Middle East
ICC Arrest Warrant Will Dog Netanyahu Even If He Never Faces The Hague
It's not clear if Benjamin Netanyahu will ever face prosecution after the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant against him for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
But even if he never appears before The Hague, the charges and the stigma they carry promise to dog the embattled Israeli prime minister.
Netanyahu has defended himself against the charges related to Israel's ongoing war in the Gaza Strip, and Israel does not recognize the Netherlands-based court's jurisdiction.
But there is no question that carrying out his duties as prime minister just became more difficult for Netanyahu.
Bound By Rome
Anthony Dworkin, a senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told RFE/RL that while Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute that established the ICC, "there are 124 countries around the world that are."
Those states now "all have a legal obligation to arrest Netanyahu" if he enters their territory, Dworkin said, and that is going to impose "far-reaching limitations on the countries that he'll be able to go to."
As precedent, Dworkin pointed to the complications Russian President Vladimir Putin has encountered since the ICC issued an arrest warrant against him in March 2023 related to alleged war crimes against Ukraine.
"He's had to change his travel plans pretty significantly," Dworkin said, singling out what was called a mutual decision for him not to attend the BRICS summit in South Africa in July 2023.
This September, ICC member Mongolia faced immense pressure to arrest Putin upon his arrival for a visit. It failed to heed the calls, in a move that was seen as exposing the limits of the court responsible for prosecuting individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.
The ICC announcement on November 21 came six months after the court's chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, first announced he was seeking warrants not only against Netanyahu, but against former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Muhammad Deif, a military commander of the U.S.- and EU-designated terrorist group Hamas whom Israel claimed in July to have killed.
Deif is accused of crimes connected to Hamas's assault on Israel on October 7, 2023, that killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians. Netanyahu and Gallant are charged in relation to Israel's retaliatory invasion of Gaza, where more than 43,000 people have been killed, according to Palestinian officials.
Rejecting Israel's challenges to the charges on November 21, the ICC announced that it was issuing warrants against all three, working from the assumption that Deif may still be alive.
Depending On Cooperation
The ICC has no powers to enforce its warrant accusing Netanyahu of criminal responsibility for war crimes, including starvation as a method of warfare, and crimes against humanity including "murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.”
Relying on cooperation, Khan has urged all the court's member states to act on the warrants and for nonmembers to work toward "upholding international law."
Among the latter would be the United States, a key Israeli ally that does not recognize the ICC's jurisdiction over this matter and which "fundamentally" rejected the court's decision to issue the warrant.
All European Union states are ICC members, however.
Dworkin noted that "European countries have been quite divided" in responding to Israel's actions in the Palestinian enclave, most of which is in ruins after a year of relentless Israeli air and ground operations.
"Some countries have been increasingly critical of Israel's actions," Dworkin said, while "other countries have tried to walk more of a middle path, criticizing some aspects but broadly supporting Israel."
Now, even a vocal Israel supporter like Germany will have to weigh its support with its commitments to the rule of law.
"We will see a difference in the way that countries look at him, talk about him, and so on," Dworkin said.
Israel has already canceled a visit next week by Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp following his assurances that the Netherlands would uphold the ICC warrants.
France has said it supports ICC prosecutor Khan's actions, and Italy has said it would have to arrest Netanyahu if he arrived in the country.
The Outliers
At the same time, the ruling could have some unintended ramifications.
Viktor Orban -- the prime minister of EU-member Hungary who is often at odds with Brussels on hot-button topics such as relations with Putin -- has already positioned itself as an outlier.
On November 22, Orban accused the ICC of “interfering in an ongoing conflict for political purposes” and said that its warrant against Netanyahu undermined international law.
Orban said he would defy the warrant by inviting Netanyahu to Hungary.
The ICC could also face more backlash in the United States from the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump, who has cast himself as a greater ally to Israel than outgoing President Joe Biden.
Trump's nominee to serve as his national security adviser, Republican congressman Mike Waltz, on November 21 warned that "you can expect a strong response to the anti-Semitic bias of the ICC" when Trump takes office on January 20.
Netanyahu's office, too, has denounced the ICC's decision to issue the warrants as "anti-Semitic," and some observers say Netanyahu could ride such sentiment to get a political boost at home. Support for Netanyahu and his right-wing government fell sharply following the October 7 attack, but has recently improved, according to opinion polls.
"There's universal condemnation across the political spectrum in Israel, so it doesn't hurt him domestically at all," Khaled Elgindy, an analyst at the Middle East Institute in Washington, told RFE/RL. "Maybe [it] helps him a little bit, because people will rally around the flag."
With reporting by Todd Prince in Washington
More News
- By Kian Sharifi
12 Days Of War: Takeaways From The Israel-Iran Conflict
After 12 days of unprecedented direct hostilities, Israel and Iran have agreed to a cease-fire that has brought a tense and uneasy calm to the region.
The war, marked by devastating air strikes, missile barrages, and covert operations, has left both countries reeling. While the immediate fighting has stopped, the political, military, and nuclear implications of this brief but intense war are only beginning to unfold.
Both countries have rushed to claim success, with the Israelis insisting they accomplished their goals and the Iranians claiming to have “imposed” the cease-fire on their archfoe.
Yet beneath the official statements, analysts warn that the cease-fire is fragile, the strategic balance has shifted, and the risk of renewed conflict or dangerous escalation remains high.
Israel's Gains, And A Critical Omission
Israel’s government declared it had “achieved all the objectives of Operation Rising Lion,” citing the reported destruction of key Iranian nuclear and missile sites, the elimination of senior military leaders, and air superiority over Tehran.
“Israel was able to strike key military strategic governmental targets quite effectively,” Farzan Sabet, a managing researcher at the Geneva Graduate Institute, told RFE/RL.
He said the conflict highlighted the extent of the Israeli infiltration of Iran’s security apparatus, adding the country's intelligence agency Mossad "was able to basically create a legion of defectors who were probably one of the elements in this war that caused the greatest damage.”
Butm despite Israeli and US bombings, Iran’s nuclear program, while damaged, is not completely dismantled -- some enrichment capacity and expertise survived, and the risk of a covert Iranian nuclear breakout remains.
Nuclear nonproliferation expert and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution Robert Einhorn noted that more than 400 kilograms of Iran’s uranium stockpile enriched to 60 percent purity had been moved and had not been accounted for.
“Conceivably, if under Iran's possession, [the stockpile] could be taken to some secret location and used in a nuclear weapons program,” Einhorn told RFE/RL.
Iran's Weakened Position And Shattered Prestige
Iran’s leadership survived, but at a steep price. Its nuclear, missile, and drone arsenals were severely degraded; much of its senior military leadership was killed; its air defenses failed to protect the country from deep Israeli strikes; and the Islamic republic finds itself politically weakened.
Sabet called it “a catastrophe for Iran,” while Einhorn said, “Iran is weaker and more internationally isolated than it was two weeks ago.”
The Islamic republic’s claim as a guarantor of national security, a key pillar of its legitimacy, has been badly damaged given its inability to stave off Israeli air attacks and protect its military leadership, which was mostly eliminated on the first day of war.
“It’s a massive blow to the prestige of [the Islamic republic],” Sabet said.
The Nuclear Dilemma: Deterrence Or Restraint?
The war’s most dangerous legacy may be the incentive it gives Iran to pursue nuclear weapons. Iran has previously said that, while it does not seek nuclear weapons, it will reconsider its doctrine if it faces an existential threat.
Before And After: The Iranian Nuclear Sites Targeted By US Air Strikes
The war sends mixed signals to Iran’s leadership. Some Iranian factions may see the attacks as a warning not to cross the nuclear threshold. But with its deterrent eroded, others may view nuclear arms as the only reliable guarantee of the Iranian establishment’s survival.
“The pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability can be very, very risky for the country,” Einhorn said. “There will be hard-liners in Iran who will decide that the only way of deterring foreign attacks...is acquiring nuclear weapons. And it's not clear at this stage which of those groups will prevail.”
But Sabet is skeptical of Iran’s technical and organizational capacity to pull off a covert nuclear breakout, not least because of how compromised it is.
“I wouldn't put much trust with a system as thoroughly infiltrated and unreliable and incompetent as the Islamic republic,” he said, adding that if Iran were to conduct a nuclear test, “we could see nuclear escalation against Iran, which I think is highly dangerous.”
A Fragile Pause, But Not A Lasting Peace
The cease-fire has brought a tenuous pause to the fighting. Israel can claim a military victory, but the political and strategic endgame remains unsettled.
The Islamic republic is battered and its deterrence eroded, but it survives -- at least for now.
Israel may have won the battle, but the war’s core dilemmas -- nuclear risk, regional instability, and mutual mistrust -- remain unresolved.
According to Einhorn, only diplomatic efforts can ensure that Iran’s nuclear material is truly accounted for and that the region steps back from the brink.
"The missing 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium...could become the basis of a covert nuclear weapons program," he said. "And this element cannot be dealt with by a military attack. It can only be dealt with through diplomacy."
With contributions from Amra Zejneli, the director of RFE/RL's Kosovo Service
- By RFE/RL
Trump Says Cease-Fire In Effect After Expressing Anger Over Violations
(Editor's Note: Coarse language in fourth paragraph)
US President Donald Trump claimed a cease-fire between Iran and Israel was “in effect” on June 24 after lashing out at both sides for violating the agreement he brokered and calling for calm.
Taking questions as he prepared to leave Washington for a NATO summit at The Hague, Trump appeared angry with Israel over reports it was again striking targets inside the territory of its archenemy despite an agreement to hold fire.
“They [Iran] violated it, but Israel violated it, too,” Trump said. He added, ”I’m not happy with Israel."
“I’m not happy with them. I’m not happy with Iran, either, but I’m really unhappy with Israel going out this morning,” Trump said adding, “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f*** they’re doing.”
Israel said it struck Iranian radar stations near Tehran and accused Iran of launching missiles into its airspace after the truce was supposed to take effect. The Iranian military denied firing on Israel, state media reported.
Trump, who arrived later in Amsterdam to attend the NATO summit, said later the deal was saved. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said he held off on a tougher strike against Iran after speaking to Trump.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said he told US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth that his country would respect the cease-fire unless Iran violated it. Iranian President Masud Pezeshkian likewise said Iran would honor the ceasefire as long as Israel did, according to Iranian media.
Katz said earlier in the day that he had ordered the military to launch new strikes on targets in Tehran in response to what he said were Iranian missiles fired in a "blatant violation" of the cease-fire.
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) admitted it had launched 14 missiles at military targets inside Israel, but claimed the operation was carried out minutes before the cease-fire took effect, according to the Tasnim news agency, which is affiliated with the group.
Pezeshkian announced the "end of the 12-day war" imposed by Israel in a message to the nation carried by IRNA.
"Today, after the heroic resistance of our great nation, whose determination makes history, we are witnessing the establishment of a truce and the ending of this 12-day war imposed by the adventurism and provocation" of Israel, Pezeshkian said.
Earlier, Trump said no Americans were harmed and hardly any damage was done when Iran fired missiles at the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar on June 23, adding in a social media post that he hopes both Iran and Israel will "now proceed to Peace and Harmony."
Trump called it a "very weak response" to the US "obliteration" of Iran's nuclear facilities in an attack over the weekend and thanked Iran for giving the United States early notice, which he said made it possible to prevent the loss of life and injuries.
Many experts saw it as a sign that Iran did not want to escalate the crisis, given the limited strike against US interests and the fact that Tehran had given Washington prior notice.
Qatar had previously said its air defenses thwarted the attack, which it said targeted the US air base, and said there were no casualties.
"The Ministry of Defense announced that Qatari air defenses successfully intercepted a missile attack targeting the Al Udeid Air Base," the government said in a statement. "Thanks to God and the vigilance of the armed forces personnel and the precautionary measures taken, the incident resulted in no deaths or injuries."
Multiple explosions rocked Doha after Qatar and the United Arab Emirates closed their airspace amid regional fears of escalation between Iran, Israel, and the United States.
Iran, which confirmed it had fired several missiles at an air base in Qatar, had earlier threatened to retaliate against US strikes on its Fordow nuclear plant the day before, mentioning US air bases in the region.
The Qatari Defense Ministry statement also condemned the attack, calling it a flagrant violation of the country's sovereignty and airspace and said it "maintains the right to respond directly in a manner proportional to the scale."
Qatar's prime minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani said on June 24 that relations with Tehran were damaged by the attack but that he hoped ties would eventually "come back to normal."
"The partnership between Qatar and the US is just growing stronger...and I hope the good relationship with Iran comes back to normal as soon as possible," he said.
Al Udeid is the largest US military base in the Middle East, and it is the regional headquarters for the US Central Command (CENTCOM). Several thousand US military personnel are located at the facility.
The US Embassy in Qatar lifted a shelter-in-place order following Iranian strikes. The embassy -- which had issued the directive to American citizens earlier on June 23 -- said it would reopen on June 24.
- By RFE/RL
Trump Announces ‘Complete And Total’ Cease-Fire In Israel-Iran Conflict
US President Donald Trump, in a stunning Truth Social post, declared that a “complete and total” cease-fire had been agreed to in the conflict between Israel and Iran, due to take effect in phased steps, bringing an end to what he called the “12-day war.”
Trump on June 23 said the cease-fire will begin in "approximately six hours" and initially be for 12 hours, “at which point the War will be considered, ENDED.”
Some details remained unclear following Trump’s detailed social media post.
No immediate statement was offered by Iran or Israel. It was not stated if Iran had agreed to terms set down by the United States demanding the end to uranium enrichment.
“CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYONE!” Trump posted.
"It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a Complete and Total CEASEFIRE (in approximately 6 hours from now, when Israel and Iran have wound down and completed their in progress, final missions!), for 12 hours, at which point the War will be considered, ENDED!”
“Officially, Iran will start the CEASEFIRE and, upon the 12th Hour, Israel will start the CEASEFIRE and, upon the 24th Hour, an Official END to THE 12 DAY WAR will be saluted by the World.”
Trump said that during the cease-fire, both sides will remain “peaceful and respectful.”
“On the assumption that everything works as it should, which it will, I would like to congratulate both Countries, Israel and Iran, on having the Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence to end, what should be called, THE 12 DAY WAR.”
“This is a War that could have gone on for years, and destroyed the entire Middle East, but it didn’t, and never will! God bless Israel, God bless Iran, God bless the Middle East, God bless the United States of America, and GOD BLESS THE WORLD!”
As Trump posted the remarks, drone alerts and attacks were still being reported in both Israel and Iran.
Earlier, Trump said no Americans were harmed and hardly any damage was done when Iran fired missiles at the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar on June 23, adding in a social media post that he hopes both Iran and Israel will "now proceed to Peace and Harmony."
Trump called it a "very weak response" to the US "obliteration" of Iran's nuclear facilities in an attack over the weekend and thanked Iran for giving the United States early notice, which he said made it possible to prevent the loss of life and injuries.
Many experts saw it as a sign that Iran did not want to escalate the crisis, given the limited strike against US interests and the fact that Tehran had given Washington prior notice.
"There have been 14 missiles fired -- 13 were knocked down, and 1 was 'set free' because it was headed in a nonthreatening direction," Trump said on Truth Social. He said the Iranians have now "gotten it all out of their 'system' and there will, hopefully, be no further HATE."
He suggested that Iran "can now proceed to Peace and Harmony in the Region," adding that he would "enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same."
The US Defense Department earlier confirmed that Iran had launched multiple short- and medium-range ballistic missiles in the attack and said there were no reports of US casualties.
Qatar had previously said its air defenses thwarted the attack, which it said targeted the US air base, and said there were no casualties.
"The Ministry of Defense announced that Qatari air defenses successfully intercepted a missile attack targeting Al Udeid Air Base," the government said in a statement. "Thanks to God and the vigilance of the armed forces personnel and the precautionary measures taken, the incident resulted in no deaths or injuries."
Multiple explosions rocked Doha after Qatar and the United Arab Emirates closed their airspace amid regional fears of escalation between Iran, Israel, and the United States.
Iran, which confirmed it had fired several missiles at an air base in Qatar, had earlier threatened to retaliate against US strikes on its Fordow nuclear plant the day before, mentioning US air bases in the region.
The Qatari Defense Ministry statement also condemned the attack, calling it a flagrant violation of the country's sovereignty and airspace and said it "maintains the right to respond directly in a manner proportional to the scale."
The ministry also warned that continued military escalation would undermine regional security and stability and push the region toward a point with potentially disastrous repercussions for international peace and security.
Saudi Arabia also condemned Iran's "unjustifiable" attack on Qatar and offered to deploy "all its capabilities" to support Doha.
"This is unacceptable and unjustifiable under any circumstances," Saudi Arabia's Foreign Ministry said in a statement. "The Kingdom affirms its solidarity and full support for...Qatar and offers all its capabilities to support the sisterly State of Qatar in any measures it takes."
Ahead of the attack on Doha, the US and UK foreign offices issued warnings to their respective citizens against possible attacks, urging them to shelter in place out of caution. Many countries in the region closed their airspace and later reopened it.
Al Udeid is the largest US military base in the Middle East, and it is the regional headquarters for the US Central Command (CENTCOM). Several thousand US military forces are located at Al Udeid Air Base.
The US Embassy in Qatar lifted a shelter-in-place order following Iranian strikes. The embassy, which had told American citizens to shelter in place earlier on June 23, said in a notice posted on its website that it would reopen on June 24.
- By Kian Sharifi
Analysis: Iran's Attack On US Air Base In Qatar Highly Symbolic
The Iranian missile strike on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar was a highly symbolic act, carefully calibrated to send a message of resolve while avoiding a broader and more destructive conflict.
Iran explicitly stated that the number of missiles launched late on June 23 matched the number of bombs dropped by the United States on Iranian nuclear sites, signaling its intent to deliver a proportional response rather than escalate the situation uncontrollably.
This symmetry in action highlights Iran's desire to demonstrate it will not leave attacks on its territory unanswered but also that it does not seek a full-scale war.
Why Did Iran Target The Al Udeid Air Base?
The Al Udeid Air Base serves as the largest US military installation in the Middle East and is the forward headquarters of US Central Command (CENTCOM), which oversees US military operations in the region. Satellite images on June 20 indicated that the United States had removed around 40 military aircraft of various types from the base.
A key aspect of the strike's symbolic nature was the clear effort to minimize casualties and collateral damage. The attack targeted Al Udeid, but Iran emphasized that it chose a base outside populated areas and, according to Qatari officials, the strike resulted in no injuries.
Such restraint indicates that Iran's objective was not to inflict mass casualties but to make a political and military statement. By providing advance warning and carefully selecting targets, Iran allowed the United States and its allies to take precautions, thereby further reducing the risk of unintended escalation.
Iran Signals It Is Open To De-Escalation
This approach mirrors the response to the US killing of Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Quds Force who was widely described as the second-most powerful man in Iran. Iran retaliated by launching missiles at an Iraqi air base housing US troops in January 2020, which was also preceded by warnings and resulted in no fatalities.
In both cases, Iran sought to satisfy domestic demands for retribution while signaling to the international community, especially regional actors and global powers, that it was open to de-escalation.
This tactic provides all sides with a potential off-ramp from further conflict, allowing leaders to claim they have acted decisively without crossing thresholds that would make diplomatic solutions impossible.
- By Kian Sharifi
What Comes Next: Iran's Options After US Strikes On Its Nuclear Sites
US air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities have upended the already tense standoff between Tehran, Washington, and Israel, raising urgent questions about what comes next -- and just how far Iran might go in its retaliation.
Tehran faces the difficult task of crafting a response that is neither too weak to appear powerless nor too forceful to risk further escalation.
Analysts warn that Iran's options are varied, but all carry significant risks of escalation.
"Iran could retaliate in a number of ways. First, and most obvious, is the option to attack US military bases in the region, especially Iraq," said Colin Clarke, director of research at The Soufan Group.
He told RFE/RL that the Iranians could either do this on their own or through the prominent Iraq-based Shi'ite militia Kataib Hezbollah.
While targeting US bases is a threat often voiced by Iranian military figures, the risks associated with the move are not lost on the Iranian authorities. That could explain why Fars news agency, an outlet affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), on June 22 tried to suggest the US strikes were merely a distraction to goad Iran into attacking US bases and shift its attention away from Israel.
Another option, Clarke said, was getting Yemen's Houthi rebels to strike at the Persian Gulf Arab states, as occurred back in June 2019, when the group targeted Saudi Arabia's energy infrastructure with drones, shutting down half of the kingdom's oil production.
One "concerning possibility" is Iran relying on asymmetric methods, such as an attack by sleeper cells in the United States linked to its proxies.
The Strait of Hormuz: Desperation Or Deterrence?
Amid a surge of rhetoric in Tehran about closing the Strait of Hormuz -- a vital chokepoint for global oil shipments -- US officials have issued stern warnings.
Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have both cautioned Iran against such a move, calling it "suicidal" given it would hurt Iran's own economy because it uses the waterway to export oil, mostly to China.
Some experts are skeptical Iran could meaningfully close the strait or that doing so would be sustainable.
Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told RFE/RL Iran lacks the capacity "to seriously close the Strait of Hormuz" and that ultimately it would harm Iran as well.
"What we would see is that the entire world would unite against Iran. If they try to do that, it will immediately bring in the United States," Pletka argued.
The move may "not win Tehran many friends in the world" but it could be one of Iran's last cards to play, according to Clarke.
"In some ways, it could be an act of desperation as they pull out all of the stops in an effort to get Israel to cease bombing," he said.
‘Already At War'
While senior US officials insist the strikes do not signal a declaration of war, they have made clear any Iranian retaliation will draw a forceful American response.
Fred Fleitz, a former chief of staff at the US National Security Council who spoke to RFE/RL before the United States carried out its attack, argued the notion of "retaliation" may mischaracterize the situation.
"Iran is already at war with the United States," he said. "This is a rogue state that's been at war with the US, with Israel, and with many other nations for a long time."
Tehran's next move could be consequential, with the stability of the region at stake.
"At this point, I think if the United States came under serious or sustained attack, all bets are off, and the bombing would expand and escalate," Clarke warned.
"The United States would essentially join Israel in destroying the regime and everything related to it."
- By RFE/RL
The Strait Of Hormuz: What Is It And Why Does It Matter?
Iranian lawmakers have been backing calls to close the Strait of Hormuz, a vital global trade route, where more than a fifth of the world’s oil supply passes every day.
Tehran has in the past threatened to close the strait, which would restrict trade and impact global oil prices, but has never followed through on the threat.
Although there is apparently consensus in Iran's parliament supporting the closure of the strait, the ultimate decision lies with the country's Supreme National Security Council.
Besides Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq also rely on the narrow waterway to get their oil to China and other global markets.
The strait lies between Oman and Iran and links the Persian Gulf to the north with the Gulf of Oman to the south and the Arabian Sea beyond.
It is 33 kilometers wide at its narrowest point, and its shipping lane is just 3 kilometers wide.
As a member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), Iran currently produces around 3.3 million barrels per day, and exports over 2 million barrels of oil and fuel daily.
Closing the strait offers Tehran a way to directly pressure the US by triggering a spike in oil prices, which would likely cause immediate inflation, both in the United States and globally.
However, such a move would also be a significant act of economic self-sabotage.
Iran relies on the same route for its own oil exports, and blocking it could prompt Gulf Arab states -- despite their criticism of the Israeli attack -- to enter the fray in order to protect their own strategic and economic interests.
Trump's Policy Goal In Iran Is 'Meaningful Concessions,' Says US Security Expert Ilan Berman
Ilan Berman is senior vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council and a veteran national-security policy adviser for the Department of Defense, Congress, and US government agencies. He also recently served as head of the team handling the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM) transition on behalf of President Donald Trump's administration, and is a board member of RFE/RL.
In a conversation with Hannah Kaviani of RFE/RL's Radio Farda, Berman, a leading expert on the Middle East, spoke about the rapidly evolving situation in Iran and the US role in the conflict five days after Israel's surprise attack opened a new chapter in the confrontation between the two countries.
RFE/RL: Did something change in President Trump's mind (since the start of the conflict)?
Ilan Berman: I don't think so, at least not yet. The way I see the current US policy is: It is escalating to de-escalate. President Trump, in the past, has made very clear that his optimal end state is for this regime to come to the negotiating table and really make meaningful concessions with regard to its nuclear program.
He became increasingly frustrated in recent days because it was clear that the Iranian regime was just playing for time, that they weren't really in good faith negotiating about the nuclear program. They were basically just running out the clock.
RFE/RL: But they still had plans to meet on Sunday (June 15), right?
Berman: Well, yes, and it's not clear to me whether that was an authentic plan or that was just floated even though the White House knew that the Israelis were going to strike before them.
But what I see as being important now is that the president still wants a deal.
What Israel has done, at least so far, has really advantaged the possibility that Iran will come to the table and will make meaningful concessions. I think that's still the goal of the Trump administration's policy.
But in order for that objective to be reached, Trump has to have a credible threat of escalation, and I would argue that's why you're seeing this significant movement of military assets into the Middle East, because there is another way that this can go if the Iranian regime does not, does not acquiesce and does not return to the negotiating table.
I think the president is prepared to assist Israel in attacking Fordow and other sites, but I don't think that's his first preference.
RFE/RL: President Trump uses very much the word surrender. Why? Why do you think he's using this term? And what do you think it means to him -- this word?
Berman: Well, and then obviously it's a loaded word, and I don't think it is surrender the way it's interpreted in the Middle East, which has to do with state honor or familial honor.
I think what he's doing is he's very clearly articulating how he sees Iran's current position, because after four or five days of Israel's campaign, the Iranian regime is very much on the back foot militarily.
I think President Trump sees this. If the Iranian regime returns to the negotiating table, it's not going to be a negotiation between equals. It's going to be much more about what meaningful concessions Iran can make that he's going to be satisfied with.
RFE/RL: There is a lot of talk out there. I think I saw it one of your own pieces as well, the issue of the existence and the fate of Islamic republic as a system as a whole. And there is a lot of talk that, if this is really the end game here or not, I want to see what you think about it. Is regime change on the table?
Berman: I don't think so, at least not yet. And I say this advisedly, because I'm a big believer in the fact that the Islamic republic is a corrupt system, and that the Iranian people have made very clear that they want something else, but I don't think that's in the cards right now, at least on the part of Israel and the United States.
Israel has made very clear that regime change is not on the table in the current phase of its military campaign, and the Trump administration, at least for now, would much prefer, as I see it, would much prefer a deal with the existing regime than a change of regime.
RFE/RL: But what is this regime change? Can we elaborate a bit? Because what does it mean that it's not on the cards? What is regime change in this meaning, like, how would Israel or the US have regime change in mind?
Berman: So, there's the sort of the old Iraq model of externally imposed regime change. I don't think either Israel or the United States has any appetite for that.
But I think there are things that both countries can do that would advantage or create advantages for opposition forces acting from within.
And Israel has done a small number of them already. It has attacked the Basij (a paramilitary force linked to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards) headquarters. It has bombed the Intelligence Ministry. And these things are, I think, intended to create an opening for Iranians to take matters into their own hands.
But is there a serious Israeli or American push to support the Iranian opposition and to sort of to encourage them and sustain them if and when they rise up? I don't think we're seeing that yet.
RFE/RL: People are asking, observers are asking, how would Iranians take matters in their own hands when they're running for their lives?
Berman: That's a fair question. Look, I think the problem that we Westerners have when we think about regime change in Iran is that we really have been unserious about investing in the potential for change within Iran.
We talk a lot about regime change, but we haven't really invested in a campaign to expand communications, to create a strike fund, to do all these different things that would allow the Iranian opposition the room to breathe, the room to organize and to mobilize against the regime.
That's, I think, a huge problem, and I think that's a necessary prerequisite for Iranians to really feel confident enough to rise up in a sustained fashion.
- By Kian Sharifi
Iran Threatens Nuclear Exit And Oil Choke Point As War With Israel Escalates
Amid an escalating Israeli air campaign against Iran, calls are mounting in Tehran to withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and close the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical oil routes.
The archenemies have been trading fire since June 13 after Israel launched an unprecedented attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, military bases, and residential areas in a bid to hinder Tehran’s program and eliminate top military leadership.
Detailed Satellite Images Show Impact Of Israeli Strikes On Iranian Facilities
Several high-profile Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) commanders and nuclear scientists have been killed in the attacks. Iran’s Health Ministry said on June 15 that 224 people, including children, had been killed.
At least 24 people, including civilians, have been killed in Iranian counterstrikes, according to Israeli authorities.
Israel said it launched its attack because it had concluded that Iran was weeks, if not days, away from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Iran rejects the claim, insisting that its nuclear program is peaceful.
Iran’s parliament is moving forward with a bill to withdraw from the NPT, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baqaei announced on June 16. Iranian officials are also threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz if the attacks continue.
But experts warn Tehran’s threats may be more about political theater than imminent change.
NPT Withdrawal: More Bark Than Bite?
Hard-line Iranian lawmaker Hamid Rasaee over the weekend charged that there was no point in remaining in the NPT since it had failed to protect Iran’s nuclear sites from attacks.
Fellow hard-line legislator Mohammad Mannan weighed in, announcing that a high-priority bill would be submitted to the parliament to push ahead with the withdrawal.
Despite the heated rhetoric in Tehran, experts say Iran is unlikely to actually leave the treaty anytime soon.
“For now, Iran appears unlikely to withdraw from the NPT, despite growing pressure from hard-liners,” Hamidreza Azizi, a fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, told RFE/RL.
Even if the parliament passes the bill, it needs to be approved by the Guardians Council, Iran’s constitutional watchdog whose members are -- directly and indirectly -- appointed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s commander in chief who has the final say on all state matters.
Azizi argued that withdrawing from the NPT would effectively gut Iran’s legal defense.
“Tehran has so far based its defense at the international level on the assertion that Israel’s actions are unlawful, citing the absence of an imminent threat. Exiting the NPT would undermine this line entirely.”
In 2010, Khamenei issued a fatwa -- a religious ruling -- declaring the use of nuclear weapons as "haram," or forbidden under Islamic law, and stating that Iran would not pursue them.
Iranian officials have frequently pointed to this decree as proof that the Islamic republic has no intention of developing nuclear weapons.
However, analysts argue that the fatwa does not present a serious obstacle to Iran acquiring a bomb. They note that Iran could carry out much of the necessary work while the fatwa remains in place, and Khamenei could simply revoke it at a later stage if a decision were made to move forward.
Baqaei said on June 16 that, despite legislative efforts to initiate Iran's withdrawal from the NPT, Tehran is not looking to acquire nuclear weapons.
Strait Of Hormuz: High Stakes, Low Odds
Hard-line media and several officials have again raised the possibility of closing the Strait of Hormuz -- a move that would threaten nearly a fifth of the world’s oil supply. But Gregory Brew, a senior Iran and oil analyst at the New York-based Eurasia Group, says it’s a threat Tehran is unlikely to carry out.
“Closing the strait is Iran's last big card to play,” Brew told RFE/RL. “It has the means of essentially blockading the waterway…by deploying short-range ballistic missiles, naval vessels, and mines.”
But attempting to blockade the strategic strait would have major ramifications, such as “immediately” triggering a response from the United States and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
“If war with Israel is proving very damaging, war with the US (and the GCC) would be much worse,” Brew said.
Economically, closing the Strait of Hormuz would also hurt Iran itself because it is using the waterway to export oil, mostly to China.
“So long as that continues, I don't think it will act on its threats,” Brew added.
- By Kian Sharifi
Israel's Attack On Iran Stuns Military But Could Empower Tehran's Nuclear Drive
Israel’s large-scale assault on Iran appears to have stunned the country’s military leadership and may have delayed an immediate retaliatory strike.
But it remains unclear whether it achieved its primary objective: crippling Iran’s nuclear program, which Israel claims Tehran is on the verge of weaponizing despite claims from Iran that it is solely for civilian purposes.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials have alleged Iran recently accelerated uranium enrichment and weaponization efforts to the point where it could produce a nuclear weapon within months -- or even days.
Operation Rising Lion, as Israel has named the strikes, targeted key components of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure -- including the Natanz enrichment facility -- as well as military installations in and around Tehran.
Israeli warplanes also struck missile production facilities and residential buildings believed to house top military officials and nuclear scientists. Among those reportedly killed was Hossein Salami, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), though Iran has not confirmed his death.
The objective, Israeli officials say, was to degrade both Iran’s nuclear capabilities and its ability to retaliate using its extensive ballistic missile arsenal -- a threat Israel sees as second only to a nuclear-armed Iran.
“Netanyahu has opened a new chapter in the Middle East -- an era of Israeli-Iranian nuclear war,” wrote Eran Etzion, a former deputy head of Israel’s National Security Council, on X.
“A war whose stated goal is to stop Iran’s nuclear program, but whose actual aim appears to be targeting the very foundations of the Iranian regime.”
High-Stakes Gamble
Security analysts describe the operation as a preemptive gamble -- an attempt to avert what Israel sees as an existential threat, but one that risks igniting a regional war, derailing diplomacy, and even accelerating Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Danny Citrinonwicz, a senior fellow at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies, said the strike dealt a significant blow to Iran’s prestige by penetrating its air defenses and eliminating senior commanders.
But, he argued, its impact on Iran’s nuclear program was “limited,” as key facilities -- including the heavily fortified Fordow site -- remain intact.
“This is just the opening phase of a longer campaign,” Citrinonwicz wrote on X. “Israel appears to be holding back some cards for the likely escalation ahead.”
What Are Iran’s Options?
The sixth round of nuclear talks between Iran and the United States, scheduled for June 15, is now unlikely to proceed. With diplomacy appearing to have fallen by the wayside, any Iranian response risks deepening a cycle of escalation.
Iran’s immediate reaction came in the form of around 100 Shahed drones launched toward Israel -- many of which were intercepted outside Israeli airspace.
Iranian leaders have also repeated warnings that they would retaliate against both Israel and US forces in the region. Although Washington has denied involvement in the strike, Iran may still hold it responsible.
Should Tehran go through with its threat to target U.S. military bases, it could drag Washington into a broader conflict.
According to US intelligence estimates, Iran possesses some 2,000 missiles -- many capable of carrying warheads with more than 900 kilograms of explosives -- and is producing roughly 50 ballistic missiles per month. It remains unclear how much of this capability was affected by the Israeli assault.
Iran’s regional proxies, long viewed as force multipliers, have been severely degraded. The Gaza war has battered the US-designated Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, and the Lebanese Hezbollah is still reeling from recent clashes with Israel. That leaves the Houthis in Yemen as Tehran’s most militarily viable ally.
Tehran may also consider withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the cornerstone of global nuclear arms control. While US intelligence -- contrary to Israeli assessments -- currently believes that Iran is not actively pursuing nuclear weapons, the Islamic republic could use the Israeli attack to justify abandoning its NPT obligations and moving toward weaponization.
“Netanyahu’s government may have just handed the Iranian regime both domestic and international legitimacy to pursue nuclear weapons,” Etzion warned.
- By RFE/RL
Trump Calls On Tehran To Negotiate 'Before It's Too Late' As Israeli Strikes Intensify
US President Donald Trump warned Iran to make a nuclear deal "before it is too late" as Israel continued to conduct air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and other sites across Iran that have already killed a top general and two other military officials.
Meanwhile, US officials told news agencies that US ground-based air defense systems were helping to shoot down missiles that Iran had fired off in retaliation toward Israel.
One of the officials told AP -- speaking on the condition of anonymity -- that US jets and warships had not so far been used in the operation, but further details were not immediately available.
Separately, a White House official said Trump spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by phone, but details of the call were not disclosed.
Trump also spoke with French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Keir Starmer and about the situation, officials said.
Iran reportedly launched scores of drones and missiles at Israeli sites in response to the June 13 attacks.
Jordan's military also said it had intercepted a number of projectiles over its air space.
An AP journalist reported seeing smoke rising in Tel Aviv after a missile strike, while a hospital in the region said it was treating 15 injured civilians. Israeli rescue crews later said 34 people had been injured in the Iranian missile attacks.
Among the sites hit in Iran were the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) command site in Tehran, according to Iranian state TV. The strike killed the commander of the corps, Major General Hossein Salami, according to Iranian news agency Tasnim.
Iran's representative told the UN that 78 people had been killed and more than 320 had been injured in the Israeli strikes.
The Israeli military said it was prepared to continue the attacks "for as long as necessary."
Trump, who has been pressing for negotiations between Washington and Tehran regarding Iran's nuclear program, wrote on his social media platform Truth Social, "There is still time to make this slaughter...come to an end,"
"Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire...JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE."
Trump said later in an interview with ABC News that Iran "got hit about as hard as you’re going to get hit. And there’s more to come, a lot more.”
Netanyahu said the strikes aimed "to roll back the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival and that it would continue "for as many days as it takes to remove this threat."
"We struck at the heart of Iran's nuclear enrichment program. We targeted Iran's main enrichment facility at Natanz.... We also struck at the heart of Iran's ballistic missile program," he said in a video statement. Israel also hit Iranian nuclear scientists "working on the Iranian bomb," he added.
Israel's military said some 200 jets were involved in the massive raid, and Israeli TV reported that the Mossad intelligence agency may have set up a secret base inside Iran as part of the effort.
Iran's supreme leader warned that Israel would suffer severe consequences for launching the attacks.
"With this crime, the Zionist regime has set itself for a bitter and painful fate and it will definitely receive it," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a statement.
Natanz Nuclear Facility Targeted
The Natanz uranium enrichment facility was hit "several times," state TV reported, showing images of heavy smoke billowing from the site.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed Natanz had been a target but said it had not detected increased radiation levels at the site. Two other facilities linked to Iran's nuclear program -- Isfahan and Fordow -- were not affected, the agency said.
In a statement issued after the attacks, the Israeli Defense Forces asserted that Iran was "nearing the point of no return" in its efforts to build a nuclear weapon.
"The regime is producing thousands of kilograms of enriched uranium, alongside decentralized and fortified enrichment compounds, in underground, fortified sites," it said.
In its latest report, the IAEA said Iran has sharply increased its production of highly enriched uranium, stockpiling 408.6 kilograms enriched to 60 percent -- up from just under 275 kilograms in February. The 60-percent figure is well above the threshold needed for a weapon.
Residential areas in Tehran and several other cities also were hit, according to the official IRNA news agency, which reported that the strikes killed a number of people, including women and children, in a residential complex in Tehran.
Iran Launches Drone Attack In Retaliation
Israel said Iran launched about 100 drones toward it in retaliation, but did not say if there were any direct hits or damage.
Several Middle Eastern countries closed their airspace, and Jordan's state news agency said a number of missiles and drones that had entered its airspace were intercepted.
The United States, Israel's strongest ally, said Washington was not involved in the operation.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement Israel advised Washington that it believed the strikes were necessary for its self-defense. He also warned Iran against targeting US interests or personnel.
The White House said Trump was set to attend a National Security Council meeting on the subject later June 13.
Israel's Defense Minister Israel Katz announced a "special situation" in Israel in anticipation of a possible retaliatory strike by Iran "in the immediate timeframe."
The United States and Iran have been holding tense, high-level negotiations on Iran's nuclear ambitions. A sixth round of talks had been scheduled for June 15 in Oman.
Iran has consistently claimed its nuclear efforts are solely for civilian and not military uses.
Iran has been working on a counteroffer after rejecting a US proposal for a deal that Khamenei described as "100 percent" against national interests.
In a phone conversation with Trump earlier this week, Netanyahu raised the possibility of strikes against Iran, according to the Wall Street Journal, and Trump urged Netanyahu to hold off as negotiations continue.
In a social media post on June 12, Trump said the United States wanted to negotiate with Iran, though he also warned that an Israeli strike on Iran was likely.
Earlier on June 12, the IAEA formally declaring Iran "noncompliant" with its nonproliferation obligations for the first time since 2005.
The 35-member IAEA board voted 19-3 with 11 abstentions to adopt the resolution, which had been put forward by the United States and its trio of European allies -- Britain, France, and Germany.
The finding prompted a defiant response from Iran, which announced that a new enrichment site with new enrichment centrifuges would be set up at Fordow.
With reporting by AP and Reuters
- By Kian Sharifi
Nuclear Tensions Simmer As Iran, US Can't Even Agree On When To Argue
Diplomacy between the United States and Iran over the future of Tehran's nuclear program has hit a new snag -- not over uranium enrichment or sanctions, but over the simple matter of when to meet.
As US President Donald Trump insists the next round of talks is set for June 12, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baqaei maintains that negotiations will resume on June 15 in Muscat. Oman, which is mediating the talks, has not weighed in.
The scheduling dispute comes as Iran's chief negotiator, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, is slated to be in Norway on June 12 for the Oslo Forum, making a session that day with the US unlikely, but not impossible. Oman's Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi will also be in Oslo, so if White House envoy and nuclear negotiator Steve Witkoff travels to Norway, a meeting could take place.
Despite the calendar confusion, the stakes are clear: The sixth round of talks is shaping up to be a defining moment. Iran has formally rejected Washington's proposal for a deal, calling it "unacceptable" and lacking in key areas, especially the removal of economic sanctions and recognition of Iran's right to enrich uranium on its own soil.
Iran's Counterproposal On Enrichment
Tehran says it will soon submit a counterproposal via Oman, a plan it describes as "reasonable, logical, and balanced" and which it urges Washington to take seriously.
While Iran has kept the details of its counteroffer under wraps, Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi says it's not a lengthy document but a "rational" proposal that "can't be dismissed with a simple 'no.'"
He describes it as a solid and acceptable basis for further discussion.
Iran's counterproposal is expected to insist on the right to continue uranium enrichment -- a non-negotiable point for Tehran -- and demand effective and verifiable sanctions relief before any Iranian concessions.
Trump and other US officials, for their part, remain firm that any deal must see Iran halt enrichment, a position Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has flatly rejected as "100 percent contrary" to national interests.
Specter Of IAEA Resolution
This is all unfolding as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors meets in Vienna for its quarterly session, a gathering dominated by the Iran file.
The IAEA's latest comprehensive report, released on May 31, concluded that Iran has failed to provide credible answers about undeclared nuclear material and activities at several sites, and that its cooperation with inspectors has been "less than satisfactory."
The United States and its European allies -- Britain, France, Germany, also known as the E3 -- are now pushing a resolution that would formally declare Iran in noncompliance with its safeguards obligations for the first time in two decades.
If adopted, the resolution would not immediately escalate the matter to the UN Security Council, but it would give Iran a window to address the outstanding concerns. It would be a major step toward opening the door to the return of UN sanctions if Iran fails to comply.
Meanwhile, Iran has threatened to retaliate if the resolution is adopted, teasing that it may expand its nuclear program, including installing thousands of advanced centrifuges.
The "snapback" of UN sanctions is a provision under the now-defunct 2015 nuclear deal and the E3 wants to use it before it expires in October.
Whether the resolution is adopted could shape the tone of the next round of nuclear talks.
Adding to the volatility, Iran's Intelligence Ministry claimed over the weekend that Tehran has obtained a "treasure trove" of sensitive Israeli documents, including material on Israel's nuclear program and defense capabilities.
With Israel preparing to strike Iranian nuclear sites if the negotiations with the United States fail, the Supreme National Security Council said the alleged intelligence breach will allow Iran to retaliate to a potential attack "immediately" by targeting Israel's "secret nuclear facilities."
For now, the world is left waiting -- not just for the substance of a deal, but for the negotiators to even settle on a time and place to argue.
- By RFE/RL
Iranian TV Alleges Massive Spy Operation Targeting Israeli Nuclear Sites
Iran’s state broadcaster, IRIB, has reported what it describes as one of the "largest intelligence operations" in history against Israel, claiming Iranian intelligence obtained a vast cache of "sensitive documents" -- including thousands allegedly related to Israeli nuclear projects and facilities -- from inside Israeli territory.
IRIB’s rolling news channel, IRINN, interrupted regular programming on June 7 to announce the story. It said the operation involved extracting an “abundance of strategic and sensitive information and documents” from within Israel, citing unnamed “regional sources.”
According to the report, the documents were transferred to Iran after a period of secrecy intended to ensure their safe arrival. IRIB said the volume of material is so great that merely reviewing it will take considerable time.
The broadcaster also linked the recent arrests of two Israeli citizens -- Roy Mizrahi and Almog Atias -- to the alleged intelligence breach. Israeli authorities announced their arrests last month, accusing them of collaborating with Iran. The Iranian report suggests the arrests may have come after the documents had already been smuggled out.
While the arrests of Mizrahi and Atias are confirmed and appear consistent with a broader pattern of Iranian intelligence recruitment inside Israel, there is no independent evidence to support IRIB’s claim of a massive exfiltration of nuclear-related documents. Israeli authorities have not acknowledged any such breach, and international media or independent analysts have released no corroborating details.
The claim comes six years after a high-profile Israeli intelligence operation inside Iran. In 2018, Mossad agents stole roughly 100,000 documents from a secret warehouse in Tehran, detailing Iran’s covert nuclear weapons program.
The trove was later verified by international experts and publicly revealed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, likely contributing to the US withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal during President Donald Trump's first term in office.
This latest Iranian claim -- whether credible or exaggerated -- fits into an intensifying pattern of espionage activity inside Israel over the past year. Israel’s Shin Bet security agency has reported a significant uptick in Iranian-directed spy plots, with more than 30 Israelis arrested for allegedly working on Iran’s behalf. These cases have included photographing military sites and plotting assassinations, involving both Jewish and Arab citizens.
The Black List: Assassinated Iranian Scientists
Iran and Israel have engaged in a prolonged shadow conflict involving cyberattacks, targeted killings, drone operations, and acts of sabotage. Tehran alleges that Israel is behind the assassinations of several Iranian nuclear scientists, while Israel accuses Iran of backing regional militant groups and orchestrating attacks on Israeli interests abroad.
The United States and Israel, widely regarded as the Middle East’s only nuclear-armed state, lead Western accusations that Iran seeks nuclear weapons. Iran denies this, maintaining its nuclear program is solely for civilian purposes.
This latest report surfaces amid persistent tensions over Iran’s nuclear activities, which Israeli officials continue to describe as a fundamental threat to their country’s security.
- By Kian Sharifi
Syria's Shift Away From Iran Sparks Media Backlash After Trump Meets With Ahmed al-Sharaa
US President Donald Trump's historic meeting with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, has not gone over well with the hard-line media in Iran.
Moderate outlets largely stuck to straight reporting of the meeting, but conservative media -- upset over Syria's sharp pivot away from Tehran -- criticized Trump for meeting with the insurgent-turned-president.
The backlash reflects growing anxiety in Tehran over the loss of Syria, once a crucial part of Iran's regional strategy. Since the fall of Bashar al-Assad late last year, the new Syrian leadership has moved swiftly to distance itself from Iran, seeking new alliances with Arab neighbors and warming up to the West in a bid to lift sanctions.
Compounding the pressure, Iran is now entangled in high-stakes nuclear negotiations with the United States, where time and leverage may both be slipping away.
Trump met with Sharaa -- a former insurgent known under the nom de guerre Abu Mohammed al-Jolani -- on the sidelines of a gathering with the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council in Riyadh on May 14, a day after pledging to lift sanctions on Syria.
The US president said he had made the decision in a bid to provide Syria with "an opportunity for greatness" as the country looks to rebuild after 14 years of civil war and economic devastation.
Hard-line newspaper Keyhan, whose chief editor is appointed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, derided Trump's talk with Sharaa and described it as a meeting between "Jolani the terrorist" and "the terrorist godfather."
The Islamic republic has long alleged that the United States funds extremist groups in the Middle East to destabilize the region and has dismissed Washington's campaign in the region against those groups as a farce.
Tasnim, an affiliate of the US-blacklisted Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), echoed that sentiment, describing the Trump-Sharaa meeting as the United States "formalizing its relationship with Takfiri groups" -- a term used by the Islamic republic to refer to militants groups that it claims have ties to regional Sunni states.
Other hard-line media noted that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a group Sharaa led before toppling the government of Iran- and Russia-backed Assad in December, was still designated as a terrorist organization by the United States.
Is Iran Out Of The Picture For Syria?
The fall of Assad dealt a major blow to Iran, which relied heavily on Syria to link its "axis of resistance," its network of regional allies and proxies.
Sharaa has been welcomed by most Arab nations in the region and has received dozens of international delegations, including European diplomats. Earlier this month, he traveled to France to meet President Emmanuel Macron.
Trump, who described Sharaa as "a young attractive guy" with a "strong past," urged the Syrian leader to normalize relations with Israel as one of five conditions to reset ties with Washingtons.
Iran's influence in Syria effectively vanished with the fall of Assad, but Russia has tried to establish relations with the new government and maintain its bases in the country.
"Russia exploited the fact that Syria remained sanctioned and that the United States and Europe were dragging their feet on sanctions removal," Nicole Grajewski, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told RFE/RL.
She noted that while the decision to lift sanctions is "significant," it is "not transformative" as Syria still needs investment and there are outstanding issues between minorities and the government as well as the status of the Kurds.
Iran, however, is pretty much out of the picture for now.
"They lack the economic capital to help with reconstruction and are viewed [by Syrians] much more negatively than Russia," she added.
Could Iran Get Its Sanctions Lifted, Too?
Referring to reports that Trump's announcement on lifting sanctions on Syria surprised the State and Treasury departments, UK-based political commentator Hossein Derakhshan argued that Iran really only needs to reach a deal with the US president to remove sanctions.
"Iran needs to understand that this opportunity will not repeat itself and the lifting of primary and secondary sanctions is worth suspending uranium enrichment for 25 years, or even more!" he wrote on X.
Trump said during his tour of the region this week that the United States is "getting close to maybe doing a deal" with Iran on its nuclear program. "We're in very serious negotiations with Iran for long-term peace," he said.
Meanwhile, Ali Shamkhani, a senior aide to Khamenei, told NBC News that Iran would commit to never making a nuclear weapon, ship out highly enriched uranium, and agree to enrich uranium to levels needed for civilian use if Trump agreed to immediately remove sanctions against Tehran.
Jihadi media specialist Mina al-Lami said jihadist and hard-line Islamists inside and outside of Syria worry that Sharaa will "sell out" foreign fighters and normalize ties with Israel, and even crack down on Islamic projects in Syria.
"Nevertheless, hardliners are struggling to rally broader support, as the lifting of sanctions is widely seen as a major win for Sharaa, and a clear boost to his image and credibility as a political leader," she wrote on X.
- By Kian Sharifi
Iran Pitches Enrichment Consortium To Save Nuclear Program
Iran has put forward a proposal to the United States and its Gulf Arab neighbors in an attempt to accelerate negotiations and ease concerns about its nuclear program.
The plan, presented by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi during a fourth round of talks with the United States in Oman on May 11, envisions the creation of a regional nuclear consortium that would include Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, with the potential for American involvement.
With both Iranian and US officials silent, details about the consortium remain scarce.
What Do We Know About The Proposal?
The Iranian daily newspaper Khorasan, which was the first to report the story, said the proposed consortium is intended to reassure both Western and regional actors about Iran's commitment to nuclear transparency and safety while allowing the country to maintain control over its nuclear advancements through international cooperation.
Media quoting Iranian officials and sources familiar with the initiative say the consortium would allow Iran to continue enriching uranium but only to low levels suitable for civilian energy purposes -- well below the threshold required for nuclear weapons.
The enriched uranium would then be distributed to participating Arab countries for peaceful use. Crucially, the arrangement would involve the permanent on-site presence of representatives from the partner nations, and potentially the United States, to ensure transparency and compliance.
The proposal marks a significant departure from Washington's demand that Iran give up all uranium-enrichment capabilities and dismantle key nuclear facilities. US officials have so far not commented publicly on the offer, and it remains unclear whether President Donald Trump's administration will be open to any deal that allows enrichment on Iranian soil.
Mehran Mostafavi, a France-based academic and nuclear expert, said the initiative has potential but would be difficult to implement.
Speaking to RFE/RL's Radio Farda, he said the consortium could "significantly reduce the risk" of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East -- provided that major regional powers are involved.
"But the main issue is whether the Islamic republic can be trusted," Mostafavi said. "For trust to exist, the regime must be rooted in the will of the people -- but such a thing does not exist in Iran."
He added that, while establishing the consortium is "not impossible," the lack of trust in Iran's political system "undermines" its feasibility.
An Old Idea At A Critical Time
The consortium idea is not entirely new. In fact, Iran once proposed the creation of an international consortium back in 2008 to ease tensions and break a deadlock over its nuclear program. The initiative received little interest from Western nations, particularly because they opposed any enrichment taking place on Iranian soil.
With European powers threatening to trigger the 2015 nuclear deal's "snapback" of UN sanctions against Iran if there is no deal by the end of the June, the window is closing for Tehran to settle the issue with Washington.
Trump echoed this sentiment during his visit to Saudi Arabia this week, reiterating his desire for a diplomatic solution but warning that time is running out for Iran to make concessions before facing increased economic pressure.
Iran has been trying to strengthen its relations with both the Saudis and the Emiratis over the past two years. The Saudis, who are pursuing their own civil nuclear program with Washington's cooperation, have backed US talks with Iran.
Araqchi traveled to Riyadh and Abu Dhabi just ahead of Trump's regional tour, likely to discuss the initiative with the Arab states to get Trump on board.
Some analysts see the proposed consortium as a potential confidence-building measure that could open the door to broader regional security talks, but whether Washington sees it that way remains unclear.
With reporting by Hooman Askary of RFE/RL's Radio Farda
- By Kian Sharifi
Trump Pledges Syria Sanctions Relief In First US Meeting With Al-Sharaa After Years Of Isolation
For more than a decade, Syria stood as one of the world’s most isolated nations, battered by civil war, economic collapse, and the unyielding grip of international sanctions.
But on May 14, a dramatic shift unfolded on the world stage as US President Donald Trump met with Syria’s new president, Ahmed al-Sharaa -- a former insurgent known under the nom de guerre Abu Mohammed al-Jolani -- in Riyadh in the first meeting between the leaders of the two nations in a quarter of a century.
The move signals not only a new chapter for the war-torn country, but also a recalibration of regional alliances and power dynamics across the Middle East.
Speaking in the Saudi capital, Trump said the decision to lift sanctions, announced a day earlier, is meant to provide Syria “with an opportunity for greatness" as the country seeks to rebuild after more than a decade of civil war and economic devastation.
The sanctions, originally imposed to pressure the government of deposed President Bashar al-Assad, “now directly target the Syrian people and hinder the process of recovery and reconstruction,” the Syrian Foreign Ministry said after the announcement.
Welcoming Trump’s move, the ministry said the sanctions “contributed to [Assad’s] downfall” and added that Syrians “look forward to the full lifting of sanctions as part of steps that support peace and prosperity in Syria and the region.”
Indeed, Damascus erupted in celebration following Trump’s announcement, with many Syrians hopeful for economic relief.
"Syria now has a real opportunity to be brought back into the fold of the global economic system," Clara Broekaert, a research fellow at the Soufan Center focusing on foreign interference, told RFE/RL.
"This is not to suggest that the United States should relinquish all leverage -- particularly when it comes to ensuring, for example, the protection of minority rights -- but the existing sanctions regime would not do that and instead punish ordinary Syrians."
A Historic Meeting
The two met briefly in Riyadh on the sidelines Trump’s meeting with the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council.
The White House said Trump asked the Syrian leader to normalize relations with Israel by joining the so-called Abraham Accords, which have already been signed by some Gulf Arab states.
He also pushed for Sharaa to deport Palestinian militants and take control of camps holding Islamic State fighters that are currently being run by Kurdish guerillas who are opposed by Turkey.
The last such encounter was in 2000, when then-US President Bill Clinton met with Hafez al-Assad in Geneva.
Trump’s meeting with Sharaa signals a thaw in relations and offers de facto recognition of Syria’s new leadership, something unthinkable just months ago.
From Insurgent To President
Sharaa’s ascent to the presidency is a story few could have predicted. Sharaa fought against US forces in Iraq, later founding the Al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra, or the Nusra Front, during Syria’s civil war.
Over time, he distanced himself from Al-Qaeda, rebranding his group as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and consolidating power in northwest Syria. In late December 2024, Sharaa led a coalition of rebel groups, many backed by Turkey, in a lightning offensive and seized Damascus, bringing an end to half a century of Assad family rule over Syria.
He then declared the dissolution of all armed factions -- including his own -- and assumed the presidency under his birth name, pledging constitutional reform and a new era for Syria.
Sharaa’s transformation from insurgent commander to head of state is both remarkable and controversial. While he has worked to project a pragmatic image, promising security for minorities and outreach to the international community, his past continues to raise concerns among Western and Israeli officials.
The insurgent-turned-president has faced challenges controlling factions affiliated with his transitional government. This struggle came into sharp focus in March, when clashes broke out between security forces and gunmen loyal to the fallen government of Iran- and Russia-backed Assad. Rights groups documented hundreds of casualties, including civilians.
Broekaert said that that, despite recent reforms, “persistent concerns” remain among US policymakers, including sectarian violence in the coastal provinces.
"What I am personally watching closely [is] the integration of foreign fighters into the new security and governance apparatus,” she said.
These issues, Broekaert added, “continue to fuel skepticism among influential policymakers in Washington regarding the durability and sincerity of these reforms.”
Yet, for many Syrians, Sharaa represents a break from decades of dictatorship and the possibility of reconstruction after years of devastation.
"Sharaa has also, frankly, very skillfully positioned his leadership and policy agenda as pragmatic and aligned with key strategic interests of the United States, particularly the containment of Iranian influence," Broekaert said.
Saudi Arabia's 'Pivotal' Role
The dramatic US policy reversal did not happen in a vacuum. Saudi Arabia, under Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman, played a key role in orchestrating the diplomatic breakthrough.
Trump made his announcement at an investment conference in Riyadh on May 13, explicitly crediting the Saudi crown prince as the driving force behind the decision.
Saudi Arabia, joined by Turkey and several Gulf Arab states, lobbied Washington relentlessly, arguing that engaging with Sharaa’s government was essential for stabilizing Syria and curbing Iranian influence in the region.
The timing of the announcement coincided with Saudi Arabia’s commitment of a $600 billion investment in the United States and the signing of a record $142 billion arms deal, underscoring the extent of US-Saudi cooperation.
Noting Saudi Arabia's "pivotal" role, Broekaert said the Saudi crown prince "coupled diplomatic pressure with transactional incentives" to secure Trump’s engagement with the new Syrian leadership and to accelerate the lifting of sanctions.
How Will This Impact Other Regional Actors?
Trump’s embrace of Syria’s new government is reverberating across the region.
For Israel, the move is a source of deep unease. Israeli officials, wary of Sharaa’s jihadist past and the communal violence that accompanied his rise, fear that US normalization with Damascus could limit Israel’s freedom of action and embolden hostile actors. There are reports of indirect talks between Syria and Israel, possibly mediated by the United Arab Emirates, but Israeli skepticism remains high.
"It is clear that Israeli influence has diminished on the Trump administration’s dealing with Syria," Broekaert said.
For Iran, the developments represent a major strategic blow. The fall of the Assad regime and the rise of a government hostile to Tehran have severed a crucial link in Iran’s “axis of resistance” -- its network of regional allies and proxies. Iranian assets in Syria have been seized, and the new government has shown little interest in establishing relations with Tehran.
Russia, too, finds its influence diminished. While Moscow retains military bases on the Syrian coast, the new government has made it clear that Russia’s future presence will depend on agreements that serve Syrian interests. Russia is now seeking ways to reengage with Damascus, but its leverage has waned.
Editors' Picks
RFE/RL has been declared an "undesirable organization" by the Russian government.
If you are in Russia or the Russia-controlled parts of Ukraine and hold a Russian passport or are a stateless person residing permanently in Russia or the Russia-controlled parts of Ukraine, please note that you could face fines or imprisonment for sharing, liking, commenting on, or saving our content, or for contacting us.
To find out more, click here.
Forum