely to be the decisive factor that causes the agreement to collapse. "This incident is only a slight influence in terms of the possibility of breaking it up," Kuznick said.

Instead, he argued that the success of any long-term agreement depends on overcoming a history of distrust that stretches back decades. "There is so little trust. The Americans don't trust the Iranians. The Iranians have good reason not to trust the Americans," he told WION.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hezbollah-naim-qassem-rejects-us-israel-lebanon-framework-1782568541289">Hezbollah's Naim Qassem calls US-Israel-Lebanon framework 'humiliating' warns against surrendering 'sovereignty'</a>&nbsp;Kuznick pointed to the 1953 CIA-backed overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government as a key reason behind Tehran's continuing distrust of Washington. He also referred to more recent developments, saying Iran views US and Israeli military strikes carried out during negotiations as further evidence that Washington cannot be fully trusted.&nbsp;"And then more recently, the US and Israel have attacked twice during the negotiations," he said.<h2>Domestic pressure on both sides</h2>According to Kuznick, political pressure within both countries is making negotiations even more fragile. In America, he said, sections of President Donald Trump's own Republican Party believe the agreement represents a major concession to Iran. "You've got a lot of pressure inside the United States from within Trump's own party, who see the agreement that he struck as a complete abject surrender," Kuznick said.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/analyst-flagged-minab-school-as-civilian-site-in-2019-warning-missed-report-1782564048188">Analyst flagged Minab school as civilian site in 2019, warning missed: Report</a>&nbsp;"They're very angry. They're putting a lot of pressure on Trump right now,” he added. He said Iran is facing similar divisions at home. "There are a lot of people who don't like the fact that the Iranians are even negotiating with the United States, whom they still consider to be the Great Satan," he added.<h2>'Less than 50 per cent' chance of success</h2>Taken together, Kuznick believes these political and historical factors leave the agreement on shaky ground. "So there's so little trust," he said. "The chances of this agreement actually working out are less than 50 per cent, certainly, maybe much less than that."

Professor Peter Kuznick warns the US-Iran ceasefire faces a less than fifty per cent chance of success, driven by deep-rooted historical mistrust and domestic political opposition within both nations.

Fresh military exchanges between the US and Iran have once again cast doubt over the future of the recently announced ceasefire and Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). While both sides continue to accuse each other of violating the agreement, experts believe the biggest obstacle is not the latest strike, but decades of deep-rooted mistrust. Speaking to WION, Peter Kuznick, professor of history and director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, said the recent incident in the Strait of Hormuz is unlikely to be the decisive factor that causes the agreement to collapse. "This incident is only a slight influence in terms of the possibility of breaking it up," Kuznick said.

Professor Peter Kuznick warns the US-Iran ceasefire faces a less than fifty per cent chance of success, driven by deep-rooted historical mistrust and domestic political opposition within both nations.

What are the chances US-Iran agreement will work out? Expert says less than 50%. Here's why

U.S. President Donald Trump has defended the newly announced 14-point Memorandum of Understanding with Iran amid criticism from political opponents and foreign policy experts. The agreement aims to reduce tensions, reopen key trade routes and establish a framework for future negotiations. Trump's comments come as debate intensifies over the deal's long-term impact on regional security, missile development and America's Middle East strategy.

U.S. President Defends 14-Point MoU With Iran 

Iran's delegation arrived at the Islamabad Talks with clear demands, warning it would walk out of negotiations if its demands were not met, as state broadcaster IRIB reported a string of conditions Tehran is pressing on the United States in the first direct talks between the two sides following a fragile April 7 ceasefire.&nbsp;"If the interests of the people and the Islamic Republic are not met, we will leave the negotiating room," the Iranian delegation said, according to IRIB.&nbsp;The Iranian team is being led by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, and former nuclear negotiator Ali Bagheri, a lineup that Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said signals Tehran's seriousness. "This round of talks is not just a negotiation, but a demand," Gharibabadi said, adding that Iran was arriving with a long list of conditions.&nbsp;IRIB reported that following a lengthy bilateral meeting between Qalibaf and the Pakistani delegation, specialised technical teams entered consultations. On the substance of the talks, the broadcaster said Washington had accepted Iran's first condition, the release of frozen Iranian funds.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/white-house-denies-asset-release-as-high-stakes-islamabad-talks-begin-1775912965012">White House denies asset release as high-stakes Islamabad talks begin</a>&nbsp;The most contentious issue, however, remains Lebanon. A ceasefire is in place in Beirut, but Iran is insisting on an end to Israeli Defence Forces strikes in southern Lebanon, where fighting has continued. Tehran has made clear this is a red line.&nbsp;The warning comes against an already fractured backdrop. The ceasefire that ended roughly 39 days of conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran remains disputed, with both sides offering conflicting interpretations of its terms. Iran has separately threatened to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed as long as Israeli strikes persist in Lebanon.&nbsp;Gharibabadi added that Iran was prepared for any outcome. "If the scenario is to defend the country, we are completely serious in this regard," he said.&nbsp;The US delegation, led by Vice President JD Vance and including Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, arrived in Islamabad on Friday. Vance, speaking before departure, said Washington was open to engagement but warned Iran against playing games at the table.&nbsp;(Disclaimer: WION takes utmost care to accurately and responsibly report ongoing conflicts in West Asia involving Israel, Iran, the US, Gulf nations and non-state actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, Islamic State, and others. Claims and counterclaims, disinformation and misinformation are being made online and offline. Given this context, WION cannot independently verify the authenticity of all statements, social media posts, photos and videos.)

The warning comes against an already fractured backdrop. The ceasefire that ended roughly 39 days of conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran remains disputed, with both sides offering conflicting interpretations of its terms.

Iran's delegation arrived at the Islamabad Talks with clear demands, warning it would walk out of negotiations if its demands were not met, as state broadcaster IRIB reported a string of conditions Tehran is pressing on the United States in the first direct talks between the two sides following a fragile April 7 ceasefire. "If the interests of the people and the Islamic Republic are not met, we will leave the negotiating room," the Iranian delegation said, according to IRIB. The Iranian team is being led by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, and former nuclear negotiator Ali Bagheri, a lineup that Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said signals Tehran's seriousness. "This round of talks is not just a negotiation, but a demand," Gharibabadi said, adding that Iran was arriving with a long list of conditions. IRIB reported that following a lengthy bilateral meeting between Qalibaf and the Pakistani delegation, specialised technical teams entered consultations. On the substance of the talks, the broadcaster said Washington had accepted Iran's first condition, the release of frozen Iranian funds. Also Read: White House denies asset release as high-stakes Islamabad talks begin The most contentious issue, however, remains Lebanon. A ceasefire is in place in Beirut, but Iran is insisting on an end to Israeli Defence Forces strikes in southern Lebanon, where fighting has continued. Tehran has made clear this is a red line. The warning comes against an already fractured backdrop. The ceasefire that ended roughly 39 days of conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran remains disputed, with both sides offering conflicting interpretations of its terms. Iran has separately threatened to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed as long as Israeli strikes persist in Lebanon. Gharibabadi added that Iran was prepared for any outcome. "If the scenario is to defend the country, we are completely serious in this regard," he said. The US delegation, led by Vice President JD Vance and including Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, arrived in Islamabad on Friday. Vance, speaking before departure, said Washington was open to engagement but warned Iran against playing games at the table. (Disclaimer: WION takes utmost care to accurately and responsibly report ongoing conflicts in West Asia involving Israel, Iran, the US, Gulf nations and non-state actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, Islamic State, and others. Claims and counterclaims, disinformation and misinformation are being made online and offline. Given this context, WION cannot independently verify the authenticity of all statements, social media posts, photos and videos.)

The warning comes against an already fractured backdrop. The ceasefire that ended roughly 39 days of conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran remains disputed, with both sides offering conflicting interpretations of its terms.

'If our interests are not met, we will walk out': Iran threatens to leave Islamabad talks

Diplomatic tensions sharpened on Saturday as the United States firmly denied claims that it had agreed to release Iran’s frozen assets, even as negotiations to end the Middle East conflict began in Islamabad. The dispute highlights how financial restrictions have become central to geopolitical bargaining. While an unnamed Iranian source suggested progress had been made, a senior White House official dismissed the assertion outright, stating: “False. The meetings have not even started yet.” The contradiction sets the tone for talks that remain precarious and closely watched.<h2>What are Iran’s frozen assets?</h2>Iran’s frozen assets are funds held in foreign banks that Tehran cannot access due to international sanctions. These include oil revenues, foreign exchange reserves and other state-controlled holdings accumulated over years of restricted trade. A portion of these funds is held in countries such as Qatar and South Korea, often arising from energy transactions conducted under sanction-limited frameworks. A central component of Iran’s frozen assets is the $6 billion derived from oil sales to South Korea, initially blocked in 2018 after Donald Trump reimposed sanctions and scrapped a deal between world powers and Tehran over its nuclear programme. The funds were later moved to Qatari accounts under a 2023 prisoner swap mediated by Qatar, involving the exchange of five US citizens and five Iranians. US officials said at that time that ⁠the money ​was restricted to humanitarian use only, the money was frozen again by the administration of Joe Biden following the October 7 attacks by Hamas, with Washington stressing Iran would not access it “for the foreseeable future.”&nbsp;ALSO READ: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/after-four-decades-of-enmity-can-us-and-iran-finally-make-peace-at-islamabad-negotiations-1775897733420">After four decades of enmity, can US and Iran finally make peace at Islamabad negotiations?</a>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Islamabad April 11 ,2026. Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif held a meeting with the Iranian delegation at the Islamabad Talks today. The Iranian side was led by the Honorable Speaker of the Iranian Consultative Assembly, Mr. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, assisted by Foreign… <a href="https://t.co/xUSCq9sGpS">pic.twitter.com/xUSCq9sGpS</a>&mdash; Prime Minister&#39;s Office (@PakPMO) <a href="https://twitter.com/PakPMO/status/2042941253835473200?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 11, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

&nbsp;<h2>Why do they matter in negotiations?</h2>The unfreezing of assets has long been a central demand of Tehran in diplomatic engagements. Iranian officials maintain that any durable agreement must include access to these funds, framing them as sovereign resources rather than concessions. Among the four demands, put forth by the Iranian delegation are:&nbsp;&nbsp;* full sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz,&nbsp; * complete war reparations by the aggressor,&nbsp; * unconditional release of blocked assets, and&nbsp; * a durable ceasefire across the entire West-Asia Region.&nbsp;Early, even before the meeting begun an unnamed "senior Iranian source" told news outlet Reuters that the United States had agreed to unfreeze the assets and that the move was directly linked to ensuring safe passage in the Strait of Hormuz.&nbsp;ALSO READ: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/from-annihilation-threat-to-ceasefire-deal-how-did-trump-pivot-so-quickly-on-iran-1775650749141">From ‘annihilation’ threat to ceasefire deal: How did Trump pivot so quickly on Iran?</a><h2>What is happening now?</h2>Talks have formally begun in Islamabad. Pakistani officials described the peace process as having “commenced”, though substantive discussions are still in early stages. Despite Iranian claims, Washington has made clear that no agreement on asset release has been reached. The US denial underscores enduring mistrust and the complexity of linking financial sanctions to ceasefire negotiations. For now, Iran’s frozen billions remain both an economic constraint and a strategic bargaining tool at the heart of fragile diplomacy.

Iran’s frozen assets are funds held in foreign banks that Tehran cannot access due to international sanctions. These include oil revenues, foreign exchange reserves and other state-controlled holdings accumulated over years of restricted trade. 

Diplomatic tensions sharpened on Saturday as the United States firmly denied claims that it had agreed to release Iran’s frozen assets, even as negotiations to end the Middle East conflict began in Islamabad. The dispute highlights how financial restrictions have become central to geopolitical bargaining. While an unnamed Iranian source suggested progress had been made, a senior White House official dismissed the assertion outright, stating: “False. The meetings have not even started yet.” The contradiction sets the tone for talks that remain precarious and closely watched. What are Iran’s frozen assets? Iran’s frozen assets are funds held in foreign banks that Tehran cannot access due to international sanctions. These include oil revenues, foreign exchange reserves and other state-controlled holdings accumulated over years of restricted trade. A portion of these funds is held in countries such as Qatar and South Korea, often arising from energy transactions conducted under sanction-limited frameworks. A central component of Iran’s frozen assets is the $6 billion derived from oil sales to South Korea, initially blocked in 2018 after Donald Trump reimposed sanctions and scrapped a deal between world powers and Tehran over its nuclear programme. The funds were later moved to Qatari accounts under a 2023 prisoner swap mediated by Qatar, involving the exchange of five US citizens and five Iranians. US officials said at that time that ⁠the money was restricted to humanitarian use only, the money was frozen again by the administration of Joe Biden following the October 7 attacks by Hamas, with Washington stressing Iran would not access it “for the foreseeable future.” ALSO READ: After four decades of enmity, can US and Iran finally make peace at Islamabad negotiations?

Iran’s frozen assets are funds held in foreign banks that Tehran cannot access due to international sanctions. These include oil revenues, foreign exchange reserves and other state-controlled holdings accumulated over years of restricted trade.&nbsp;

What are Iran’s billion-dollar frozen assets? Why is Tehran demanding release of these funds in US-Iran peace talks in Pakistan?

The Iranian delegation, led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, and the US team, headed by US Vice President JD Vance, have both arrived in Islamabad for the talks. Pakistani PM, Shehbaz Sharif has met the two delegations separately, positioning Pakistan as a key facilitator.

After four decades of enmity, can US and Iran finally make peace at Islamabad negotiations?

US President Donald Trump on Saturday (July 19) said that Iran would be “better off” relocating its nuclear programme, after claiming the US obliterated three major sites in strikes last month. In a post on Truth Social, he wrote, “It would take years to bring them back into service and, if Iran wanted to do so, they would be much better off starting anew, in three different locations, prior to those sites being obliterated, should they decide to do so. Thank you for your attention to this matter.”Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-demands-release-of-epstein-court-documents-1752937113800">'Nothing will be good enough for troublemakers': Trump demands release of Epstein court documents</a><h2>What did US intelligence say about the strikes?</h2>A new US intelligence assessment, reported by NBC News, suggests that while one site was heavily damaged, two others may not have been hit as hard. Officials say the Fordow facility was the most seriously affected, with two current sources claiming the strike may have set Iran’s enrichment capabilities there back by as much as two years. However, the two other sites targeted, Isfahan and Natanz, could resume enrichment within months, depending on Tehran’s intentions.<h2>What is the official US position?</h2>White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement, “As the President has said and experts have verified, Operation Midnight Hammer totally obliterated Iran’s nuclear capabilities.” Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell told NBC, “President Trump was clear and the American people understand: Iran’s nuclear facilities in Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz were completely and totally obliterated. There is no doubt about that.”<h2>Is Iran saying the same thing?</h2>Iran has not confirmed the scale of damage across all three facilities, but Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi admitted that Fordow suffered “severe damage” as a result of the US attack. Tehran insists its nuclear programme is for civilian use only, rejecting claims that it is pursuing nuclear weapons.<h2>What was Operation Midnight Hammer?</h2>The US strikes last month were part of Operation Midnight Hammer, aimed at disabling Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons infrastructure. The Trump administration claimed the attacks were necessary to prevent further nuclear advancement, while Iran called them unprovoked and illegal.An earlier report from the Defence Intelligence Agency had suggested the strikes might only delay Iran’s nuclear work by several months. However, Trump officials dismissed that as outdated and “low confidence,” saying fresh intelligence showed the damage was far greater.

A new US intelligence assessment, reported by NBC News, suggests that while one site was heavily damaged, two others may not have been hit as hard.

US President Donald Trump on Saturday (July 19) said that Iran would be “better off” relocating its nuclear programme, after claiming the US obliterated three major sites in strikes last month. In a post on Truth Social, he wrote, “It would take years to bring them back into service and, if Iran wanted to do so, they would be much better off starting anew, in three different locations, prior to those sites being obliterated, should they decide to do so. Thank you for your attention to this matter.” Also read: 'Nothing will be good enough for troublemakers': Trump demands release of Epstein court documents What did US intelligence say about the strikes? A new US intelligence assessment, reported by NBC News, suggests that while one site was heavily damaged, two others may not have been hit as hard. Officials say the Fordow facility was the most seriously affected, with two current sources claiming the strike may have set Iran’s enrichment capabilities there back by as much as two years. However, the two other sites targeted, Isfahan and Natanz, could resume enrichment within months, depending on Tehran’s intentions. What is the official US position? White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement, “As the President has said and experts have verified, Operation Midnight Hammer totally obliterated Iran’s nuclear capabilities.” Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell told NBC, “President Trump was clear and the American people understand: Iran’s nuclear facilities in Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz were completely and totally obliterated. There is no doubt about that.” Is Iran saying the same thing? Iran has not confirmed the scale of damage across all three facilities, but Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi admitted that Fordow suffered “severe damage” as a result of the US attack. Tehran insists its nuclear programme is for civilian use only, rejecting claims that it is pursuing nuclear weapons. What was Operation Midnight Hammer? The US strikes last month were part of Operation Midnight Hammer, aimed at disabling Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons infrastructure. The Trump administration claimed the attacks were necessary to prevent further nuclear advancement, while Iran called them unprovoked and illegal. An earlier report from the Defence Intelligence Agency had suggested the strikes might only delay Iran’s nuclear work by several months. However, Trump officials dismissed that as outdated and “low confidence,” saying fresh intelligence showed the damage was far greater.

A new US intelligence assessment, reported by NBC News, suggests that while one site was heavily damaged, two others may not have been hit as hard.&nbsp;

'Much better off starting anew': Trump tells Iran to rebuild nuclear sites elsewhere so they can be ‘obliterated’ again

Iran&rsquo;s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on Saturday (March 8) slammed&nbsp;what he called &ldquo;bullying tactics&rdquo; following US President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/donald-trump" rel="dofollow">Donald </a><a href="https://www.wionews.com/donald-trump" rel="dofollow">Trump&rsquo;s</a> latest warnings of potential military action against Tehran.
Speaking on Saturday during a meeting with Iranian officials, Khamenei dismissed calls for negotiations, arguing they were merely a means for foreign powers to assert control.
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/final-strokes-trump-hints-at-final-moments-with-iran-after-his-letter-to-khamenei-gets-lost-in-mail-8832335" rel="dofollow noopener" target="_blank">'Final strokes': Trump hints at 'final moments' with Iran after his letter to Khamenei 'gets lost in mail'</a>
"Some bully governments&mdash;I really don't know of any more appropriate term for some foreign figures and leaders than the word bullying&mdash;insist on negotiations. Their negotiations are not aimed at solving problems, they aim at domination," Khamenei said. His remarks came a day after Trump warned that action against Iran could happen soon if it refused to engage in talks over its nuclear programme.
<h2>Trump hints at imminent action</h2>
Trump on Friday suggested that a confrontation with Iran might be near. "Something is going to happen very soon," he told reporters in the Oval Office, without providing specifics. "We&rsquo;re down to final strokes with Iran. That&rsquo;s going to be an interesting time, and we&rsquo;ll see what happens," he added.
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/todays-ukraine-is-yesterdays-afghan-did-irans-khamenei-predict-us-treatment-of-zelensky-3-years-back-8769497">'Today&rsquo;s Ukraine is yesterday&rsquo;s Afghan': Did Iran's Khamenei predict US' treatment of Zelensky&nbsp;3&nbsp;years&nbsp;back?</a>
Trump added, "We&rsquo;re down to final moments. We can&rsquo;t let them have a nuclear weapon."
"It&rsquo;s an interesting time in the history of the world, but we have a situation with Iran that something&rsquo;s going to happen very soon&mdash;very, very soon," he said.
Despite hinting at military action, Trump also revealed that he had sent a letter to Khamenei, urging Iran to negotiate over its nuclear programme. However, Tehran has maintained that talks will only be possible if the US lifts its sanctions.
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/irans-khamenei-warns-his-government-against-negotiating-with-us-says-it-would-be-unwise-8698844">Iran's Khamenei warns his government against negotiating with US, says it would be 'unwise'</a>
"I've written them a letter, saying I hope you're going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it's going to be a terrible thing for them. You can't let them have a nuclear weapon," Trump said.
Meanwhile, Iran&rsquo;s mission to the United Nations said, "We have not received such a letter so far."
(With inputs from agencies)

World: Speaking on Saturday during a meeting with Iranian officials, Khamenei dismissed calls for negotiations, arguing they were merely a means for foreign powers to assert control.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on Saturday (March 8) slammed what he called “bullying tactics” following US President Donald Trump’s latest warnings of potential military action against Tehran. Speaking on Saturday during a meeting with Iranian officials, Khamenei dismissed calls for negotiations, arguing they were merely a means for foreign powers to assert control. Also read: 'Final strokes': Trump hints at 'final moments' with Iran after his letter to Khamenei 'gets lost in mail' "Some bully governments—I really don't know of any more appropriate term for some foreign figures and leaders than the word bullying—insist on negotiations. Their negotiations are not aimed at solving problems, they aim at domination," Khamenei said. His remarks came a day after Trump warned that action against Iran could happen soon if it refused to engage in talks over its nuclear programme. Trump hints at imminent action Trump on Friday suggested that a confrontation with Iran might be near. "Something is going to happen very soon," he told reporters in the Oval Office, without providing specifics. "We’re down to final strokes with Iran. That’s going to be an interesting time, and we’ll see what happens," he added. Also read: 'Today’s Ukraine is yesterday’s Afghan': Did Iran's Khamenei predict US' treatment of Zelensky 3 years back? Trump added, "We’re down to final moments. We can’t let them have a nuclear weapon." "It’s an interesting time in the history of the world, but we have a situation with Iran that something’s going to happen very soon—very, very soon," he said. Despite hinting at military action, Trump also revealed that he had sent a letter to Khamenei, urging Iran to negotiate over its nuclear programme. However, Tehran has maintained that talks will only be possible if the US lifts its sanctions. Also read: Iran's Khamenei warns his government against negotiating with US, says it would be 'unwise' "I've written them a letter, saying I hope you're going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it's going to be a terrible thing for them. You can't let them have a nuclear weapon," Trump said. Meanwhile, Iran’s mission to the United Nations said, "We have not received such a letter so far." (With inputs from agencies)

‘They aim at domination’: Khamenei condemns ‘bullying’ after Trump’s military action threat against Iran

As Russia said the US should be more "active" to revive the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-calls-on-us-to-be-more-active-to-revive-iran-nuclear-deal-416020"> nuclear talks</a> with Iran, foreign minister &nbsp;Hossein Amirabdollahian added that talks would resume soon without setting a specific date.

Amirabdollahian added that Iran is looking into the Vienna negotiations while asserting that negotiations with four plus one&nbsp;countries are set to begin.

Although EU foreign policy head Josep Borrell expressed his optimism to revive the stalled nuclear talks, Amirabdollahian took a dig at the&nbsp;United States stating that President Biden should end sanctions imposed by the previous Trump administration.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-president-ebrahim-raisi-slams-us-presses-sanctions-to-be-lifted-414875">Also Read:&nbsp;Iran President Ebrahim Raisi slams US, presses sanctions to be lifted</a>

Amirabdollahian said Biden displayed "paradoxical behaviour" while keeping negotiations open and&nbsp;"simultaneously levying new sanctions".

Iran's foreign minister also brought up Soleimani's killing by the United States carried out at the behest of former President Trump.

Meanwhile, Russia said it hoped talks in Vienna will begin soon between Germany, UK, France, China, Russia and Iran which seeks to put the United States back in the 2015 nuclear deal after former President Trump had walked out of the deal.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-reaches-deal-with-iaea-allows-upgradation-of-surveillance-cameras-at-nuclear-sites-412572">Also Read:&nbsp;&nbsp;Iran allows upgradation of surveillance cameras at nuclear sites</a>

Russia pressed for sanctions to be lifted and the restoration of the nuclear deal even as the talks have been under suspension since June after President Ebrahim Raisi won the elections in Iran.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken had said earlier in the week that "mutual compliance" was "not indefinite".&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/before-talks-irans-supreme-leader-says-predatory-wolf-biden-no-different-from-trump-409148">Also Read:&nbsp;Iran's supreme leader says 'predatory wolf' Biden no different from Trump &nbsp;</a>

Iran has insisted the US should lift sanctions against the country imposed by ex-President Trump, however, the Biden administration has says&nbsp;Iran should curb its nuclear programme which it had revived for the sanctions to be lifted.&nbsp;

(With inputs from Agencies) 
&nbsp;&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

As Russia said the US should be more "active" to revive the nuclear talks with Iran, foreign minister Hossein Amirabdollahian added that talks would resume soon without setting a specific date.

As Russia said the US should be more "active" to revive the nuclear talks with Iran, foreign minister Hossein Amirabdollahian added that talks would resume soon without setting a specific date. Amirabdollahian added that Iran is looking into the Vienna negotiations while asserting that negotiations with four plus one countries are set to begin. Although EU foreign policy head Josep Borrell expressed his optimism to revive the stalled nuclear talks, Amirabdollahian took a dig at the United States stating that President Biden should end sanctions imposed by the previous Trump administration. Also Read: Iran President Ebrahim Raisi slams US, presses sanctions to be lifted Amirabdollahian said Biden displayed "paradoxical behaviour" while keeping negotiations open and "simultaneously levying new sanctions". Iran's foreign minister also brought up Soleimani's killing by the United States carried out at the behest of former President Trump. Meanwhile, Russia said it hoped talks in Vienna will begin soon between Germany, UK, France, China, Russia and Iran which seeks to put the United States back in the 2015 nuclear deal after former President Trump had walked out of the deal. Also Read: Iran allows upgradation of surveillance cameras at nuclear sites Russia pressed for sanctions to be lifted and the restoration of the nuclear deal even as the talks have been under suspension since June after President Ebrahim Raisi won the elections in Iran. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken had said earlier in the week that "mutual compliance" was "not indefinite". Also Read: Iran's supreme leader says 'predatory wolf' Biden no different from Trump Iran has insisted the US should lift sanctions against the country imposed by ex-President Trump, however, the Biden administration has says Iran should curb its nuclear programme which it had revived for the sanctions to be lifted. (With inputs from Agencies)

Iran says nuclear talks to resume soon amid sanctions row

Iran will never hold talks with its longtime foe, the United States, under pressure, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/irans-rouhani-sounds-alarm-for-democracy-after-candidates-barred-276882">President Hassan Rouhani</a> said in a televised news conference on Sunday, adding that Tehran's help was essential to establish security in the Middle East.

"Iran will never negotiate under pressure ... We will never yield to America's pressure and we will not negotiate from a position of weakness. America's 'maximum pressure' towards Iran is doomed to failure," Rouhani said.

Also read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/unbearable-for-us-to-accept-irans-victory-rouhani-taunts-on-anniversary-of-shahs-ouster-280079"> 'Unbearable for US to accept Iran's victory': Rouhani taunts on anniversary of Shah's ouster</a>

Tensions have increased between Iran and the United States since 2018 when President Donald Trump exited a 2015 nuclear deal between Tehran and six world powers and Washington reimposed sanctions on Tehran that has crippled its economy.

Trump administration wants a new deal that further curbs Iran's nuclear programme, ends its ballistic missile programme and its involvement in decades of proxy wars in the Middle East.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-will-not-lift-sanctions-to-negotiate-with-iran-donald-trump-276694">US will not lift sanctions to negotiate with Iran: Donald Trump</a>

Tehran has rejected holding negotiations over a new deal, saying talks are possible only if the United States returns to the nuclear pact and lifts sanctions.

Iran has been involved in decades of regional proxy wars with its key regional rival Saudi Arabia.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/irans-hassan-rouhani-rejects-new-trump-deal-tells-us-to-pick-right-path-274435">Iran's Hassan Rouhani rejects new 'Trump deal'; tells US to pick 'right path'</a>

"Securing peace and stability in the sensitive region of the Middle East and in the Persian Gulf is impossible without Iran's help," Rouhani said.

Iran will never hold talks with its longtime foe, the United States, under pressure, President Hassan Rouhani said in a televised news conference on Sunday, adding that Tehran's help was essential to establish security in the Middle East.

Iran will never hold talks with its longtime foe, the United States, under pressure, President Hassan Rouhani said in a televised news conference on Sunday, adding that Tehran's help was essential to establish security in the Middle East. "Iran will never negotiate under pressure ... We will never yield to America's pressure and we will not negotiate from a position of weakness. America's 'maximum pressure' towards Iran is doomed to failure," Rouhani said. Also read: 'Unbearable for US to accept Iran's victory': Rouhani taunts on anniversary of Shah's ouster Tensions have increased between Iran and the United States since 2018 when President Donald Trump exited a 2015 nuclear deal between Tehran and six world powers and Washington reimposed sanctions on Tehran that has crippled its economy. Trump administration wants a new deal that further curbs Iran's nuclear programme, ends its ballistic missile programme and its involvement in decades of proxy wars in the Middle East. Also read: US will not lift sanctions to negotiate with Iran: Donald Trump Tehran has rejected holding negotiations over a new deal, saying talks are possible only if the United States returns to the nuclear pact and lifts sanctions. Iran has been involved in decades of regional proxy wars with its key regional rival Saudi Arabia. Also read: Iran's Hassan Rouhani rejects new 'Trump deal'; tells US to pick 'right path' "Securing peace and stability in the sensitive region of the Middle East and in the Persian Gulf is impossible without Iran's help," Rouhani said.

Iran will never yield to America's pressure for talks, says President Rouhani

After a period of enigmatic statements, US President Donald Trump&rsquo;s approach to the complicated West Asia region&nbsp;has now become totally clear: Deliver more bombs, send more men, fight more wars. This is perfectly in line with&nbsp;President Trump&#39;s need to present himself as capable of resolving all the problems that, according to him, the previous administration left behind.&nbsp;

In the first US military&nbsp;action clearly directed against Syria&rsquo;s President Bashar al-Assad&#39;s forces, the US army attacked the al-Shayrat air base on Thursday night with more than 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles. According to Russian sources, six Syrian fighter jets&nbsp;have been destroyed.&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump said that his decision to clear the attack came because, according to his staff, the recent chemical attack which occurred in&nbsp;Khan Sheikhun was conducted by air forces which took off&nbsp;from al-Shayrat.

The details&nbsp;of this&nbsp;chemical attack, which killed at least 70 people, are&nbsp;still unclear, and while&nbsp;it seems likely to have been carried out by&nbsp;the Syrian Air Force, an investigation is still ongoing. The US-led coalition forces, the UN and several NGOs believe that Assad&rsquo;s Air Force delivered bombs containing chemical agents. Russia has an alternative version, which states&nbsp;that Syrian forces bombed a warehouse where anti-Assad fighters were storing chemical weapons. &nbsp; &nbsp;

The al-Shayrat bombing is just the last action of a US strategy which has been in place since at least a month.

The US military had already scaled up the presence of its elite forces in northern Syria, where the Arab/Kurds Syrian Democratic Forces are now very close to Raqqa, the Islamic State&#39;s capital city.&nbsp;

In Mosul, despite the hundreds of thousands of civilians still living in the western part of the city, the US-led coalition increased the intensity and frequency of its airstrikes. This choice has already had&nbsp;deadly consequences. On March 17,&nbsp;more than one hundred people&nbsp;who were hiding inside some houses were killed.&nbsp;

Many countries supported Trump&rsquo;s increased military action. Right after the missile strike against&nbsp;al-Sharyat, the UK, Japan, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel openly backed the US decision. Later on, so did Canada and Jordan. Full support also came from Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, who said in a statement that,&nbsp;&ldquo;He understands efforts to deter further attacks. There is a clear distinction between airstrikes on military targets and the use of chemical weapons against civilians&rdquo;.

The General Command of the Syrian Army characterised the attack as&nbsp;&ldquo;blatant aggression&rdquo;, and said that this action makes the United States a &ldquo;partner&rdquo; of the Islamic State and other terrorist organisations. The Syrian news agency SANA reported that the army command said that the strike &ldquo;sends wrong messages to the terrorist organisations that would embolden them further to use chemical weapons in the future every time they suffer heavy losses in the battlefield&rdquo;.

After an initial silence, the Syrian presidency issued a statement defining the US strike as &ldquo;an unjust and arrogant aggression&rdquo;.

The American attack is a prominent obstacle on the path of a possible positive development of US-Russia relations. Moscow did not appreciate the fact that they were not informed, and has already declared&nbsp;willingness to take the issue to the UN Security Council. (A Pentagon spokesman said Russian troops in the air base were informed, but US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the Russian government itself was not informed prior to the attack.

Russia is the main and major ally of President Assad in the Syrian conflict, and finds itself now forced to find a way to respond to the&nbsp;US decision.&nbsp;

Russian President Vladimir Putin called a meeting of his security council and, according to spokesman Dmitry Peskov, all the participants expressed &ldquo;deep concern at the inevitable negative consequences of these aggressive actions for the joint effort to fight terrorism&rdquo;.&nbsp;

Russian defence ministry spokesman Gen&nbsp;Igor Konashenkow said&nbsp;that his country will continue to support President Assad, and will shortly strengthen Syrian air defences in order to better protect their ally&rsquo;s military infrastructure.&nbsp;

The Russian foreign ministry also declared&nbsp;that from now on&nbsp;they consider the agreement made with the US in order to respectively&nbsp;ensure flight&nbsp;safety during operations in Syria null and void.

It is not only about Russia, but also about US-Iran relations, which are currently very bad. Tehran is sending thousands of militiamen and weapons into Syria to support Assad, and US Secretary of Defence James Mattis has long thought that Iran is the major threat to any peace process in West Asia. During his confirmation hearing, Mattis clearly said that it was time for the US to re-establish the effectiveness of their deterrent power.

The US, and their regional allies - including Turkey - see Iranian involvement in both Iraq and Syria as an expansionist game that the country is playing in order to establish their hegemony in West Asia. On the other hand, this is exactly what Tehran thinks about the US intervention in the region.&nbsp;

This attack also opens a new front for the US which was, at least according to their UN ambassador&nbsp;Nikki Haley, focused only on fighting the Islamic State. Bombing Syrian air forces&nbsp;openly contradicts&nbsp;this line, and also is an open act of war against President Assad, and therefore against Iran, Lebanese Hezbollah and Moscow.

The US has&nbsp;never been neutral in their wars in West Asia, used as a way to secure their presence in a strategic area very close to the world&#39;s major oil resources. They have done it in Iraq, where they have been present since 2003,&nbsp;and it seems they are ready to do it also in Syria.

The US missile&nbsp;strike against the al-Sharyat airbase is neither resolutive nor truly effective in destroying the overall military capability of the Syrian army. It is more of a show of strength, a way to continue to push the specious narrative of the US as the guarantor of international law, a sort of neutral actor fighting against terrorism and for democracy. The now irritated Russia has been playing the same game since&nbsp;deciding&nbsp;to enter the battlefield alongside&nbsp;Assad.

The willingness to again push&nbsp;this old and creaky narrative is creating a further diplomatic impasse, which hinders an already faraway solution to&nbsp;the Syrian conflict.

(WION)

American missiles may have struck Syria, but a message was sent to both Russia and Iran

After a period of enigmatic statements, US President Donald Trump’s approach to the complicated West Asia region has now become totally clear: Deliver more bombs, send more men, fight more wars. This is perfectly in line with President Trump's need to present himself as capable of resolving all the problems that, according to him, the previous administration left behind. In the first US military action clearly directed against Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad's forces, the US army attacked the al-Shayrat air base on Thursday night with more than 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles. According to Russian sources, six Syrian fighter jets have been destroyed. US President Donald Trump said that his decision to clear the attack came because, according to his staff, the recent chemical attack which occurred in Khan Sheikhun was conducted by air forces which took off from al-Shayrat. The details of this chemical attack, which killed at least 70 people, are still unclear, and while it seems likely to have been carried out by the Syrian Air Force, an investigation is still ongoing. The US-led coalition forces, the UN and several NGOs believe that Assad’s Air Force delivered bombs containing chemical agents. Russia has an alternative version, which states that Syrian forces bombed a warehouse where anti-Assad fighters were storing chemical weapons. The al-Shayrat bombing is just the last action of a US strategy which has been in place since at least a month. The US military had already scaled up the presence of its elite forces in northern Syria, where the Arab/Kurds Syrian Democratic Forces are now very close to Raqqa, the Islamic State's capital city. In Mosul, despite the hundreds of thousands of civilians still living in the western part of the city, the US-led coalition increased the intensity and frequency of its airstrikes. This choice has already had deadly consequences. On March 17, more than one hundred people who were hiding inside some houses were killed. Many countries supported Trump’s increased military action. Right after the missile strike against al-Sharyat, the UK, Japan, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel openly backed the US decision. Later on, so did Canada and Jordan. Full support also came from Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, who said in a statement that, “He understands efforts to deter further attacks. There is a clear distinction between airstrikes on military targets and the use of chemical weapons against civilians”. The General Command of the Syrian Army characterised the attack as “blatant aggression”, and said that this action makes the United States a “partner” of the Islamic State and other terrorist organisations. The Syrian news agency SANA reported that the army command said that the strike “sends wrong messages to the terrorist organisations that would embolden them further to use chemical weapons in the future every time they suffer heavy losses in the battlefield”. After an initial silence, the Syrian presidency issued a statement defining the US strike as “an unjust and arrogant aggression”. The American attack is a prominent obstacle on the path of a possible positive development of US-Russia relations. Moscow did not appreciate the fact that they were not informed, and has already declared willingness to take the issue to the UN Security Council. (A Pentagon spokesman said Russian troops in the air base were informed, but US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the Russian government itself was not informed prior to the attack. Russia is the main and major ally of President Assad in the Syrian conflict, and finds itself now forced to find a way to respond to the US decision. Russian President Vladimir Putin called a meeting of his security council and, according to spokesman Dmitry Peskov, all the participants expressed “deep concern at the inevitable negative consequences of these aggressive actions for the joint effort to fight terrorism”. Russian defence ministry spokesman Gen Igor Konashenkow said that his country will continue to support President Assad, and will shortly strengthen Syrian air defences in order to better protect their ally’s military infrastructure. The Russian foreign ministry also declared that from now on they consider the agreement made with the US in order to respectively ensure flight safety during operations in Syria null and void. It is not only about Russia, but also about US-Iran relations, which are currently very bad. Tehran is sending thousands of militiamen and weapons into Syria to support Assad, and US Secretary of Defence James Mattis has long thought that Iran is the major threat to any peace process in West Asia. During his confirmation hearing, Mattis clearly said that it was time for the US to re-establish the effectiveness of their deterrent power. The US, and their regional allies - including Turkey - see Iranian involvement in both Iraq and Syria as an expansionist game that the country is playing in order to establish their hegemony in West Asia. On the other hand, this is exactly what Tehran thinks about the US intervention in the region. This attack also opens a new front for the US which was, at least according to their UN ambassador Nikki Haley, focused only on fighting the Islamic State. Bombing Syrian air forces openly contradicts this line, and also is an open act of war against President Assad, and therefore against Iran, Lebanese Hezbollah and Moscow. The US has never been neutral in their wars in West Asia, used as a way to secure their presence in a strategic area very close to the world's major oil resources. They have done it in Iraq, where they have been present since 2003, and it seems they are ready to do it also in Syria. The US missile strike against the al-Sharyat airbase is neither resolutive nor truly effective in destroying the overall military capability of the Syrian army. It is more of a show of strength, a way to continue to push the specious narrative of the US as the guarantor of international law, a sort of neutral actor fighting against terrorism and for democracy. The now irritated Russia has been playing the same game since deciding to enter the battlefield alongside Assad. The willingness to again push this old and creaky narrative is creating a further diplomatic impasse, which hinders an already faraway solution to the Syrian conflict. (WION)

ANALYSIS: Uncovering Trump's Syria policy