Middle East
Israel's Wars In Gaza And Lebanon Fray Relations With Europe
Israel’s wars in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon have strained its relations with Europe, its traditional ally.
European countries have criticized Israel for its devastating yearlong war in the Palestinian enclave and its destructive aerial bombardment and ground invasion of Lebanon.
There have been growing calls for an arms embargo on Israel, sanctions on far-right members of the Israeli government, and requests to review the European Union’s trade deal with Israel.
Pier Camillo Falasca, senior fellow at the Euro-Gulf Information Centre think tank in Rome, described it as the “worst state of relations” between Israel and Europe.
Growing Tensions
In May, Spain, Ireland, and Norway officially recognized a Palestinian state, drawing a sharp rebuke from Israel. They joined eight other countries in the 27-member bloc that already recognize Palestine.
The largely symbolic move was aimed at focusing attention on negotiating an end to the conflict between Israel and the U.S.- and EU-designated Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.
Earlier this month, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni revealed that the country had imposed an arms embargo on Israel since its invasion of Gaza in October 2023. Italy is the third-largest arms supplier to Israel.
Israel invaded Gaza weeks after Hamas carried out an unprecedented attack that killed around 1,200 Israelis.
French President Emmanuel Macron earlier this month called for a halt on arms deliveries to Israel. Paris has imposed restrictions on the export of some arms and ammunition to Israel.
For the first time, the EU in July sanctioned several Israeli settlers for “serious and systematic human rights abuses” against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and for blocking humanitarian aid to Gaza.
Meanwhile, some European leaders have called for the EU to review its Association Agreement with Israel, arguing that Israel is violating the trade deal’s human rights clause in Gaza.
Britain, which is not an EU member, said it is considering sanctioning some far-right Israeli ministers.
'Absolutely Irrational'
Falasca said the staggering death toll from Israel’s war in Gaza -- where over 42,000 people, mostly civilians, have been killed, according to Palestinian officials -- has changed European public opinion.
Many in the continent, he said, see Israel’s war as “disproportionate and absolutely irrational.”
Many Europeans, he said, think that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could have adopted a “more humanitarian, more rational strategy to fight Hamas without destroying the entire territory of Gaza,” most of which is in ruins.
Falasca said the tipping point for many European countries was Israel firing on and injuring members of the UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon. France, Italy, Ireland, and Spain contribute troops to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
On October 19, 16 EU defense ministers called for exerting “maximum political and diplomatic pressure on Israel” to prevent further attacks.
Israel's weeks-long ground invasion and aerial bombardment targeting Hezbollah, an armed group and political party that controls much of southern Lebanon, has killed over 2,500 people, mostly civilians, and displaced over 1.2 million.
Nimrod Goren, senior fellow for Israeli affairs at the Middle East Institute think tank in Washington, said widespread street protests in Europe and calls for boycotting Israel in academic and cultural spheres have created the impression that “something is shifting.”
But “on the governmental level, the impact is less than you see in the unofficial spaces,” he said.
Cohen said that EU members are deeply divided over the issue of revoking or limiting its free-trade deal with Israel. And he said powerful European nations such as Germany still strongly support Israel.
Falasca said the conflicts and rising tensions in the Middle East have directly impacted Europe, including by disrupting international shipping and increasing oil prices.
“The EU and European governments are realizing that they must be more proactive in the Middle East compared to our past,” Falasca said.
More News
- By Frud Bezhan
Iran Thinks It's Winning. That View Is Guiding Its War And Diplomacy.
The United States and Israel's bombing campaign has devastated Iran's military, decapitated much of its leadership, and destroyed critical infrastructure.
Yet Tehran still believes it is winning the weekslong confrontation. That Iran's theocracy has survived at all has been touted in the Islamic republic as a victory. The country has also obtained a new and powerful card: control of the Strait of Hormuz.
Since the war began on February 28, Iran has effectively closed one of the world's key arteries for global oil and gas supplies, a move that has rattled energy markets, upended the global economy, and handed Tehran new leverage.
Iran's perception of victory has shaped the country's conduct in the conflict, where it has refused to capitulate despite suffering enormous material losses. The Islamic republic's confidence has extended to the negotiating table, where it is aiming to end the war on its own terms.
"In some ways, Iran is in a more favorable position now than it was before the war. It finally played a card it had threatened for years -- closing off the Strait of Hormuz -- and it paid off," said Arash Azizi, a postdoctoral associate and lecturer at Yale University.
"Iran showed it could affect global trade and make the US sweat," he added. "It also showed that it could weather foreign attacks without risking regime or societal collapse so far. But Iran has also borne a massive economic cost and will need an end to the war and help for reconstruction."
'New Security Order'
Iran's goal in the war is no longer just to survive, experts say, but to use its leverage to end its international isolation and the crippling sanctions that have cut it off from the global economy.
Mahdi Mohammadi, a senior adviser to Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, said in an April 7 post on X that Iran had "clearly and openly won the war" and would only accept an outcome that established "a new security order in the region."
Iran's Supreme National Security Council, the country's key policymaking body, said in an April 8 statement that the country's goal in peace talks with the United States is to create "new security and political equations" in the Middle East that recognize the country's "power and leadership."
"Iran sees this moment of crisis as an opportunity to reshape the regional order," said Azizi. "This could be either a way of integrating itself into the region, having other countries recognize it as a significant regional power and not a pariah. Or it could be that it simply shows its revisionism is here to stay and won't be cowed so easily."
Underscoring Tehran's new tougher line, Iran published a 10-point peace plan ahead of talks with the United States in Pakistan on April 11 that ultimately failed to produce a deal.
Many of the points were maximalist demands that are likely to be nonstarters for Washington, including recognition of Iran's control of the Strait of Hormuz, the United States withdrawing tens of thousands of its troops and closing over a dozen bases in the Middle East, and billions in reparations to Iran for war damages.
Before the Islamabad talks, Tehran threatened to back out of the negotiations at the last minute if the United States and others did not unfreeze billions in Iranian assets held in foreign banks. The demand was rejected.
"Iran thinks it has won the war, so it has entered negotiations with more confidence," said Sina Azodi, an expert of Iran's military and history and an assistant professor of Middle East politics at George Washington University.
He said Iran has displayed resilience on the battlefield, where it has repeatedly hit sensitive targets deep inside Israel, damaged heavily protected US bases and military hardware in the Middle East, and imposed severe economic pain on key US allies in the Persian Gulf.
"Iran feels that it can show more resilience at the negotiation table, as well," said Azodi.
Risk Of Overplaying Its Hand
Tehran and Washington reached a last-minute, two-week temporary cease-fire on April 7 after President Donald Trump had threatened that "a whole civilization will die tonight," in reference to Iran.
But the shaky truce has threatened to collapse over a dispute over whether the cease-fire extended to Lebanon, Iran's failure to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and a US decision to blockade the strait with the aim of stopping Iran exporting its oil and gas.
Still, the sides are in indirect talks to extend the cease-fire and hold a second round of negotiations in Islamabad.
Experts say Iran and the United States have both showed little flexibility in negotiations so far.
Vice President JD Vance, who headed the US delegation in Islamabad, said after the failed talks that "they have chosen not to accept our terms," suggesting he handed the Iranians a take-it-or-leave-it deal that they rejected.
Even as experts say time is on Iran's side and Trump faces pressure to end the war given soaring global energy prices and mounting domestic and international backlash, Tehran is at risk of further hardening US positions and prolonging a costly war.
"Iran heavily risks overplaying its hand," said Azizi.
He said Iran's history since the Islamic Revolution in 1979 is dotted with examples where the authorities overreached and failed to turn military gains into diplomatic advantage.
The most prominent example is the devastating 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. In 1986, Iranian forces seized Iraq's Faw peninsula. Instead of trading its control of the strategic area for political gains, Iran refused and was ultimately forced to accept a cease-fire in 1988 on less favorable terms.
- By RFE/RL
Trump Says US 'Very Close' To A Deal With Iran
US President Donald Trump said the United States and Iran are "very close" to a deal to end the war and that US and Iranian negotiators could meet for a second round of talks this coming weekend.
"We're going to see what happens. But I think we're very close to making a deal with Iran," Trump told reporters outside the White House on April 16, repeating the word "close" more than once and adding, "There's a very good chance we're going to make a deal."
In an event later in Las Vegas, Trump repeated the sentiment, telling a crowd that the war was going "swimmingly" and that it "should be ending pretty soon."
Trump gave few details about potential elements of an agreement to end the war that began with US and Israeli air strikes on Iran on February 28, but said Iran has agreed to "give us back the nuclear dust," meaning its stocks of enriched uranium, which at a certain level of enrichment is a key ingredient in a nuclear weapon.
He said he wasn’t sure a two-week cease-fire that expires April 22 will need to be extended and that “if there’s no deal…fighting resumes,” though he didn’t specify a timeline.
Trump also reiterated an announcement he made on social media hours earlier, saying Israel and Lebanon have agreed to a 10-day cease-fire starting April 16 at 5 p.m. US Eastern time, and that the cease-fire incudes Hezbollah.
A militant group and political party that controls much of southern Lebanon, Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by the United States, while the European Union has blacklisted its only armed wing.
Trump said he expects to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Lebanese President Joseph Aoun at the White House within a week or two. In a video statement, Netanyahu said he agreed to the 10-day cease-fire and that there was a chance to make an historic deal with Lebanon after decades of conflict.
Seeking 'Lasting Peace'
"The US hopes this cease-fire will help accelerate discussions between Lebanon and Israel to achieve a permanent peace agreement between the two countries," a senior White House official said on condition of anonymity. The US State Department issued a statement that was agreed to by Israel and Lebanon and said the 10-day cease-fire could be extended by mutual agreement.
"Lebanon and Israel have reached an understanding in which both nations will work to create conditions conducive to lasting peace between the two countries, full recognition of each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and establishing genuine security along their shared border, while preserving Israel’s inherent right to self-defense," it said.
Israel has been launching strikes targeting Iran-backed Hezbollah militants in neighboring Lebanon since March 2, two days after the start of the US-Israeli war with Iran, when Hezbollah forces opened fire in support of Tehran. An ongoing two-week cease-fire in the Iran war has not applied to Lebanon.
The current Israeli campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon comes 15 months after another major outbreak of hostilities.
Iranian authorities have repeatedly said that an end to Israeli attacks on targets in Lebanon was a requirement for its own peace negotiations with the United States. Pakistan, for its part, has said that peace in Lebanon is crucial for its efforts to mediate between the United States and Iran.
Following the announcement, the Iranian government hailed the cease-fire and said it was part of the earlier two-week cease-fire reached between Iran and the US, according to Iranian state media.
'Good Relationship With Iran'
Trump asserted that Tehran wants to make a deal.
"We have a very good relationship with Iran right now, as hard as it is to believe. And I think it's a combination of about four weeks of bombing and a very powerful blockade," he said, referring to a US blockade in place since April 13 and aimed at preventing ships from entering or leaving Iranian ports.
The question of Hezbollah's adherence to a truce is crucial. Reuters cited senior Hezbollah lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah as saying earlier in the day that the group had been informed by Iran's ambassador to Lebanon that a one-week cease-fire could begin on April 16.
"Asked if Hezbollah would commit to the truce, Fadlallah said everything was tied to Israel's commitment to halt all forms of hostilities, and credited Iran's diplomatic efforts for the possible cease-fire," Reuters reported.
Trump's cease-fire announcement came two days after the Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors to Washington met, the first major high-level engagement between the two governments in more than three decades. The meeting ended with the sides agreeing to launch direct negotiations at a mutually agreed time and venue.
The gap between Israel and Lebanon had remained wide ahead of the announcement: Lebanon made a full cease-fire its precondition for further talks while Israel refused, with a spokesman for Netanyahu saying there would be no cease-fire with Hezbollah. Netanyahu has said the Israeli campaign's goal is the disarmament of Hezbollah.
More than 2,100 people have been killed in Lebanon since the renewed fighting began and over 1 million displaced, according to Lebanese health officials. Hezbollah attacks have killed two Israeli civilians, while 13 Israeli soldiers have died in Lebanon since March 2, Israel says.
Possible Second Round Of Peace Talks
An initial round of Iran-US peace talks took place in Islamabad on April 11-12 and ended without an agreement. The White House said on April 15 that a potential second round would likely again be held in Pakistan.
A Pakistani military delegation led by army chief Asim Munir landed in Tehran on April 15 carrying a new message from Washington, in the latest effort to revive negotiations.
Hegseth: Iran Will Never Have A Nuclear Weapon
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters on April 16 that Washington "will ensure that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon" and called on Tehran to "choose a deal which is within your grasp."
Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said US forces remain “postured and ready” to resume military operations “at a moment’s notice.”
On April 17, attention will also turn to a separate but linked crisis as French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer co-chair a video conference aimed at restoring freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway that has been largely choked off since the start of the Iran war.
Discussions are expected to cover possible financial sanctions on Iran if it continues blocking the waterway, alongside steps to work with the shipping industry to resume transit.
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) has carried out several confirmed attacks on merchant ships and reportedly laid sea mines in the strait in retaliation for the US-Israeli aerial campaign. Begore the war, the Strait of Hormuz carried roughly a quarter of the world's seaborne oil and a fifth of its liquefied natural gas.
A European official familiar with the summit told RFE/RL that Europe would take action only after there is a peace agreement between Iran and the United States. The official said the EU's "substantial" reluctance to join a military effort to reopen the strait stems from the lack of anti-drone defenses in the bloc's naval capabilities.
"Even our brand-new minehunter that will be operational in September doesn't have anti-drone tech onboard," the source said.
The conference, the official said, is meant to serve as "a gesture of goodwill to Trump...with the goal not to torpedo the NATO Ankara Summit," scheduled for July 7-8. Trump has expressed his disappointment with NATO for not joining the war with Iran.
The United States is not participating in the Paris summit after Trump said securing the waterway was not Washington's responsibility. Trump has instead ordered a separate naval blockade of Iranian ports, which Britain has declined to join.
"For as long as it takes, we will maintain this blockade," Hegseth said.
With reporting by RFE/RL Washington correspondent Alex Raufoglu, RFE/RL's Radio Farda, Reuters, and AFP
No More Waivers: Ukrainian Sanctions Czar Vlasiuk Praises US Decision To End Relief For Russian Oil
WASHINGTON -- In a significant shift in energy policy, the United States has confirmed it will not renew sanctions waivers that previously allowed the purchase of certain Russian and Iranian oil, handing Kyiv a sought-after victory.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the move on April 15 from the White House podium, signaling the end of a "general license" for oil that was already in transit before mid-March -- a mechanism the administration had used to stabilize global energy prices amid volatility in the Strait of Hormuz stemming from the US-Israeli war with Iran.
Vladyslav Vlasiuk, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's commissioner for sanctions policy, told RFE/RL in an interview that any relief for Moscow only serves to extend the war.
RFE/RL: The United States has decided not to renew waivers that had allowed certain purchases of Russian and Iranian oil. What did that decision mean when it was first announced, and what does it mean now for Ukraine?
Vladyslav Vlasiuk: We certainly didn't like any waivers or extensions of sanctions. We would like to have sanctions against Russia that are as tough as possible, and this is something that we've constantly been asking from our partners. Why? Because we see that sanctions are working well, and the more sanctions are applied against Russia, the quicker we will see success in peace negotiations. This is a very simple hypothesis.
Of course, we were disappointed when the waiver on Russian oil was imposed a month ago. Likewise, we are happy now it has not been extended. Even better, there is no indication that it will be extended in the future. This is very good. We did not know the specific reasons behind the waivers. We've seen public statements suggesting they were introduced to mitigate market volatility driven by the Hormuz blockade, but to us that seemed ungrounded.
The Hormuz trade accounts for something like 30 percent of global oil shipments, whereas Russian oil is only about 4 percent or 5 percent. That calculation was never going to work, anyway. It seems everyone understood this from the very beginning; it did not work and it did not help. Perhaps that was taken into account when the decision was made not to extend any waivers. So, we are happy that no waiver is being prolonged.
We are pleased that the sanctions against Russia, Rosneft, and Lukoil are still very much in force. We see many indications that those sanctions are particularly meaningful against the Russian economy. In February, we saw a record low in Russian oil revenues since the full-scale invasion -- below $10 billion.
That's a clear sign sanctions are working. We also believe that because of those waivers the Russians gained an extra $2 billion to $4 billion, of which $1.7 billion was denied thanks to the Ukrainian Armed Forces conducting "kinetic sanctions" against Russian ports in Ust-Luga, Primorsk, and Novorossiysk. This is an ongoing situation. Ukraine has every right to protect itself with these types of sanctions, but we will also continue our work on applying more restrictions to deny Russia oil revenue. This is key.
RFE/RL: US officials have argued the waiver was a short-term measure to prevent larger economic disruptions. Do you see any merit in that argument?
Vlasiuk: That could be. But again, the quantity of Russian oil available on the market and the quantity of oil blockaded because of the Hormuz trade are not comparable. You cannot save a market facing a deficit of roughly 16 million barrels per day by allowing back only two or three million barrels per day. The calculation simply doesn't match. It couldn't have worked from the very beginning.
RFE/RL: In terms of Russia's war chest, how did these financial gains from the waiver period translate into their actual battlefield capacity and military budget?
Vlasiuk: Good question. They continue to increase the total amount of money spent on their war efforts. We believe this year's war budget is around $60 billion. Even $2 billion, $3 billion, or $4 billion is a significant portion of money that they will use exclusively for war purposes.
They've cut many other budget expenditures to accommodate this. What we've observed is they reached their planned annual budget deficit in only three months. From now on, the deficit continues to increase toward record highs. They are really struggling economically.
RFE/RL: When the United States applies these periodic, temporary waivers, does it undermine the long-term structural integrity and psychological impact of the broader sanctions regime?
Vlasiuk: We were told from the beginning that this temporary waiver would never impact the general weight of the sanctions. While it allowed the Russians to make some extra money, it did not allow them to solve their structural economic problems.
We are glad this waiver was not extended. We see that Russia is spending more and more on the war effort while their profits and overall revenues are decreasing. It may not be a popular opinion yet, but we believe time is playing against Russia. Their economy is struggling, and they cannot survive many more years of this level of war effort.
RFE/RL: During this waiver period, we saw major players like China and India increase their intake of Russian oil. With the waivers now expired, how difficult will it be to reverse those trade flows and ensure full enforcement?
Vlasiuk: Before the full-scale invasion, India was not buying Russian oil. Afterward, India became the No. 1 buyer, and we do not like this. It seems unfair to call for a quick resolution to the war while simultaneously helping one side with effective budget revenues. Nobody should be buying Russian oil as long as Russia is not negotiating for peace in good faith.
Sanctions help to disincentivize potential buyers. This is why we were so happy when the administration applied sanctions against Russian oil, and why we've worked so much with the EU, UK, and Canada to keep the pressure on exports. All of this helps to deny Russia revenue. It works: we see a record deficit and no GDP growth. All countries that truly want Russia to withdraw from Ukraine should not be buying Russian oil or gas.
RFE/RL: Considering the broader US perspective, the administration is juggling tensions with Iran and threats to the Strait of Hormuz. How can Washington maintain a maximum pressure campaign via sanctions without triggering a global economic crisis?
Vlasiuk: One of the takeaways from the Hormuz situation should be the level of threat that dual-use items pose. Iran has shown that operating cheap drones can cause massive economic damage. For instance, the Qatari LNG facility was put on hold just because of two Shahed UAVs. Each costs maybe $30,000, yet they impacted a facility representing 20 percent of the global market.
The awareness of the threat posed by UAVs is something we've talked about for years, and that awareness has finally risen. We are trying to use this momentum.
Beyond energy and freedom of passage, the key point is the components used by Iran to destabilize multiple countries. This is the game changer. Hopefully, more countries will now pay attention to supply chain evasion and sanctions efficiency. It isn't just about having the money to buy something; it’s about the ability to obtain specific tools and parts.
If a country wants to build UAVs to destroy those around it, it will buy the necessary parts. This is why we talk so much about critical components with our partners. We must ensure that the microchips manufactured by Western companies are not freely available on the market for terrorist regimes like Russia or Iran. It's about availability, not just revenue.
RFE/RL: Ukraine has repeatedly documented the presence of US-made components within Iranian and Russian drones. Have you addressed this specific issue with your US counterparts, and what has been their response regarding the failure of export controls?
Vlasiuk: Yes. For the last three years, we've been observing American microelectronics in Russian weapons. It is even worse in the Iranian drones we saw in 2022 and 2023. This creates a lot of challenges for the US export control system and for manufacturers. We raise this issue constantly. We know the US government is prioritizing this and working to deny these items to terrorist regimes, but it remains a pressing challenge.
It was a highlight of my meetings today. It is not an ideal situation. In late March, a vast territory of Ukraine was attacked by Shahed UAVs that appeared to have been produced that same month. In those drones, there were American components apparently produced as recently as late 2025. I say "apparently" because a portion of the American parts turn out to be counterfeit, but many are genuine. American, Japanese, German, and Chinese parts are unfortunately still available to the Russian defense sector.
We believe that the day Russia stops receiving Western parts, they will no longer be able to produce Shahed UAVs or cruise missiles. It is that critical. Some countries, like the Emirates, were initially hesitant, saying "business is business," but that has changed. I have a good feeling that key countries in the region have changed their attitude toward these dual-use items and will no longer help Russia or Iran obtain them.
RFE/RL: Are there joint investigations under way with the United States on this issue?
Vlasiuk: Yes, quite a lot of work is being done by law enforcement in the US, Ukraine, the Netherlands, Germany, and others. The truth is that these supply chains are not easily shut down. The Russians are very creative about infiltrating markets. Furthermore, they don't need a massive volume; to produce 50,000 Shahed UAVs, you only need 50,000 specific microchips. That is a small enough amount to be purchased through various indirect means.
RFE/RL: Can you identify the specific US tech companies whose products are most frequently recovered from the battlefield?
Vlasiuk: It's not a big secret. Any big American tech company -- like AMD, Texas Instruments, Analog Devices, or Linear Technology -- produces microelectronics that are then found in Russian UAVs or missiles. They know it, and they have been trying to address it. We are pragmatic: As long as we find new American parts in Russian weapons, it is a clear indication that current efforts are not enough.
RFE/RL: We have seen strong calls from lawmakers like senators [Lindsey]Graham and [Richard] Blumenthal for even tougher measures. Have you been coordinating directly with them on potential legislation?
Vlasiuk: I have a lot of respect for senators Graham and Blumenthal for their actions against Russia. They are truly on the side of Ukraine. However, it seems the key decisions on sanctions are taken at the White House rather than on Capitol Hill. That doesn't mean the pressure from Congress isn't helpful; it probably is. I would love to see some of those bills passed and signed.
RFE/RL: Specifically, what unique enforcement tools or authority would the current bills in Congress provide that the administration doesn't already possess?
Vlasiuk: These tools would essentially oblige the government to take action against anyone who buys Russian oil. It is one of the strongest instruments available because it cannot be ignored by buyers. It is simple but efficient.
On the other hand, we shouldn't limit ourselves to just tariffs; we must continue regular sanctions work: Let's target the shadow fleet, their captains, and further list Russian oil majors. I support the bills, but I also think the US government should explore more "classical" sanctions instruments, as increasing the pressure will help us negotiate for peace properly.
RFE/RL: I ask because US officials, including the secretary of state, have occasionally suggested the "low-hanging fruit" is gone and there are no targets left to sanction. Is that an accurate assessment from your perspective?
Vlasiuk: I’ll give you one number: Over the last year, Ukraine has adopted 60 sanctions packages against Russia. Clearly, there are still many potential targets. You can always sanction the oil industry further or turn back to the LNG sector. There are many targets in the military-defense sector, the oligarchs, and the financial sector. Maybe 50 banks are under sanctions, but there are 250 more waiting. There is also the area of Russian nuclear energy, which is not yet sanctioned.
RFE/RL: Finally, looking at the geopolitical nexus between the Strait of Hormuz, global oil prices, and the front lines in Ukraine, what is the most critical takeaway for the US public?
Vlasiuk: We think Russia received an extra $2 billion to $4 billion in oil revenue because volumes were released and prices went up. They benefited significantly. We have tried to mitigate those benefits through our own "kinetic" sanctions quite successfully. We really hope the situation in Hormuz will be resolved soon, and we expect Russian oil revenues to continue to shrink. That is what is truly important.
This interview was edited for length and clarity.
Trump Says War Could End 'Very Soon,' Top Pakistani Mediator Travels To Iran
US President Donald Trump said the war with Iran could be over "very soon," and Pakistan's powerful army chief visited Tehran in a bid to bridge the gap between the United States and Iran and pave the way for a new round of talks.
"I think it can be over very soon. If they're smart, it will end soon," Trump said of Iranian negotiators in an interview with Fox Business News that was recorded on April 14 and broadcast on April 15.
"I think it's close to over…. I view it as very close to being over," Trump said. Earlier that day, he told the New York Post that negotiators, who ended April 11-12 talks in Islamabad without a deal, could meet again in the next couple of days.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baqaei told a weekly press briefing in Tehran on April 15 that since the talks ended, Iran has been exchanging messages with the United States via Pakistan.
The clock is ticking on a two-week cease-fire agreed by the United States and Iran on April 7, and Trump said he has no plans to extend the truce after it expires on April 22, suggesting it would probably not be necessary.
Upon arriving in Tehran, Pakistani Army chief Asim Munir was greeted by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi. A senior Iranian source told Reuters that Munir, who had mediated the last round of talks, was heading to Iran "to narrow gaps" between the two sides.
In Washington on April 15, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said "conversations" about a second round of talks were "productive and ongoing" and that "we feel good about the prospects for a deal." She said any new talks would likely be held in Pakistan, which has emerged as the "only mediator."
Vice President JD Vance, who led the US delegation in the first round, raised the prospect of further talks by saying "a lot of progress" was made on April 11-12.
"The ball is in the Iranian court," Vance said on April 13. He said disagreements over Iran's nuclear program ultimately ended the talks without an accord.
Later that day, at an event in the southern US state of Georgia, Vance said Trump wanted to make a "grand bargain" with Iran but there was a lot of mistrust between the two countries.
Iranian President Masud Pezeshkian has blamed Washington for the failure of the talks, but he also has said that "diplomacy is the preferred path to resolving disputes."
One of the most contentious issues has been Iran's effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a conduit for about one-fifth of the world's oil and gas shipments before the war began.
After the Islamabad talks broke up without a deal, Trump announced a US blockade targeting ships bound to or from Iran. The strait connects Europe with Asia via the Suez Canal and is considered one of the most important maritime trade routes in the global economy.
The US military on April 15 said it successfully turned back 10 vessels that attempted to sail out of Iranian ports over the first 48 hours of the l blockade.
"Ten vessels have now been turned around and ZERO ships have broken through since the start of the US blockade on [April 12]," US Central Command (CENTCOM) said in a post on X.
CENTCOM had earlier put the number of ships turned back at nine but later included a 10th that it said was "redirected" back to Iran by a US guided missile destroyer.
While CENTCOM said no vessels had made it through the blockade, maritime tracking data appeared to contradict that assertion.
Citing tracking services, Reuters separately reported that three Iran-linked vessels that transited the strait were not headed for Iranian ports and were not affected by the blockade. Two of the three vessels are under US sanctions and one of them is Chinese-owned, Reuters reported.
Iran on April 15 threatened to resume attacks in the Gulf region if the blockade threatened the safety of Iranian cargo vessels and tankers, saying it would amount to a violation of the cease-fire agreement.
The war with Iran, which effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, has wreaked havoc on world energy prices, while the halt in shipments of other commodities worth billions of dollars that flow through the narrow shipping lane has threatened economies around the globe.
One nation that has benefited from the restriction of oil shipments is Russia, which has seen sanctions over the Kremlin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine eased to help bolster supplies.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said during a trip to Beijing on April 15 that Russia is able to make up for an energy shortage in China caused by the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
"Russia can, without a doubt, compensate for the shortfall in resources that has arisen" for China and "other countries that are interested in working with us," Russia's top diplomat told a news conference.
Beijing, meanwhile, has been looking to play a more visible role in diplomacy around the war in the Middle East as tensions between Tehran and Washington evolve.
While some reports, including comments from Trump himself, have suggested China played a part in encouraging the recent cease-fire talks, it remains unclear how central a role Beijing played in pushing Tehran to the negotiating table.
With reporting by Alex Raufoglu in Washington and Reuters
Azeem Ibrahim: Iran Conflict Will Be Decided By Who Can 'Endure The Most'
WASHINGTON -- Developments around the Strait of Hormuz are moving fast, two days after the start of a US naval blockade.
While US Central Command initially stated no ships had made it past the blockade of Iranian ports and six vessels had turned back, later reports indicated that around 20 commercial vessels had transited the strait in the past 24 hours.
The US blockade specifically targets ships entering or leaving Iranian ports; ships transiting to or from non-Iranian ports are still permitted to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
In an interview with RFE/RL on April 14, Azeem Ibrahim, a longtime Middle East observer and director of special initiatives at the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington, D.C., said the Strait of Hormuz is increasingly becoming more than just a chokepoint for oil, describing it as a space where economic pressure, military risk, and geopolitical ambition converge, with significant implications for what comes next.
RFE/RL: Two days into the blockade, what do you see as its core objective? Is it pressure or leverage?
Azeem Ibrahim: It's difficult to say because US objectives have been shifting. Around 88 percent of the oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz is non-Iranian. That means Gulf countries -- and major consumers like China, which gets roughly a third of its oil from this route -- are heavily affected.
We've already seen signals from Beijing pushing back, emphasizing that its energy arrangements with Iran are not open to outside interference. Reports indicate that some ships -- particularly Chinese -- are bypassing the blockade altogether.
If vessels can pass through, then it raises serious questions about whether this is a blockade in any meaningful sense.
'Long-Term Capacity To Absorb Pain'
RFE/RL: But the US were seeking leverage. How quickly could that translate into real concessions?
Ibrahim: That's one of the central challenges. This conflict won't be decided by who can inflict the most damage, but by who can endure the most. The US unquestionably has superior military power. But Iran has demonstrated a long-term capacity to absorb pain.
During the Iran-Iraq War, Iran endured immense losses, including chemical attacks, yet did not capitulate. For Tehran, this is existential. Conceding could mean the end of the regime.
Iranian leaders have also studied US conflicts like the Vietnam War and the war in Afghanistan. In both cases, the US achieved battlefield success but ultimately withdrew. Tehran believes Washington lacks the patience for prolonged confrontation.
So Iran is likely to wait it out. Its system has been structured over decades to endure precisely this kind of pressure.
RFE/RL: If Iran continues to resist, what is the next step for Washington -- more pressure, or a shift in strategy?
Ibrahim: If I had to guess, I would say the blockade may simply fizzle out. Ships -- especially those backed by major powers -- will continue to pass. Eventually, the US may declare a form of victory and withdraw.
But the long-term consequences could be significant. Iran has effectively weaponized the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of global oil flows. This creates an opportunity for Tehran to monetize access, potentially charging vessels for safe passage.
At the same time, we're seeing a shift in sanctions enforcement. Some previously restricted oil -- both Iranian and Russian -- is reentering the market to stabilize supply.
Perhaps most concerning is the strategic lesson Iran may draw. With [former Supreme Leader] Ali Khamenei gone and his religious prohibition on nuclear weapons no longer binding, Tehran may conclude that only a nuclear deterrent can prevent future conflicts. That outcome would run counter to the goals of nearly all international actors.
Could Iranian Retaliation Be Contained?
RFE/RL: If there is retaliation, how contained can this remain? And what does that say about the risk of broader escalation -- are we already approaching a point where the conflict could widen beyond the Strait of Hormuz and draw in additional regional or external actors?
Ibrahim: Iran has already signaled it could target desalination plants across the Gulf. In a region where water scarcity is acute, that would be catastrophic.
At the same time, US military bases -- long considered secure due to air superiority -- are increasingly vulnerable to drones and missile strikes. The battlefield has changed.
There's also external involvement. Support from Russia in intelligence and from China in materiel complicates the balance. Iran still holds significant asymmetric leverage.
RFE/RL: Where do US allies stand in this?
Ibrahim: The challenge is that countries most affected by disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz may not blame Iran -- they may blame Washington.
The US is the world's largest oil producer and less vulnerable to supply shocks. But countries heavily dependent on Gulf energy could face severe consequences. Many are already exploring independent diplomatic channels with Tehran.
We're seeing signs of fragmentation in the international order the US helped build. Some governments are openly considering bypassing Washington in negotiations. That's a significant shift.
RFE/RL: Are China and Russia benefiting from this situation
Ibrahim: Yes. They see the US becoming entangled in another costly and complex Middle Eastern conflict. Meanwhile, Washington is expending vast resources and depleting key munitions.
This also exposes limitations in the US and European defense industrial base. Sustaining a long-term, high-intensity conflict is proving difficult.
For China in particular, there are strategic opportunities. Hypothetically, even a blockade of Taiwan could shift global pressure dramatically, especially given Taiwan's central role in semiconductor production.
RFE/RL: Ultimately, what would a successful outcome look like?
Ibrahim: Ideally, it would mean a negotiated agreement in which Iran commits to abandoning nuclear weapons ambitions, allows full inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and takes steps to reduce regional tensions. In return, it would receive sanctions relief and a degree of economic reintegration into the global system.
But that outcome, in my view, looks increasingly unlikely. From Tehran's perspective, even compliance may not provide durable security guarantees. The leadership may calculate that agreements can be reversed or undermined over time and that confrontation with the United States and its partners is therefore effectively inevitable.
On that basis, they may conclude that the more rational long-term strategy is to absorb pressure now and emerge later with more deterrence capabilities rather than rely on a deal that may or may not hold. That's the challenge the US has to confront as we move forward.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
- By RFE/RL
Trump Hints Iran Talks Could Restart In Coming Days
US President Donald Trump suggested that talks with Iran could resume in a day or two, while the US military said that no ships slipped through a naval blockade targeting vessels headed to or from Iranian ports in the first 24 hours of the restrictive measure.
Trump ordered the blockade after US-Iranian peace talks in Islamabad on April 11-12 failed to produce an agreement to end the war, which began with US and Israeli air strikes on Iran on February 28.
In comments to the New York Post on April 14, he indicated that negotiators could meet again in the next couple of days.
"You should stay there, really, because something could be happening over the next two days, and we're more inclined to go there [than to another location]," an Islamabad-datelined story in the Post quoted Trump as saying. The clock is ticking on a two-week cease-fire agreed by the United States and Iran on April 7.
Media reports earlier in the day said Pakistan was seeking to facilitate a new round of talks later this week. Those reports followed an interview in which US Vice President JD Vance raised the prospect of further meetings by saying "a lot of progress" was made at the April 11-12 talks.
"The ball is in the Iranian court," said Vance, who led the US delegation at the talks in Islamabad and departed early on April 12 after meetings were held late into the night but ultimately foundered, he and other US officials said, over disagreements on Iran's nuclear program.
"The indication we have is that it is highly probable that these talks will restart," UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said on April 14.
"I think it would be unrealistic to expect...such a complex problem, long-lasting problem, could be resolved in the first session of a negotiation," Guterres told reporters. "So we need negotiations to go on, and we need a cease-fire to persist as negotiations go on."
Official Iranian news agency IRNA quoted the country's president, Masud Pezeshkian, as again blaming Washington for the failure of the talks during a conversation with his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, on April 14. But he also said that "diplomacy is the preferred path to resolving disputes," according to IRNA.
Macron said he had urged Pezeshkian and Trump, in separate calls, to renew talks.
One of the most contentious issues has been Iran's effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a conduit for about one-fifth of the world's oil and gas shipments before the war began. After the Islamabad talks broke up without a deal, Trump announced a US blockade targeting ships bound to or from Iran.
"During the first 24 hours, no ships made it past the US blockade and 6 merchant vessels complied with direction from US forces to turn around to re-enter an Iranian port on the Gulf of Oman," the US Central Command, which is responsible for operations in the region, said in a post on X.
"The blockade is being enforced impartially against vessels of all nations entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas, including all Iranian ports on the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman," CENTCOM said. "U.S. forces are supporting freedom of navigation for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz to and from non-Iranian ports."
At the same time, data from tracking services indicated that at least four ships, two of which had recently called at Iranian ports, passed or were passing through the 30-kilometer-wide Strait of Hormuz in the hours after the blockade came into force at 10 a.m. US Eastern Time (2 p.m. UTC) on April 13.
A Liberian-flagged ship that delivered corn to the Iranian port of Bandar Imam Khomeini passed Iran's Larak Island in the strait a few hours after that, and a Comoros-flagged tanker, which was carrying methanol and had left the Iranian port of Bushehr on March 31, exited the strait around the same time, the AFP news agency reported, citing data from Kpler.
Also citing tracking services, Reuters separately reported that three Iran-linked vessels that transited the strait were not headed for Iranian ports and were not affected by the blockade. Two of the three vessels are under US sanctions and one of those two is Chinese-owned, Reuters reported.
'Record' Oil Prices
A spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry called the US blockade "dangerous and irresponsible."
Guo Jiakun said it would "escalate tensions, undermine the existing fragile cease-fire agreement, and further endanger the safety of navigation through the strait."
Also on April 14, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said global oil demand would shrink more than at any time since the Covid-19 pandemic, with prices pushed up amid the "most severe supply shock in history" owing to the Iran war.
"It remains unclear whether the cease-fire will turn into a lasting peace and a return to regular shipping flows through the Strait of Hormuz. With oil-importing nations scrambling to source replacement barrels from an increasingly shrinking pool of supply, physical crude oil prices surged to record levels," the IEA said.
Among measures taken to boost global oil supply was a US decision to grant a temporary waiver to sanctions on Russian oil, introduced after Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
That waiver was due to expire on April 11, but there is no indication of whether or not it has been extended, according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. "There have been no statements about this," he told journalists.
Another source of disagreement over the US-Israeli war with Iran is the issue of Lebanon and in particular Israel's ongoing campaign against Iran's Lebanese proxy force, Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is both a militant group and political party that controls much of southern Lebanon. It is considered a terrorist organization by the United States, while the European Union has only blacklisted its armed wing.
Tehran says this conflict should also be covered by the wider cease-fire, but Washington says it is separate. It began when Hezbollah attacked Israel on March 2 in response to the air strikes on Iran.
On April 14, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio hosted the Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors to Washington in the first direct talks between the neighboring countries in decades.
The meeting had been planned before the US-Israeli war with Iran and Israel had ruled out discussing a potential cease-fire at the talks, which Hezbollah denounced.
The State Department said the participants "held productive discussions on steps toward launching direct negotiations between Israel and Lebanon," and that all sides "agreed to launch direct negotiations at a mutually agreed time and venue."
"The United States congratulated the two countries on this historic milestone and expressed its support for further talks, and for the government of Lebanon's plans to restore the monopoly of force and to end Iran's overbearing influence," State Department spokesman Tommy Piggott said in a statement.
No date was set for additional talks, and no other specific agreements were announced following the two-hour meeting.
With reporting by Ray Furlong, RFE/RL Washington correspondent Alex Raufoglu, RFE/RL's Radio Farda, the New York Post, AFP, and Reuters
Max Meizlish: How The US Navy And Economic Sanctions Aim To Squeeze Tehran
WASHINGTON -- A US naval blockade on ships entering Iranian ports and coastal areas took effect on April 13 as Washington increasingly turns to "economic statecraft" to force Tehran to agree on a peace deal after weeks of air strikes.
RFE/RL spoke with Max Meizlish, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a former official at the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on the intersection of naval blockades and financial warfare.
Meizlish argues that while kinetic air strikes grab headlines, the real battle is being fought against the Chinese financial lifelines and clandestine trade networks that keep the Iranian regime afloat.
RFE/RL: With the latest developments around Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, how should we understand the strategic objective of the US Navy's presence in the region at this moment?
Max Meizlish: It seems to me that the US is moving to more aggressively target the nexus of economic interests held by the Iranian regime -- all the vectors of economic interests that are central to the regime's operations and the economic viability of the country.
We previously saw targets through missile strikes looking at petrochemical facilities, and now this is an extension of that strategy. Any ships moving in and out of Iranian ports are going to be the subject of US blockades and potential interdiction efforts.
This is an escalation of what has been in motion for the last couple of weeks.
RFE/RL: Regarding Iran's maritime calculus, how do these developments shape Tehran's decision-making when it comes to managing shipping flows through the strait?
Meizlish: It is going to make it much more difficult. The reality is that the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps) has been operating what people are calling the "Tehran Toll Booth," with facilities on Larak Island. It is becoming increasingly impractical for ships to make their way through the strait, even if they pay that toll.
It is notable that after President [Donald] Trump's posts stating the US would interdict any ships that made payments to Iran through this toll system, there were reports of at least two Chinese state-owned ships associated with the COSCO shipping line passing through the Iranian-controlled corridor.
There are now questions as to whether those ships made payments and whether the US is actually prepared to follow through on the promise to interdict ships that pay Iran. The Iranians still have leverage as long as they operate this toll booth, so it is now a question of whether US authorities will interdict those facilitating the payments.
RFE/RL: How does the US balance long-term deterrence with day-to-day enforcement in a high-stakes maritime environment?
Meizlish: The US has to be credible in its deterrence. In January, when the US imposed a quasi-blockade on ships departing Venezuela, the government went to great lengths to pursue the ships that broke the blockade. However, that is only part of the problem. There are structural barriers from a legal and timeline perspective that make seizing ships, taking ownership of the oil, and selling it onto the market a very slow process.
While the US can move to capture a ship that breaks a blockade, the legal process to forfeit the cargo in US courts takes weeks or months. We will see how robust the enforcement effort is, but actual interdiction is just the beginning of what the US must do to make this credible.
RFE/RL: Do we have a timetable for when we might start seeing the actual impact of this current enforcement?
Meizlish: The blockade went into effect earlier today. I would expect to hear reports of attempted interdictions as soon as efforts are made by ships trying to move forward.
Right now, I would be looking to see if there is any movement by US naval assets to interject those two Chinese ships I mentioned earlier, provided they actually made payments. Aside from that, we will have to see if anyone else tries to bust through the blockade.
RFE/RL: Looking at the bigger picture, to what extent are China, Russia, and other actors -- some call them the "axis of evasion" -- contributing to the resilience of Iran's logistics and supply chains?
Meizlish: China is the central actor. This part of the story does not get nearly enough attention. Without China, Iran would not have been able to wage this war. For years, China has bankrolled the regime by buying up to 90 percent of Iran's exported oil, albeit at a steep discount. This has provided billions of dollars to the regime.
China also provides technology, diplomatic support, and chemical precursors for ballistic missile fuel. From a financial perspective, they provide the logistical channels for payments, such as "oil-for-metals" barter systems.
There is the Bank of Kunlun and connections to cross-border interbank messaging systems. There really is no bigger or more important enabler of Iranian sanctions evasion than China. The US needs to make this clear and rally partners in Europe and the Gulf to highlight that Iran's malign actions would not be possible without years of Chinese support.
RFE/RL: Given Trump's upcoming visit to China, are there specific pressure points Washington can exploit to shift Beijing's incentives quickly?
Meizlish: We could ramp up economic sanctions in a targeted way aimed at a small or midsize Chinese bank connected to major state entities. I recently published research with my colleague, Elaine Dezenski, highlighting a "teapot" refinery in China -- Wanda Holdings Group -- which takes in sanctioned Iranian oil through a closed-loop system in Shandong.
China likes to position itself as isolated from sanctions evasion, but when you look below the surface, it is just not true. If the US wants to put pressure on China for a coercive purpose, or to restore order in the strait, we can target these specific entities. China would benefit from the strait being open, but its timeline for doing so might not align with that of the US.
RFE/RL: To clarify, you're saying China needs the strait reopened but it may also benefit from prolonged disruption?
Meizlish: Precisely. The US and China have aligned interests, but they have divergent timelines.
RFE/RL: How do you expect Beijing to react to the US-enforced blockade in the near term?
Meizlish: I think we will see China remain outwardly vague. They will likely say that maritime access needs to be unhindered and that there should be a free flow of trade. I don't expect them to be critical of anyone to an extreme unless the US puts more direct pressure on Beijing to rein in Iran.
RFE/RL: Are we now in a phase of full-spectrum economic warfare with Iran, and is the US enforcing sanctions aggressively enough to "win?"
Meizlish: There is more the US could be doing regarding the enablers. While we are hitting targets kinetically, we should be going after the Chinese entities that facilitate payments. Additionally, the US should be working with other countries to freeze the assets of Iranian regime insiders and oligarchs.
Just as we did with Russia through the REPO (The Russian Elites, Proxies, and Oligarchs) Task Force, we should be doing the same for Iranian insiders. There are reports of regime members holding hundreds of millions of dollars in European capitals.
For example, Ali Ansari -- an intermediary for the leadership -- is sanctioned by the UK but not the US, despite having a vast portfolio of luxury properties held through shell companies. We should be imposing economic pain and diverting those assets into escrow to support the people of Iran someday. The blockade could be very well complemented by these other forms of economic statecraft.
RFE/RL: As you look at the coming weeks, what indicators will suggest that this economic statecraft is achieving its intended effect?
Meizlish: The intended effect is bringing Iran back to the table. If the US can achieve that in a verifiable and enforceable way, that is what success looks like. However, the political goals seem to shift from day to day, making it difficult to assess what a "win" looks like in a binary way. Ultimately, success is depriving the regime of the assets it steals from its people, preventing it from rearming through China and Russia, and further degrading its capacity to withstand pressure.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
No Breakthrough: US, Iran Talks Fail Following Hours-Long Session
WASHINGTON -- Marathon talks aimed at halting the war in Iran failed without a breakthrough, as US Vice President JD Vance flew back to the United States amid major questions what comes next for the 43-day-old conflict.
Before departing Pakistan on April 12, Vance called the talks -- the highest-level talks between Washington and Tehran in decades -- "substantive" but said Iran had balked at Washington's core security demands.
"We leave here with a very simple proposal, a method of understanding that is our final and best offer. We'll see if the Iranians accept it," he said.
Esmail Baqaei, a spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry, said about the two sides reached an understanding "on a number of issues."
However, "there were differences of opinion on two or three important issues, and ultimately the talks did not lead to an agreement," he said in a post to social media.
The Nuclear 'Red Line'
Speaking to reporters after the talks concluded, Vance suggested Tehran was to blame for the impasse.
"We have been at it now for 21 hours... We've had a number of substantive discussions with the Iranians. That's the good news," Vance said. "The bad news is that we have not reached an agreement. And I think that's bad news for Iran much more than it's bad news for the United States."
The US "red lines," Vance said, centered on securing an "affirmative commitment" that Tehran will not seek a nuclear weapon, or the means to do so, which he said is a "core goal" of the administration.
“The simple question is: Do we see a fundamental commitment of will for the Iranians not to develop a nuclear weapon...for the long term?" Vance asked. "We haven't seen that yet."
Iran's nuclear ambitions dominated the talks, but Vance said the agenda included other major issues, including frozen assets and broader tensions in the Middle East.
He declined to go into detail, saying he would not "negotiate in public" after nearly a day of private deliberation.
Vance said he was in contact with US President Donald Trump and top administration officials throughout the talks.
Tehran's Defiance, And The Specter of Escalation
In his post to X, Baqaei called on Washington to "refrain from excessive demands and unlawful requests" and accept Iran's "legitimate rights and interests."
He characterized the "intensive" sessions as covering a wide range of issues, including the Strait of Hormuz, war reparations, and the "complete end of the war against Iran."
State-aligned media in Tehran, meanwhile, accused Washington of "breaches of promise" and "malicious acts."
The collapse of the talks sparked concern that the fighting will intensify.
"Iran's regime feels it's winning," said Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran, a nonprofit research organization. "This is emboldening Tehran to refuse once again US offer."
"But it risks overplaying its hand," he told RFE/RL. "The US has to change the Iranian decision-making calculus to shatter that perception of victory. This sets the stage for a military escalation."
- By RFE/RL
In Photos: Week Six Of The Iran War
The tail of an Iranian ballistic missile landed in Shadmot Mehola, an Israeli settlement in the West Bank. Iran launched a fresh barrage of missiles targeting Israel, with projectiles and intercepted debris falling across the West Bank on April 4.
Images from the sixth week of the US-Israeli war with Iran and the beginning of a fragile temporary cease-fire.
Multiple Hurdles To Peace As US, Iranian Delegations Gather
WASHINGTON -- US Vice President JD Vance has stepped into the most consequential diplomatic challenge of his tenure, arriving in Islamabad to lead high-stakes negotiations with Iran.
These talks may ultimately determine whether a fragile, two-week cease-fire holds, or the region collapses back into renewed conflict.
The American delegation includes special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, as well as officials from the National Security Council, State Department, and Pentagon. They face an Iranian team led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and parliament speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf.
Back in Washington, President Donald Trump has struck a dual tone of optimism and deterrence.
Speaking to reporters on April 10, Trump noted he expects progress that could "open up the Gulf with or without" a formal deal, while simultaneously warning that he would not allow Iran to effectively toll or control the Strait of Hormuz.
Yet, as negotiations are set to begin on April 11, the path to a lasting settlement remains deeply uncertain--shaped by competing pressures, regional conflict dynamics, and fundamental disagreements over the requirements for peace.
Negotiations Born of Pressure, Not Trust
For Ryan Bohl, senior Middle East and North Africa analyst at RANE risk intelligence company, the seriousness of the talks is not in doubt, but their outcome is far from guaranteed.
"The talks are serious," Bohl told RFE/RL on April 10, pointing to a diminished US appetite for prolonged conflict and Iran's urgent need for a pathway toward reconstruction and internal stability.
"But there remains uncertainty as to how much either side is willing to compromise."
In Bohl's assessment, both Washington and Tehran are negotiating under pressure, though the leverage is asymmetrical. Iran believes it holds a strategic advantage through its influence over the Strait of Hormuz and its higher tolerance for short-term strain.
"Iran's political will, in the near term, is not as weak as America's," Bohl said. "They seem to think they can leverage this to gain concessions."
That leverage is psychological as much as it is material. Bohl suggests Tehran is finding opportunity in Washington's inconsistent messaging.
"Tehran likely sees Washington's somewhat erratic communications as a sign of weakness and urgency," he said, adding that this emboldens them to push for concessions such as the unfreezing of assets for reconstruction.
At the same time, Trump's political calculus complicates the US position. Determined not to appear to be conceding to Tehran, the president may limit the flexibility required for a breakthrough, despite domestic vulnerabilities that Bohl suggests could weaken Washington's hand.
Hormuz: Strategic Asset Or Escalatory Trap?
This tension is most visible in the Strait of Hormuz, the vital artery for global energy that Iran has partially restricted.
Dan Arbell, a veteran of the Israeli Foreign Service and scholar-in-residence at American University, describes the situation as precarious.
"The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is still very much in place," Arbell told RFE/RL. While a "trickling passage" of ships continues, Iran has linked full restoration of transit to Israeli operations in Lebanon. "That is certainly undermining the current effort," Arbell added.
Bohl views Iran's posture as a calculated gamble.
"Iran has demonstrated it effectively controls Hormuz for now," he said. "But Trump may still believe he needs to use force to reopen it if Iran uses it as a bargaining chip for too long."
The result is a volatile equilibrium: a strategic chokehold that provides Tehran leverage but risks triggering the very military response it seeks to avoid.
The Lebanon Front: A Potential Deal-Breaker
Complicating the diplomacy is the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, which has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States and Israel. Iran insists this front cannot be separated from a broader cease-fire.
Bohl underscores that Tehran views the group as essential to deterring future Israeli military campaigns: "Iran cannot let Hezbollah be picked off by the Israelis."
Arbell points to the ongoing violence as a primary obstacle. "Israel is bombing targets across Lebanon...while Hezbollah continues firing rockets into northern Israel," he said.
These developments pose a direct challenge to the Islamabad track.
Parallel efforts are under way to address this. The US State Department is expected to host ambassador-level talks between Israel and Lebanon on April 14 in Washington. However, Arbell warns that expectations should remain modest.
"We have to be realistic," Arbell said. "There will not be change overnight. This is a process." He said that while Israel's priority is the disarmament of Hezbollah, the militant group is unlikely to disarm without a broader regional shift.
US and Israel: Aligned, But Not Identical
A key point of friction lies in whether Israel's campaign in Lebanon should be tied to the US-Iran negotiations. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sought to preserve freedom of action against Hezbollah, but that position is shifting under American pressure.
"Israel was advocating not to tie the two," Arbell said. "But in recent days, it's clear the US is expecting Israel to deescalate...to avoid undermining the larger effort."
Arbell clarified that this is a "difference of approach" rather than a rupture in the alliance. While the US is focused on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and stabilizing global markets, Israel remains focused on degrading Hezbollah's capabilities.
He suggested a firmer US message to Netanyahu could emerge over the weekend, urging restraint to give diplomacy a chance.
Limits of Diplomacy And Need for Realism
The core of the negotiations remains anchored in long-standing US demands: curbs on Iran's nuclear program, limits on missile development, and an end to support for regional proxies like Hamas and the Houthis in Yemen.
Arbell cautions that the US cannot expect Iran to "change overnight" or surrender. He argues for a pragmatic approach: "The US needs to bring ideas that can be implemented and accepted. Otherwise, this will not happen."
Both analysts see a convergence of interests in pausing the conflict. Arbell noted that Iran needs "breathing space" to recover from the devastation of recent attacks.
Bohl, however, sees a risk of stalemate. "One realistic off-ramp is mutual exhaustion," he said. But he also warned of a less stable possibility: If Washington exhausts its political will before Tehran, Iran could retain informal control over the Strait of Hormuz, maintaining the ability to disrupt it again in the future.
Why Islamabad Holds the Key
While multiple diplomatic tracks exist, both experts agree that the Islamabad talks carry the most immediate weight.
"I think the Pakistan talks are more important," Arbell concluded. "What happens between the US and Iran has a greater impact on the overall situation." Unlike the complex Israel-Lebanon track, these negotiations could produce outcomes implemented within days.
For Vice President Vance, the moment is defining. Success could stabilize a volatile region and mark a major diplomatic achievement for the administration. Failure risks entrenching a cycle of conflict marked by recurring violence and persistent threats to the global economy.
As talks begin, the question is no longer whether both sides want an off-ramp, but whether they can agree on one before the balance between leverage and escalation collapses.
US-Iran Cease-Fire Falters Amid Accusations Of Violations
The temporary truce between the United States and Iran wobbled less than a day after being agreed as Israel launched massive attacks on Iranian proxies in Lebanon, while Tehran launched strikes at oil centers in several Persian Gulf countries after claiming its energy facilities were targeted.
US and Iranian delegations are scheduled to meet in Islamabad on April 10 to begin detailed talks on a peace deal after the temporary truce was reached late on April 7. Vice President JD Vance will lead the US delegation, the White House said on April 8.
But even as teams prepared for the meetings, reports of violations tempered the optimism seen just hours earlier as the first ships passed freely through the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran is to fully open as part of the cease-fire deal.
Further clouding the outlook, Israel carried out its heaviest strikes in Lebanon on Iran-backed Hezbollah, which has been designated a terror organization by the United States, amid disputes about what is covered under the cease-fire. Israel’s military said it targeted over 100 Hezbollah sites in Beirut, the Bekaa Valley, and southern Lebanon.
Lebanon's Health Ministry said 182 people were killed but that this was not the final toll, and UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk said the "scale of the killing and destruction in Lebanon today is nothing short of horrific."
"The United States will work closely with Iran, which we have determined has gone through what will be a very productive Regime Change!" President Donald Trump said in a social media post, before later being quoted by US public broadcaster PBS as saying Lebanon is not part of the agreement with Iran "because of Hezbollah."
"That's a separate skirmish," he added.
Iran's powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) said in response to the Israeli attacks on Hezbollah that "if the aggression against beloved Lebanon does not cease immediately, we will fulfill our duty and deliver a response."
In a post on X, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi added: "The Iran–U.S. Ceasefire terms are clear and explicit: the U.S. must choose-- ceasefire or continued war via Israel. It cannot have both."
And Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, who is reportedly expected to lead Tehran's delegation at the Islamabad talks along with Araqchi, claimed that three parts of Iran's 10-point proposal for a resolution had been violated and that, in such a situation, a "bilateral cease-fire or negotiations" were "unreasonable."
In a post on X, Qalibaf asserted that the violations were attacks on Lebanon, the entry of a drone into Iranian airspace, and what he said was a "denial of Iran's right to [uranium] enrichment."
Washington and Tehran agreed late on April 7 to a two-week Pakistani-brokered cease-fire, pulling back from the brink to allow the two sides time to negotiate a peace deal.
Trump, who early on April 7 wrote that "a whole civilization will die tonight" if Iran fails to reach a deal, said in a social media post that he had received a 10-point proposal from Tehran and he believes "it is a workable basis on which to negotiate."
Iranians' Relief, Conerns
Iranians have expressed relief but also concern after the United States and Iran announced a deal to suspend hostilities for two weeks. After more than five weeks of strikes, some Iranians say they expect challenging days ahead with infrastructure destroyed -- but also want their own government to restore basic rights and to release political prisoners.
"I'm glad there is a cease-fire, but I won't rest until there's lasting peace," one man from inside Iran said in a message sent to RFE/RL's Radio Farda.
"I know there will be difficult days ahead of us. A lot of infrastructure has been destroyed, and [the authorities] are [likely] to become more violent, but we must stand together and distance ourselves from the warmongers."
Trump gave no details of the Iranian proposal but added the agreement hinges on Tehran allowing the free passage of ships in the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping lane through which some 20 percent of the world's oil and gas passes.
According to data from maritime monitor Marine Traffic, three ships passed through the waterway on April 8.
"Early signs of vessel activity are emerging in the Strait of Hormuz following a cease-fire announcement, which includes a temporary reopening of the strategic waterway to allow for negotiations," the monitor said in a post on X.
A senior Iranian official said ships navigating the strait, however, still require Tehran's permission to pass, and Reuters reported that shippers were awaiting more clarity before resuming transit.
'Legitimate Misunderstanding'
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on April 8 that Trump's "immediate priority...is the reopening of the strait without any limitations, whether in the form of tolls or otherwise."
"I will reiterate the president's expectation and demand that the Strait of Hormuz is reopened immediately, quickly, and safely," Leavitt said, adding that any closure "is completely unacceptable."
Israel said it supports Trump's decision to stop attacking Iran for two weeks subject to the immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the cessation of attacks against the United States, Israel, and other countries in the region.
But the statement, released by the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said the cease-fire did not include Lebanon, which contradicted an earlier statement from Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif of Pakistan.
On the US side, Leavitt echoed Trump in saying Lebanon was not included in the cease-fire terms. However, she told journalists, "This will continue to be discussed, I am sure, between the president and Prime Minister Netanyahu, the United States and Israel, and all of the parties involved."
Vice President JD Vance said he believes there was a "legitimate misunderstanding" about the terms of the truce. "I think the Iranians thought that the cease-fire included Lebanon, and it just didn't."
"If Iran wants to let this negotiation fall apart... over Lebanon…that's ultimately their choice," he told reporters before departing Budapest to return to the US. But he added that Israel was ready to show restraint.
“The Israelis, as I understand it...have actually offered to, frankly, to check themselves a little bit in Lebanon, because they want to make sure that our negotiation is successful," Vance said without providing details.
Meanwhile, the Gulf States of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates reported fresh attacks on their territory.
Highly Precarious
Anne Dreazen, vice president of the American Jewish Committee's Center for a New Middle East, told RFE/RL that while the pause is a "tactical de-escalation," the maritime terms remain highly precarious.
She noted that because passage is still being coordinated via the Iranian military, the agreement represents a "controlled and conditional access regime" rather than a true return to international norms.
"In practical terms, Iran is retaining the ability to regulate, restrict, or politicize maritime traffic using the strait as leverage rather than restoring the principle of free navigation," Dreazen said, adding the burden is now on Tehran to prove it is ready to "shift course from coercion and disruption toward meaningful negotiation and de-escalation."
Senior Trump administration officials have called the deal "a win," while Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran, characterized the agreement as "a tactical pause -- a delay" by the United States to see if Iran will hold to the deal.
"I think President Trump retains the option of escalating. The attack plans have been prepared. That credible military threat remains," he told RFE/RL, adding that both nations remain in a position to strike.
"The Iranians have the ability to threaten the Strait of Hormuz. So both can revert to previous postures if this deal fails to hold."
The last-minute move came amid global concerns over Trump's remarks on wiping out Iranian civilization, with Pope Leo, an American, suggesting it was "truly unacceptable" and others warning against attacks on civilian infrastructure.
There had been few signs that the sides were ready for compromise in the war, which began with US and Israeli air strikes on Iran on February 28, and little overlap between proposals put forth by Washington and Tehran.
"The cease-fire, should it hold, could serve as a more general off ramp to future hostilities. In this sense, escalation -- even the threat of it -- may have been necessary to precipitate the current de-escalation," Cale Brown, a former deputy spokesperson during Trump's first administration and chairman of Polaris National Security, told RFE/RL.
With reporting by RFE/RL senior Washington correspondent Alex Raufoglu, AFP, and Reuters
EU Groups Looking At Energy-Saving Measures In Response To Iran War Crisis
Key European Union oil and gas groups will hold meetings this week as countries around the bloc scramble to deal with the impact of the US-Israel-led war with Iran on energy prices and supplies.
European Commission spokeswoman Anna-Kaisa Itkonen told a news briefing on April 7 the oil coordination group will meet on April 8, while the gas group will convene the following day.
The EU is facing energy-saving measures such as reduced air travel, highway speed limits, and work-from-home directives as the war has resulted in the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, the transit corridor for about 20 percent of the world's oil and gas.
Last month the bloc's energy ministers held an emergency meeting, and while no concrete measures were agreed upon the European commissioner for energy, Dan Jorgensen, promised that Brussels would soon be announcing a package of EU-level measures.
According to EU officials familiar with the file who spoke to RFE/RL on the condition of anonymity, these measures might include more flexible state aid rules for energy companies as well as a push for more renewables and nuclear energy.
They also could potentially include more drastic emergency moves -- similar to when Russia launched its full-scale attack on Ukraine in early 2022 -- such as an EU-wide cap on gas prices and taxation of energy companies' windfall profits.
The 27-nation bloc is already bracing for a big economic hit if the war drags on. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told reporters last week that the burden on the EU's economy might be as heavy as it was during the Covid-19 pandemic or first few months of the Ukraine war.
Ahead of the meeting of energy ministers, Jorgensen wrote a letter to member states, seen by RFE/RL, in which he stated that "while the direct exposure of the EU to supply from the region prior to the conflict is limited, we are depending on global markets for our fossil fuels supply in direct competition with other consumers."
Countries including Italy, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia, and France have already adopted various measures to mitigate the impact of the sharp jump in prices and choking of supplies resulting from the Iran war.
While Europe has diversified in recent years with most imports instead coming from Algeria, Azerbaijan, Norway and the United States, the increased global demand from dwindling supplies have meant prices at the pump have surged in the EU, as well.
But the EU is also more dependent on so-called refined petroleum products, meaning materials derived from crude oil through processing, such as diesel, asphalt, and especially kerosene, which is essential for modern jet engines with 40 percent of supplies coming from the Persian Gulf.
Jorgensen's letter says a shortage of these products is of "particular concern in the short term" and suggests "member states are invited to consider the promotion of demand saving measures, in accordance with their contingency plans, with particular attention to the transport sector."
Some airlines have already signaled they may reduce the number of flights on certain routes. The last kerosene shipments that passed through the Strait of Hormuz before its closure are due to arrive in Europe next week.
The letter references the International Energy Agency's (IEA) recent 10-point recommendation, which include energy reduction costs such as working from home, reduced air travel, carsharing, alternate private car access to roads, lowering the speed limit by 10 kilometers per hour, and discouraging the use of liquified petroleum gas (LPG) when cooking.
Additionally, the letter also urges member states to defer any non-emergency refinery maintenance and to increase the uptake of biofuels to replace fossil fuels.
Hours Before US Deadline For Iran, Pakistan Calls For An Extension And A Truce
Hours before a US deadline for Iran to reach a deal or face intense attacks on power plants and other infrastructure, Pakistan urged President Donald Trump to give Tehran two more weeks to allow the two sides to reach a peace settlement.
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, whose country is leading efforts to mediate between the United States and Iran, also called on all sides in the war to cease fire and for Tehran to open the Strait of Hormuz to shipping for the same two-week period.
The last-ditch request came as global concern over Trump's remark earlier on April 7 that "a whole civilization will die tonight" if Iran fails to reach a deal mounted, with Pope Leo, an American, suggesting it was "truly unacceptable" and others warning against attacks on civilian infrastructure.
"Diplomatic efforts for peaceful settlement of the ongoing war in the Middle East are progressing steadily, strongly and powerfully with the potential to lead to substantive results in near future," Sharif said in a post on X less than five hours before the deadline set by Trump -- 8 p.m. EST on April 7, or 3:30 a.m. on April 8 in Iran-- was due to expire.
“To allow diplomacy to run its course, I earnestly request President Trump to extend the deadline for two weeks," he wrote.
"Pakistan...requests the Iranian brothers to open Strait of Hormuz for a corresponding period of two weeks as a goodwill gesture. We also urge all warring parties to observe a cease-fire everywhere for two weeks to allow diplomacy to achieve conclusive termination of war."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told media outlets that Trump had been made aware of Pakistan's proposal and that a response would come.
Reuters cited a senior Iranian official it did not name as saying Tehran was positively reviewing the request for a two-week cease-fire, but also that Iran is ready both for peace and for war.
There have been few signs the sides are ready for compromise in the war, which began with US and Israeli air strikes on Iran on February 28, and little overlap between proposals put forth by Washington and Tehran.
"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again," Trump, who has extended the deadline several times since he first issued the ultimatum in March, wrote on his Truth Social platform on April 7. "I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will."
Trump's post followed his warnings that the United States would target Iran's power plants and bridges in remarks described by Iranian officials as threats that amount to "war crimes," though some international legal experts dispute such a claim.
It also came just hours after US and Israeli air strikes hit multiple locations across Iran, including infrastructure and the strategic Kharg Island.
Iranian media reported explosions across Tehran and the sound of air defense fire on April 7, with some accounts describing fighter jets flying at low altitude over the capital.
Strikes were also reported on Kharg Island, where some 90 percent of Iran's oil exports are shipped from, as well as major bridges on the Tabriz-Zanjan highway and another near the holy city of Qom.
Several media outlets including CNN, Reuters, and Fox News quoted US officials confirming the strikes on Kharg Island. The Wall Street Journal said "more than 50 military targets" were hit in the attacks.
Prior to Trump's comments on social media, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) warned in a statement just moments after the strikes were reported that it would target US and allied infrastructure across the region if the United States crossed "red lines."
The IRGC also put American partners in the Persian Gulf and beyond on notice, saying that restraint shown toward neighboring states "out of good neighborliness" was now over and that "all such considerations have been lifted" -- a signal that Gulf Arab states hosting US military assets could become direct targets.
The statement marks a shift in Iran's stated position.
While Tehran has previously struck targets in several regional countries, it had until now maintained that those states themselves were not the intended enemy -- a distinction it appears to be threatening to abandon.
Among the sites hit in downtown Tehran was a historic synagogue, according to Iranian media.
Homayoun Sameyah, the Jewish community's representative in Iran's parliament, told state media that the building was "ancient" and "sacred," and that Torah scrolls remained buried under the rubble.
Trump had earlier warned that the "the entire country" of Iran "could be taken out in one night."
Speaking in Budapest on April 7 after meeting Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, US Vice President JD Vance said the administration had largely achieved its military goals in the campaign and that he was "confident" Washington will get a response from Tehran before the deadline expires.
Meanwhile, Iran struck Tel Aviv, with Israeli television reporting around 10 impact sites across the city causing damage to buildings and vehicles. No injuries were recorded.
The Israeli military accused Iran of using cluster munitions -- weapons that disperse into smaller submunitions, or bomblets, in midair and are nearly impossible to intercept with conventional air defenses. The southern port city of Eilat was also targeted with cluster munitions, according to media reports.
Iran Rejects Cease-Fire Proposal
Trump’s warning on April 6 centered on Iran's control of the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint for global oil shipments.
Iran's response fell short of what Washington demanded.
Tehran submitted a 10-point peace proposal through Pakistani mediators, but the plan rejected a temporary cease-fire and instead called for a permanent end to hostilities. It also included conditions unlikely to be acceptable to the United States or Israel.
Iran's defiance was on open display.
Mahdi Mohammadi, a senior adviser to Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, posted on X that Iran had "clearly and openly won the war" and would only accept an outcome that established "a new security order in the region."
He added: "It is Trump who has around 20 hours to surrender to Iran or his allies will be sent back to the Stone Age. We will not back down!"
Following a call by a senior official from Iran's Sports and Youth Ministry for people to form "human chains" around power plants, Iranian media outlets including official news agency IRNA reported that gatherings took place outside plants in several cities, as well as on at least one bridge, and published images of people standing shoulder-to-shoulder holding placards and the national flag. It was unclear how many people participated and whether any had been coerced or given incentives to take part.
The Wall Street Journal, citing unnamed Middle Eastern officials, reported hours before the deadline set by Trump that Iran had cut off direct communications with the United States over his threat to destroy Iran's "whole civilization" but that talks with cease-fire mediators continued.
Asked by a journalist whether he expected Iran to "come to the table," US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, "Hope we have more news later today on that."
The threat to Iranian infrastructure is drawing warnings from inside the country.
Mahdi Masaeli, secretary of Iran's electricity industry syndicate, said on April 7 that attacks on power plants, transmission lines, or substations could trigger "widespread blackouts."
While Iran's grid -- with a capacity of around 100,000 megawatts against current consumption of less than half that -- has some capacity to reroute power, Masaeli warned that serious damage would be a "turning point" in the conflict.
"The problems would not double," he said. "They would grow exponentially."
Previous strikes have already disrupted key industrial sectors.
Attacks on the Mobarakeh Steel complex have affected steel output, while strikes on the Bandar Emam petrochemical facility have hit production of PVC and cable materials, with black market activity emerging as a result, Masaeli said.
With reporting by RFE/RL Washington correspondent Alex Raufoglu, Reuters, and DPA
Ex-White House Adviser Sees Rising Risks As Trump's Iran Deadline Looms
WASHINGTON -- With a US ultimatum set to expire, President Donald Trump has warned Iran that its infrastructure could be struck within hours if it does not comply with his demands, particularly reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
Tehran has rejected short-term cease-fire proposals, demanding a permanent end to hostilities and guarantees against future attacks.
RFE/RL spoke with Nate Swanson, former Iran director at the White House National Security Council who is now at the Atlantic Council, about the escalating crisis and prospects for diplomacy as Trump's deadline of 8 p.m. Eastern Time on April 7 looms.
RFE/RL: The US president has issued a stark ultimatum, warning Iran's infrastructure could face massive strikes within hours if key demands aren't met. How realistic is such a rapid, large-scale disruption of Iran's decentralized systems, and how much of this is strategic signaling rather than operational capability?
Nate Swanson: My assessment is that this is primarily being done for psychological reasons, to extract concessions from Iran and force some form of agreement.
I can't speak definitively on whether the US could hit all those targets in such a short time frame, but Iran's infrastructure is highly decentralized. There are dozens of separate power systems, transportation nodes, and other critical networks. The idea of neutralizing every bridge or key node within a matter of hours seems implausible.
This fits a broader pattern: threatening maximum consequences to generate leverage.
So far, "maximum pressure" has not fundamentally altered Iranian decision-making or forced capitulation. I don't see clear evidence that even this level of escalation would change their calculus, but ultimately that's a decision for Iran's leadership.
RFE/RL: We're also hearing about diplomatic efforts. Pakistan has floated a two-tier framework, the so-called Islamabad Accord, proposing a 45-day cease-fire followed by a comprehensive deal. What are Iran's key red lines, and is there any middle ground?
Swanson: Iran is looking for guarantees that this war won't simply restart in a few months. They want assurance that a cease-fire is permanent, not temporary. That's why they are rejecting short-term language and pushing for fundamentally different terms.
The second component is economic. Iran is seeking to benefit from its control of the Strait of Hormuz. They refer to this as reparations, but in practice it could take a number of forms -- essentially formalizing a mechanism through which they derive ongoing economic concessions tied to the waterway.
What has changed in recent days is that Iran appears increasingly confident, perhaps overly so, about what it can achieve. Their demands have expanded to include broader regional issues such as hostilities in Lebanon, which were not previously central to their position. That raises the bar significantly and makes a near-term deal much less likely.
The US is focused on moving forward quickly, while Iran places significant weight on historical grievances..."Nate Swanson
RFE/RL: There have been leadership changes inside Iran. Is there evidence of a pragmatic faction emerging, or are hard-liners consolidating control?
Swanson: The system is extremely opaque. Even for those who follow Iran closely, it's very difficult to determine who is actually making decisions or how authority is distributed at any given moment.
That said, hard-liners are clearly emboldened.
Certain figures have gained influence in recent developments, and the overall trajectory points toward stronger hard-line participation in decision-making. Whether this amounts to a full consolidation of power is still unclear, it's simply too early to say. These kinds of transitions typically unfold over time.
RFE/RL: Trump suggested Iranians might be willing to endure infrastructure losses in exchange for freedom. Is that your assessment?
Swanson: Iranian society is not monolithic. There are certainly people who want the regime to collapse, and there are others who strongly support it. A significant portion of the population falls somewhere in between and is primarily focused on day-to-day survival.
My expectations for mass mobilization are low. While some segments may support continued pressure, many others simply want the conflict to end. It's very difficult to generalize, and I wouldn't assume a unified response from the population.
Calling for uprisings in the current environment is extremely risky. Protests have been brutally suppressed, and there have been no meaningful defections from the security apparatus. Encouraging people to take to the streets could put lives at risk without producing tangible outcomes.
In the longer term, the focus should be on influencing the decision-making of Iran's leadership. Whoever governs Iran needs to understand that their choices will determine whether the country stabilizes and prospers or remains isolated and in conflict.
RFE/RL: You said earlier that Tehran views the current situation as a continuation of the June 2025 war, while the United States treats it more as a fresh starting point. For Iran, this is essentially a fight for survival. How does this fundamental disconnect in perspective affect the prospects for a diplomatic breakthrough?
Both European and Gulf partners are already reassessing their positions and recalibrating their relationships with both the US and Iran.Nate Swanson
Swanson: It's a major obstacle. The US is focused on moving forward quickly, while Iran places significant weight on historical grievances and past actions.
There's also a deep lack of trust, especially given the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal and subsequent developments. That makes negotiations much more difficult.
Since the June 2025 conflict, Iran's position has hardened considerably. There is far less flexibility, and the leadership appears more focused on preparing for sustained confrontation than on compromise.
RFE/RL: Has control over the strait become the central bargaining chip?
Swanson: Yes. Iran now effectively has a fourth pillar in its security strategy: control of the Strait of Hormuz.
This is extremely significant. It directly affects global commerce and US interests. In some ways, it has become even more consequential than other elements, such as proxy forces, which are increasingly seen as liabilities.
That represents a major shift and gives Iran a new, very powerful source of leverage.
RFE/RL: If the conflict continues for a prolonged period, what would that mean for the unity of countries aligned against Iran? Do you expect US allies to remain aligned, or could they begin pursuing separate arrangements with Tehran?
Swanson: There's a real risk of divergence. Both European and Gulf partners are already reassessing their positions and recalibrating their relationships with both the US and Iran.
In the short term, alignment largely holds. But the longer the conflict continues, the greater the pressure on these countries to pursue their own interests, including the possibility of separate arrangements with Tehran.
We're already seeing subtle shifts -- both in Europe and among Gulf states -- and those differences are likely to become more pronounced over time if the conflict continues.
The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
As War Persists, Trump Calls On Iran To 'Make A Deal Before It Is Too Late'
The US-Israeli war with Iran showed no signs of slowing down on April 2, with reports of air strikes hitting a major Iranian bridge and killing a senior Iranian commander, while US President Donald Trump urged Tehran to "make a deal before it is too late."
The new strikes came a day after Trump's TV address to the nation, in which he threatened to bomb Iran "back to the stone ages" and "hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks."
In response, Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf wrote a defiant message on social media: "Iranians don't just talk about defending their country, we bleed for it. We've done it before, and we're ready to do it again.... Bring it on." An Iranian military spokesman warned of "broader and more destructive" attacks to come.
But reports from official Iranian sources highlighted the ongoing cost of the war to Iran. A major new highway bridge, not yet operational, was damaged and Mohammad Ali Fathalizadeh, a brigadier general of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), was killed in a separate attack, the reports said.
Images on social media showed significant damage to the B1 bridge, which is on a road linking Tehran to Karaj in the Alborz Province and has been described by Iranian media outlets as the highest bridge in the Middle East.
"The biggest bridge in Iran comes tumbling down, never to be used again -- Much more to follow!" Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform. "IT IS TIME FOR IRAN TO MAKE A DEAL BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE, AND THERE IS NOTHING LEFT OF WHAT STILL COULD BECOME A GREAT COUNTRY!"
A local official later said eight people were killed and 95 injured in two rounds of attacks on the bridge, Iranian media reported. The account could not be independently verified.
Elsewhere, images on social media showed plumes of smoke at the international airport in Mashhad, a city in northeast Iran, on April 2.
Amid ongoing combat, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) announced it had struck a "ballistic missile storage site belonging to the missile unit in the Tabriz area."
Israel was also hit. Emergency services reported rocket fire from Iran's Lebanon-based Hezbollah proxy group that caused shrapnel injuries to an 85-year-old Israeli man and a 34-year-old foreign worker.
In the Persian Gulf, a spokesman for the Saudi Defense Ministry said four drones and a ballistic missile launched from Iran had been intercepted, while the United Arab Emirates said it had "engaged 19 ballistic missiles and 26 UAVs launched from Iran."
The US government issued a warning to its citizens in Iraq, saying that "Iraqi terrorist militia groups aligned with Iran may intend to conduct attacks in central Baghdad in the next 24-48 hours."
The Mood In Iran
Ruslan Suleymanov, a Middle East expert at the London- and Washington-based NEST Center think tank who recently visited Iran amid US and Israeli air strikes, told Current Time he had observed a wide range of attitudes among the Iranian people and that there are currently both supporters and opponents of the regime.
"The opponents are in the majority. But even the opponents of the regime don't fully understand where this war is heading," he said on April 2.
The Iranian authorities appeared to be tightening an already brutal crackdown on its opponents, as prominent rights activist Nasrin Sotoudeh was arrested at her home in Tehran last night, her daughter said on Instagram.
This news came after it was reported that Iran had executed an 18-year-old man, Amirhossein Hatami, arrested during mass protests in January.
Meanwhile the health of Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner Narges Mohammadi has significantly deteriorated in prison, according to her husband, Taghi Rahmani.
Rahmani spoke with RFE/RL's Radio Farda by telephone on April 1 from Paris, where he is based.
The Strait Of Hormuz
On the diplomatic front, British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper condemned Iran's "recklessness" for stopping nearly all shipping through the Strait of Hormuz -- causing global economic chaos as flows of oil, gas, and other vital commodities have come to a halt.
"Alongside today’s discussions, we are also convening military planners to look at how we marshal our collective defensive military capabilities, including looking at issues such as de-mining or reassurance once the conflict eases,” she told an online conference convened by London.
The roughly 40 countries attending the conference did not include the United States, which has called on its allies to secure the strait.
"Today, we looked at diplomatic, economic, and security measures to restore safe passage, alongside working with the shipping industry," European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas wrote on X after the meeting, which produced no formal agreement.
The strait "is a global public good. Iran cannot be allowed to charge countries a bounty to let ships pass. International law doesn’t recognize pay-to-pass schemes," she wrote.
Kallas also said the EU naval mission in the Red Sea, Aspides, "must be scaled up," adding, "We cannot afford to lose another critical trade route."
Iran, meanwhile, said it was drafting monitoring rules with Oman, which lies across the strait, and current UN Security Council chair Bahrain presented the 15-member group with a new draft of a resolution aimed to protect shipping through the waterway.
"We are developing a protocol for Iran and Oman to monitor passage and navigation through the Strait of Hormuz," Iran's official news agency, IRNA, quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi as saying. There was no immediate comment from Oman.
Bahraini Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani told the Security Council that country was hoping for a vote on April 3 on the resolution. It would authorize "all necessary means" to protect commercial shipping while specifying that such steps should be "defensive in nature."
To pass, a Security Council resolution needs at least nine yes votes and no veto from any of the permanent members: The United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China, which has signaled its opposition to any authorization of the use of force.
In comments at a Kremlin meeting with the Egyptian foreign minister, Russian President Vladimir Putin said "we all hope that this conflict will be resolved as quickly as possible. President Trump spoke about this yesterday. I repeat, we, for our part, are ready to do everything possible to bring the situation back to normal."
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spokes to his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araqchi, about the war and the situation surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, the Russian ministry said. Putin's foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov said on state TV that the strait is "open to us."
In China, which like Russia has close ties to Iran, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning responded to Trump's speech by calling on all sides to cease military operations, while also criticizing Washington.
"The root cause of obstruction to navigation through the Strait of Hormuz is the illegal military actions by the United States and Israel against Iran. Only through a cease-fire and the achievement of peace and stability in the Gulf region can the security and smooth operation of international shipping lanes be fundamentally safeguarded," she told a news conference.
China has presented a five-point plan with Pakistan, calling for an immediate cease-fire and talks.
Pakistan has emerged as a potential key mediator for passing messages between the United States and Iran, which have presented wildly different visions for peace.
'The Key Question'
Tehran is demanding, among other things, reparations and recognition of its control over the Strait of Hormuz. Washington's plan has not been made public but is believed to include a demand that Iran will agree to not develop nuclear weapons, limits on Iran's missile capabilities, and an end to Iran's support for regional proxy forces.
Trump has said Iran is "begging to make a deal" while Iran has denied any talks are taking place.
Kamal Kharrazi, a former Iranian foreign minister believed to be involved in contact with Pakistani mediators was reported to have been seriously injured in an air strike overnight. Kharrazi was taken to a hospital while his wife died in the attack.
"Reports of diplomatic contacts alongside the targeting of figures such as Kamal Kharrazi, believed to have been linked to potential negotiations, have fueled speculation that cease-fire pathways may be actively disrupted by Israel," Hamidreza Azizi, a visiting fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, wrote on social media.
"This reinforces Iranian narratives that the Israeli side seeks to prolong the war," he added.
Meanwhile, the prospect of the war continuing for at least a few more weeks saw oil prices again rising and stock markets showing mixed results.
Speaking to Reuters news agency, Russel Chesler, head of investments and capital markets at VanEck Australia, summed up the mood.
"The key question in all investors' minds is 'When is this going to be over?'" he said.