Middle East
As Middle East Crisis Escalates, Hopes For Diplomatic Solution Dim
Israel's two-front war in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, as well as the threat of escalation with Iran, have put the Middle East crisis on boil.
But despite the risk of all-out war involving regional powers Israel and Iran, experts say there is little appetite for a diplomatic solution.
This is largely because the main obstacles to peace are immovable without incentive and persuasion, and the only actors capable of changing the situation are either reluctant to act or are in a position to benefit from escalation, analysts say.
"There are diplomatic solutions to this crisis, but they have to center on the de-occupation of Palestine, since that is the root cause of the conflict," said Trita Parsi, co-founder of the Washington-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
The main obstacle to such an outcome, Parsi said, "is Washington's refusal to sincerely push Israel to end its occupation." If the United States "fundamentally changes its approach, these diplomatic solutions will become politically viable."
The United States is a key ally of Israel, a major recipient of U.S. arms and aid. But Israel has charted its own course, despite some U.S. pressure, and it is unclear if other players would scale down their military activities in response to Israeli de-escalation.
Expanding War
Israel is currently involved in a two-front war against Iran-backed armed groups -- the U.S.-designated terrorist organizations Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Israel launched its war in Gaza a year ago in retaliation for Hamas's deadly assault on its territory. More recently, the war expanded into Israel's aerial bombardment and ground invasion of Lebanon intended to cripple Hezbollah and its ability to strike Israel with rockets and missiles.
Hezbollah is both an armed group and political party that controls much of southern Lebanon. The EU has not blacklisted its political wing, which has seats in the Lebanese parliament.
Iran, which helped establish Hezbollah four decades ago to serve as its lead proxy in its shadow war against archenemy Israel, has also engaged in tit-for-tat attacks with Israel in recent months, leading to fears of a broader war involving the two regional heavyweights.
Of the two fronts, analysts told RFE/RL, Israel is more inclined to engage in diplomatic efforts with Hamas because it is interested in securing the release of scores of Israeli hostages taken by Hamas in the October 7, 2023, assault.
Recent polls have shown that Israeli public opinion considers the release of the hostages as the top objective of the war in Gaza.
Israel's killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, the alleged mastermind of the October 7 attack and considered by Washington to be a "massive obstacle to peace," is also seen as a potential breakthrough.
The State Department characterized Sinwar's October 17 death as an opportunity to end the conflict in Gaza and secure the release of Israeli hostages. President Joe Biden said it was now "time to move on" and secure a cease-fire.
Hezbollah Seeks Relief
In Lebanon, only Hezbollah and its key backer Iran want a cease-fire because the militant group has "taken such very heavy blows," according to Middle East expert Kenneth Katzman, a senior adviser for the New York-based Soufan Group intelligence consultancy.
"I don't think Israel necessarily wants a lot of diplomacy," he said.
Iran, meanwhile, has recently made the rounds among Arab Gulf States in an effort to persuade them to help deter Israel from attacking key targets in Iran. Fears of Israeli attacks against Iranian oil and even nuclear facilities have risen since Iran fired around 180 ballistic missiles on Israel on October 1.
But while some Gulf states have normalized relations with both Iran and Israel, and helped blunt Iran's missile and drone attack on Israel in April, experts are skeptical of their influence in this diplomatic arena.
"The Arab states have very little sway over Israel, but they have some sway with Washington," Parsi said in written comments.
Staying On The Sidelines
The Gulf states, as well as Washington, also have their own incentives to stand aside because they want to see Hezbollah weakened, experts said.
Thanassis Cambanis, director of the U.S.-based Century Foundation think tank, said that Saudi Arabia and most of the Gulf states "are tacitly willing to tolerate or even support" the war against Hezbollah because it provides them an advantage in "their own regional contest for power with Iran."
In Gaza, Cambanis said, "there is a real perverse lack of incentive" for either Hamas or the Israeli government to work out a cease-fire because extending the conflict helps each of them hold onto power.
Cambanis said that a diplomatic process that involved serious U.S. leverage "could very quickly and very easily end the conflict as it stands now."
But he said that diplomacy cannot currently resolve the underlying causes of the war.
"I don't think it's reasonable to expect diplomacy to come up with a long-term solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nor do I expect diplomacy to urgently come to a long-term resolution of the boundary disputes between Lebanon and Israel," Cambanis said.
More News
Qatari Officials Arrive In Tehran As Top Iranian Official Casts Doubt Over Deal With US
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.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
- By Daud Khattak
From Iran To Ukraine: How Asymmetric Warfare Is Challenging Conventional Military Power
When it launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russia expected the fall of Kyiv within days.
In waging a bombing campaign of Iran in late February, the United States and Israel anticipated the rapid collapse of the Islamic republic.
But in both cases, overwhelming military power failed to defeat the smaller and weaker side in the conflict. Instead, Ukraine and Iran reshaped the battlefield with cheap, domestically produced drones.
The conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East have given rise to asymmetric drone warfare, experts say. Compensating for shortages of missiles and the lack of a modern air force, militarily weaker actors are increasingly using drones to even the playing field.
"Drone warfare is new in the sense that it doesn't truly replace conventional military means but rather modifies their uses," said Clement Molin, an analyst at the France-based think tank Atum Mundi.
"If drones are used so extensively by Ukraine and Russia, it is primarily due to a lack of air superiority capabilities or missiles. We see this in the Middle East, where states have been able to achieve almost total air superiority over Iran," he added.
Molin said aircraft, tanks, logistics, and infantry are still crucial in modern warfare. But he said the role of drones in military strategy is "progressively strengthening."
"Drones will conduct autonomous missions guided by AI. UGV [unmanned ground vehicle] drones will be able to replace logistics or conduct assaults. And naval drones will enable surface and underwater warfare, and even, as is already the case, serve as 'drone carriers.'"
'Low-Cost Attrition'
The United States and Israel launched a bombing campaign of Iran on February 28, striking military and nuclear sites, hitting the country's industrial base, and assassinating dozens of Iranian political and military officials.
Lacking a modern air force and air defenses, Iran responded by firing thousands of ballistic missiles and kamikaze Shahed drones at Israel, US military and diplomatic facilities in Persian Gulf, and key energy infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait -- key US allies.
By threatening and attacking international shipping, Iran also brought maritime traffic to a virtual standstill in the Strait of Hormuz, a key artery for global oil and gas supplies, giving it significant leverage over its neighbors in the Persian Gulf and the global economy.
Costing as little as $7,000 each, Iran's drones imposed significant economic and operational costs on the Persian Gulf states, despite high interception rates. Iran fired an estimated 4,000 Shahed-136 and Arash-2 drones until a cease-fire went into effect on April 8.
Iran's drone attacks "paralyzed shipping, damaged air and missile defense radars, slashed gas exports, and forced expensive alert postures," said Farzin Nadimi, an Iran defense expert at the Washington Institute.
"Iran's one-way attack drones demonstrated in the 2026 conflict that even heavily degraded forces can maintain offensive capability and probably even shift the balance through persistent, low-cost attrition," he added.
Ukraine's inexpensive, domestically produced drones have played a major role in its war against Russia.
Drones have not only been key to Kyiv fighting Russian forces to a near stalemate. Away from the front line, Ukrainian drones have struck Russia's naval fleets in the Black and Baltic seas, hit Russian airfields and military sites, and disrupted Russia's war economy by striking major oil refineries.
Lagging in its drone capabilities at first, Russia acquired thousands of units and technology from Iran, and then developed its own homegrown production.
For both Russia and Ukraine, the entire war has been transformed by drones, experts said: kamikaze Shahed drones, heavy-lift supply drones, first-person-view drones, drones flown by fiber-optic cable.
'Irregular Groups'
Nonstate actors, including militant groups in the Middle East, are also increasingly using drones against regular armies. They include Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and Yemen's Houthi rebels.
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.
Hezbollah has used fiber-optic drones -- first pioneered by Russian soldiers and now ubiquitous in Ukraine -- during the current war with Israel.
In the past month, Hezbollah militants have killed three IDF soldiers and one Israeli civilian using kamikaze drones controlled through kilometers of fiber-optic cables, highlighting the vulnerability of even the world's most advanced militaries to the cheap drone innovation.
Unlike radio-controlled drones, which are vulnerable to electronic jamming and require a clear line of sight to a transmitter, fiber-optic drones can be navigated to virtually anywhere there is space to fly.
Meanwhile, the Houthis have waged maritime drone and missile campaigns that have disrupted global shipping in the Red Sea.
"Groups such as Hezbollah and the Houthis already have effectively shown that they can use asymmetric strategies, based on cheap drones and missiles, to impose costs on rival militaries," said Steven Feldstein of the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
"The Houthis are a classic example of an irregular group that over time have developed a sophisticated drone and missile program that has created significant havoc in the region," he added.
Experts say both groups have used Iranian designs and know-how, commercial components mainly sourced from China, and battlefield lessons from the war in Ukraine.
- By RFE/RL
Trump Says US Will Win 'Militarily Or On Paper,' Could Meet Iran Supreme Leader If There's Deal
US President Donald Trump said the United States will win the conflict with Iran either "militarily or on paper,” referring to the fitful negotiations with Tehran, and he suggested he could meet with Iran's reclusive supreme leader "if it was to make a deal.”
"We're going to win one way or the other," Trump told reporters at the White House.
"It's going to be militarily or on paper."
Trump also said he had no desire to meet with Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, who has not been seen since the outbreak of violence on February 28 and was reportedly seriously injured in US-Israeli air strikes.
However, Trump added if the two sides reached a deal, it was possible the two leaders would meet and added: "If it happened...I'd be respectful."
"I don't want to meet, but if I did meet, I'd be honored to meet him," Trump said.
"But if we make a deal, it's possible that I would meet him. I'd be OK with that."
Trump on June 3 had said Khamenei was "involved, absolutely" in negotiations, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio a day earlier said that "there are indications out there that he is increasingly engaging at some level."
Trump: US Could Resume Military Operations
Trump also said US forces would resume operations if American troops were killed in any Iranian strikes during the current cease-fire. Tehran and the US have exchanged occasional air strikes in recent days, the latest being Iran's attacks on Kuwait's international airport that killed one person and injured 63 on June 3.
Trump was speaking at the White House on June 4 to reporters on a wide variety of subjects, including the Ukraine war, Cuba, and global trade issues.
Amid the shaky cease-fire in the Middle East and on-and-off peace negotiations, Trump said the United States did not need a deal with Tehran to get Iran's supply of enriched uranium out of the country.
"We could get it right now. I don't think they could stop us if we wanted, but there's no reason to. It's entombed," he told reporters, referring to the material that could be used to build a nuclear weapon.
Trump claimed that the uranium was under surveillance. "We have cameras on it," he said, without elaborating.
Mohsen Rezaei, adviser to Iran's supreme leader, said the current draft of the memorandum of understanding being negotiated to end the war has ambiguities that need to be clarified.
He claimed that Trump seeks to pressure Tehran to accept his terms and keep Tehran's conditions in a vague state.
Progress In Lebanon Amid Violence?
Trump also said he believed progress was being made between Israel and Lebanon and that Lebanon deserved to have peace and that he "actually spoke to Hezbollah about it."
Iran-backed Hezbollah, a militant group and political party that controls much of southern Lebanon, is considered a terrorist organization by the US, while the European Union has blacklisted its armed wing but not its political branch.
Trump on June 1 also said he had spoken to Hezbollah, but the White House later clarified that it was through intermediaries.
Given that Hezbollah is a designated terror group, no US president has previously acknowledged having spoken to the group, directly or through intermediaries.
Hezbollah on June 4 rejected a new cease-fire in Lebanon, and Israel said it would not withdraw troops from the country, undermining US efforts to halt fighting there as part of a wider peace deal with Iran. Hezbollah has not been a direct participant in the talks involving the US, Israel, and the Lebanese government.
Trump told reporters he had also spoken to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and said that "I think progress is made. It's been going on for a long time, you know."
"It would be really nice if Lebanon could have some peace," he said. "Lebanon has been under attack for so many years and always like an underdog, and it would be really nice if it could end."
Tehran has made a Lebanon truce one of its conditions for a peace deal with Washington. It has suggested it could intervene directly if Israel forces maintain their ferocious attacks there.
With reporting by RFE/RL's Radio Farda, AFP, and Reuters
- By RFE/RL's Radio Farda and
- Reuters
Kuwait Releases Video Of Deadly Attack On Airport
Kuwait's Civil Aviation Authority released images of an Iranian drone attack on the country's international airport that took place on June 3. Kuwait says one person was killed and more than 60 were injured in the attack.
Mixed Signals Suggest US-Iran Crisis Is Far From Over, Says Security Analyst Jake Sotiriadis
WASHINGTON -- The US House of Representatives has passed a largely symbolic resolution aimed at limiting President Donald Trump's ability to continue military operations against Iran, highlighting growing unease among congressional lawmakers over the conflict. At the same time, senior administration officials have insisted the confrontation is effectively over, even as military exchanges continue across the region.
RFE/RL spoke with Jake Sotiriadis, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security who also advises the US State Department, where he trains diplomats in strategic foresight and geopolitical futures at the Foreign Service Institute, about whether these developments could signal the beginning of a diplomatic off-ramp between Washington and Tehran or merely a pause in a confrontation that still carries a significant risk of escalation.
RFE/RL: What do these mixed signals tell us about where this crisis stands?
Jake Sotiriadis: The administration is following a tactic we've seen previous administrations use when it comes to defining the status of a particular conflict. The House vote is largely symbolic -- it's not a binding resolution that's going to limit the administration's ability to do anything. In the unlikely event that it passes in the Senate in its current form, it still doesn't really have any bearing on the president's ability to conduct military operations.
Symbolically, this is obviously not a good look for the administration. This is not what the administration would like because it is a reflection of the House. This is also in line with current polling. The vast majority of the American public being polled is not in favor of the conflict right now.
For legal reasons, the administration is saying the conflict is officially over. It's really hard in practical terms to look at where we are right now -- with double-digit drones and missiles [targeting] Kuwait International Airport [on June 3], with American forces having launched attacks on Qeshm Island, with the Iranians and Americans trading missile attacks -- and say we are completely out of the woods. This is a very volatile situation, and at any moment you could have an escalation in military activity.
RFE/RL: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Iran has been significantly weakened militarily and economically. How do analysts determine whether a campaign has genuinely changed a state's behavior rather than simply degraded its capabilities?
Sotiriadis: I would suggest Iran's behavior hasn't necessarily changed all that much. This is a core issue when you look at the conflict. The question is whether you're going to be able to change Iran through regime change. I think that's off the table right now.
Yes, Iran's military capabilities have been degraded. Essentially, its navy is nonexistent. The problem with saying that is what the Iranians are demonstrating: You don't need a large conventional navy to control a choke point like the Strait of Hormuz. They're using asymmetric means. They're using a large inventory of drones that they still have, and they're using missile forces they still possess as well.
That's why, in whatever negotiation takes place, if there isn't a limit on Iran's ballistic missile program...that's a capability Iran can use to strike not only throughout the Middle East region but beyond it, as we saw when they fired toward Diego Garcia a few months ago.
RFE/RL: Iran's latest strikes reportedly hit infrastructure around Kuwait's airport and caused casualties. What do these attacks tell us about Tehran's remaining ability to project force despite claims that many of its military assets have been degraded?
Sotiriadis: When it comes to striking targets like Kuwait's airport, oil refineries, or military bases in the region, Iran still has that capability. It still has a large inventory of drones that hasn't been destroyed, and it still has missiles that it can and has been using.
Interestingly, the Iranians are now using the same argument that the Americans have been using: Iran said today that it struck Kuwait in self-defense because it believes attacks were launched from there. The US has similarly argued that strikes on coastal missile and drone sites were carried out in self-defense. S
RFE/RL: Looking specifically at the Strait of Hormuz and shipping lanes, what indicators will you be watching to determine whether the region is moving toward stabilization or renewed confrontation?
Sotiriadis: One of the biggest threats right now is that the Iranians have mined the strait. That's a huge risk to both commercial and military vessels. Any agreement to reopen the strait would require Iran to remove those mines.
This is where help from America's European allies would be useful. If we saw some form of European maritime force assisting with countermine operations, helping clear mines, or escorting vessels, that would be a positive indicator. It would also send a strong message that there is a broader international coalition working together on the issue.
The Europeans have a significant stake in this. Between 12 and 20 percent of their energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranians have realized through this conflict that, while much attention is focused on their nuclear program, one of their greatest sources of leverage is geography. They've long understood that closing the Strait of Hormuz was an option. Now they see it as perhaps their most powerful tool.
RFE/RL: Are we witnessing the beginning of a durable diplomatic off-ramp between Washington and Tehran, or merely a pause in a confrontation that still carries a significant risk of escalation?
Sotiriadis: There's always a risk of renewed military operations when things are this volatile. But what options are really left for the administration? One option is simply to walk away, but that would not be a good look. Another option is to launch a more extensive bombing campaign to pressure Iran into negotiations.
Both sides would prefer negotiations. The challenge is that there are still too many irreconcilable differences; whether it's the status of enriched uranium or the $25 billion in reparations Iran is reportedly seeking, those demands are not going to be acceptable to Washington. Likewise, what the US is demanding is not going to be acceptable to Tehran.
Until we get some sort of interim agreement -- perhaps a 60-day pause designed to create space for a longer-term solution -- we're likely to remain in this limbo. I do believe this could continue for a few more months.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
US House Approves Measure To End Iran War As Rubio Insists Conflict Is Over
The US House of Representatives approved a war powers resolution aimed at curbing President Donald Trump's military campaign against Iran, delivering a bipartisan rebuke to the administration even as Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted that US operations against Tehran had ended.
The House voted 215-208 on June 3 in favor of the measure, with four Republicans joining all Democrats in support.
The resolution, introduced by Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, directs Trump to remove US armed forces from hostilities with Iran unless Congress formally declares war or authorizes the use of military force.
The measure now heads to the Senate, where lawmakers are considering a separate war powers resolution. Even if approved by both chambers, Trump is expected to challenge efforts to limit his authority, and the House measure itself is largely viewed as symbolic because it does not carry the force of law.
Bipartisan Vote Signals Growing Congressional Pushback
The vote marked the strongest congressional rebuke yet of a conflict that has stretched beyond three months and fueled concerns about its economic and geopolitical consequences.
In a statement after the vote, Meeks argued that the military campaign had failed to achieve its stated objectives and had instead damaged diplomatic efforts aimed at resolving disputes over Iran's nuclear program.
"If anything, it has pushed a diplomatic resolution of Iran's nuclear program further away," he said.
The New York Democrat also pointed to rising fuel prices and the financial cost of the conflict, saying Americans were paying substantially more for gasoline while bearing the expense of a war that many oppose.
House Democratic leaders echoed those concerns, arguing that the conflict contradicted Trump's campaign pledges to avoid foreign wars and reduce costs for American households.
Republican leaders, however, maintained that the military campaign did not constitute a war requiring congressional authorization and warned restricting presidential authority could benefit Iran's leadership.
Still, opposition within Republican ranks has grown. Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Tom Barrett of Michigan, and Warren Davidson of Ohio broke with most of their party to support the measure.
Rubio Defends Administration's Strategy
Hours before the House vote, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the administration's handling of the conflict during testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
"We're no longer conducting sustained strikes inside of Iran to degrade their military, because Epic Fury is over," Rubio said, referring to the US military campaign. He added that Washington had achieved its objectives.
Rubio also argued the administration's goal had never been regime change in Tehran.
"We would love to see a change in Iran, and that they be governed by people, but that was not the goal of our mission," he told lawmakers.
The secretary of state said the US sought to eliminate Iran's ability to threaten the region with large-scale missile and drone attacks, which he argued would have reduced international leverage over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
Sanctions Relief Tied To Nuclear Concessions
Rubio also said any easing of US sanctions on Iran would depend on concessions regarding its nuclear program.
"They are not going to get any sanctions relief of any kind unless they get rid of enrichment and get rid of the highly enriched uranium," he told lawmakers.
According to Rubio, discussions between Washington and Tehran remain focused on the framework for future negotiations. He said Iran had shown greater willingness to discuss uranium enrichment than in previous talks but had not yet made commitments that satisfy US demands.
"A few months ago they refused to discuss the issues of both enrichment and the highly enriched uranium," Rubio said. "I think now, in some of the papers that have been exchanged back and forth, it's clearly addressed, but we still don't have final sign-off from their system, as of this morning (June 3)."
Rubio added that the United States would only consider lifting its maritime blockade if Iran restores freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.
The administration has argued that the conflict effectively ended after Trump ordered a cease-fire in early April. The White House has also dismissed the House resolution as an unconstitutional attempt to limit executive authority, saying there are currently no active hostilities from which US forces must be withdrawn.
The Senate has not yet scheduled a final vote on its own war powers measure.
- By RFE/RL
Iran, US Exchange Attacks As Tensions In Gulf Rise
The United States and Iran exchanged missile and drone attacks early on June 3 as their fragile cease-fire hangs in the balance amid uncertainty over peace talks.
The US Central Command (CENTCOM) said its forces successfully intercepted multiple Iranian ballistic missiles and drones during incidents across the Middle East on June 3.
CENTCOM reported that three missiles fired at Bahrain were intercepted by US and Bahraini air defense systems, while two missiles aimed at Kuwait fell short or broke apart in flight.
However, authorities in Kuwait said the "brutal" Iranian attacks left at least one person dead and at least 63 others injured, in addition to forcing the closure of Kuwait International Airport and damaging "vital installations," including diplomatic missions.
"Iran's blatant acts of aggression...escalate tensions, undermine security and stability of the region, and constitute a flagrant violation of international law," Kuwait's Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) confirmed the attack, saying it was made in retaliation for previous US strikes in recent days.
The incident came ahead of a visit by Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheikh Jarrah Jaber Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah to Washington, where he was expected to meet with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on June 4, RFE/RL learned from a diplomatic source.
CENTCOM also said US forces shot down three Iranian one-way attack drones that were said to be targeting civilian shipping in regional waters.
In response, US forces conducted what CENTCOM described as "self-defense strikes" against an Iranian military ground control station on Qeshm Island, which is located in the Strait of Hormuz.
Ongoing Peace Negotiations
The developments come as peace negotiations between the United States and Iran are about to enter their third month without yielding any concrete results.
Speaking to the New York Post's Pod Force One podcast, US President Donald Trump said Tehran has agreed to a major concession by saying it will not seek to obtain a nuclear weapon, adding that the situation was rapidly evolving.
In the interview, Trump said Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei was involved in negotiations and approving Tehran's stance over the issues. Khamenei has not been seen in public since before US and Israeli air strikes killed his father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and several other family members on February 28.
Mojtaba Khamenei, who was named the new supreme leader on March 8, was reportedly severely wounded in the strikes, raising questions as to who was actually leading Iran.
"I would like to meet him, and we probably will meet at some point, depending on how it all works out," Trump said.
While there was no immediate confirmation from Iranian authorities on Trump's comments about nuclear weapons, Tehran has been vague about where the negotiations stand.
Earlier in the week, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said that the talks were indeed ongoing but warned against "speculation," saying Tehran could not judge the negotiating process until there was a clear result.
The latest draft of potential agreement between the countries, reported by US media, was said to extend the cease-fire by 60 days, call for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and establish a framework for renewed nuclear negotiations.
The deal would also potentially allow Iran to access billions of dollars in frozen assets through sanctions relief if diplomatic progress continues.
However, later the US media reported that Trump has requested changes to the proposed agreement. The revisions reportedly concerned the status of the Strait of Hormuz and the disposal of Iran's highly enriched uranium stockpile.
On June 2, Rubio said that no sanctions on Iran will be lifted in exchange for Iran agreeing to open the Strait of Hormuz. "That's not been discussed. That's not been offered," he told a Senate committee hearing.
With reporting by Reuters and AFP.
Can Diplomacy Survive? Analyst Dania Arayssi On Iran, Hezbollah, And The Struggle For A Deal
WASHINGTON -- Diplomatic efforts to contain the widening Middle East crisis entered a critical phase this week as US officials sought to keep alive negotiations with Iran amid mounting regional tensions.
On June 2, the same day Israeli and Lebanese officials held a fourth round of US-mediated talks in Washington, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Congress he remained optimistic that nuclear negotiations with Tehran could resume despite growing uncertainty over a fragile cease-fire and renewed threats surrounding the Strait of Hormuz. Rubio also insisted that sanctions relief would remain tied to Iran's nuclear program and not to any reopening of key shipping routes.
Meanwhile, Iran-linked actors across the region continued to test the limits of the uneasy truce, with Hezbollah rejecting a "partial cease-fire" proposal and US military officials reporting new Iranian missile activity against regional targets.
To better understand the state of the Iran talks and whether the region is moving toward a new strategic order, RFE/RL spoke with Dania Arayssi, program head and senior analyst at the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy, whose work focuses on Lebanon and the broader Middle East.
RFE/RL: As Washington pursues both Israeli-Lebanese talks and broader negotiations with Iran, how significant are today's meetings? Do they represent real progress, or are they largely symbolic at this stage?
Dania Arayssi: Iran always likes to bring Lebanon into any negotiation with the US, but I think it's important to distinguish these two elements. What's going on in Lebanon is that the Lebanese government is trying to reclaim its sovereignty, its territory, and control over its borders, and that's something it has been trying to do for a very long time.
But I think Hezbollah, as a terrorist organization in Lebanon, is trying to follow orders from Tehran, and the continuation of launching missiles and strikes on Israel often comes at times when there are slowdowns or setbacks in negotiations between Iran and the US. Tehran is using Hezbollah as an element in Lebanon to sustain pressure on Israel. The Lebanese government has been very clear that it wants to work with Israel to resolve these issues and disarm Hezbollah. I think today's meetings were productive and positive, and I expected them to be because both parties agree on the same objective.
My expectation is that we are going to see Lebanese authorities working with Israel, under US mediation, to share intelligence on Hezbollah, particularly regarding weapons and arms stockpiles in Lebanon. This could help achieve mutually beneficial goals. I also expect the cease-fire between Lebanon and Israel to continue and potentially be expanded, with the US playing a key mediating role.
When it comes to Iran, I think Tehran is also trying to use Lebanon as leverage in negotiations. Iranian officials have made statements suggesting that Israeli military activity in Lebanon affects the pace of negotiations with Washington. Again, Lebanon is being used as a tool to slow down talks and complicate efforts to resolve the broader conflict. The US has been clear that Lebanon should not be part of these negotiations and that it is a separate sovereign country.
That being said, I do not expect negotiations with Iran to produce a meaningful outcome unless there is movement on the nuclear file. The current administration proposed a 20-year freeze on Iran's nuclear activities, which Tehran rejected. Any future nuclear agreement will also need to take Israel's security concerns into account because Iran is viewed as a major threat to Israel from a geographic and strategic standpoint.
Hezbollah's Mixed Messages
RFE/RL: Hezbollah has alternated between signaling openness to a cease-fire and rejecting key elements of proposed arrangements. How should we interpret these mixed messages, and what do they reveal about the pressures facing the group?
Arayssi: Hezbollah is divided internally over what peace should look like and how to pursue it. On one side, the group receives orders and directives from Iran regarding retaliation and military operations against Israel. On the other side, Hezbollah also has a constituency inside Lebanon -- people who support the group and have elected representatives linked to it and who are increasingly tired of this prolonged conflict.
So I think there are elements within Hezbollah that genuinely want a cease-fire and an end to the conflict. At the same time, they have to balance conflicting demands and pressures. With the pressure being applied by the Lebanese government and public opinion, I think Hezbollah will ultimately have to accept a cease-fire.
One of the key disputes during previous negotiations was over sequencing -- whether Hezbollah should stop launching missiles first, whether Israel should stop first, or whether both sides should halt operations simultaneously.
Hezbollah is realizing that its own constituency, particularly Lebanon's Shi'ite population, has been among the groups most affected by the conflict. Continuing the war risks further harm to its own community, which is why I think acceptance of a cease-fire is becoming increasingly necessary.
RFE/RL: From a political, economic, and strategic perspective, can Hezbollah afford to reject a peace deal at this stage? Or is its hard-line rhetoric partly aimed at masking internal weaknesses?
Arayssi: From a political economy standpoint, I don't think Hezbollah can afford this war. One major source of Hezbollah's funding has traditionally come through Syria, including smuggling networks and financial support linked to Iran. With tighter border controls and changes in Syria, Hezbollah has lost many of those revenue streams. The Lebanese government has also shut down a number of Hezbollah-linked financial institutions, including Al-Qard Al-Hassan. In addition, many Hezbollah officials and affiliates remain under US sanctions.
Beyond that, Hezbollah no longer has the financial capacity it once had to support displaced communities affected by fighting. People who have had to leave their villages often lack adequate support. Some are living in tents or temporary shelters and are increasingly frustrated. Even Hezbollah fighters are facing shortages of resources and support. Taken together, these factors suggest Hezbollah lacks the political and economic means to sustain a prolonged war and will eventually have to accept a cease-fire.
RFE/RL: Who is making the key decisions in Lebanon today? Are the officials participating in Washington talks the real decision-makers?
Arayssi: I think we are witnessing something very important in Lebanon: genuine power-sharing. Decision-making is no longer concentrated in the hands of a single actor. It involves the president, the prime minister, and Lebanon's diplomatic leadership working together.
For the first time in a long time, we are seeing collective decision-making focused on peace, security, and reconstruction. Previously, power was heavily concentrated among Hezbollah and its allies. The emergence of a broader governing consensus is a significant development.
This is one reason why the US has worked to prevent further escalation in Beirut. There is a genuine belief among Western governments, particularly in Washington, that Lebanon is attempting to reclaim authority from Hezbollah and reduce Iranian influence.
RFE/RL: Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is becoming increasingly involved in decision-making. What does that tell us about the stability of the Iranian system?
Arayssi: I think there is considerable uncertainty about decision-making inside Iran. Leadership structures have been disrupted, and there appears to be less clarity about who is responsible for major decisions and negotiations.
In a wartime environment, replacing senior figures and maintaining continuity becomes very difficult. Security concerns further complicate internal communication and coordination.
As a result, decision-making appears more concentrated among a smaller number of individuals, which can make consensus-building and negotiations more difficult.
RFE/RL: Is Washington negotiating with a unified Iranian leadership, or are internal divisions becoming more visible
Arayssi: There are divisions within Iran. There are individuals who favor accepting certain terms and pursuing a more pragmatic relationship with the international community. There are also more hard-line figures who continue to emphasize Iran's right to maintain a nuclear program.
These competing views create challenges for negotiations and make it harder to reach a final agreement.
A New Regional Order?
RFE/RL: Looking at the broader picture, do these crises point toward the emergence of a new regional order, or should each issue be addressed separately?
Arayssi: I think the US needs to recognize that a new regional order is emerging. Iran is an important regional actor with its own interests and worldview. The challenge is to build mechanisms of trust and communication that reduce risks and prevent conflict.
We are already seeing discussions about civilian nuclear capabilities elsewhere in the region, including in Saudi Arabia. That means the focus should be on building frameworks that ensure nuclear technology is not used to threaten other countries.
Ultimately, regional stability depends on sustained dialogue, communication, and cooperation among major actors.
RFE/RL: Some opposition groups in Iran once received significant attention abroad but seem less visible today. Why
Arayssi: I think there is growing recognition that political change in Iran must be driven by Iranians themselves. The US does not want to be perceived as imposing a political outcome or choosing Iran's future leadership.
There is also recognition that external attempts to engineer political transitions elsewhere in the region have produced mixed results. Policymakers are cautious about repeating those experiences.
If Iran's political future changes, it will need to be through a process that reflects the will of the Iranian people themselves rather than having outside actors select leaders on their behalf.