Middle East
- By Ray Furlong
After A Week Of War, Israel Sees Progress But Long Road Ahead
TEL AVIV -- Hidden away on a small street in a central district of town, the ruins of war come as something of a surprise. On nearby streets, hipsters fill outdoor cafes, Lime scooters clutter the sidewalks, and children play in parks. But turn a corner and you'll see blackened walls, smashed windows, and rubble-strewn cars.
This is almost the only site in Tel Aviv that bears the scars of war, following an Iranian strike on the first night of the conflict. As such, it bears witness to the destructive power of Tehran's ballistic missiles. But the lack of other such sites underlines Israel's ability to shoot them down.
It's an aspect of the war so far that is having a profound impact on how Israel approaches what comes next.
"The Israeli point of view is that, well, things are going back to normal here, more or less. We just have a few sirens a day. I mean, we are used to it. We can tolerate it," former lawmaker Ksenia Svetlova told RFE/RL.
The implication? For Israel, the long game is an easy choice.
"The Iranians right now are running low on ballistic missiles and specifically on launchers, but they still have drones. The drones cannot hurt Israel much. We know how to intercept them," said Svetlova, now executive director of an NGO called ROPES -- the Regional Organization for Peace, Economics, and Security.
There is indeed an air of routine rather than alarm as people here make their way down to underground shelters whenever alerts sound on their phone apps.
Israel's capacity to intercept incoming drones and missiles is measurable by the civilian casualty toll, with 12 fatalities after a week of conflict. Meanwhile, Israeli and US forces have decapitated the Iranian leadership and appear to have massively downgraded Tehran's military capabilities.
"We are striking the enemy, its leadership, its oppressive regime, and different targets," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on March 6, while visiting Beersheba, where some 20 people were injured in an Iranian strike earlier in the week.
The bullish tone in his remarks on the progress of the war matched the iconography of resolve that lines the streets here: Israeli and US flags can be seen everywhere, as can billboards depicting a Roaring Lion -- this country's military codename for the operation called Epic Fury by Washington.
Netanyahu has long called for regime change in Iran, as well as the destruction of its nuclear and missile programs. He has said the aim of this operation is "to crush the regime of terror completely."
Opinion polls show Israelis overwhelmingly support the war. Longstanding Netanyahu critics do, too.
Veteran opposition politician Avigdor Liberman told RFE/RL the war was going "very well" but that the "final result" was the key issue. This, he said, had to be "to topple this regime."
Liberman, who has served as ministers of defense, foreign affairs, and finance in various governments over the years, said he was confident this could be achieved but did not explain how.
The "worst case" would be Iran descending into "chaos" he said.
"It's really a huge question because what we saw in Libya, Iraq, Syria, it's real turmoil. But from all alternatives...the worst alternative is if [the clerical authorities] will continue to rule Iran," he said.
But reserve Major General Yaakov Amidror, a former national-security adviser for Netanyahu who clashed with him over policy on the West Bank, suggested the talk of regime change may not be serious.
"The goal of the war is a very strong agreement" between Israel and the United States, he told an event held by the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JSIS) this week.
"First, to eliminate totally any ability which is connected either to the missiles or to the nuclear project. Any guy who was there, any building which was connected, any place which was connected, any capability which is needed, everything should be totally destroyed…. I think that both sides understand regime change is something that cannot be guaranteed," he said.
Given this, he added, the main aim was simply to cause as much damage as possible.
"What should be ensured by the operation, by the war, is that any regime, this one or another one, will be very, very weak," Amidror said.
The Israeli government has also not explained in detail how regime change could be achieved. There has been speculation in recent days about Iraqi Kurdish militias crossing the border and sparking an uprising.
Svetlova, who as a Knesset legislator was closely engaged in relations with Kurdish groups, said they would be "skeptical" of the idea, at least in the short term.
Which brings us back to the long game. On March 6, US President Donald Trump gave a timeframe of four to six weeks to achieve Iran's "unconditional surrender."
The Israeli government hopes "that the war will, first of all, last long enough" to sufficiently degrade Iran's defense and security capabilities, Svetlova said.
"In the end of the day, there will be maybe a beginning of civil war in Iran, between the various minority militias, the Basij [militia] forces, the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps)of course, the Iranian protests will resume, and then the regime will have to fight on many fronts rather than just one.... I think that's the hope."
More News
- By Ray Furlong and
- Alex Raufoglu
Iran Deal Provides Economic Boost, But Hormuz Shipping Is Key
The Iran framework agreement gave an immediate boost to markets, with shares rising and oil prices dipping. But whether this translates into durable economic gains will largely depend on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
There were signs of traffic beginning to revive on June 18 in the hours immediately after the US and Iranian presidents signed a memorandum of understanding to end the war, according to Windward, a maritime intelligence company.
Speaking in an online briefing, Windward chief analyst Michelle Wiese Bockmann said 18 vessels had transited the strait between 6 p.m. on June 17 and 2 p.m. UTC on June 18, in what she described as "a sign of confidence in the agreement."
Specifically, she said these were a French-flagged liquid natural gas (LNG) tanker, two Hong Kong-flagged tankers, an Italian-flagged vehicles carrier, a Japanese-controlled oil tanker, and some Saudi-flagged tankers.
Ten of the vessels were outbound, having been stuck in the Persian Gulf for 109 days owing to the war that began with US and Israeli air strikes on Iran on February 28.
Prior to the war, some 20 percent of the world's oil supplies passed through the Strait of Hormuz, as well as large quantities of LNG, fertilizers, and other important products and commodities.
A 'Trickle' Of Ships
"It's going to start as a trickle, but certainly this is a very good sign, an early sign that there is confidence for outbound transits," Bockmann said.
"Transits averaged about seven vessels a day in the first two weeks of June until we had word of this agreement coming on [June 14]. And the total volume of transit so far in June already exceeds the 156 that we saw in May that we tracked. Certainly we see everything gathering force," she added.
Ben Cahill, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Global Energy Center, indicated that this trickle needs to grow if the hope of an economic peace dividend is to be realized.
"It's all about tanker traffic. Agreements on paper don't matter much unless they really get oil moving again through the Strait of Hormuz, because that's what everyone will be monitoring -- the number of tankers exiting the strait to carry oil, gas, and other products to market," he told RFE/RL.
"But also, the entrance into the strait of tankers, because that's when normal loading operations will resume and when upstream oil and gas production throughout the Middle East can resume as well. You have to keep an eye on the two-way tanker traffic," he added.
This is a real test. Shipping companies must have confidence that if their vessels enter the Persian Gulf they will not get stuck there again by a renewed outbreak of hostilities. It's key to restarting loading of oil tankers from Iraqi, Kuwaiti, and Saudi port facilities, and to get Qatari LNG moving.
Under the deal, Washington has also issued a waiver of sanctions on Iranian oil, giving a further potential economic boost.
Windward also tracked Iranian vessels moving through the strait, as well as Iranian-controlled LNG and oil tankers heading west from southeast Asia through the Malacca Straits -- apparently confident of being able to load up in Iranian ports now that the US naval blockade of Iranian ports and waters has been lifted.
The First Test Is At Sea
But the bullish mood only lasts as long as the deal.
"There is an element of proof of concept in all of this," Naysan Rafati, Iran senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, told RFE/RL.
"The first test is at sea. Does traffic in Hormuz start to creep up? Do the Iranians still try to harass or fire drones at vessels? Does the US allow Iranian ships to go through the cordon?" he added.
Other key tests of the viability of the strait include insurance premiums, the presence of sea mines, and the question of tolls.
The text of the US-Iranian memorandum says: "The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days."
But at this stage, there are no details on when demining will begin and who will do it.
The deal also says Iran has agreed to toll-free transit through the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days, pending further talks with US negotiators.
Bockmann said the southern route through the strait is in Omani waters and that once this was demined the question of a toll became unimportant. Tehran has spoken of imposing "maritime service fees" in cooperation with Oman, but Bockmann said, "I really don't think that's going to fly."
On insurance, she told RFE/RL that it was "too early to say" whether costs would start to come down.
"We do know that additional premiums, which are part of war risks for going into what's called listed areas, are being recalculated daily. And they're a percentage of hull value. And before the war, they were less than 1 percent of hull value. And then we saw it sorted between 3 percent and 5 percent, sometimes as high as 10 percent," she said, adding that a return to lower premiums would be important for shipping to return to normal levels.
Cahill said he did not expect insurance costs to stabilize quickly, but that it was not the main problem.
"The problem was that vessel owners just didn't want to put their crews at risk. When they have that certainty, that safety, that feeling that it's OK to transit again, I think you'll see a pretty rapid result," he said.
The End Of Hormuz?
Iran blocked traffic through the strait in response to the US and Israel air strikes that began the war on February 28. The move sent global markets into turmoil, caused acute fuel shortages across swathes of Asia, and led Gulf oil and gas producers to start questioning whether they should prepare other routes to market.
Saudi Arabia boosted throughput on its East-West pipeline, pumping its crude to the Yanbu port on the Red Sea to bypass the strait. The United Arab Emirates found a similar solution, using its pipeline to the port of Fujairah, on the Gulf of Oman. Iran targeted both routes during the conflict, but neither was as vulnerable as the strait.
This has led some to suggest that the war has provided Iran with a future weapon that has even more leverage than a nuclear arsenal would -- namely, the prospect of switching off global trade flows whenever it pleases. Not everyone agrees, though.
"One of the lessons of this episode is that it's dangerous to be too dependent on a single chokepoint. And of course, the Strait of Hormuz is the world's single most critical oil chokepoint," said Cahill.
"Buyers in importing countries will reassess supply risk and transit risk through the Middle East in really significant ways," he added. "There's some skepticism that the Strait of Hormuz will ever again constitute such a wide share of global oil transit and exports. The bypass pipelines are under way. People will explore alternative infrastructure."
How Long Will It Take The World To Recalibrate After Hormuz Reopens?
While the US and Iran have reached a historic agreement to restore stability in the Strait of Hormuz, the path to a full global energy recovery is dangerously lopsided. As energy expert Ariel Cohen notes, the infrastructure damage is not uniform: "Oil supply is expected to be fully restored by the end of the year, but LNG supply restoration is projected to take much longer, possibly until 2028."
- By Ray Furlong
Trump's Iran Accord And The 2015 Nuclear Deal: What's Different This Time?
The US-Iranian deal to end their war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz is inevitably being compared with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreed with Tehran by then US President Barack Obama.
That deal was fiercely criticized by his successor, Donald Trump, who pulled the United States out of JCPOA in 2018 during his first term of office. Trump has repeatedly said his deal would be better, although the text he signed in Versailles on June 17 is not the final one -- it leaves many issues to be negotiated over the next 60 (or more) days.
"If it were easy we would have resolved it, you know, two wars ago," Naysan Rafati, Iran Senior Analyst at the International Crisis Group, told RFE/RL, referring both to the 12-Day War in June last year and to this year's hostilities, that reignited with US and Israeli air strikes on February 28.
"The fundamentals of the Iranian nuclear program since last June have been different to what they were like under the JCPOA," he added.
What Was In The JCPOA?
One thing that is unchanged is that Iran has always denied wishing to develop nuclear weapons but possesses enriched uranium to grades beyond what is needed for civilian purposes.
This was a core problem then and remains so today.
Key elements of the JCPOA were for Iran to ship 98 percent of its enriched uranium stockpile out of the country, accept limits on future enrichment to well below weapons-grade levels, mothball some centrifuges that are used for enrichment, and allow all this to be checked by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Wrapped in all this was a wealth of technical details, for example on exact levels of enrichment, quantities of enriched material, storage locations, and specific models of centrifuges. In addition, Iran pledged not to develop nuclear weapons.
In return, international sanctions related to the nuclear program (but not other issues such as Iran's support for armed proxy groups across the Middle East, its missile program, or its human rights abuses) would be lifted based on verification that Iran was complying.
Additionally, Iran was granted access to overseas frozen assets whose value was greatly disputed (and variously calculated), with claims and estimates varying between $50-$100 billion, as well as payments from the US government totaling $1.3 billion.
The deal had a dispute resolution mechanism and a 2030 sunset clause. It was approved by the UN Security Council.
The agreement faced political resistance in Congress from both sides of the aisle from lawmakers who criticized it for limiting Iran's nuclear program rather than dismantling it completely. Others pointed out that it failed to address the wider issues beyond the nuclear program that had also made Iran an international pariah.
Sanctions on Iran were lifted following IAEA verification in January 2016, with Washington certifying twice in 2017 that Iran was sticking to the deal.
The Road To War
In May 2018, President Trump withdrew from the agreement, which he described as "horrible, one-sided."
From 2020-2021, Iran began ramping up both its numbers of centrifuges and its uranium enrichment, according to IAEA reports. This led Britain, France, and Germany (known as the E3) to say Tehran was no longer complying with the JCPOA.
In June last year, Israel and the United States carried out air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, warning that Iran was close to developing nuclear weapons. The Pentagon later assessed that operation Midnight Hammer had put back the program by up to two years, though there were conflicting reports about the exact extent of the damage.
"There has been widespread damage both to its facilities and across many of its senior nuclear-related personnel. But we also have not had on-the-ground inspections at the damage sites. The IAEA has been able to go into a couple of facilities, but not the major enrichment facilities that were targeted under Midnight Hammer," said Rafati.
Iran began to restrict IAEA monitoring after the June conflict. Then, in September last year, another JCPOA provision, its so-called snapback clause, took effect.
This meant UN sanctions lifted under the terms of the deal were reimposed following Iranian noncompliance. The E3 initiated the move after Iran refused to meet their demands of full access for IAEA inspectors and transparency regarding enriched material stockpiles.
After the June 2025 conflict, Washington and Iran reengaged in nuclear talks. Those talks were abandoned when US and Israeli air strikes on Iran began on February 28.
What Now?
The memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by Trump and Iranian President Masud Pezeshkian on June 17 provides for the immediate waiving of US oil sanctions on Iran, while tying the end of wider sanctions and the release of frozen assets to Iran implementing commitments, such as "down-blending" its stocks of highly enriched uranium under IAEA supervision.
"We're not in the trusting business," a senior US official said during a background call with journalists on June 17.
The issue of enrichment is also left to be dealt with in further negotiations, while Iran "reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons."
As with the JCPOA, the MOU has been criticized, including with rumblings of discontent from Republican lawmakers who suggest Washington has given up too much for too little.
Max Meizlish, a senior analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, voiced concern over the oil sanction waivers.
"What we should be doing, if this is truly a performance-based deal, is tying any sanctions relief to actual conduct by the regime that goes beyond just participating in the negotiation, signing the memorandum of understanding, and opening up the strait," he told RFE/RL.
"The US Congress is not going to give up easily here, absent significant reforms by Iran. And we'll have to see. We'll have to see what the US ultimately pushes for," he added, referring to the talks yet to come.
Meizlish also criticized the lack of any reference to Iran's other "malign activities" such as its missile program and support for groups such as Hezbollah, which is designated a terrorist organization by Washington.
As noted, the JCPOA was criticized on the same grounds.
The situation now, following two wars that have devastated Iran's economy and damaged its nuclear facilities, is very different from 2015. Those conflicts have also substantially eroded trust, further complicating talks.
The JCPOA was not just a bilateral US-Iranian process: Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany were all involved in negotiations lasting nearly two years. The MOU says negotiators will aim for a deal within 60 days but also that this time period can be extended.
Rafati said the talks will need to be more technical and complex than they have been so far in 2025-26.
"Even when they were in Oman or in Rome, they were this cumbersome process of indirect negotiations in fairly kind of short bursts of time, kind of between brunch and dinner," he said.
"Are they going to be accompanied by expert delegations that are actually going to get into the granularities of the nuclear nonproliferation side of things and the sanctions-relief side of things? Those technical delegations were present at some, but not all of the past negotiations…if there's any kind of aspiration for getting this wrapped up in 60 days, it would have to be a fairly regular and empowered and technically competent set of experts from both sides," he added.
- By RFE/RL
Trump Says US Could Start 'Dropping Bombs' If Iran Doesn't 'Behave'
US President Donald Trump said the United States could resume military action against Iran if he is dissatisfied with the implementation of the memorandum of understanding reached between Washington and Tehran, as world leaders hailed the potential end to the war.
Speaking alongside Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi at the G7 summit in Evian-les-Bains, France, on June 17, Trump stressed that the memorandum was only a preliminary agreement and warned that military action could resume if Iran failed to meet US expectations.
"It's a memorandum of understanding. And if I don't like it, we'll go back to shooting at them, dropping bombs on their head," Trump said.
He added: "If they don't behave, we'll go right back to dropping bombs right smack in the middle of their head, OK? Because they misbehaved for 47 years."
Trump also dismissed reports that the United States would invest $300 billion in Iran under the memorandum, saying such claims were false. He said, however, that Washington would not prevent other countries from investing in Iran.
The US president also said the memorandum does not provide for direct US payments to Iran. He further rejected claims that it mandates the immediate lifting of sanctions, saying any sanctions relief would be tied to future negotiations and Iranian compliance.
Iran and the United States announced on June 16 that they had electronically signed a memorandum of understanding to end the conflict. Both sides are expected to formally sign the agreement in Switzerland on June 19.
G7 Hails 'Historic Opportunity' For Middle East
The news has been hailed by leaders worldwide as a positive step toward ending the war between Washington and Tehran, which began with US and Israeli air strikes on Iran on February 28.
G7 leaders welcomed the framework agreement between the United States and Iran as a "historic opportunity" to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, according to a statement issued by group members early on June 17.
The statement said it has the potential to "bring peace and tranquility to the entire region."
The heads of these countries, emphasizing their support for the implementation of the provisions of the agreement, announced their readiness to help facilitate the process.
Regarding the Strait of Hormuz, the leaders said "the right to free passage without hindrance and the need to pay tolls is the foundation of international trade."
The G7 leaders also emphasized the need to continue negotiations to reach "a comprehensive and unbreakable diplomatic agreement" aimed at confronting "Iran's threats in the region and beyond" and ensuring that "Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon."
Meanwhile, the first tankers carrying Iranian crude oil have left the Strait of Hormuz since the US naval blockade began two months ago, a ship-tracking website announced on June 17.
“At least two tankers of the National Iranian Tanker Company, including two very large supertankers carrying crude oil named 'Diona' and 'Hero 2,' have passed through the US Navy's maritime blockade zone, loading a total of 3.8 million barrels of Iranian crude oil from the country's terminals and are moving towards their destinations," Tanker Trackers reported.
The company then announced that a third Iranian tanker had passed through the US naval blockade.
US Not Releasing Details Of Agreement
Despite calls for the US government to release full text of the memorandum of understanding to be released, US Vice President JD Vance said on June 16 that details haven't been released because of ongoing diplomatic sensitivities involving both Tehran and regional mediators.
Speaking on The Megyn Kelly Show, Vance said there were "some sensitive diplomatic issues going on" and that Iran, along with mediators including Pakistan and Qatar, had asked Washington to proceed carefully with the process.
"There are sensitivities in the Arab and Muslim world that we try to be responsive and considerate of," Vance said, explaining the delay in publishing the document.
Vance also emphasized that the memorandum is only a preliminary framework rather than a detailed agreement.
The vice president suggested the United States is negotiating from a position of strength and could move on if future talks fail.
"If they stick to this agreement, I think it would be much better for the United States and it would be much better for Iran," Vance said.
"But if they don't abide by the agreement, the straits will remain open, we will still have done very significant damage to their nuclear program, and ultimately, we can get on with our lives as a country," he added.
US President Donald Trump said earlier on June 16 that negotiations have entered a second phase, which he described as easier than the first. The 60-day stage is expected to focus on talks over technical issues related to Iran's nuclear program and enriched uranium stockpiles.
- By RFE/RL
Deal States 'Loud And Clear' Iran Won't Have Nuclear Weapons, Trump Says
US President Donald Trump said a framework agreement to be signed with Iran this week makes it "loud and clear" that Tehran will not develop or acquire nuclear weapons as the two sides try to move toward ending their war.
"The only thing that really matters to me is Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, and it says it loud and clear," Trump told reporters at the G7 summit in France on June 16.
"All hell will rain down" on Iran if the Islamic republic moves to acquire a nuclear weapon, he added.
"We have our deal done with Iran, and it should be successful, it goes to a second stage, which I think would be actually easier," he said.
The United States and Iran electronically signed the memorandum of understanding on June 15 to end the three-month-long war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, according to senior US administration officials, with the deal set to be formally signed at a ceremony in Geneva, Switzerland, on June 19.
Trump gave no details of the framework agreement, which extends a current cease-fire by 60 days to allow for talks between the two sides on bringing a lasting end to the conflict that began on February 28 with US and Israeli air strikes on Iran.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told a briefing of foreign journalists on June 16 that the "most important" issue in the memorandum is "the declaration of an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon."
Trump has expressed frustration with Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, over continued strikes on targets inside Lebanon he says are aimed at militants of 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, although the European Union has only blacklisted its armed wing.
Trump told journalists at the G7 meeting on June 16 that while he has a great relationship with Netanyahu, the Israeli leader must be more "responsible" with respect to Lebanon.
Both Tehran and Washington have claimed victory with the deal amid mixed signals over its contents.
Iran's state-run Mehr news agency issued what it said were the details of the 14-point memorandum of understanding, saying it envisions talks concerning nuclear issues and the full lifting of sanctions against Tehran.
Washington has emphasized that the key element of any comprehensive peace deal would be to assure Iran does not achieve a nuclear weapon and that the Strait of Hormuz be open to the free flow of shipping.
The strait, a key artery for global oil and gas supplies, was effectively closed by Iran after the launch of the US-Israeli military campaign. The move rattled energy markets and upended the global economy.
Washington insisted that passage through the strait would remain toll-free for 60 days under the memorandum, with regional talks to determine long-term arrangements.
But ambiguity persists regarding fees for passage through the strategic waterway.
The Fars news agency, which is close to the hard-line Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, said that "it has been decided that marine traffic through the Gulf will be regulated by Iran in coordination with Oman" -- remarks that run counter to Washington's claims.
Analysts have said it will take weeks for transit to resume through the Strait of Hormuz, which before the war was a route for about one-fifth of global oil and gas supplies.
- By Ray Furlong and
- RFE/RL's Radio Farda
'Afraid To Talk': Iranians Say Climate Of Fear Worse Now Than Before The War
Over several months of war and then cease-fire between the United States and Iran, hearing the voices of ordinary Iranians has become increasingly difficult amid a growing climate of fear.
Some brave individuals have continued to speak to journalists from foreign news organizations, including RFE/RL's Radio Farda, though almost always insisting on anonymity. This was also the case as news broke that a framework deal had been announced by Washington and Tehran.
But in many cases even sources who have previously been prepared to bear witness to events in their country have gone silent.
'Cooperation With The Enemy'
Some have recounted being warned by security officials not to speak in particular to US state-funded Persian-language media, such as Radio Farda, amid a crackdown in which the Iranian authorities say they have charged increasing numbers with espionage for "cooperation with the enemy."
In recent weeks, Iranian residents have repeatedly mentioned fear of detention and prosecution, as well as the high probability of these outcomes as a result of communicating with Radio Farda.
"I have talked to several of my close friends who trust me, but they refused to send any recorded message even with changed name and voice or even if somebody else reads their message," said one Radio Farda contact who, like many others cited in this article, could not be named for security reasons.
"The Islamic republic's propaganda against Persian media, especially during the war, is a big fear factor. The pressure on the public is very intense. People don't want to risk any kind of detention or questioning from security forces," the source added.
An Iran-based analyst who was a regular Radio Farda interview guest before the war made a similar point.
"I am not able to talk to you on the record because I will be immediately picked up by security forces," said the analyst, who has been imprisoned in the past.
'No Interviews'
Another political analyst who also gave interviews to Radio Farda before the war added more detail.
"We have been told not to give any interview or news to Iranian media outside the country that are affiliated with Iran's enemies," the analyst said, referring to the United States and Israel, whose campaign of air strikes on Iran launched the conflict on February 28.
"I have no problem to give an interview to BBC Persian. Iranian authorities say the UK is not at war with Iran," the analyst added.
Still, the BBC has faced restrictions of its own. While correspondent Lyse Doucet was able to report from Tehran during the war, it was subject to condition that her material would not be used in the BBC's Persian-language output.
Reflecting on his experience reporting from Iran during the war, CNN correspondent Frederick Pleitgen also noted "a lot of people are afraid to speak to you."
It's unclear whether this situation will improve if, as announced, the United States and Iran sign a framework deal aimed at ending hostilities and beginning further talks on broader issues such as Tehran's nuclear program on June 19.
"While this deal was being negotiated and announced, the Islamic republic has not changed when it comes to its brutality against the citizens," noted a Tehran resident in his late 30s who was among those who gave Radio Farda their response to the deal.
'Silencing, Suppressing, Executing'
In any case, Iran's human rights record of suppressing dissent, jailing opponents, and executing political prisoners has been firmly established since the Islamic Revolution that brought the clerical establishment to power in 1979.
The degree of internal repression has waxed and waned over time.
Shiva Nazarahari from the Volunteer Committee to Follow-Up on the Situation of Detainees, an informal activist group, told Radio Farda that the current conditions recall the situation during the 1980s.
"It seems that a version of the Islamic republic has come back into power and is now governing and confronting protesters in the same way -- holding the same fear-based mindset of silencing, suppressing, executing, and stifling even the smallest voice -- so that it can completely control the political space," said Nazarahari, who is based in Slovenia.
The charges often come under legislation adopted following the 12-day war with Israel in June last year. This added harsher sentences for alleged spying and collaboration with Israel and the United States.
These kinds of allegations have played a major role in the current crackdown.
Iranian judiciary spokesman Asghar Jahangir recently said 3,121 people had been accused of cooperating with Israel, for example, though the specific time period he was referring to was not clear.
According to a report on Iran's state-affiliated Mehr news agency, 43 percent of these cases concerned "political, cultural, media, and propaganda activities."
"We are also seeing a very large number of people who are in prisons and were arrested during the war period for various reasons -- most of whom have ultimately been charged with accusations related to espionage," noted Nazarahari.
In late May, Amnesty International reported some 6,000 people had been "arbitrarily arrested" since the war broke out, including protesters, journalists, activists, and members of ethnic and religious minorities.
The Iran Human Rights Group, a watchdog based in Norway, reported on June 8 that at least 40 prisoners, including 19 arrested during protests in January, had been hanged on politically motivated charges so far this year.
Security forces killed thousands of people during a brutal crackdown on those protests, which took place in multiple cities across the country.
US, Iran Sign Framework Deal Electronically Ahead Of Official Ceremony
WASHINGTON -- The United States and Iran have electronically signed a framework deal to end the three-month-long war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, senior US administration officials said on June 15.
Speaking on background to reporters, the officials said US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance signed the agreement virtually, while Iran's parliament speaker and chief negotiator, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, signed on behalf of Tehran.
The deal is expected to be formally signed during a ceremony in Geneva, Switzerland, on June 19.
The full text of the memorandum is set to be released publicly within 24 to 48 hours, the officials said, insisting there would be "full transparency" and "no side deals."
The framework deal gives Washington and Tehran 60 days to negotiate a permanent settlement, including disputes over Iran's enriched uranium stockpile.
Strait Of Hormuz
Earlier on June 15, Washington and Tehran both confirmed a deal had been reached.
Iran's state-run Mehr news agency issued what it said were the details of the 14-point memorandum of understanding, saying it envisions 60 days of talks concerning nuclear issues and the full lifting of sanctions against Tehran.
Washington has emphasized that the key element of any comprehensive peace deal would be to assure Iran does not achieve a nuclear weapon and that the Strait of Hormuz be open to the free flow of shipping.
The strait, a key artery for global oil and gas supplies, was effectively closed by Iran after the launch of the US-Israeli military campaign on February 28. The move rattled energy markets and upended the global economy.
The senior US officials said they expect maritime traffic in the strait to increase significantly over the next two weeks.
"If you think of pre-conflict traffic as about 140 ships a day, I think we'll get a very long way there over the next couple of weeks," one official said.
The administration said around 25 ships are currently transiting daily, with expectations that there could be between 40 and 50 by the end of the week. Officials said the strait will be fully open by June 19.
Washington insisted that passage through the strait would remain toll-free for 60 days under the memorandum, with regional talks to determine long-term arrangements.
But ambiguity persists regarding fees for passage through the strategic waterway.
The Fars news agency, which is close to the hard-line Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), said that "it has been decided that marine traffic through the Gulf will be regulated by Iran in coordination with Oman" -- remarks that run counter to Washington's claims.
Esmail Baqaei, spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry, said at a press conference on June 15 that "for a specific period of time, we are going to arrange safe traffic in the Strait of Hormuz in accordance with the actions of the other side."
"We have always said that we are not looking to collect tolls, but we will design and collect the necessary fees for the services we will provide, navigation services, environmental protection, possibly ship insurance, and other services that will be provided by Iran and Oman," he said.
Frozen Assets
Reuters quoted a senior Iranian official as saying that, under the terms of the deal, the United States will release $25 billion of frozen Iranian assets while Tehran agrees not to produce or acquire nuclear weapons.
US officials flatly denied any money had changed hands, despite speculation that billions of dollars in Iranian assets had already been unfrozen.
"The answer to that is zero," one official said when asked whether any frozen Iranian assets had been released.
The US officials said sanctions relief would come only in phases and would be tied to "verifiable milestones," particularly related to Iran's nuclear activities and regional conduct.
Washington said its immediate priority is ensuring Iran does not rebuild what officials described as a "systematically destroyed" nuclear enrichment program.
"The more they behave like a normal global country, the more willing we'll be to open up their economy," one official said.
The US officials said Israeli troop withdrawals from Lebanon were not a condition of the agreement, but they framed the Iran deal as part of a broader effort to reduce regional hostilities.
Officials said the framework was "not a one-way cease-fire," warning Israel would retain the right to respond if Iranian-backed Hezbollah attacks continue.
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, although the European Union has only blacklisted its armed wing.
However, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said on June 15 that Tehran and Washington had agreed an "immediate and permanent" end to the military operations on "all fronts, including Lebanon." Islamabad has bene a key mediator in the conflict.
The administration also revealed that direct talks between Israel and Lebanon are under way, calling them historic.
Officials said the broader goal is to create a "new framework for the region" focused on diplomacy and economic cooperation rather than proxy warfare.
Mixed Feelings In Iran
Ordinary Iranians are still digesting what the framework deal means for them, with some cautiously optimistic and others hesitant.
"I hope they sign the agreement so that we can have relative peace," a woman in her 50s told RFE/RL's Radio Farda. She, like others who contacted RFE/RL, opted to withhold her name due to security fears.
She said the conflict was difficult on people and that "the stress of war with stay will us for years."
She hoped for better relations with the United States but added that is unlikely to happen as long as Iran's clerical establishment is in power.
"I just hope there is no more war. It only made things worse," she said.
A man in his 30s also expressed joy with the cessation of hostilities but was not sure how a final deal would impact Iran's domestic affairs.
"If it creates more openings and improves the economy, then it will be a positive thing," he told Radio Farda, hoping it would weaken the Islamic republic.
"I hope in the long-term it will lead to the fall of the Islamic republic, because they don't care about people," he added.
Another Iranian in their late 30s argued that many see the deal as a "short-term arrangement" and so they are "not hopeful about it." Still, they noted staunch opposition from some hard-liners in Iran, and concluded that the deal with the United States will be likely part of a "process to change the regime from the inside."
Qatari Officials Arrive In Tehran To Press Peace Process
Qatari negotiators flew to Tehran early on June 14 in a bid to finalize an agreement between the United States and Iran to end the monthslong conflict, according to multiple news outlets, but renewed Israeli attacks on Iran's ally Hezbollah in Lebanon earlier the same day could potentially delay the signature.
The news that senior Qatari Foreign Ministry officials had been dispatched to the Iranian capital comes a day after US President Donald Trump posted on social media that a deal with Iran would be signed on June 14 -- his 80th birthday.
Writing on Truth Social on June 13, the American president noted that "The Deal is scheduled to get signed tomorrow, and immediately after it is signed, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN TO ALL," adding that "A WALL TO NO NUCLEAR WEAPON" for Iran.
Hopes for an imminent deal were further boosted when Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharifi added that Islamabad was ready to prepare for an "electronic signing" to be followed by technical-level talks in the coming week.
Both Qatar and Pakistan have been mediating between the two sides in a bid to end the war that began with US-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28.
Iran Plays Down Chances Of Signing Deal
However, Iran's Foreign Ministry has played down the chances of an agreement being signed on June 14 but added it could happen "in the coming days."
Some details about the content of a memorandum of understanding between the Washington and Tehran have emerged, with Reuters quoting a "senior Iranian official" as saying the text stipulates that Tehran would immediately open the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for the United States lifting its naval blockade of Iranian ports.
Washington would also release $25 billion of Iran's frozen assets, including via direct cash transfers, impose no new sanctions until a final deal is reached, and waive oil sanctions that it has imposed on Tehran.
On the nuclear issue, the text reportedly includes Iran agreeing to neither produce nor purchase nuclear weapons, enrich no new uranium until a final deal is concluded, and dilute its highly enriched uranium stockpile inside the country -- although an exact mechanism for that still needs to be worked out.
A final deal would then be discussed within the 60 days of agreement by the two sides.
Israel, Hezbollah Exchange Strikes
Any agreement could, be in jeopardy after Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah exchanged fire again over the weekend. 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, although the European Union has only blacklisted its armed wing.
Iran's chief negotiator and speaker of Parliament Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf lashed out against the United States in a post on X after Israel launched new attacks on Hezbollah targets in Dahiyeh, a southern suburb of Beirut earlier on June 14.
Qalibaf said Israel's "incursion into Dahiyeh has once again shown that America either lacks the will to fulfill its commitments or the ability to do so. By giving the green light to the regime, you cannot gain concessions. The game of bad cop and good cop is outdated. If you lack the will and ability to fulfill your commitments, speaking of continuing the path is not possible."
Israel said it had attacked the southern parts of Lebanon after Hezbollah launched three projectiles toward communities in northern Israel.
"Israel will not tolerate firing at its territory," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz said in a statement issued on June 14.
Mohammad Jafar Assadi, deputy commander of Iran's top joint military command, Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, also told Iranian state media that the Israeli attacks "won't go unanswered."
In a Truth Social post later in the day, Trump said the attack on Beirut "should not have happened, particularly on a special day when we are so close to a Peace Deal with Iran."
While highlighting that Israel has "the right to defend itself against threats," the US president questioned the scale of the attack to which Israel "was responding."
"Very small and meaningless, nobody was hurt, injured, or killed, and should not disrupt this important process," Trump wrote, warning against further attacks by both Israel and Lebanon.
US-Iran Accord Could Hinge On Israel, Says US Security Expert Matt Reisener
WASHINGTON -- Efforts to reach a preliminary agreement between the United States and Iran have intensified despite a spate of military exchanges between the two sides that have shaken an already fragile cease-fire.
Matt Reisener, senior national-security adviser at the Center for Maritime Strategy, discusses with RFE/RL in an interview why diplomacy and military pressure are likely to continue side by side, what Iran and the United States each believes it has to gain from talks, and why any agreement may actually hinge on Israel.
RFE/RL: Where does the US-Iran-Israel confrontation stand today? Are we genuinely moving toward de-escalation?
Matt Reisener: We're in something of a holding pattern, and there are three big issues.
First, the US and Iran still have fundamental disconnects on many key issues. [US] President [Donald] Trump has been very clear that Iran can't have a credible pathway to a nuclear weapon, while Iran is still holding firm that it isn't willing to give up more on this issue than what it agreed to in the JCPOA agreement signed back in 2015.
It's a similar issue when it comes to the Strait of Hormuz. America's position is the strait has to remain permanently open for ships to transit, whereas Iran still has ambitions to exercise some level of permanent control over that waterway.
Both sides view their counterparts as having a credibility deficit. Why would Iran trade in what they think is a winning hand, with them in control of the Strait of Hormuz? After all, Trump originally walked away from the JCPOA. Iran doesn't want to give up what it feels it has gained in the conflict in exchange for an agreement the US might not honor.
From America's perspective, how do you trust Iran is going to adhere to the terms of a deal if you unfreeze assets and provide sanctions relief? There is so much history on both sides of these negotiations that makes each party unwilling to meet the other halfway.
Finally, you have external disruptions, like what we've seen in Lebanon, that continue to short-circuit the talks. It's hard to move diplomacy forward when you're expending all your diplomatic capital trying to prevent both sides from escalating further. The fighting in Lebanon has really emerged as a clear impediment to a possible deal and may be something the US has to address before negotiations can move forward.
RFE/RL: If a peace framework emerges, which issue will be the most difficult to resolve: Iran's nuclear program, sanctions relief, regional influence, or security guarantees surrounding the Strait of Hormuz?
Reisener: None of these issues are going to be easy to resolve. But I'll say the nuclear program for the sake of discussion.
Even if Iran agrees in principle to limitations on its nuclear program, do you reduce sanctions or unfreeze assets before it begins dismantling that program, or after? Iran isn't going to hand over its enriched uranium based solely on promises of future sanctions relief.
Can you negotiate a phased agreement in which sanctions are gradually reduced and the blockade gradually rolled back as Iran surrenders portions of its nuclear infrastructure?
Israel complicates the question. It may or may not accept an agreement that limits but does not completely eliminate Iran's civilian nuclear program.
[Israeli] Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu has spent years presenting Iran as an existential threat to his constituents. There is a real question as to whether the right flank of his coalition would accept an agreement reached by Washington if it resembles the JCPOA in any way. If not, this conflict could simply resume in months or years.
RFE/RL: Many people associate the Strait of Hormuz primarily with oil prices. From a national security perspective, could the greater long-term risk actually involve global supply chains, defense production, and military logistics?
Reisener: The biggest long-term concern would be permanent Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz because it would set a precedent that other actors can similarly try to exercise control over critical maritime choke points.
If that happens, you're going to see other countries seriously consider following Iran's example. Indonesia could seek greater control over the Strait of Malacca. Russia could press its claims in narrow Arctic waterways along its coastline.
Freedom of navigation through international waterways is not just an American interest; it's a global necessity. Letting that become a casualty of this conflict would be catastrophic.
Certainly, supply-chain disruptions could expand beyond the Strait of Hormuz into other critical maritime choke points. That's when you would run into major global problems extending far beyond this particular conflict.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
- By RFE/RL
Trump Announces 'Great Settlement' Reached With Iran, Says To Be Signed 'Quickly'
US President Donald Trump has claimed that a "great settlement" has been reached with Iran to end the Middle East war and that the agreement could be signed as early as this weekend, possibly in Europe.
"We just made a great settlement of the war with Iran," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on June 11.
He added, though, that the agreement is still "subject to finalization of documents, which should get done, over the next few days, probably have a signing, maybe in Europe."
Asked by reporters if Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei had approved the deal, Trump said: "I understand the answer is yes."
Trump described the deal as "a very strong memorandum of understanding [MOU]," adding it was "a little conceptual, but it's something that's going to get done."
“We have a deal that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, which was the whole purpose of what we had to go through to get this. So, it's a very big thing,” Trump told reporters.
Trump said he would not be able to attend himself a signing ceremony, but he added that Vice President JD Vance could.
However, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei appeared to downplay the prospects for a quick signing, saying Iran has not yet reached a final decision on an agreement.
He added that many details had been finalized but that the "Americans keep changing their positions," according to Iran's Tasnim news agency. There has been no official comment from the government.
Trump has often declared that a deal with Tehran was imminent to end the fighting only to have negotiations break off without a final agreement, leading to renewed threats and outbreaks of air strikes from the US, Iran, and Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said it was grateful for any deal negotiated by Trump, but it pointed out it was not a party to the MOU.
Trump said the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway that Iran effectively closed after the war began on February 28, will also be opened “as soon as we have it signed.”
"The strait will officially open as soon as we sign, which could be soon, very soon, maybe over the weekend in Europe," he said
He also said that he had spoken to leaders in the region, including allies in the Persian Gulf and Netanyahu, adding: “The whole Middle East is very happy.”
The latest zig-zag announcement of a tentative settlement comes hours after Trump said he had canceled strikes that he had threatened to hit Iran with later on June 11.
"Based on the fact that discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran have been brought to the highest level of Iranian leadership and approved, I have, as President of the United States of America, cancelled the scheduled strikes and bombings against Iran this evening,” Trump said in a post.
Trump added that "discussions and final points" have been approved by the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, and others.
"The Naval Blockade will remain in full force and effect until this Transaction is finalized -- Time and place of the signing to be announced shortly," he said.
Shortly before Trump's comments, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, a senior Iranian official, warned the United States against becoming entangled in an "endless quagmire."
"Wrong strategies and impulsive decisions will reset the entire board for the worse, explode energy infrastructure and markets and create an endless quagmire that you will be stuck in for years," Qalibaf, who is Iran's parliamentary speaker and chief negotiator, said in a June 11 post on X.
Earlier on the same day, Trump said the United States would conduct fresh military strikes on Iran.
"The United States will be hitting Iran...VERY HARD TONIGHT," he wrote in a Truth Social post, also threatening to seize Iran's oil infrastructure facilities, including Kharg Island, the country's main oil export hub.
His comments came after Washington and Tehran exchanged attacks for a second consecutive night on June 10, deepening one of the most serious escalations in hostilities since a fragile cease-fire took hold in April.
Iran claimed it had fully closed the Strait of Hormuz, a key artery for global oil and gas supplies, following overnight US strikes on targets in the country.
Iran responded by launching missile and drone attacks against US-linked targets in Bahrain and Kuwait.
As Tehran warned that any vessel attempting to transit the strategic waterway would be targeted, Iranian state media later reported that two ships had come under attack.
US Central Command (CENTCOM) disputed those claims, saying commercial shipping continued to move through the strait, which usually accounts for the passage of one-fifth of global oil and gas supplies.
With reporting by RFE/RL's Washington correspondent Alex Raufoglu
- By RFE/RL
Trump Threatens To Attack Iran Again If Peace Deal Not Finalized
President Donald Trump said the United States is going to attack Iran "very hard" if a deal aimed at ending the three-month war is not finalized.
"We're going to be attacking them, attacking them very hard," Trump told reporters at the White House, adding that the Islamic republic would be hit on June 10.
His comments came a day after Iran's downing of an US Army Apache helicopter in the Strait of Hormuz. In response, the United States said it launched "self-defense" strikes against Iran on June 9. Iran said on June 10 that it launched strikes at US bases in the region in a tit-for-tat attack.
In comments on X, Iranian President Masud Pezeshkian said the country would stand firm against any pressure and said threats by Trump were a sign of Washington's desperation.
Trump, speaking to reporters, also claimed that the United States has been taking oil out of Iran.
"I'm just announcing today for the first time, but we've been taking out millions of barrels of oil, millions of barrels every night," Trump said, adding that Iran "just figured it out."
On the negotiations with Iran, Trump added: "We want a deal that is meaningful, we want a deal that works. We were really close to a deal, but they keep tapping us along, they keep playing us for suckers."
Trump said Iran has already agreed to not develop a nuclear weapon -- one of Washington's core demands -- but the agreement still needs to be signed.
Earlier on June 10, the UN nuclear watchdog's 35-nation board of governors approved a US-backed resolution demanding Iran declare its remaining stockpile of enriched uranium and allow inspectors into the country.
Iran's ambassador to Austria, Reza Najafi, told AFP that the resolution was "counterproductive" and an obstacle to talks with Washington.
At a Security Council meeting about the Middle East, UN chief Antonio Guterres suggested that an imperfect cease-fire was better than a return to full-scale war.
"We should not minimize the risks of a lesser fire becoming full fire, or in another word: full war," he said.
Earlier, Trump said Iran's military has been "completely defeated," warning Tehran would "pay the price" for taking "too long to negotiate a deal" with Washington.
Tehran and Washington have been locked in negotiations since April 8, when a cease-fire halted the US-Israeli bombing campaign against Iran.
But several thorny issues have stood in the way of an agreement, including the fate of Iran's enriched uranium, Israel's ongoing war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Tehran's demand for Washington to release its frozen funds held abroad.
- By Kian Sharifi and
- RFE/RL's Radio Farda
Iran Declares End To Strikes On Israel In Credibility Operation
Iran’s military central command has announced a halt to its strikes against Israel, declaring it had delivered a "painful response" to Israel over strikes on Beirut's Dahiyeh district -- but warned that any continuation of Israeli aggression would bring "far more intense and crushing" retaliation.
The announcement on June 8 came shortly after US President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that "both sides, Israel and Iran, are looking to do an immediate cease-fire," adding that final negotiations on a US-Iran peace deal were proceeding and that a US blockade of Iranian ports would remain in place until a final agreement is reached.
In its statement, the Khatam Al-Anbiya Central Headquarters didn't announce a cease-fire per se but a completed operation -- with conditions attached. It framed the pause not as de-escalation but as a message delivered, in an attempt to preserve the appearance of strength while taking the off-ramp Washington was signaling.
That is precisely the operation analysts had described even as the strikes were underway. Iran had put a specific threat on the table: attack the Dahiyeh, where Iran’s Lebanese ally is based, and Iran hits northern Israel. When Israel struck Beirut's suburbs, Tehran had little choice but to follow through or lose the credibility of every future threat it makes.
"This was largely about preserving the credibility of a threat Iran had already made public," Mohammad Ghaedi, a lecturer at George Washington University, told RFE/RL’s Radio Farda. "The responses are limited, and none of the parties want this to lead to an all-out war."
Mehrdad Khansari, a London-based analyst and a former Iranian diplomat, framed it similarly.
Tehran's calculation, he argued, rested on a specific reading of Washington's constraints -- that the United States, facing the UN General Assembly, a closed Strait of Hormuz, and a rattled global economy, would pressure Israel to keep its response limited.
"Iran is demonstrating capability," Khansari said. "The message is: I am standing firm, I am defending my allies, and I will not allow you to exploit what you perceive as weakness."
The Iranian statement tracks that logic.
It is designed to look like restraint while simultaneously raising the stated ceiling for the next round -- the phrase "far more intense and crushing than before" ensuring that standing down today is not read as backing down.
What Iran achieved, if the pause holds, is a return to the status quo ante with its deterrence posture nominally intact. It honored a public commitment, absorbed whatever Israeli response follows, and exited before the exchange could spiral into something neither side can control.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a short video released by his office on June 8 that “fire is on hold” against Iran, after Tehran ended its attacks on Israel. But speaking for the first time after Iran launched missiles at Israel, he warned that should Tehran “make the mistake of resuming attacks against us, we will respond with full force.”
Trump's post suggested both sides were moving toward an immediate cease-fire, but Israeli officials have at times acted independently of Washington's requests throughout this conflict.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Trump said on June 7 that Netanyahu “won’t have any choice” but to accept whatever deal the United States reaches with Iran.
“I call the shots. I call all the shots. He doesn’t call the shots,” Trump said, despite Israel launching strikes on Iran early on June 8.
With reporting by Reza Jamali of RFE/RL's Radio Farda
Iran, Israel Exchange Fresh Strikes As Trump Pushes For Talks
Iran launched ballistic missiles at northern Israel on June 7, describing the attack as retaliation for Israeli strikes in Lebanon. Israel responded with a "large-scale strike" on Iran's strategic defense systems. US President Donald Trump urged both sides to avoid further escalation.
- By RFE/RL
Iran, Israel Exchange Strikes As Trump Urges Them To 'Stop Shooting'
US President Donald Trump has urged Iran and Israel to de-escalate tensions as the two countries have exchanged air strikes over the past 24 hours.
Writing on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump said simply: "Israel and Iran must immediately stop 'shooting.'"
Trump had earlier warned against the resumption of retaliatory attacks, telling an Axios reporter on June 7 that he planned to tell Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to refrain from retaliating against an Iranian missile barrage as the fragile cease-fire in the Middle East appeared to be in danger.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reported several waves of Iranian missile attacks on Israeli territory early on June 8.
"Defense systems are operating to intercept the threat," the IDF said in a post on X.
The Israeli military also confirmed that its air force struck several targets in the petrochemical complex in Mahshahr, southwestern Iran, on June 8.
"The Israeli Air Force struck military targets belonging to the Iranian terror regime in western and central Iran a short while ago," the IDF wrote on X.
Iranian media reported that a strike on the Karun Petrochemical Company in Mahshahr had caused damage to parts of the facility.
Iranian state TV said explosions were heard in cities across the country, including Tehran, Karaj, Tabriz, and Isfahan.
The strikes come after Iran fired a barrage of missiles toward Israel in its first attacks on the country since a shaky cease-fire took effect on April 8 between Tehran and Washington, saying it was in retaliation for Tel Aviv's military strikes on Beirut.
Despite Iran's action, Trump had said a deal with Tehran to turn a cease-fire into a peace settlement was still "very close," adding he did not want Iran's missile strikes on Israel to sabotage the peace process.
Trump told Fox News on June 7 that he was "not happy" about Israel's attacks on Lebanon before being quoted by media outlet Axios that the Iranian strikes "didn't hit anyone. I hope Israel doesn't respond."
"I am going to call Bibi right now and tell him not to retaliate," Trump was quoted as telling Axios reporter Barak Ravid in a phone interview, using the Israeli leader's nickname.
"Israel had its strike and Iran had its strike. We don't need another one," Trump said, according to Ravid.
"We're very close. I would say an agreement would be signed on Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday of this coming week. And now this takes place," Trump told Fox, adding Iran needs to "get back to the table and make a deal."
Trump later told The Financial Times that the latest Iranian strikes would not impact current negotiations with Tehran and that "the deal is going on."
The White House did not respond to requests for comment on the latest strikes or whether they were carried out in coordination with the United States.
Luke Coffey, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute focusing on national security, said the latest escalation between Iran and Israel "perhaps is the clearest indication yet that we are nowhere close to a long-lasting peace settlement with Iran."
"It is also a reminder that Israel will do whatever it believes is necessary to defend its national interests, even if that means going against the reported wishes of the US president," he told RFE/RL.
IRGC Confirms Attack
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) confirmed it had launched missiles toward Israel on June 7, saying they were in retaliation for Israeli attacks on Lebanon earlier in the day.
It added that "more crushing and regretful blows" would follow if Tel Aviv continues its offensive in Lebanon.
While talks between the United States and Iran to end the war in the Middle East have appeared to stall over key issues such as the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and Tehran's nuclear ambitions, Iranian officials have maintained that the conflict between Israel and Lebanon is also central to efforts to end the regional war.
The IRGC said it hit the Ramat David airbase southeast of Haifa with ballistic missiles. Israel has not confirmed the specific site of the attack.
The IDF said Tehran "committed a grave mistake" by firing the missiles.
Israel has been launching strikes targeting militants in Lebanon from Hezbollah since March 2, two days after the start of the US-Israeli war with Iran, when Hezbollah forces opened fire in support of Tehran.
Hezbollah -- which has been labeled a terrorist organization by Washington, while the EU has only blacklisted its armed wing -- is a militant group and political party that controls much of southern Lebanon.
With reporting by Washington correspondent Alex Raufoglu, RFE/RL's Radio Farda, and AFP
Any Iran Deal Must Be Measured By Actions, Not Promises, Says Former Ambassador Lisa Gable
WASHINGTON -- As US President Donald Trump signals an agreement with Iran could be within reach, major questions remain over Tehran's nuclear ambitions, regional security, and the durability of any future deal.
Amid continuing tensions across the Middle East -- from southern Lebanon to the Strait of Hormuz -- RFE/RL spoke with Lisa Gable, a former US ambassador who served during the George W. Bush administration and is now the chairwoman of World In 2050, about the prospects for diplomacy, the challenges of verification, and the broader geopolitical stakes.
RFE/RL: One of the biggest questions is whether diplomacy can stay on track amid ongoing tensions and potential cease-fire violations. How vulnerable are the current talks to developments on the ground, particularly when a single military incident can quickly change the political environment?
Gable: It can, but we haven't seen it do so yet. One of the things you see in this particular situation that is very different from what we've had in the past when dealing with the Middle East and Iran is that, through the work of the first Trump administration and the Abraham Accords, you are seeing a much stronger form of communication, engagement, and conversation with allies in the region.
If we think through the history of that region, the United States has never had a stronger relationship with countries like Qatar, the UAE, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. Having those countries be part of the Abraham Accords and having those relationships develop has changed the dynamics of what we're seeing today.
RFE/RL: Iranian officials have publicly pointed to mixed signals from Washington. Can diplomacy succeed when both sides question each other's intentions?
Gable: More sophisticated players realize there are multiple levels of negotiation. You've got people talking at different levels in different governments and in different areas of the region.
We have military conversations going on. We have public conversations that guide public discourse, but they're not always fully representative of everything going on behind the scenes.
I would be reluctant to make any prediction right now and would actually question who could, given the different levels of conversation that are taking place.
RFE/RL: Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently suggested Iran is discussing issues it previously refused to negotiate. Do you see that as evidence of meaningful movement, or is it too early to interpret such signals as a breakthrough?
Gable: It's too early to predict. We've seen different points in the conversation, and we've seen reversals in the conversation. But I have great respect for Secretary Rubio. As I mentioned, there are different levels of conversation taking place.
What we also don't have a full grasp of is who's really in charge in Iran. We've had a lot of changes in the hierarchy, and it would not be surprising to discover that some players in the country might be having one set of conversations while others are having different conversations.
At this stage of the game, I would listen to what Rubio is saying and use that as guidance.
RFE/RL: If the United States continues to emphasize sanctions relief and access to international commerce, while Iran remains focused on economic recovery, which side currently holds the stronger negotiating position?
Gable: It comes down to the unity of allied nations involved in this conversation. The commercial aspects of this are affected by the Strait of Hormuz, but any disruption there affects many countries. It's not only affecting the United States; it's also affecting China and Russia. That works to our benefit, but at the same time, that level of basic commercial activity -- particularly the movement of ships -- is going to be the primary concern for everyone.
RFE/RL: How important is bipartisan support if any agreement is going to survive beyond the current political cycle?
Gable: We're entering a very highly contested election in November. To the degree that we can get some level of bipartisan support, we are always stronger. That vote [NOTE: The US House of Representatives approved a war powers resolution on June 3 aimed at curbing Trump's military campaign against Iran] didn't take place with a broad number of Republicans, but you did see some Republicans move over to the Democratic side. That is a signal.
The question is: What conversations are going on in the background as everyone seeks a resolution that brings peace, security, and safety, while also giving us the financial flexibility we need within the markets?
RFE/RL: Looking beyond Washington and Tehran, which external actors -- whether Gulf states, European allies, or regional mediators -- are most critical to turning a temporary arrangement into lasting peace?
Gable: The Gulf states. As I said earlier, the Trump administration deserves credit for building closer relationships within the Gulf during the first Trump administration. The European allies, to some degree -- except for countries in the Balkans, Poland, and some others -- have tried to maintain their distance, which is very unfortunate because we are essentially protecting their rights and access to energy, upon which they are very reliant.
I would hope our European allies would be more supportive of any American initiative, but they have not been to date.
RFE/RL: Should the ultimate goal be a narrow agreement focused solely on the nuclear issue, or a broader framework that also addresses regional security, proxy groups, and economic normalization? Which approach offers the best chance of lasting stability?
Gable: It's a multistep process, and again, it depends on veracity and the ability to trust. I go back to Ronald Reagan's phrase: "Trust, but verify." Can we verify what's happening on the nuclear front? At the same time, can we monitor the actions of the Iranians as they relate to the United States and allied countries like Israel?
Israel has faced some of the greatest challenges over the last several years from Iran-backed proxies, and so we'll be watching that very closely.