Iran Confirms Indirect Talks with US in Oman
The Iranian mission to the United Nations confirmed that indirect talks between the US and Iran in Oman are an "ongoing process."
The Iranian mission to the United Nations confirmed that indirect talks between the US and Iran in Oman are an "ongoing process."
According to representatives from the mission, the discussions are part of a series that "neither are the first nor will they be the last."
Biden administration officials including the President’s top Middle East adviser, Brett McGurk and the acting US envoy for Iran, Abram Paley, are part of the discussions tackling core issues with the country the US last year branded the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.
Since the Iran-backed Hamas attack on Israel last October, proxies supported by Iran have carried out over 200 attacks against US forces, blaming the US for supporting Israel’s right to defend itself following the invasion which killed 1,200 in a single day.
The talks in Oman also touched on Iran's nuclear ambitions, with recent threats from Tehran to potentially pursue atomic weapons adding urgency to the discussions. The UN’s nuclear chief recently said Iran was weeks rather than months from a nuclear weapon.
Similar discussions took place in January between the same parties. During that period, tensions were escalating between Israel and Iran, with Tehran-supported Yemeni Houthi forces launching attacks on international commercial vessels in the Red Sea.
US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman met in Dhahran to discuss a range of issues, including normalization of ties with Israel.
This comes just days after two State Department officials met Iranian negotiators in Oman to discuss ways to prevent a further escalation of tensions and potential hostilities in the region.
A Saudi statement on Sunday also said, "the semi-final version of the draft strategic agreements between the two countries, which are almost being finalised,” were discussed.
The Biden administration is offering a strategic deal to the Saudis who have reasons to be wary of Washington’s perceived soft stance toward Tehran in the past three years. In addition to security guarantees, part of the deal appears to be an agreement to assist a Saudi civilian nuclear program, as Iran has reached the weapons threshold under President Joe Biden’s watch.
The de facto Saudi leader and President Joe Biden's top security aide also discussed the need to find a "credible track for bringing about the two-state solution" for Israel and the Palestinians, stop the war against Hamas militants in Gaza and facilitate the entry of humanitarian aid, the statement said.
Iran has repeatedly warned regional Arab countries against normalizing ties with Saudi Arabia. Last year, shortly before the Hamas attack on Israel, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said on October 3,"The position of the Islamic Republic is that countries that make the gamble of normalization with Israel will lose. They are betting on a losing horse.” The comment came at a time when a final decision was made by Tehran’s Palestinian ally, Hamas, to launch the unprecedented attack that killed more than one thousand Israeli civilians. It is unlikely that Mr. Khamenei was not aware of the imminent attack.
Iran’s representative to the United Nations in New York confirmed the talks with US representatives, saying that “this was not the first or the last” round of talks. Observers believe that Biden has tried hard to prevent a region-wide escalation of the Israeli-Hamas conflict in an election year. Iran in the meantime has reiterated its support for Hamas and other armed militant groups in the region receiving financial and military support from Tehran.
US assistance to the Saudi nuclear program poses the question if Riyadh is willing to live with an Iran on the threshold of obtaining nuclear weapons, without pursuing a similar course to establish deterrence. In the past, Riyadh has not only reiterated its right to have full control over the nuclear cycle, but has threatened to develop atomic weapons if its security needs so dictate.
The Saudi crown prince has long said that if Iran developed a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia would follow suit, a stance that has fueled deep concern among arms control advocates and some U.S. lawmakers over a possible US-Saudi civil nuclear deal.
This leaves the possibility that a purely civilian Saudi nuclear program would be linked to US security guarantees, which in turn would mean some sort of détente or deterrence with Iran. Recently, Iranian officials have been threatening “a change in nuclear doctrine” if Israel threatens the country’s nuclear installations or the Islamic Republic regime itself. Currently, Tehran has accumulated sufficient fissile material for at least three nuclear warheads, and for the time being it seems interested to use the option as a leverage with Israel and the United States.
In recent events at Princeton University, a stark contrast emerged between the peaceful protest by a group of Iranians—who have personally suffered under the brutality of the Islamic ruling system—and a sit-in by some US students.
Just like other students on US campuses, these students displayed flags of Hamas and Hezbollah and labeled these entities as "resistance groups." This troubling endorsement starkly clashes with the profound grievances of those who have experienced the true nature of such groups first-hand.
The Iranian protest at Princeton was not just a demonstration against Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a former Iranian ambassador to Germany and a figure deeply intertwined with Tehran’s oppressive apparatus. It was a plea for recognition of the agonies inflicted by the Islamic Republic, which has left deep scars on the Iranian people through relentless suppression of dissent and promotion of terrorism.
Mousavian’s tenure in the 1990s coincided with some of the darkest days of repression and external terrorist activities orchestrated by Tehran, including the systematic assassinations of 24 Iranian intellectuals and activists across Europe. His current academic position at Princeton starkly contrasts with his past, serving as a painful reminder to the victims' families of the injustice that continues to elude the international community’s full recognition and response.
Simultaneously, a group of US students conducted a "solidarity sit-in," with Hamas mirroring similar demonstrations across numerous college campuses. This perspective reveals a concerning disconnect from the historical and ongoing realities these organizations represent.
Historical Context and the Impact of Designating Terrorists as 'Resistance'
Hamas and Hezbollah are officially designated as terrorist organizations by the United States and several other countries. This designation is based on a history of violent actions that include suicide bombings, rocket attacks, and other forms of terrorism aimed at civilian populations. Their activities have contributed to the destabilization of regions and inflicted severe suffering upon countless innocents.
Moreover, Hezbollah’s involvement in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, which killed hundreds of US and French military personnel, is a grim exemplar of the group’s long-standing hostility towards Western nations and their regional allies. This act of terrorism, along with numerous others, underscores the inherent danger in romanticizing groups that actively undermine peace and security.
The Plight of Women and LGBTQ+ Under Islamist Regimes
The endorsement of Islamist groups by some Western students overlooks the severe implications these regimes have for human rights, particularly concerning women and the LGBTQ+ community. Wherever these Islamist groups have gained power, the result has been chaos, the erosion of civil liberties, and the imposition of draconian laws that strip away the rights and freedoms of women and LGBTQ+ individuals. The Iranian "Woman Life Freedom Movement" exemplifies the courageous struggle of Iranian women against a brutal regime that systematically oppresses them. This movement highlights the stark contrast between the aspirations of these brave women and the harsh realities imposed by theocratic governance. Furthermore, in groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, there is a conspicuous absence of women or LGBTQ individuals in any positions of leadership, reflecting a broader ideology that views women as lesser beings and severely restricts the rights and freedoms of the LGBTQ+ community. This fundamental disrespect for equality and human dignity underlines the dangers of supporting such groups under the guise of political resistance.
Complicity in Academia: The Role of Educators in Shaping Perceptions
Compounding the issue is the stance of some academics within Western universities, whose endorsement or passive acceptance of extremist ideologies under the guise of intellectual debate contributes significantly to the normalization of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Professors and educators entrusted with shaping young minds play a pivotal role in either challenging or perpetuating dangerous misconceptions about what constitutes legitimate resistance versus terrorism.
In several academic circles, a troubling trend exists where the lines between critical discussion and outright support for militant actions blur. By framing these groups as legitimate resistance movements and focusing predominantly on their opposition to Western policies without equally scrutinizing their methods of violence and governance, these educators foster a one-sided narrative that ignores the broader, often devastating implications of these groups’ actions on civilians.
This academic endorsement can give unwarranted legitimacy to extremist views, making it crucial for educational institutions to maintain a balanced perspective that rigorously examines all aspects of such groups. Universities must encourage critical thinking and promote a comprehensive understanding of geopolitical issues, one that respects human rights and rejects any form of violence targeting innocents under the guise of political struggle.
Educational leaders and faculty members are responsible for guiding their students toward informed, ethical viewpoints on international politics, emphasizing the importance of peace, security, and respect for all human lives. By doing so, they can help prevent the spread of misinformation and the glorification of violence, ensuring that the next generation of leaders and thinkers advocates for genuine justice and peace, not masked by the banners of terror.
As the world continues to grapple with the complexities of international relations, terrorism, and the struggle for human rights, the need for clear-eyed scrutiny of all entities that purport to fight for justice but employ terror and suppression cannot be overstated. The future of global security and the preservation of fundamental human rights depend on our ability to discern true resistance from oppressive terror.
Opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily the views of Iran International.
Syria's signature on the Arab League Summit declaration in Bahrain, which included the UAE's claim over three Iranian islands, has sparked a backlash in Iranian media, with one commentator calling it a "stab in the back."
Iran’s leading ‘reformist’ daily criticized Tehran's ally Syrian President Bashar Assad for signing the declaration, and Iran's leading economic newspaper, Donyaye Eghtesad (World of Economy), said the declaration “disregarded the historical facts that demonstrate Iran's ownership of the three islands."
The Arab League summit statement this week included a clause reaffirming "the sovereignty of the United Arab Emirates over its three islands (Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb and Abu Musa)."
The three islands in the Persian Gulf have been in dispute since the British withdrew their armed forces in 1971 from what today is the United Arab Emirates. Iran's Mohammad Reza Shah ordered the Iranian navy to secure all three in November of that year. Iranian forces remain on the islands, with only Abu Musa having much of a civilian population of several thousand.
Influential Iranian commentator and former senior lawmaker Hesmatollah Falahatpisheh wrote on Sunday that he had warned in 2019 about the likelihood of Assad "stabbing Iran in the back."
Although Iran has sent thousands of fighters to Syria during the Syrian war and provided intelligence to keep Assad in power, his latest move suggests he doesn’t share Iran’s sentiment.
After pro-democracy protests erupted in 2011 in Syria, President Bashar Assad turned the tide of civil war with the help of Iranian proxy militias and a significant military intervention by the Russian government in 2015.
Regional powers such as Saudi Arabia took a different approach, supporting rebel groups to overthrow Assad and suspending Syria's membership in the Arab League.
In recent years, Tehran has grown its economic influence in the war-torn country by providing credit lines to Assad's government and trying to win lucrative contracts.
The conflict has claimed the lives of nearly half a million people since March 2011 and displaced half the country's pre-war population. However, many Iranians are highly critical of Tehran's involvement in the Syrian war that has cost nearly $50 billion for Iran, according to some estimates.
Nevertheless, this is not the first time an Iranian ally has taken a position supporting the rival.
China, which Iran counts as an ally, issued a similar joint statement in 2022 during a meeting with the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.
The statement contained several clauses that directly dealt with Iranian affairs, its nuclear program, and the issue of three Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf was mentioned as a claim pursued by the UAE.
Iranians reacted strongly to the joint statement as soon as it was reported by the media, accusing the Islamic Republic of being so weak that its ally China was subtly endorsing the UAE claim.
Last December also, media in Tehran strongly criticized Russia for endorsing the UAE claim. The sixth Russian-Arab Cooperation Forum in Morocco concluded with a statement reiterating the UAE’s claim over the islands. Moscow had previously voiced its support for UAE’s claim back in July 2023 during a joint summit between the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and the Russian Federation.
President Ebrahim Raisi's recent remarks describing Iran's abortion statistics as "alarming," have sparked accusations of hypocrisy.
Critics argue that his administration, despite heavy investment, has failed to provide accurate data on abortion rates, contradicting his public stance.
On Saturday, Raisi advocated for measures to reduce voluntary pregnancy terminations, emphasizing the need for greater control. However, the irony lies in his government's inability to accurately track or report the very figures.
The National Population Headquarters, established under the controversial 2021 Family and Youth Population Support Law, has yet to release any concrete statistics on abortion types and numbers, despite a significant budget of nearly $750 million allocated for population initiatives over the past two years.
In contrast, informal estimates suggest that between 350,000 and 530,000 abortions are performed annually, with some figures suggesting numbers as high as 650,000. The majority of these procedures reportedly occur illegally without medical supervision, putting women’s health and even lives, in serious danger.
The regime's strict policies on abortion and contraception, aimed at rapidly doubling the Shiite population, face strong resistance from the public. Many Iranians continue to choose smaller family sizes, directly undermining Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's demographic goals. The widespread non-compliance illustrates a clear rejection of the government's intrusive reproductive policies.
Despite a younger generation that is well-versed in contraception methods, the government has removed the options from all public health facilities, effectively limiting access to necessary family planning resources.
Such disconnect between the government's authoritarian reproductive policies and the actual reproductive behaviors of its citizens highlights a significant challenge to Raisi's administration, questioning its ability to govern effectively while respecting the personal freedoms and health of its people.
If Joe Biden is reelected as US President in November, there is a “heightened possibility of considerable military pressure on Iran,” warned Washington Institute executive director Robert Satloff.
Speaking to Iran International, Satloff speculated on the potential directions a second term for President Joe Biden could take.
He suggested that the administration could either revisit the spirit of the JCPOA, as seen in the second Obama administration or adopt a different, more assertive approach towards Iran.
“I don't think the government will say, let's try JCPOA again and get around to the bargaining table. You will hear a debate about military pressure producing diplomatic options. There's a heightened possibility in a second Biden administration that there will be more considerable military pressure on Iran,” Satloff stated.
In 2015, Iran and major world powers, including the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, signed the JCPOA in Vienna. Under the agreement, Iran pledged to reduce its nuclear capability in exchange for relief from economic sanctions. In 2018, President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran deal and imposed sanctions that crippled the Iranian economy.
In spite of sanctions, Iran has continued to enrich uranium far beyond JCPOA boundaries with the UN warning that Iran is weeks not months from a nuclear weapon, a major threat to global peace.
Asked about Biden’s Iran stance that critics from both sides of the political spectrum call soft, especially about Tehran’s role in Hamas' October 7th attack on Israel, Satloff stated the administration wanted “to lower the potential for a truly regional conflagration.”
Not least, over 200 attacks took place against US positions in the Middle East after the outbreak of the Gaza war as punishment for the US supporting Israel’s right to defend itself.
Critics of Biden question the claim that Iran was unaware of the October 7 attack despite actively supporting militias in the region, primarily through its so-called “Axis of Resistance,” including Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and other militant groups in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq.
In the course of last year Iran’s leaders had held a series of meetings with Hamas’s political leaders in the build-up to the attack. Within hours of the attack state-sponsored celebrations took place in Iran.
The Hamas invasion saw at least 1,200 killed, including at least 30 US citizens, and 252 more taken hostage. In its subsequent military operation in Gaza, Israel has killed over 35,000 people, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.
If the US wants to “adequately deal with what is going on in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and in Lebanon, they need to deal directly with what is going on in Tehran as it is the capital of this alliance of terror,” Satloff said. Last year the US named Iran as the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.In spite of the US revealing Tehran's funding of Hamas to the tune of at least €100m a year, plus arming and training the terror group, the Biden administration has largely held that Tehran was not responsible for October 7, the trigger for the longest and bloodiest Gaza war since Hamas took control of the Strip in 2007 in a bloody coup.
Iran and Israel’s shadow war has escalated since the start of last month, forcing Biden to confront an ever-more bold and aggressive Tehran. Iran attacked Israel last month in retaliation for an apparent Israeli strike on its consulate in Damascus that killed 7 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) members.
Satloff said Tehran’s retaliatory attack showed how vulnerable Iran is and not as militarily capable as it portrays. “As we say in America, they couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn as many missed not their targets, but the country they were even attacking, landing in Jordan, Lebanon, or elsewhere.”
While over 300 drones and missiles were used in the attack, almost all were intercepted by Israel’s defense system and a US-led coalition.
Six days after the operation, an Israeli strike targeted a vital component of the S-300 air defense system at Iran's central city of Isfahan.
“Israelis opted for retaliation with a powerful message which showed the Iranians we can go anywhere, do anything, hit any target, and you can not stop us,” Satloff said.
The US has also been dragged into Iran’s proxy war most recently against Yemen’s Houthi militia. The Iran-backed terror group’s Red Sea blockade targeting global shipping has seen the US and UK engage in strikes on Houthi infrastructure in Yemen as well as defensive actions against drone and missile strikes in the vital trade route.
Talking about the future of tensions in the region, Satloff said hopes for de-escalation look unlikely, “I'm not sure it's in Iran's interest for there to be quiet, and so I think we're already seeing some Iranian militias also have an uptick and activity in the last couple of weeks coming out of Syria and Iraq, so I fear that we will have a higher level of tension as we move toward our November election.”
