Middle East
- By Kian Sharifi
Israel Is Trying To 'Weaken' Hezbollah As a Political And Economic Force
Israel's weekslong aerial bombardment and ground invasion of Lebanon has targeted the leadership and military capabilities of Hezbollah.
Now, Israel has expanded its targets and hit civilian infrastructure, including banks, affiliated with Hezbollah, an armed group and political party that controls much of southern Lebanon.
Experts say Israel's aim is to erode Hezbollah not just as a military power but also a political and economic force in Lebanon. Hezbollah is a U.S.-designated a terrorist organization, although the EU has only blacklisted its military wing.
"Beyond the degradation of the military capabilities, personnel, and armaments, there is certainly an Israeli attempt to weaken Hezbollah politically, socially, and financially," says Eran Etzion, a former Israeli diplomat and ex-deputy head of Israel's National Security Council.
On October 21, Israeli air strikes targeted the branches of the Al-Qard Al-Hassan Association (AQAH), which is affiliated with Hezbollah.
The bank offers financial services to civilians in areas where Hezbollah has strong support. But Israel and the United States accuse it of serving as a front for the group to fund its military activities.
Israel's targeting of the AQAH branches "marks an expansion in terms of the types of targets that Israel is hitting," says Etzion. But it does not mean Israel is attempting to completely dismantle Hezbollah, he adds.
Experts say destroying Hezbollah is not Israel's objective, not least because that is an unrealistic goal. Instead, they said, Israel is trying to degrade its military capabilities and political base.
"Hezbollah is the predominant political power in Lebanon, and if it is militarily significantly weakened, that would also reduce its political power," says Joost Hiltermann, director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at the Belgium-based International Crisis Group.
Under Lebanon's sectarian political system, the president is a Christian, the prime minister is a Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of parliament is a Shi'ite Muslim.
Hezbollah, whose power base is among Shi'a, has representatives at the ministerial and parliamentary levels. Its alliance with non-Shi'ite parties also gives it further political clout.
Hiltermann questioned whether Israel had the ability to effect political change in Lebanon. Iran-backed Hezbollah is more powerful than even the Lebanese Army, and smaller political factions in Lebanon do not have the military force or political clout to push it out completely, he said.
After invading Lebanon in 1982, Israel attempted and failed to reshape Lebanon's political scene by bringing a pro-Israeli Christian party to power.
"There is a recognition that Israel's abilities in that particular sphere are limited," says Etzion.
For Netanyahu, It's Personal
Observers say Israel's civilian and military leaders are split over how to approach the ongoing conflict with Hezbollah.
One camp wants to wind down the war and secure a political settlement based on UN Security Council Resolution 1701. That would include Hezbollah fighters retreating from near the Israeli border and UN peacekeeping forces ensuring security along the border.
The other camp, which includes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is looking to expand the conflict into a "full-fledged regional war" involving both Iran and the United States, Etzion says.
Israel has vowed to strike Iran in retaliation for Tehran's massive missile attack on October 1. Many worry that an Israeli attack will result in an escalating cycle of tit-for-tat strikes that will spiral into a war engulfing the entire region.
Netanyahu's primary goal "is to sustain his grip on power and to make sure he's not ousted," Etzion says. "He has a clear political, personal, and criminal interest in perpetuating the war."
Netanyahu's critics blame him for the security lapses that resulted in the October 7 attack by U.S.- and EU-designated Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.
Netanyahu is also facing serious corruption charges, and his detractors say the prime minister is trying to indefinitely postpone his own trial.
More News
- By Kian Sharifi and
- Hannah Kaviani
Three Islands That Could Be Key In Keeping The Strait Of Hormuz Open
US President Donald Trump has warned of possible further action against Kharg Island, a key oil terminal of Iran and a major cog in the country's economic machine.
But three other Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf could be just as strategic in efforts to pressure Tehran into reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a key artery for global oil and gas supplies.
The tiny islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb sit near the mouth of the 39-kilometer-wide waterway, giving them strategic value. The islands are controlled by Tehran but long claimed by the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
US media outlet Axios reported on March 26 that the Pentagon is preparing a range of military options for a potential "final blow" against Iran. They include seizing Abu Musa and the two other islands.
The capture of other Iranian islands, including Qeshm, Larak, and Kharg, are also on the table, according to Axios. The country has over 400 islands along its southern coast.
RFE/RL requested comment on the Axios report from the White House, which forwarded a March 21 statement by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.
In the statement, Leavitt said: "It's the job of the Pentagon to make preparations in order to give the Commander-in-Chief maximum optionality. It does not mean the President has made a decision, and as the President said in the Oval Office recently, he is not planning to send ground troops anywhere at this time."
Meanwhile, Iran's speaker of parliament Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf wrote on X on March 25 that Tehran's intelligence had indications that "Iran's enemies, with the support of a country in the region, are preparing an operation to occupy one of Iran's islands."
His comment was seen as a reference to Abu Musa and Iran's claims that the UAE could help the United States take it.
Internationally recognized as part of Iran, the islands are also claimed by the UAE. Tehran gained control of the territories just a day before the creation in 1971 of the UAE, which was until then was an informal British protectorate.
The largest of the islands, Abu Musa, is home to around 2,000 people. The two smaller islands are mostly uninhabited and home to naval and military facilities.
Pressure Tactic
Global oil and gas prices have soared since Iran effectively closed the narrow passage -- which accounts for about one-fifth of the world's oil and gas transit -- since the war began on February 28.
The United States could seize control of the islands to break Iran's chokehold on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz in hopes it will help push oil prices back down.
Seizing the three strategic islands could also give Washington a bargaining chip in any negotiation with Iran to end the war, experts say.
"The likelihood that they intend to occupy these islands is very high," Mohammad Farsi, a former Iranian military officer who was stationed on Kharg Island in the northern Persian Gulf before the Islamic Revolution in 1979, told RFE/RL's Radio Farda.
The deployment of two American expeditionary units, with thousands of Marines and supporting ships and aircraft, has added to speculation that Trump could at some point order the invasion of the islands.
Would It Actually Work?
Farsi said he was skeptical that seizing Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb would achieve its stated goal of keeping the strait open for oil tankers.
"The threat from Iran doesn't require ships or vessels," he said. "Iran can strike from a distance with drones and missiles."
As long as Iran's missile and drone infrastructure on the mainland remains intact, Farsi said, no island garrison or naval escort force can reliably guarantee safe passage through the strait.
H.A. Hellyer, a senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, says Iran's leadership views the Strait of Hormuz as a leverage point: "a pressure mechanism affecting global energy markets and international opinion."
Thus, control over the three islands for the United States would be "geographic and strategic."
"These islands sit near the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints. Control over them has implications for shipping lanes, energy flows, and potential military positioning in any scenario involving reopening or securing the strait," he said, adding he wasn't advocating for the United States to make such a move.
"In the end, these islands are not peripheral. They sit at the intersection of territorial dispute, maritime security, energy markets, and evolving Gulf alliances. Any move involving them would reshape the strategic landscape around Hormuz."
Rubio Says US Expects To End Iran Campaign In 'Weeks, Not Months,' Can Achieve Goals Without Ground Troops
PARIS -- The United States expects to wrap up its military operation in Iran within "weeks, not months" and believes it is possible to achieve its goals without ground troops, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on March 27.
Rubio, speaking in the French capital after a meeting with the other Group of Seven (G7) foreign ministers, also said Iran may seek to set up a toll system for passage through the Strait of Hormuz as the US-Israeli war approached its fifth week.
“We are on or ahead of schedule…and expect to conclude it…in a matter of weeks, not months,” he said of the military campaign.
“We’re going to destroy their navy…their air force…their ability to make missiles and drones…and dramatically reduce missile launchers," Rubio said, adding: “We can achieve all of our objectives without any ground troops…this is not going to be a prolonged conflict.”
Referring to US troops dispatched to the region, he said the deployments were meant "to give the president maximum optionality and maximum opportunity to adjust the contingencies, should they emerge."
Rubio's remarks came as Iran warned of new attacks across the Middle East and urged civilians to avoid areas near US forces, a day after US President Donald Trump extended a deadline for Tehran to open the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial oil-and-gas transport route from the Persian Gulf to global markets, until April 6.
In a statement, the G7 foreign ministers and the European Union's top diplomat called for an immediate halt to attacks against civilian infrastructure in the US-Israeli war with Iran.
"There can be no justification for the deliberate targeting of civilians in situations of armed conflict as well as attacks on diplomatic facilities," they said. The G7 comprises the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan.
Iran made no move to open the Strait of Hormuz. In a statement on March 27, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) said it would keep the waterway closed and any potential attempts at transit involving the Unites States, Israel, or their allies would face "harsh measures."
Following the IRGC's warning, media reported that three vessels of various nationalities were turned back from the Strait of Hormuz on March 27.
The Strait of Hormuz accounts for around one-fifth of global oil shipments and the effective closure of it by Iranian forces has become a central issue of the conflict, which started with US-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28.
Rubio said that Iran may decide to set up a toll system for the strait, calling that "unacceptable" and stressing that European and Asian countries that benefit from trade through the waterway should help ensure free passage when the conflict is over.
“We’re not asking anybody to join the war," Rubio said, adding that "countries that are most impacted [by closure of the strait]…need to be ready to do something about it.”
A day earlier, Trump for a second time postponed threatened attacks on Iranian power plants if it does not reopen the key waterway, citing what he said was a request from Tehran. He set a new deadline of 8 p.m. Eastern time on April 6.
Last weekend, Trump said the United States would "obliterate" Iran's power plants if Tehran keeps blocking the Strait of Hormuz after 48 hours. He later extended the deadline until March 27, then extended it another 10 days.
On March 27, Trump said Iran is "on the run" and that talks with Tehran were still ongoing.
"We're negotiating now, and it would be great if we could do something, but they have to open it up," Trump told a Saudi-backed investment forum in Miami, referring to the Strait of Hormuz.
US Special envoy Steve Witkoff said the Trump administration is "hopeful" that "there will be meetings this week."
"We have a 15-point deal on the table that the Iranians have had for a bit of time. We expect an answer from them, and it would solve it all," he said at the Miami investment forum.
Senior Iranian officials have denied Tehran is in negotiations with Washington, but Iran said on March 25 that it was reviewing a 15-point US proposal and put forward what it said were five conditions that needed to be met in order for the conflict to end.
The US plan reportedly repeated Washington's demands for Iran to dismantle its nuclear facilities, limit its missile capabilities, and end its support for regional proxy forces.
Rubio said on March 27 that the United States had not yet received a response from Iran, and suggested contacts had been indirect.
"We've had an exchange of messages and indications from the Iranian system, whatever's left of it, about a willingness to talk about certain things," he said. "We're waiting for further clarification about...who is it that we will be talking to, what will we be talking about, and when will we be talking."
Informally, Tehran has responded sharply to the 15-point plan, saying the US conditions were excessive and that it will end the war when it chooses and if its conditions are met, insisting on its right to freely develop its ballistic missile program.
Trump said on March 26 that he believed Iran was seeking negotiations because of its "present" to the United States, which he said allowed 10 oil tankers to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
Tehran has suggested that ships from "non-hostile" nations would have clear passage through the Strait of Hormuz. However, even if some vessels are allowed through, the overall uncertainty has made it difficult to secure insurance, effectively preventing ships from using the waterway.
With the war showing few signs of easing after almost four full weeks, the fighting has continued to cause casualties and damage across the Middle East.
In a social media post on March 27, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said Tehran would exact a "HEAVY price for Israeli crimes," after what he said were strikes on "2 of Iran's largest steel factories, a power plant, and civilian nuclear sites among other infrastructure."
The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran said the Chondab heavy-water reactor and a production facility in Ardakan for yellowcake, which is used to manufacture nuclear fuel elements, were targeted.
The Israeli military confirmed the attack on the Arfakan site in Yazd province. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said no increase in off-site radiation levels was reported.
Following air strikes on various parts of Iran over the previous 24 hours, the authorities of Iran's Qom Province on March 27 reported at least three attacks on residential buildings in the Pardisan neighborhood of Qom city.
Morteza Heydari, a spokesman for the Qom governorate, told the IRGC-affiliated Tasnim news agency that 18 people had been killed and 10 injured following the reports.
Separately, two Israeli soldiers -- both aged 21 -- were killed in Lebanon, according to a statement released by the Israeli military late on March 26.
The deaths brought the number of Israeli troops killed in the recently launched ground operations in southern Lebanon to four, according to military figures.
Israeli media reported one of the soldiers was killed in a rocket attack by Hezbollah, an Iran-backed group based in Lebanon that's deemed a terrorist organization by Israel and the United States. The second soldier was killed in an exchange of fire with fighters from the Shi'ite group, local media reported.
Citing information provided by the Iranian Red Crescent, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies has reported more than 1,900 people have been killed since the beginning of the war, adding that at least 20,000 more have been injured. RFE/RL cannot independently verify the figures.
With reporting by RFE/RL's Radio Farda, Reuters, and AFP
In Photos: Week Four Of The Iran War
A Palestinian man scales Iranian missile debris that landed in the Israeli-occupied West Bank on March 24.
Images from the fourth week of the ongoing US-Israeli war with Iran as results of the conflict ripple out from the region.
Rubio In France For First In-Person G7 Meeting Since War With Iran Began
PARIS -- US Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrived in France early on March 27, joining G7 foreign ministers and allied representatives who have already gathered for the second day of a high-stakes meeting overshadowed by tensions over Iran, Ukraine, and global security.
Rubio is set to attend formal sessions of the G7 Foreign Affairs Ministerial in Cernay-la-Ville, near Paris. This will be his first face-to-face engagement with key allies since President Donald Trump intensified Washington's messaging on Iran.
The gathering, hosted nearby in the Vaux-de-Cernay Abbey under France's rotating G7 presidency, brings together top diplomats from Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, the European Union, and Japan, along with guest countries, including Ukraine.
Strait Of Hormuz At Center Of Disputes
Ahead of his departure for Paris on March 26, Rubio signaled that a central message for allies would be the urgency of reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global transit route effectively blocked by Iran.
"It's in their interest to help," Rubio told reporters at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, emphasizing that US partners rely more heavily on energy flows through the strait than the United States does.
He declined to specify what kind of assistance Washington might seek, saying such decisions would fall to defense officials, but framed the issue as one requiring collective action.
"It's not help for us," Rubio said. "It's the world that has a great interest in that, so they should step up and deal with it."
The disruption has rattled global energy markets, with roughly one-fifth of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas typically passing through the waterway in peacetime.
Rubio said indirect talks with Tehran were continuing through intermediaries and described "some concrete progress," while cautioning that the situation remains fluid.
"There are intermediary countries that are passing messages," he said. "That's an ongoing process."
His comments align with Trump's earlier statement that discussions with Iran were "very substantial," as Washington pauses strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure until April 6 to allow space for diplomacy.
Allies Seek Coordination Amid Friction
The meeting marks the first in-person gathering of G7 foreign ministers since Trump publicly pressed allies to take a stronger stance on Iran -- a push that has exposed differences within the group.
While Washington has prioritized Iran and freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, several G7 countries remain focused on the war in Ukraine and are wary of deeper involvement in the Middle East crisis.
Rubio underscored longstanding US frustrations over burden-sharing, pointing to American support for Kyiv.
"Ukraine is not America's war, and yet we've contributed more to that fight than any other country," he said, adding that US policy ultimately answers to domestic priorities.
"I work for the people of the United States," Rubio said.
A Difficult Diplomatic Test
Analysts say Rubio faces a delicate balancing act as he engages with counterparts who are dealing with the economic fallout of the Hormuz disruption while weighing their own strategic priorities.
Paul Saunders, who served as undersecretary of state for global affairs during the Bush administration from 2003-05, told RFE/RL that the top US diplomat must juggle competing expectations.
"Secretary Rubio will have to navigate between US interests and needs, President Trump's expectations, other G7 members' perspectives and priorities, and France's goals as the host. It won't be easy," said Saunders, currently the president of the Washington think tank Center for the National Interest.
He added that frustration among allies could complicate discussions.
"Other G7 members are frustrated at having had an energy and economic crisis thrust upon them without warning," Saunders said, noting many are more focused on Ukraine -- and, in Japan's case, China.
France, he added, is also seeking to assert its independence and leadership role in Europe, "which could lead to some tense exchanges."
According to Saunders, the central question looming over the talks remains unresolved: "When and how will the Iran war end?"
Rubio is expected to join the March 27 sessions covering cross-cutting threats, support for Ukraine, the situation in Iran, and broader peace and security issues.
The discussions in Cernay-la-Ville will test whether the G7 can close ranks -- or whether divisions over Iran and global security will persist at a moment of mounting international strain.
Exhausted, Divided, And Waiting: Iranians On A Month Of War
Continuing US-Israeli air strikes have left parts of Tehran in rubble and the nerves of many in the capital frayed.
As the war nears the one-month mark, US Central Command (CENTCOM) says over 10,000 targets have been struck across Iran. According to the US-based human rights group HRANA, at least 1,464 civilians -- including at least 217 children -- have been killed in Iran since fighting began on February 28.
RFE/RL's Radio Farda gathered testimonies from Iranian civilians about daily life amid the air strikes. Reaching ordinary Iranians remains very difficult amid the Iranian government's ongoing Internet blackout, which has now lasted more than 600 hours.
One Tehran man says that while trauma and anxiety in the current situation are universal, he holds out hope for the prospect of what he calls "final victory" -- the moment, he says, when Iranians, rather than the current leadership, have the upper hand.
He does not believe in diplomacy: "Peace and all that? That's a pipe dream. You answer slaps and punches with bullets and bombs."
Another resident says she felt a moment of relief when Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior officials were killed on February 28, but then she learned that dozens of schoolchildren in Minab had died in an air strike on the same day.
"The country is being destroyed," she writes. "The only thing I want is for the war to end. These horrible sounds of explosions and this anxiety we're living with are no longer bearable."
While air strikes by all sides continue -- Iran has launched daily barrages of missiles and drones at Israel and targets around the Middle East -- Washington and Tehran have begun to exchange proposals through intermediaries that Washington says could lead to talks.
The United States is pressing Iran to surrender its enriched uranium and curb its missile program, among other things; Iran is demanding reparations and recognition of its sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.
The gap between those positions remains wide.
A common worry was expressed by one Tehran woman: What happens if the regime manages to stay in place?
"I'm worried that after the war, they'll become more savage and execute young people," she writes. "They executed three people in the middle of the war."
After every explosion, a woman in her 40s who contacted RFE/RL from Tehran reaches for her phone to check whether friends and family are still alive. "We genuinely don't know if we'll be alive tomorrow, or even in the next hour."
"I think even those who wished for America and Israel to attack didn't know what war was," one mother writes.
- By RFE/RL
Trump Warns Iran To 'Get Serious' But Extends Strait Of Hormuz Deadline
US President Donald Trump postponed threatened attacks on Iranian power plants for a second time, apparently giving Tehran 10 more days to open the Strait of Hormuz to shipping, and said talks on ending the war were going "very well."
Trump announced the postponement in a March 26 social media post that followed a series of public warnings that Iran had better free up the crucial waterway and comply with US conditions "before it is too late."
“As per Iranian Government request…I am pausing the period of Energy Plant destruction by 10 Days to Monday, April 6, 2026, at 8 P.M., Eastern Time,” (2 a.m. CET on April 7) he wrote on his platform, Truth Social.
On March 21, Trump said the United States would "obliterate" Iran's power plants if Tehran did not open the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial oil and gas transport channel that Iran has effectively blocked to most traffic amid the war with the United States and Israel, within 48 hours. He later extended the deadline to March 27.
Senior Iranian officials have denied Tehran is in negotiations with Washington, but Iran said on March 25 that it was reviewing a 15-point US proposal and put forward what it said were five conditions that needed to be met in order for the conflict to end.
"Talks are ongoing and, despite erroneous statements to the contrary by the Fake News Media, and others, they are going very well," Trump said in the Truth Social post on March 26.
In a post earlier in the day, Trump said Iranian negotiators "better get serious soon, before it is too late, because once that happens, there is NO TURNING BACK, and it won't be pretty!"
"They are 'begging' us to make a deal, which they should be doing since they have been militarily obliterated, with zero chance of a comeback, and yet they publicly state that they are only 'looking at our proposal,'" he wrote.
During a cabinet meeting at the White House, he said Iran has a chance "to permanently abandon their nuclear ambitions and to join a new path forward. We'll see if they want to do it. If they don't, we're their worst nightmare. In the meantime, we'll just keep blowing them away."
The details of the US plan have not been disclosed, but Western media have widely reported the proposal included some of the key demands Washington has been pushing for since before the current conflict began with US-Israeli air strikes against Iran on February 28.
Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff confirmed that the United States had sent Iran a "15-point action list."
Speaking to reporters during the cabinet meeting, he suggested the diplomacy could be successful "if we can convince Iran that this is the inflection point with no good alternatives for them other than more death and destruction."
"We have strong signs that this is a possibility," Witkoff said. He said Pakistan had acted as a mediator, confirming statements by Pakistani officials.
While the US plan reportedly suggested dismantling Iran's nuclear facilities, limiting its missile capabilities, and ending its support for regional proxy forces, it was also thought to include some new elements, such as ones concerning the Strait of Hormuz, which has all but shut after several vessels were struck by Iran.
Iran has responded sharply, saying the US conditions were excessive and that it will end the war when it chooses and if its conditions are met. Tehran insisted on its right to freely develop its ballistic missile program and sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.
On March 26, a senior Iranian official reportedly told Reuters that Tehran sees the 15-point plan as only serving the interests of the United States and Israel, calling it "one-sided and unfair."
A day earlier, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters there were "elements of truth" in the media reports but did not confirm any details.
She also suggested Trump will consider wider strikes on Iran if Tehran fails to "understand that they have been defeated militarily."
On March 26, US-based news outlet Axios cited two US officials and additional sources who said the US military is preparing a range of options for a potential "final blow" against Iran.
According to the report, possible scenarios included a US invasion or blockade of Kharg Island, Iran's primary oil export hub, as well as an invasion of Larak Island, which plays a key role in Tehran's control over the Strait of Hormuz.
A key oil and gas transit route, the Strait of Hormuz has became a central issue of the US-Israeli war with Iran. Shipping in the waterway -- a major artery for global oil and gas supplies -- has ground to a virtual halt due to Iranian strikes on some vessels and threats of more from Tehran.
During a press conference at the White House on March 26, Trump said he believed Tehran was seeking negotiations because of its "present" to the United States, which he said allowed 10 oil tankers to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
Tehran has said ships from "non-hostile" nations would have clear passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Officials have not specified which countries that includes, though vessels from Malaysia and Pakistan have reportedly been allowed passage.
Even if some ships are allowed through, the overall uncertainty, however, for shipping traffic has made it impossible to secure insurance, effectively blocking them using the
Separately, Trump has been pushing US allies to help the United States open the vital waterway. Several European countries said they were willing to consider helping once the conflict had ended, while others outright rejected the request, which came with no specifics.
On March 26, Trump criticized his NATO allies for not helping the United States in the campaign, adding that "the USA needs nothing from NATO."
"NATO nations have done absolutely nothing to help with the lunatic nation, now militarily decimated, of Iran," he wrote using all capital letters.
Speaking to Fox News last weekend, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said he understood Trump's frustration, adding the alliance was looking to work on the issue together with Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain.
At his annual remarks on March 26, Rutte did not mention the Strait of Hormuz but warned of Iran's ties with Russia.
He also reiterated that US weapon deliveries to Ukraine paid by Kyiv's European allies were "critical" as global attention has vastly shifted from Moscow's invasion to the conflict in the Middle East.
With reporting by Axios, Reuters, and Fox News
Landon Derentz: Markets Expect Quick Off-Ramp From Iran War
As the war with Iran continues, access to the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway that sees about one-fifth of the world's gas and oil transit through it, has become an urgent -- and uncertain -- objective.
US President Donald Trump called on NATO allies and major Asian partners, including China, to help secure the vital maritime corridor, but the response to his request was mixed.
Meanwhile, energy markets are reacting sharply: Brent crude surged past $115 per barrel last week before retreating slightly, and attacks on key infrastructure in Iran and Qatar have raised fears of a broader, longer-lasting supply shock.
Against this backdrop, Alex Raufoglu, RFE/RL's senior correspondent in Washington, D.C., spoke with Landon Derentz, former White House energy director during the first Trump administration and now vice president for energy and infrastructure at the Atlantic Council, about how markets are interpreting the crisis and what may come next.
RFE/RL: As markets respond to escalating tensions, with Brent crude now trading above $115 per barrel [at time of publication, the price was $106], are current price levels primarily reflecting a temporary geopolitical risk premium, or do they suggest investors are beginning to price in a more prolonged and structural supply shock?
Landon Derentz: I think they are looking at a premium right now. There is a distance between the physical market and the gap of losing 10 to 13 million barrels a day, and where the market is actually pricing the consequences of the current shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz.
So for me, there is still a bit of a transient nature to some of the price markers around the world, in particular Brent crude, because having a shortfall -- a market disruption of the scale we are seeing right now -- for any longer duration is going to lead to much higher prices over time.
RFE/RL: In that broader context, and given the recent attacks on Qatar's Ras Laffan Industrial City -- which accounts for roughly 20 percent of global LNG supply -- how should we understand the implications of this damage for the longer-term balance between oil and natural-gas markets?
Derentz: It is an interesting question, and it is a really important distinction. We talk significantly about the Strait of Hormuz in the context of shutting down oil, but it also has an impact on natural-gas markets.
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a major part of the global economy today. There are really three major exporters of liquefied natural gas: the US, Australia, and Qatar. Russia is also a significant exporter.
Ultimately, what has happened in the context of Ras Laffan is that natural gas is already shut in; the LNG cannot be exported because of constraints and shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, as Iran threatens global shipping and maritime navigation through the strait. So you cannot move LNG already, and about 20 percent of global liquefied natural gas comes through the Strait of Hormuz out of Qatar.
Now the Iranian regime has attacked the actual facilities, and that moves the natural-gas conversation from one that is transient, as we still see in the oil market, into one that is much more structural. QatarEnergy has announced that repairs could take between three to five years, and the amount of supply that is out is about 25 percent of its production.
We are looking at 20 million tons of liquefied natural gas on an annual basis that is not on the market, or about 5 percent of global supply. The consequences of what is going on right now in the Middle East will reverberate for some time, and not just during the conflict with Iran.
RFE/RL: Drawing on your experience in the first Trump administration, what is the current policy priority here: reopening the Strait of Hormuz or degrading Iran's asymmetric capabilities -- and how do these objectives interact?
Derentz: It is an interesting and nuanced question. The president made the decision to go into Iran because Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons. Throughout many administrations -- and even after the decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities earlier in his administration -- the reality is that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons at a relatively rapid rate. As we know, they have a missile and rocket capability that would make that even more damaging to global security and stability.
The president decided to take this action to address the nuclear weapons program, not so much regime change but that component of the discussion. The reason we are talking so much about the Strait of Hormuz is because it is a question of duration.
Historically, Iranian deterrence has been discussed in three categories. First is the global proxy network -- Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis -- as forward-deployed components to challenge adversaries outside of Iran and create chaos. The second is their missile and rocket program, including short-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles that challenge Israel, US installations, and partners in the Arab Gulf. The third is the nuclear program, where a nuclear-armed Iran would be far more difficult to address, similar to North Korea.
What we are seeing now with the Strait of Hormuz is effectively a fourth line of deterrence: asymmetric drone warfare and the geopolitical threat of holding the global economy hostage by disrupting trade flows and a significant share of global oil and gas through the strait. So the rationale for entering Iran is about the nuclear program. The importance of the Strait of Hormuz is that it provides the timeline and bandwidth to address the broader problem that triggered this confrontation.
RFE/RL: Given the administration's public appeals for allied support and the relatively cautious response from European and Asian partners so far, how does limited coalition participation affect both the speed and the overall feasibility of reopening the Strait of Hormuz?
Derentz: Every nation has limits in how it can extend its footprint in a given theater of conflict. If European partners, as well as those from East Asia and elsewhere, were to help secure and provide assets to protect critical energy infrastructure in the Gulf alongside our Gulf Arab allies, it would allow the United States to project its military power more forward over Iran.
Every incremental contribution from partners allows resources to be reallocated in ways that make it more difficult for Iran to succeed. From an ally's perspective, the key question is how existential this challenge is.
In my view, an Iran that emerges from this situation with a nuclear weapons program and the regime intact would be more dangerous over the long term. So the question becomes whether it is better to address this now or face a more difficult situation later as Iran continues to hold the global economy at risk.
RFE/RL: Staying with market dynamics and investor expectations, to what extent do you think markets are relying on the president to identify and implement an off-ramp to de-escalate the conflict, and, in your view, is that confidence potentially misplaced?
Derentz: This is a subject of a lot of debate. The reality is that markets still anticipate that the president will find an earlier off-ramp than may be realistic. That is partly because it does not depend only on President Trump's willingness to de-escalate. The Iranian regime sees this as an existential crisis for its survival and leadership, and it may not share the same interest.
It is reasonable to expect that Iran may continue to apply pressure on the global economy so that the consequences of a conflict with Iran are remembered. The key takeaway is that this conflict may extend far beyond a short-term action.
Even if the president decides to pivot to a cease-fire, that does not mean the Iranian regime will do the same. We should be prepared for a longer-duration conflict.
RFE/RL: At this stage, given that energy demand remains highly inelastic in the short term, what policy tools or market mechanisms -- if any -- could realistically contribute to bringing prices down in a sustained way?
Derentz: There are not many market mechanisms available to solve this problem. We are already drawing on global reserves, including barrels of oil already on the market. The president has even eased sanctions on Russian and Iranian cargo so that fuel continues to flow if it is already in transit.
The International Energy Agency and the United States have also used strategic petroleum reserves to provide a supply-side buffer. But these are temporary measures. Over time, as reserves are drawn down, there is no mechanism to offset a sustained shortfall of more than 10 million barrels per day.
The result is demand destruction, with significant consequences, particularly for emerging markets that cannot afford energy at elevated prices given the inelasticity of demand.
RFE/RL: In addition to supply disruptions, there is also the issue of damage to critical energy infrastructure. Even if the strait were to reopen in the near term, can markets truly stabilize while such damage may take years to repair?
Derentz: There is still an ongoing assessment of how much damage has been done. Iran has attacked some downstream refining capacity in Gulf Arab states, but, for the most part, oil markets appear intact. The major export infrastructure remains operational and capable of meeting global supply.
The question becomes how long it takes to ramp production back up and bring shut-in capacity online. Countries like Iraq and Kuwait have reduced production because storage is full. So it is largely a matter of timing and how quickly the system can return to full capacity if a cease-fire is reached.
RFE/RL: Expanding the lens beyond Western allies, how significant is China's position -- particularly given its dependence on energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz -- in shaping both market expectations and broader US strategic calculations in this crisis?
Derentz: China is one of the major pressure points for the Iranian regime. Over the past several years, China has built a very large strategic petroleum reserve, likely in the billions of barrels. That provides a buffer against short-term volatility, but China is still a major importer of crude oil, at around 10 to 12 million barrels per day. That is similar to where the United States was at its peak import dependence in the early 2000s.
While China has taken steps to enhance its supply security, that buffer will eventually decline. Over time, that could increase pressure on Iran.
At the same time, this is not only about supply. China depends on a stable global economy for growth. A prolonged period of high energy prices and economic slowdown could incentivize Beijing to push Iran toward de-escalation despite its existing buffer.
RFE/RL: Finally, when you look at this crisis, how is it different from the oil shocks of the 1970s, especially in terms of infrastructure targeting and broader vulnerabilities? What do you think the administration is getting right or wrong in trying to avoid a similar outcome?
Derentz: The crises of the 1970s were driven by producers choosing to constrain supply to exert geopolitical pressure. In this case, you have an adversary constraining global commerce at a scale that is largely unprecedented. There has not been a disruption of this magnitude since World War II in global energy markets.
This is not about suppliers withholding products: It is about a single actor using drones and missiles to disrupt global commerce and target partners in the region that had not inflicted damage on it.
What we are seeing is an Iranian regime acting out of desperation, with limited options and a willingness to escalate. That is a key distinction, and it underscores the scale of what is now the largest disruption to oil markets since World War II.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
- By Frud Bezhan
America's Arab Allies Face Stark Choice In Iran War
Caught in the cross fire of the United States and Israel's war with Iran, America's allies in the Persian Gulf face a stark choice: maintain their defensive posture or join the fight against the Islamic republic.
Iran has fired thousands of drones and missiles at US military and diplomatic facilities and damaged key energy infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait since the war began on February 28. By choking off the Strait of Hormuz, a major artery for global oil and gas supplies, Tehran has also robbed its Arab neighbors of their key exports.
Facing what they consider to be an existential threat, Saudi Arabia and the UAE -- the Gulf's largest economies and military powers -- are considering a shift to a more offensive posture, according to media reports, a move experts say could expose them to even harsher Iranian retaliation.
Experts say Saudi Arabia and the UAE are unlikely to join the war directly but could expand their logistical support to the United States and put economic pressure on Iran.
"In practice, 'joining the war' would most likely mean greater access for US forces to bases and airspace, tougher enforcement against Iranian commercial and financial networks in the Gulf, and tightly limited defensive military actions -- not an open-ended bombing campaign on Iran," said Christopher Davidson, a scholar of Middle East politics and a fellow at Durham University in the United Kingdom.
'Blackmailed' By Iran
That already appears to be under way. Riyadh recently agreed to allow US forces to use the King Fahd air base, located near the Red Sea in the southwest of the kingdom, The Wall Street Journal reported on March 23.
That would mark a significant shift. Saudi Arabia, like its Arab neighbors, had pledged that its airspace and military facilities would not be used to attack Iran.
Iran has accused the Gulf states, many of which house US military bases, of aiding the American war effort. Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on March 25 there was "evidence that shows that services were provided to the Americans by regional countries."
Riyadh ordered the expulsion of Iran's military attache and four embassy staff on March 21, citing what it called continued Iranian attacks on Saudi territory.
Days earlier, Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan told reporters that the country's "patience with Iranian attacks is not unlimited." He added: "Any belief that Gulf countries are incapable of responding is a miscalculation."
In the past three weeks, Iranian drones and missiles have targeted key oil refineries in Saudi Arabia, the world's largest exporter of oil. Iran has also struck the US Embassy in Riyadh.
The UAE, meanwhile, has cracked down on Iranian-linked institutions in recent weeks, closing a hospital, a social club, and several schools.
Last week, the UAE closed the Iranian Hospital, a state-affiliated health facility in Dubai. Employing around 700 people and run by the Iranian Red Crescent Society, the hospital was one of the oldest health facilities in the country.
In the harshest criticism to come out of the UAE, Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan said in a tweet on March 22 that the country would not be "blackmailed by terrorists," in what appeared to be a reference to Iran.
His comment came in reply to former French Ambassador to the US Gerard Araud, who criticized remarks by UAE presidential adviser Anwar Gargash, who said Abu Dhabi's focus should not be on reaching a cease-fire with Tehran but curbing Iran's "nuclear threat, missiles, drones, and the intimidation of maritime straits."
Iranian drones and missiles have also wreaked havoc in Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait, damaging oil and gas facilities and causing power blackouts. The United States and Israel, too, have hit Iran's civilian infrastructure, including oil depots and a desalination plant.
'Very Vulnerable' To Counterattacks
Despite the escalatory rhetoric, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are unlikely to risk entering a direct military confrontation with Iran, experts say.
"Both countries have infrastructure which is very vulnerable to Iranian attack -- power plants, desalination plants, and residential tower blocks," said Simon Henderson, director of the Gulf and Energy Policy program at the Washington Institute For Near East Policy.
"Both also have minority Shi'ite Muslim communities with a pro-Iran affinity," he added. "Getting more involved in the war will only worsen their predicament."
If the Islamic republic survives the war with the United States and Israel, the Gulf states will confront a more emboldened and radical Iran, experts say. But if there is regime collapse, it could unleash chaos and spill over into the region.
The best-case scenario for the Gulf states is not regime change but "mostly indirect, carefully calibrated support to the US, which restores deterrence against Iran, deepens security ties with Washington, and constrains Iranian leverage without triggering major escalation on Gulf oil," said Davidson.
"The worst-case outcome is that deeper, especially offensive, involvement by Saudi Arabia or the UAE helps fuel a cycle of Iranian and proxy attacks that damage energy facilities, disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, scare off investment, and drags them into a long, expensive regional war," he added.
- By Kian Sharifi and
- Vahid Pourostad
Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, The Man Washington May Be Talking To In Iran
Media reports emerged this week of the Trump administration quietly exploring conservative parliament speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf as a potential negotiating partner -- and possibly a future Iranian leader.
Washington, which has not confirmed the reports carried by CNN, Politico, and Fox News among other outlets, has been seeking a point of contact for negotiations ever since the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on the first day of US-Israeli air strikes on Iran.
Khamenei's son has been named as a successor, but he hasn't been seen since the day his father died and was reportedly also injured in the attack.
Enter talk of Qalibaf as the person reportedly seen by at least some in the White House as a workable partner.
The 64-year-old has flatly denied the rumors, posting on X that "no negotiations have been held with the US" while calling the claims "fake news" designed to manipulate financial and oil markets.
Whether or not back-channel contacts exist, his emergence as the most visible senior figure in a system experiencing a structural breakdown of decision-making authority has made him, for the first time in a career of near-misses, the man that matters.
Qalibaf is a conservative politician and former military commander who spent decades cultivating ties to Iran's supreme leadership and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), only to find himself -- after a career overshadowed by corruption scandals and failed presidential bids -- as arguably the most powerful figure left standing in the Islamic republic.
Born in 1961, Qalibaf joined the IRGC at 18 and rose through the ranks during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War to become a unit commander. He later served as commander of the IRGC's Air Force (before it was renamed Aerospace Force), a post handed to him directly by then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei -- a sign of the trust that would define his political trajectory for the next three decades.
Crackdowns And Corruption
That trust manifested early and violently. In 1999, Qalibaf was among the IRGC commanders who co-signed a letter warning reformist President Mohammad Khatami that student protests threatened national security and could force the IRGC to intervene unilaterally.
In 2000, Khamenei appointed the then-39-year-old as head of Iran's national police force. His tenure as police chief was marked by brutality: A leaked recording later revealed him boasting about ordering gunfire used against student demonstrators during the 2003 protests and personally beating up students in the 1999 crackdown.
In 2005, Qalibaf quit the police force and entered electoral politics, finishing a distant fourth in that year's presidential race. But the election of populist Mahmud Ahmadinejad opened the Tehran mayor's office, which Qalibaf secured.
He went on to become the longest-serving mayor in Tehran's history, remaining in office until 2017. His tenure oversaw the expansion of the city's subway system and the construction of major high-rise developments. But it was also plagued by corruption allegations, including a 2022 expose by RFE/RL's Radio Farda revealing Qalibaf had offered to cover up millions of dollars missing from an IRGC-affiliated foundation.
Qalibaf fortified his hard-line reputation at the start of this year when security forces launched a deadly crackdown -- thousands of Iranians died in unrest sparked by the country's poor living conditions.
In a live broadcast at a parliament session during the upheaval, Qalibaf applauded police and the IRGC, especially its Basij paramilitary forces, for having "stood firm" in what he called a "war against terrorists."
German-based political analyst Hossein Razzaq notes that Qalibaf's entanglements are not simply a liability; the Islamic republic has historically relied on figures compromised by corruption precisely because their financial interests are "bound to the system's survival."
Qalibaf made further presidential runs in 2013, finishing second, and in 2017, when he dropped out and endorsed hard-liner Ebrahim Raisi.
Razzaq describes these candidacies, particularly the 2017 withdrawal, as part of a pattern of loyalty-signaling to the supreme leadership rather than genuine bids for power. The pattern repeated in the June 2024 snap election following Raisi's death, when Qalibaf ran a fourth time and lost to reformist Masud Pezeshkian.
In 2020, after running for parliament in elections that saw the mass disqualification of moderate and reformist candidates, Qalibaf finished first in Tehran and was elected speaker by his fellow lawmakers. Under his speakership, parliament passed a bill accelerating Iran's nuclear program expansion.
Close To Supreme Leader's Office
A significant thread running through Qalibaf's career is his closeness to Mojtaba Khamenei, Ali Khamenei's son, a relationship that became visible in the 1980s and grew more consequential over time. In successive presidential elections, signs of support from Mojtaba's inner circle and sections of the IRGC aligned with him repeatedly surfaced around Qalibaf's candidacies.
That relationship has taken on new significance in the context of war, in particular after Ali Khamenei was killed on February 28 in the opening US-Israeli strikes.
The decapitation of Iran's senior leadership -- which also killed the IRGC commander-in-chief, the defense minister, the armed forces chief of staff, and numerous other senior figures -- created an acute crisis of political authority.
Mojtaba Khamenei was named as the new supreme leader but has maintained a total public absence, with no images, no voice recordings, and only a handful of written statements attributed to him, fueling contradictory accounts even about his physical condition.
Into that vacuum, Qalibaf has stepped with growing visibility. With Ali Larijani -- who had taken charge of political management after Ali Khamenei's death -- killed in an Israeli strike on March 17, Qalibaf has emerged as the single most prominent and trusted figure connecting Iran's political, security, and clerical power centers.
Razzaq described Qalibaf as having always been "the approved piece of the beit [the household and inner circle of the supreme leader]," adding that with key figures eliminated, "the role he plays for the system has become more prominent."
- By RFE/RL
Air Strikes Continue Amid Uncertainty Over Iran Peace Plans
As the uncertainty surrounding indirect negotiations between Washington and Tehran intensifies, air strikes on Iran, Israel, and surrounding states also continued -- "business as usual," as one Israeli military official called it on March 25.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon, while not acknowledging media reports of shortages, said it had struck deals with several US defense contractors to bolster stocks of munitions, including parts for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors being widely used in the Middle East war.
It came as the White House said President Donald Trump was prepared to "unleash hell" on Iran if it doesn't accept his deal to end the war, while Tehran said it did not intend to negotiate.
In comments to Republican lawmakers late on March 25, Trump insisted Tehran was taking part in peace talks despite negotiators' denials.
"They are negotiating, by the way, and they want to make a deal so badly. But they're afraid to say it, because they figure they'll be killed by their own people," Trump said.
Also looming is an ultimatum set by Trump for Iran to "fully open" the Strait of Hormuz, where Iranian actions have created a bottleneck in the crucial oil transit waterway. On March 21, Trump set a 48-hour deadline but extended it the next day for five days.
The details of the latest US peace proposal -- reported by media outlets citing unnamed sources on March 24 and delivered to Iran by way of Pakistan -- have not been made public.
The terms, however, are widely believed to be similar in many respects to proposals made before the conflict began with Israeli and US air strikes on February 28.
No Nukes
The single most important US demand is one that Trump has repeatedly stated. He says Tehran has agreed to it.
"They’d like to make a deal," Trump told reporters on March 24. "They've agreed they will never have a nuclear weapon."
Iran's response, delivered via Iranian state TV on March 25, said the US conditions were excessive and Tehran will end the war when it chooses and if its conditions are met.
Still, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi suggested senior officials were reviewing US proposals, seemingly indicating no outright rejection so far.
The United States "put forward ideas in their messages that were conveyed to top [Iranian] authorities, and if necessary, a position will be announced by them," Araqchi said.
Araqchi rejected the notion that Iran has been defeated, asserting the US administration had failed to achieve its war goals.
Iran's conditions include a cessation of hostilities on all regional fronts and against all "resistance groups" -- an implicit reference to the Tehran-backed Lebanese group Hezbollah.
Tehran also wants international recognition and guarantees of Iran's rights to exercise its sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.
"At present, our policy is the continuation of resistance," he said, adding: "We do not intend to negotiate."
Officially, the White House was not commenting on the media reports on the specifics of the proposed peace plan.
White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said she had seen reports of a 15-point plan. "The White House never confirmed that full plan," she said.
"I would caution reporters in this room from reporting about speculative points or speculative plans from anonymous sources," she added.
She added, though, that diplomatic contacts continue. "They are productive, as the president said on [March 23], and they continue to be."
The back-and-forth discourse came as additional US forces -- including the elite 82nd Airborne Division -- were reportedly on the way to the Middle East to bolster American forces and provide US political and military leaders with additional options.
On the battlefront, violence continued with -- along with Iran and Israel -- targets in Lebanon, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia came under attack.
Russia Sending Drones, Civilian Supplies: FT
Amid reports of armament shortages in the Iranian military and civilian sectors, the Financial Times reported that Russia is close to completing a phased shipment of drones, medicine, and food to Iran. The paper cited Western intelligence reports that detail the Kremlin's effort to keep its ally afloat.
The report said processing of deliveries began early this month and was expected to be completed within the next few days.
US Admiral Brad Cooper, head of Central Command -- responsible for American forces in the Middle East -- said US air strikes have hit two-thirds of Iran's production facilities for missiles and drones and a similar proportion of its naval production.
In a video posted on X, he said some 92 percent of the Iranian Navy's largest vessels had been damaged or destroyed.
"And my operational assessment is that they've now lost the ability to meaningfully project naval power and influence around the region and around the world." Cooper said.
Tehran Under Attack
Israel said it struck at the heart of the capital, Tehran, and targeted a submarine development facility in the central city of Isfahan.
AFP quoted witnesses inside Tehran as saying there is "gasoline, water, and electricity. But there is a sense of helplessness in all of us. We don't know what to do and there's really nothing we can do."
In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his country's forces were expanding a "buffer zone" in southern Lebanon as the military pressed ahead with its campaign against Iran-backed Hezbollah.
"We have created a genuine security zone preventing any infiltration toward Galilee and the northern border," Netanyahu said in a video statement.
"We are expanding this zone to push the threat from anti-tank missiles further away and to establish a broader buffer zone."
When asked if Israel had adjusted its war effort after Trump said peace talks were under way, he said it was "pretty much business as usual."
Amid it all, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the war was "out of control." He said he has appointed a special envoy to work toward the ending of the conflict, French diplomat Jean Arnault.
With reporting by RFE/RL's Radio Farda, Reuters, The Financial Times, and AFP
Trump Says US 'In Negotiations Right Now' On Ending War Despite Iranian Denials
President Donald Trump said the United States is "talking to the right people in Iran" about a deal to end the war, while Tehran launched attacks on Israel and Kuwait and US media outlets reported that thousands more troops may be headed to the region.
The New York Times and Israel's Channel 12 reported that the US has sent Iran a 15-point peace plan. The reports cited unnamed officials and there was no immediate comment from the Trump administration or Tehran.
Trump's comments on March 24 came a day after he said that "very good and productive" talks had taken place and senior Iranian figures denied Tehran was negotiating with Washington.
"We're actually talking to the right people and they want to make a deal so badly -- you have no idea how badly they want to make a deal," Trump said in remarks at the White House. "We're in negotiations right now," he said.
For the second time in two days, he said Iran had agreed it would never have nuclear weapons. Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran maintains is purely peaceful, is at the heart of international tension over the Middle Eastern country.
Trump said that US envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were involved in the negotiations, along with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He have no timetable for any meetings or calls.
Trump did not name or otherwise identify anyone the United States is negotiating with. He said “we’re dealing with a new group of people” after killing the longtime supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, and numerous other senior Iranian figures.
He said this group had given the US a “very big present" that "arrived today" and was related to oil and gas. He did not say what it was but suggested it was related to the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial artery for oil and gas shipments from the Persian Gulf to global markets.
The New York Times, citing two unnamed officials, said it was "unclear how widely" the 15-point plan to resolve the conflict, which was delivered via Pakistan, "had been shared among Iranian officials."
Israel's Channel 12, which cited three sources, said the US was seeking a month-long cease-fire to discuss the plan, which it said included keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, dismantling Iran's nuclear program, ending its backing of proxy groups, and the removal of all sanctions on Tehran, among other things.
Postponed Deadline On Strait Of Hormuz
While Iran continues to launch attacks on Israel, Persian Gulf countries, and US assets in the region, and is effectively blocking the Strait of Hormuz, Trump said that “this war has been won” and that Iran is “totally defeated.”
On March 23, Trump said in a post that the United States and Iran had held "very good and productive" conversations about a "complete and total resolution of hostilities in the Middle East." He said he was postponing by five days a deadline he had set for Iran to free up the Strait of Hormuz or see its power plants destroyed by US strikes.
Iran’s parliament speaker and others denied negotiations with the US had been held, but US media reports suggested that there had been at least initial contact between the sides through intermediaries.
Following reports that negotiations could take place in Pakistan this week, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said in a social media post on March 24 that his country "stands ready and honored to be the host to facilitate meaningful and conclusive talks for a comprehensive settlement of the ongoing conflict.”
But the war, which began with US and Israeli air strikes on Iran on February 28, continued with few signs of abating. US media outlets, citing unnamed officials, reported that the US is planning to send thousands of soldiers from the elite 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the Pentagon is planning to send a combat unit of roughly 3,000 soldiers from the division to the region. Soldiers in the unit "train to parachute into hostile or contested territory to secure airfields and land," the Journal said.
Iran launched attacks on Kuwait and Israel, where officials said at least six people were injured in Tel Aviv on March 24 by falling debris after incoming Iranian missiles and drones were shot down.
Kuwait said its air-defense systems responded to "missile and drone attacks" and that reported sounds of explosions were caused by the interception of these weapons in the skies.
Also on March 24, Iraq's military blamed the US and Israel for air strikes that hit a regional headquarters of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), Iraq's umbrella group for Iran-backed Shi'ite militias, as well as a home used by its leader, killing at least 15 fighters.
Diplomatic Progress Unclear
Meanwhile, the Financial Times reported that Iran has told International Maritime Organization member states that "non-hostile vessels" may transit the Strait of Hormuz if they coordinate with Iranian authorities.
The Financial Times cited what it said was a letter from Iran's Foreign Ministry that was circulated among IMO members and stated that vessels linked to the US, Israel, and "other participants in the aggression...do not qualify for innocent or non-hostile passage."
The letter said Tehran had “taken necessary and proportionate measures to prevent the aggressors and their supporters from exploiting the Strait of Hormuz to advance hostile operations against Iran,” according to the Financial Times.
Kenneth Pollack, a former White House and CIA analyst now at the Middle East Institute (MEI), said there is little evidence to support claims of imminent diplomatic progress despite the efforts of several countries to broker talks.
"My understanding is that the Iranians have responded with huge preconditions -- US paying reparations, removing all of our forces from the region -- which are nonstarters for Trump," Pollack told RFE/RL in Washington on March 23.
"Trump's remarks seem to be mostly about calming the markets rather than reflecting a true, imminent breakthrough," he emphasized.
The outbreak of the conflict has sent oil prices soaring, upended energy and stock markets, driven up fuel costs, fueled global inflation fears, and rocked the Middle East and the West, with concerns the fighting will spill over and engulf the region.
The threat of strikes on Gulf electricity grids raised fears of mass disruption to desalination for drinking water and further rattled oil markets.
Trump's initial comments on talks to end the war helped push the price of benchmark Brent crude oil down some 10 percent on March 23, though the strikes across the Middle East on March 24 pushed it back up around 3 percent to more than $102.84 per barrel.
With reporting by RFE/RL's Alex Raufoglu in Washington, Reuters, and AFP
Bipartisan Backlash Grows As Trump Administration Expands Russian Sanctions Relief
WASHINGTON -- US lawmakers are raising concerns after the Trump administration took additional steps to allow more Russian oil shipments to reach global markets despite existing sanctions.
Democrats and Republicans alike are demanding answers after the Treasury Department last week broadened a temporary policy allowing the sale and delivery of Russian crude that had already been loaded onto tankers, effectively loosening enforcement of sanctions at a sensitive moment in Moscow's war against Ukraine.
The step -- expanded in a follow-up Treasury action days later that extended and clarified the authorization for those shipments to be offloaded through April -- came as global oil markets were rattled by the conflict with Iran, a context administration officials say required short-term flexibility to prevent price spikes.
But lawmakers argue the policy risks handing the Kremlin a financial windfall just as it faces pressure on the battlefield.
Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, the top House Democrat on foreign policy, and Republican Don Bacon from Nebraska sent a bipartisan letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Secretary of State Marco Rubio pressing for details, warning the decision could undercut US national security.
They said allowing those cargoes to be sold globally has already enabled Russia to generate "billions in additional fossil fuel revenue," calling it a badly timed boost for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"This war can only end when Putin realizes this war is not winnable or too costly," Bacon told RFE/RL.
"Easing sanctions does the opposite. The administration is seeking short term gain but it comes with long term bad consequences," he added.
Republicans Split But Increasingly Wary
Some Republicans have backed the administration's argument that the move is temporary and narrowly tailored. But voices of dissent appear to be growing.
Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, was blunt: Easing sanctions -- even briefly -- is "the wrong move," he told RFE/RL, warning that "every dollar" from oil sales helps fuel Russia's war.
Representative Mike Rogers, a Republican from Alabama and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, also stressed that any relief must remain strictly limited while offering a broader warning about the strategic risks of easing pressure on Moscow.
"The temporary easing of Russian energy sanctions must indeed be temporary," Rogers said last week, adding that if Putin refuses to negotiate, "pressure on the Russian dictator must increase."
Rogers also underscored that the stakes go beyond energy markets, pointing to Russia's role globally.
"It's clear Putin is not our friend. He is an adversary," he said, warning that Moscow is actively helping Iran refine drone tactics and, according to reports, providing targeting intelligence against US forces.
He cautioned that any perception of weakening resolve could have consequences: "Vladimir Putin interprets a lack of American resolve as an opportunity. We should not give him one."
Democrats have gone further, tying the decision to broader criticism of Trump's foreign policy.
Senator Mark Kelly, a Democrat from Arizona, argued on March 23 that Russia is emerging as a clear beneficiary of both rising oil prices and relaxed restrictions.
"The big winner …[is] Russia," he claimed.
Speaking to RFE/RL last week, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois called the move a "terrible decision," saying it effectively gives Moscow more resources to continue its war.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, framed the issue in stark terms, accusing the administration of aiding adversaries.
"Lifting sanctions on Iran and Russia so they can go after our troops and our allies…is the dictionary definition of 'asinine,'" Schumer said.
Iran War Complicates Picture
The policy shift comes amid a widening conflict with Iran that has driven up oil prices and reshaped geopolitical alignments.
Lawmakers point to reports that Russia is assisting Tehran, including with intelligence and drone tactics, as Iranian-backed attacks target US personnel in the Middle East.
That dynamic has intensified concerns that easing pressure on Moscow could have direct consequences for US forces.
A separate letter led last week by Representative Bill Keating, a Democrat from Massachusetts, argued the administration's Iran policy is "directly benefitting" Russia economically and militarily.
The backlash is beginning to translate into legislative action.
Senator Ruben Gallego, a Democrat from Arizona, has introduced measures to terminate the temporary oil allowances, require weekly public accounting of Russian export revenues enabled by the policy, and formally condemn the administration's decision.
Those efforts reflect a broader push in Congress spanning both parties to tighten sanctions and close loopholes that allow Russian energy exports to continue flowing.
A 'Narrow' Step
Administration officials, however, insist the move is limited in scope and duration.
"This is a deliberately short-term step," one senior official told RFE/RL, stressing the policy applies only to Russian oil already "on the water" and effectively stranded due to sanctions restrictions.
According to officials, the authorization allows those shipments to reach buyers but "does not open the door to new Russian production or long-term trade."
"The goal is simply to prevent a sudden supply shock at a time when the Iran conflict is already stressing global energy markets," one official said.
Officials also pushed back on claims that the move significantly benefits Moscow. "This is not a meaningful lifeline for the Kremlin," one official said, calling it a "narrow and time-limited authorization."
Energy Secretary Chris Wright similarly defended the policy, saying the administration is balancing pressure on adversaries with the need to protect US consumers during a period of heightened global instability.
Still, lawmakers say key issues remain unresolved -- including whether the policy will be extended, how strictly existing price caps will be enforced, and why Congress was not notified in advance.
Meeks and Bacon have requested formal answers within days.
With bipartisan scrutiny intensifying and additional Treasury actions last week expanding the scope of the policy, what began as a technical adjustment to energy markets is rapidly becoming a political and strategic flashpoint in Washington.
- By Ray Furlong
As Hezbollah Steps Up Attacks, Who Really Calls The Shots?
When rocket fire from Lebanon hit the northern Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona, it damaged a bus and left a man in his 50s with a serious shrapnel wound to his face, according to emergency services.
Just 2 kilometers from the border, Kiryat Shmona is in the direct firing line of Hezbollah, an Iran-backed group based in Lebanon that's deemed a terrorist organization by Israel and the United States.
The March 23 strike was not the first on the town by Hezbollah since it attacked Israel three weeks ago after Israel launched air strikes on Iran on February 28.
Despite an intense Israeli military campaign in response, Hezbollah appears to be not only resilient but is even stepping up its campaign.
"Since Hezbollah joined the fighting on March 2…there has been a continuous increase in the scope of attacks, with a shift to higher and more consistent levels of activity in recent days," Israeli think tank Alma said in its daily war report on March 23.
What's Behind Hezbollah's Resilience?
Hezbollah entered the current war severely weakened by its 2023-24 fighting with Israel.
But analysts have said Iran was able to partially rebuild it, while organizational changes creating greater autonomy for individual units have helped the group better absorb repeated losses of leaders.
"Hezbollah's leadership had spent months quietly rearming -- drawing on a monthly budget estimated at around $50 million, replenishing rockets and drones through Iranian funding and local production," wrote Guy Itzhaki, a former anti-terrorism chief for Israeli military intelligence, in a paper on March 15.
However, he added that the current conflict was "pushing the organization closer to a battered insurgency than to an unbeaten 'resistance army,' even if its core force remains substantial."
Heiko Wimmen, a Beirut-based analyst who heads the International Crisis Group's Iraq/Syria/Lebanon project, told RFE/RL the reorganization of Hezbollah was "to some extent what they try to communicate to the outside world after 2024, that [idea of] going back to the roots of resistance."
"You just make it clear to the enemy that occupation and offensive warfare would be very, very costly and [would] not give you any results. So, with that you go back to the original model of guerrilla warfare, which, as you can see now, they're still good at," he added.
Indeed, the latest attack on Kiryat Shmona came just days after four people were injured when a Hezbollah rocket hit an apartment block in the town. The group says it has managed to strike the town, which has a population of 25,000 people, on seven occasions.
"Hezbollah is seeking a 'victory image' that, from its perspective, will be achieved by causing Israeli residents in communities near the border to leave," the Alma think tank said, noting also the group's continuing ability to attack Israeli soldiers in Lebanon.
All this comes after a three-week Israeli campaign that, according to Israel Defense Forces (IDF) chief Eyal Zamir, has struck "2,000 targets, dozens of weapons depots, and eliminated hundreds of terrorists."
The Israeli attacks, mostly air strikes but also some ground operations, have killed more than 1,000 people and displaced around 1 million, according to the Lebanese authorities.
The Revolutionary Guards
Israel's military response also included a strike on a four-star downtown Beirut hotel that Israel said killed five senior commanders from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) on March 8.
The IDF said the commanders were involved in aiding Hezbollah with financing and intelligence, highlighting how Iran not only bankrolls but also exerts influence on the group.
It was followed by reports that Russia had evacuated more than 100 Iranians, thought to include diplomats and embassy staff, on a special flight from Lebanon.
Wimmen, the Beirut-based analyst, indicated it was likely at least some of these people were also IRGC figures fleeing future Israeli strikes. It's not clear if others remain or if they are now working remotely.
In a TV interview on March 22, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said the IRGC was still directly commanding Hezbollah. It was, he said, "managing the military operation in Lebanon" after its members entered the country illegally using "forged passports."
Salam's government is under pressure from Israel to take action against Hezbollah, but Lebanon's military ability to do so is limited and any action could also risk of sparking civil strife within the country.
Wimmen said it was hard to gauge to what degree the IRGC controlled Hezbollah but that its influence has certainly grown since the group's former leader, Hassan Nasrallah, was killed in an Israeli air strike in 2024.
"I think it's pretty well established and credible that he and Khamenei would talk on eye level," he said, referring to Iran's former supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in an Israeli air strike on February 28.
"It's very clear -- and it would be nonsense to expect anything else -- that this balance, that the needle there, has shifted significantly toward the IRGC after Nasrallah and all the other senior [Hezbollah] leaders were assassinated," Wimmen added.
- By RFE/RL
Trump Sees 'Very Serious Chance' Of Iran Deal As He Delays Strikes On Energy Targets
US President Donald Trump said he sees a "very serious chance" of making a deal with Tehran after he revealed the two sides held talks over the weekend that led him to delay any strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure for five days.
Speaking to reporters before boarding Air Force One on March 23, Trump said special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, were involved in talks initiated by Iran with a "senior" Iranian leader -- though not Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei -- that have lead to "major points of agreement."
"They're not going to have nuclear weapons anymore. They're agreeing to that," Trump said. "Any of that stuff, there's no deal.”
Officials and state-affiliated media in Iran immediately denied any such dialogue taking place. The Tasnim and Fars news agencies, both close to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), cited sources saying "no negotiations" were under way, either directly or indirectly, between Tehran and Washington.
"No negotiations have been held with the US," Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf wrote in a post on X.
News outlets including Axios and Reuters cited sources they did not identify as saying that Egypt, Pakistan, and other nations had been relaying messages between the US and Iran. Reuters cited a Pakistani official and and another source as saying direct talks on ending the war could be held in Islamabad, possibly this week.
Oman, meanwhile, is "working intensively to put in place safe passage arrangements for the Strait of Hormuz," the country's foreign minister, Badr al-Busaidi, said on social media shortly before Trump said the United States had "productive conversations" about ending the war.
"Based on the tenor and tone of these in depth, detailed, and constructive conversations, witch [sic] will continue throughout the week, I have instructed the Department of War to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five-day period," Trump said in the social media post on March 23, adding the halt was subject to the success of the talks.
There had been no prior announcement that talks between Washington and Tehran were being held. There was no immediate public comment from Israel, which said just after Trump's announcement that it was conducting air strikes on central Iran.
"We've wiped out the leadership phase one, phase two, and largely phase three. But we're dealing with the man who I believe is the most respected and the leader," Trump told reporters. "We want no enrichment, but we also want the enriched uranium."
Strait Of Hormuz Deadline
Trump's announcement comes as a deadline he set looms for Iran to open the crucial Strait of Hormuz.
Trump had given Tehran until 7:44 p.m. Washington time on March 23 (12:44 a.m. CET on March 24) to "fully open" the key waterway, which handles about 20 percent of the world's oil and gas supplies, or face dire consequences, including the obliteration of Iran's power plants.
That warning came a day after Trump had said he was considering "winding down" military operations with, he asserted, most US goals achieved. The Pentagon is also reportedly sending thousands of additional ground forces to the region.
Iran had vowed to retaliate if Trump should carry out his threat on power plants.
Iran's military command was quoted by state media as saying that if Iran's fuel and energy infrastructure is attacked, all energy infrastructure belonging to the United States in the region will be targeted. Iran also said desalination facilities will be struck.
Separately, Iranian parliament speaker Qalibaf warned that "immediately after the targeting of power plants and infrastructure in our country, vital infrastructure and energy and oil infrastructure throughout the region will be considered legitimate targets and will be irreversibly destroyed."
According to the HRANA Iranian human rights group, more than 3,000 people have been killed in the war since the United States and Israel launched strikes on February 28.
The conflict has upended energy and stock markets, driven up fuel costs, fueled global inflation fears and rocked the Middle East and the West, with concerns the fighting will spillover and engulf the region.
The threat of strikes on Gulf electricity grids raised fears of mass disruption to desalination for drinking water and further rattled oil markets.
The price of the Brent crude oil benchmark has skyrocketed since the outbreak of the conflict, but was down sharply after Trump's initial comments about the talks with Iran.
He added during his remarks to the press that a decision last week to ease sanctions on Iranian oil -- which had been criticized by some for allowing Iran to help fund its strikes on targets around the Middle East -- was made because he wanted there to be "as much oil in the system as possible."
The price of Brent crude oil was trading at around $102 a barrel in midafternoon activity on March 23, down almost 9 percent on the day.
With reporting by Reuters and RFE/RL's Radio Farda
Iran's Long-Distance Strikes On Diego Garcia Put Europe On High Alert
European nations have tried their best not to get too entangled in the US-Israeli war with Iran, now in its fourth week. They've been weighing whether to help unblock the Strait of Hormuz but said they would do so only after a cease-fire and preferably with a mandate from the United Nations.
But on March 21, the threat came closer to home when Iran proved that its missiles have the potential to reach European cities.
Tehran fired two ballistic missiles toward Diego Garcia -- a joint American-British base in the Indian Ocean some 4,000 kilometers from Iranian territory -- and officials in Brussels and beyond are suddenly taking notice.
Previously, Iran -- under the reign of the late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei -- had maintained a cap to its ballistic missile range at 2,000 kilometers.
Khamenei was killed by a US-Israeli strike on Iran on February 28. And that cap that now appears gone -- much to the discomfort of Europe.
Brussels is already tied up in a war closer to home: Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, now in its fifth year. The bloc has sent more than 70 billion euros in military aid to date.
"This is for us a new dimension to the [Iran] war," says one senior EU official speaking to RFE/RL under condition of anonymity. "Let's be honest, our air defenses are pretty depleted right now."
Many European nations have contributed to Kyiv's air defenses but also realized there are considerable air-defense gaps on the Continent if it were ever tested. While possessing high-quality technology such as Patriots, SAMP/T and IRIS-T missile systems, several European defense ministries openly admit there are considerable shortages in interceptors.
Europe would also struggle against so-called saturation attacks used by Russia in Ukraine in which the air-defense systems are overwhelmed by an onslaught of jamming, cyberattacks, drones and various types of missiles.
Europe continues to be heavily reliant on the United States for long-range coverage. It is here that Iran's potential threat to Europe comes into the picture.
Commenting on the Diego Garcia strikes, the Israeli military chief Eyal Zamir noted that "these missiles are not intended to strike Israel. Their range reaches European capitals; Berlin, Paris, and Rome are all within direct threat range."
Speaking to RFE/RL on March 21, Michael Horowitz, an independent defense expert based in Israel, said that "Iran can no longer be seen as a threat confined to the Middle East. It is building capabilities meant to raise the costs for more distant adversaries, too" adding that "If I were the Europeans, I'd be worried."
The British cabinet minister Steve Reed said on March 22 that one missile launched toward Diego Garcia "fell short" while another missile was "intercepted." He also refuted Israeli claims that Europe could be targeted by adding that "there was no assessment that backed claims that Iran was planning to strike European cities with ballistic missiles, or that it had the capacity to do so."
Iranian drones have so far been intercepted over British military bases on Cyprus whereas the NATO-member Turkey had intercepted three ballistic missiles on various occasions early in March.
While NATO hasn't offered any new comments to RFE/RL since the Diego Garcia attacks, the military alliance instead referred to its comment about when Turkey successfully intercepted those attacks.
"So far NATO BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) has been effective against Iranian missiles in Turkey, which is exactly what it was designed for," Oana Lungescu, a former NATO spokeswoman and current fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, told RFE/RL.
A NATO official speaking to RFE/RL under the condition of anonymity also noted that the NATO BMD was designed exactly to withstand Iranian missiles -- not necessarily Russian ones -- when it was first tconstructed in the early 2000s and became operational in 2012.
Germany hosts the command center at its Ramstein air base, while the actual missile defenses are situated in Polish and Romanian bases. Turkey hosts a radar, and Spain has four BMD-capable ships at its Rota naval base.
But make no mistake: The NATO BMD has a significant American footprint that makes Europe reliant on US military protection.
Robert Pszczel, a former NATO official and current security expert with the Warsaw-based think tank Center for Eastern Studies, told RFE/RL that "the working presumption is that the system is operational and is doing exactly what it is supposed to do."
"Of course, it is a special system with key elements provided by the US," he added.