Everything you need to know about the ongoing talks—and more
The Iranist for the week of April 25, 2025
THE هفت/SEVEN THINGS TO KNOW THIS WEEK:
۱/1 How Rome talks went and what’s next
On April 19, the United States and Iran held their second round of talks in Rome, Italy, about the country’s controversial nuclear program and a framework for how the negotiations will proceed (Axios). Again, the US side was led by Special Envoy for the Middle East (and Russia issues) Steve Witkoff, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi led the Iranian side. Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al-Busaidi hosted the duo at the Omani diplomatic compound in Rome. The first round of talks had taken place the previous weekend on April 12 in Oman and reportedly focused on the tone and format of the talks (Axios).
The talks wrapped up after four hours. According to the Associated Press:
“While the US said both direct and indirect discussions were held, Iranian officials described them as indirect, like those last weekend in Muscat, Oman, with Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi shuttling between them in different rooms.”
The third round of talks was initially scheduled to continue on April 23 as technical talks—e.g. sanctions relief and how it pertains to the nuclear program—and then on April 26 for another round of higher-level talks, but are now taking place only on the latter date in Oman (tomorrow) (Reuters). A State Department spokesperson said, “We made very good progress in our direct and indirect discussions. We agreed to meet again next week.” (Politico)
The fact that a third round of talks was set suggests that full dismantlement was not part of the discussions in Rome, which is what Iran hawks like National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have seemingly suggested must happen (New York Times). (MORE ON DISMANTLEMENT IN NEXT SECTION)
On April 24, the Trump administration named the State Department’s policy planning director Michael Anton to lead the US technical team in negotiations with Iran (Politico). His team is comprised of about a dozen, largely career officials from across the US government.
In a TIME Magazine interview released on April 25, marking Trump’s first one hundred days in office, the US president said he’d be open to meeting Iran’s president or supreme leader. He also noted that Israel can’t drag the US into war, but added, “If we don’t make a deal, I’ll be leading the pack,” a reference to strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
In separate comments from a day prior, Trump said, “I think we’re doing very well on an agreement with Iran... That one is well on its way—we could have a very, very good decision. And a lot of lives will be saved.” (Reuters)
Meanwhile, the US Treasury Department imposed sanctions on an Iranian shipping magnate and his corporate network (Reuters). Tehran slammed the move as “hostile.” (AFP)
LIBYA OR BUST? There’s been much confusion about what exactly the Trump administration wants to happen to Iran’s nuclear program. As the Washington Post explains:
“Depending on the day and the speaker, the Trump administration is threatening military strikes unless Iran eradicates its nuclear program and attendant technology, or is seeking Iran’s agreement to shrink the program and submit to strict outside verification.”
Last week, Witkoff said Iran does not “need to enrich past 3.67 percent”—the percentage Tehran is allowed to enrich uranium per the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that Trump withdrew from in 2018 despite Tehran not violating the deal at the time. Today, Iran enriches uranium at 60 percent—a short step away from weapons-grade levels of 90 percent. The comment by Witkoff incensed Iran hawks—many of whom made the point that this was no different from the Barack Obama-era deal. Witkoff then changed his tune with a post on X that said, “Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.”
This obviously annoyed the Iranians. During the talks in Rome, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baqaei said, “Given the contradictory statements we have heard from various US officials in recent days, we expect the American side to first clarify its stance and resolve the serious ambiguities regarding its intentions and seriousness.” (X)
The New York Times also reported that:
“Iranian officials have said that they will not disassemble or destroy the nuclear infrastructure in which they have invested billions of dollars. Mr. Witkoff has told administration officials privately that if they insist on full dismantlement, he is unlikely to emerge from the talks with a deal…”
On April 23, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told the Free Press, “If Iran wants a civil nuclear program, they can have one just like many other countries in the world have one, meaning they can import enriched material.”
He also clarified what Witkoff was trying to say about the 3.67 percent:
“Well, I think Steve subsequently followed up by clarifying that what he meant is that that would be the limit of what they would be allowed to import for their domestic program… They do have a nuclear reactor that imports Russian enriched material at 3.67, and that’s what you need for—but they don’t enrich it themselves. So I think what Steve was—the point he was trying to make in that interview, and has subsequently clarified, was he’s talking about the level of enrichment that they would be allowed—the level of enriched material that they would be allowed to import from outside…” (Found in taped version, not transcript)
So, it seems that a full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program is not on the table—at least for now.
WHAT DOES TEHRAN WANT? Sources told the Wall Street Journal that Iran is seeking a framework to ensure the US doesn’t withdraw from a future deal (confirmed by Reuters), ways to manage its stockpile of enriched uranium, a process for lifting sanctions, and, surprisingly, a high-level visit in Washington.
On April 19, Ali Shamkhani, the political adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, posted on X:
“Iran’s team in #Rome with full authority for a deal based on 9 principles: seriousness, guarantees, balance, no threats, speed, removal of sanctions, rejection of the Libya/UAE model, containing troublemakers (like Israel), and investment facilitation. Not to yield.”
After the Rome talks, the Iranian foreign minister said on X:
“Relatively positive atmosphere in Rome has enabled progress on principles and objectives of a possible deal. We made clear how many in Iran believe that the JCPOA is no longer good enough for us... For now, optimism may be warranted but only with a great deal of caution.”
Axios reported that Araghchi reportedly told Witkoff that an interim deal is more realistic given the two-month deadline the president had offered (the Iranian Mission to the United Nations denied this). Witkoff allegedly said he prefers to focus on a comprehensive deal.
Interestingly, Tehran said it hoped that Russia would play a role in the deal, and it has been considered a possible destination for enriched uranium—a role it held as part of the JCPOA (Reuters/The Guardian).
On April 21, the Iranian foreign minister was supposed to speak at the Carnegie Endowment’s International Nuclear Policy Conference virtually. However, it was canceled after his team requested changes limiting questions from the moderator and audience (there was a backlash from some Iranian activists and diaspora members about hosting him) (X/Iran International). Araghchi still made his case by publishing his prepared remarks (Read them here). The speech appeared to be written in a way to appeal to President Trump, highlighting Iran’s commitment to not developing nuclear weapons and how the country is a “trillion-dollar opportunity” for US firms.
WHAT IS ISRAEL THINKING? Last week, according to a report, Israel planned to strike Iranian nuclear facilities in May, but President Trump stopped them in order to try and negotiate with Tehran first. On April 19, Reuters reported that Israel had not ruled out an attack on Iran in the coming months, despite Trump telling his Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the US was unwilling to support such a move. Meanwhile, according to a report by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), Iran is fortifying two deeply buried tunnel complexes with a massive security perimeter, presumably over fears of an attack (Reuters).
Interestingly, on April 18, Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer and Mossad Chief David Barnea met with Witkoff while he was in France to try to influence the US position (Axios). Dermer was also sighted in Rome, staying at the same hotel as Witkoff, though it’s unclear if that was a coincidence (AP). According to the Jerusalem Post, “In Israel, there has been deep concern that neither Witkoff nor US President Donald Trump completely understands the importance of the details regarding setting back Iran’s nuclear program.”
On April 22, Trump posted on Truth Social that he spoke to his Israeli counterpart about an array of issues, including Iran, adding, “The call went very well—we are on the same side of every issue.” (Al-Monitor)
HOW ARE IRANIANS REACTING? Anti-regime sentiment in Iran has been historically high in recent years, as evident by the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom uprising and the low turnout of the 2024 presidential election. While it’s difficult to fully assess public opinion on the ground, two distinct camps seem to have emerged among anti-regime Iranians during the ongoing talks. One group—made up of those directly impacted by the protests over the years, including former prisoners or individuals who have lost loved ones—views any potential deal as a lifeline to the Islamic Republic. The other is driven by economic hardship because Iranians are struggling financially and see no other option for now.
The sister of Javad Heydari, one of the protesters killed during the 2022 uprising, called on Trump not to make a deal because it would “sustain” the “illegitimate” regime (X). “Negotiate with the Iranian people—not with the regime,” she wrote on X. While a video of a protester in Iran graffitiing, “President Trump don’t sell us out,” went viral (X).
Iran-based Nobel laureate Narges Mohammadi said in an interview:
“I firmly call upon the international community that any negotiations with such a regime, one that the Iranian people want removed… must focus on human rights in Iran. Meaning, that at the center of negotiations must be human rights.” (X – with English subtitles). (Mohammadi is on furlough from a 13-year prison sentence.)
UK-based Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi made similar comments on April 21:
“Everyone welcomes economic relief, but the main agreement should be with the Iranian people—an agreement to end the civil war.” (IranWire)
Mersedeh Shahinkar, one of the protesters injured in the eye by security forces during the 2022 uprising, wrote on X while at a three-day sit-in strike outside the State Department hosted by NSGIran, drawing attention to the human rights situation:
“Negotiating with the Islamic Republic and supporting such negotiations means turning a blind eye to the regime’s crimes. It means trampling on all the blood that’s been shed in sacrifice for the freedom of our homeland. So you, who are happy that the dollar dropped to 90,000 tomans (900,000 rials)—not only have you forgiven the regime, but you’ve also forgotten everything. As usual, you belong to the gray area. I forgive neither you nor the regime,” a reference to Iranians who support the talks.
The drop from over one million rials to now around 800,000 to the US dollar is what many Iranians are holding on to for hope—that their purchasing power will improve. An NBC News report from Tehran highlighted that Iranians were hopeful for a deal for various economic-related reasons (X). Journalist Richard Engel said that the negotiations “have created a lot of excitement because people hope that it means that there won’t be an attack on Iran... And they’re really hopeful that it will lift sanctions and that a deal will allow Iranians to get out of the box that they’re living in,” a reference to the country’s international isolation. (His comments were met with some backlash because Iranians cannot speak freely, and journalists are accompanied by minders.)
However, even if negotiations are successful, sanctions relief only serves as a temporary band-aid on deeper, systemic issues—corruption, mismanagement, and repression—caused by the clerical establishment, and more anti-regime protests are inevitable. It’s worth noting that the December 2017-January 2018 protests, at the time the largest in terms of geography since the 1979 revolution, happened while the JCPOA was still intact.
Meanwhile, some Trump-supporting Iranian-Americans are blaming Vice President JD Vance on the nuclear talks progressing and for appeasing Tehran (Amwaj.Media). This AI-generated photo of “Ayatollah Vance” went viral:
۲/2 Kurdish-Iranian political prisoner and victim of fabricated charges executed
۳/3 Iranian foreign minister visits China again
۴/4 Paraguay designates IRGC a terrorist organization
The State Department congratulated Paraguay on the news (state.gov).
۵/5 Draft executive order says no more US special envoy for Iran
۶/6 European Parliament’s Iran delegation chair target of Tehran-linked hacking
۷/7 Pentagon senior advisor fired over leaks claims it was for opposing Iran war
OTHER اخبار/NEWS THAT MADE HEADLINES:
Human Rights
۰ Sunni cleric arrested after court appearance (IranWire)
۰ Kurdish cleric arrested in western Iran (IranWire)
۰ ‘He stabbed her 14 times’: A father’s deadly rage and the law that shields him (IranWire)
Domestic Issues
۰ Iran arrests 4 state TV staff for insulting Sunni caliph in rare move (AP)
۰Protest suppressor to be appointed as Persepolis FC’s new CEO (IranWire)
۰After stealing $3.1B, Iranian tycoon wins $800M railway deal (IranWire)
۰ Tehran faces severe water crisis despite supply efforts (IranWire)
Foreign Policy + Security
۰Fetterman calls on Trump to ‘strike and destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities’ (The Hill)
۰ Exiled ‘crown prince’ calls for mass labor strikes to topple regime (Politico)
۰ President honors Pope Francis’ legacy of peace (IranWire)
۰ State TV apologizes for mocking Saudi foreign minister (IranWire)
۰ Lebanon FM to summon Iranian envoy over comments on Hezbollah arms (New Arab)
۰ Foreign minister condemns Pahalgam terrorist attack (X)
Iran Deal + Sanctions
۰ Big gaps in intelligence on Iran’s nuke program threaten push for quick deal (Wall Street Journal)
۰ Saudi Arabia opposed Obama’s deal with Iran. It supports Trump’s. Why? (New York Times)
۰ Space program is growing stronger despite US sanctions (Bloomberg)