Mr. George Bush,
President of the United States of America

For some time now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena and which are being constantly debated, especially in political forums and among university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (peace be upon Him), the great Messenger of God, feel obliged to respect human rights, present liberalism as a civilization model, announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and [other] weapons of mass destruction [WMD], make "War [on] Terror" his slogan, and, finally, work toward the establishment of a unified international community -- a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, but, at the same time, have countries attacked; have the lives, reputations, and possessions of people destroyed; and on the slight chance [that there are] criminals in a village, city, or convoy, for example, set ablaze the entire village, city, or convoy?

The War In Iraq

Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around 100,000 people are killed, its water resources, agriculture, and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops are put on the ground, the sanctity of private homes is violated, and the country pushed back perhaps 50 years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries; tens of thousands of young men and women -- as occupation troops -- are put in harm's way, taken away from their family and loved ones; their hands are stained with the blood of others; they are subjected to so much psychological pressure that every day some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly, and grapple with all sorts of aliments; and some are killed and their bodies handed to their families.

On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with. Of course [former Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him. The announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way toward another goal. Nevertheless, the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the war on Iran, Saddam was supported by the West.

Mr. President, you might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can theses actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter, with one's duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness.

There are prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who have not been tried, have no legal representation. Their families cannot see them and they are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, prisoners of war, accused, or criminals.

European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abductions of people and their detention in secret prisons with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e., the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights, and liberal values.

Israel And The Holocaust

Young people, university students, and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.

Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that 60 years ago such a country did not exist. They show old documents and globes and say, "Try as we might, we have not been able to find a country named Israel." I tell them to study the history of World War I and World War II. One of my students told me that during World War II, in which many tens of millions of people perished, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party.

After the war, they claimed that 6 million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least 2 million families. Again, let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalized or explained?

Mr. President, I am sure you know how -- and at what cost -- Israel was established: Many thousands were killed in the process; millions of indigenous people were made refugees; hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns, and villages were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for 60 years now. A regime has been established that does not show mercy even to children, that destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, that announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique -- or at the very least extremely rare -- in recent memory.

Another big question asked by people is, why is this regime being supported? Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values? Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands -- inside and outside Palestine -- whether they are Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, to determine their own fate runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights, and the teachings of the prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum?

The Palestinian Election

The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observers have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognize the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.

If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also saying, "Why are all UN Security Council resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?"

Mr. President, as you are well aware, I live among the people and am in constant contact with them. Many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They do not have faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies.

It is not my intention to pose to many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well.

'Scientific Research And Development'

Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific research and development one of the basic rights of nations?

You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, at what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc., must be opposed.

Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.

The Third World

Mr. President, don't Latin Americans have the right to ask why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear?

The people of Africa are hardworking, creative, and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and can contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don't they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth -- including minerals -- is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?

Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?

The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d'etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day; opposition to the Islamic Revolution, transformation of an embassy into a headquarters supporting the activities of those opposing the Islamic republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborates this claim); support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran; the [July 1988] shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane; the freezing of the assets of the Iranian nation; increasing threats, anger, and displeasure regarding the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating their country's progress); and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.

September 11, 2001

Mr. President, September 11[, 2001,] was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.

All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property, and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly, your government employs extensive security, protection, and intelligence systems -- and even hunts its opponents abroad. September 11 was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services -- or their extensive infiltration? Of course, this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?

All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbors in world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9/11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people -- who had been immensely traumatized by the attacks -- some Western media only intensified the climate of fear and insecurity. Some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?

American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and at any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work, and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to feelings of insecurity?

The Role Of The Media

Some believe the hype paved the way -- and was the justification -- for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media. In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly -- for the public to, finally, believe -- and to set the ground for an attack on Iraq.

Will the truth not be lost in a contrived and deceptive climate? Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier-mentioned values? Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?

Mr. President, in countries around the world citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them. The question here is, "what has the hundreds of billions of dollars spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign produced for [U.S.] citizens?"

As Your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist -- to a greater or lesser extent -- in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the [Iraq] campaign -- paid from the public treasury -- be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles?

What has been said [above] are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region, and in your country. But my main contention -- and I am hoping you will agree to some of it -- is: those in power have a specific time in office and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures.

What Legacy Will We Leave?

The people will scrutinize our presidencies. Did we manage to bring peace, security, and prosperity to our people or insecurity and unemployment? Did we intend to establish justice, or just support special-interest groups and -- by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship -- make a few people rich and powerful, -- thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty for [that of those few]? Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them? Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or impose wars on them, interfere illegally in their affairs, and establish hellish prisons and incarcerate some of them? Did we bring the world peace and security or did we raise the specter of intimidation and threats? Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or present an inverted version of it? Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors? Did our administration set out to promote rational behavior, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress, and respect for human dignity or, rather, the force of arms, intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and the disrespect of [other] people's rights? And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office -- to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets.

Mr. President, how much longer can the world tolerate this situation? Where will this trend lead the world? How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers? How much longer will the specter of insecurity -- raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction -- haunt the people of the world? How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women, and children be spilled on the streets and people's houses destroyed over their heads? Are you pleased with the current condition of the world? Do you think present policies can continue? If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns, and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education, the improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states and extinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic, and other conflicts -- were would the world be today? Would not your government and people be justifiably proud? Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been stronger? And, I am most sorry to say, would there have been this ever-increasing global hatred of the American governments?

Mr. President, it is not my intention to distress anyone. If the prophets Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph, or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us today, how would they judge such behavior? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be present? Will they even accept us?

Monotheism

My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world?

Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Muslims, and millions of
people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions share and respect one word and that is "monotheism" or the belief in a single God and no other in the world.

The Holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on all followers of divine religions and says: "Say, O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and [that] we shall not associate aught with Him and [that] some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah, but if they turn back, then say: 'Bear witness that we are Muslims.'"

Mr. President, according to the divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of the divine prophets -- "to worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases." "The Lord, which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes on in the hearts of His servants and records their deeds." "The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is in His court." "Planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins." "He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors". "He is the compassionate, the merciful." "He is the recourse of the faithful and guides them toward the light from darkness." "He is witness to the actions of His servants." "He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of righteousness and remain steadfast." "He calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds." "A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and disobey Him and oppress His servants." "A good and eternal paradise belongs to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves."

We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvation. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth. We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well: "And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path, Marium."

Service and obedience to the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers.

The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific, and the rest of the world is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has given greatness to humans.

We again read in the Holy Book: "The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purity them from sins and pollution. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people [might] display justice and avoid the rebellious."

All of the above verses can be seen, one way or another, in the Bible as well.

Judgment Day

Divine prophets have promised that the day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty so that their deeds might be examined. The good will be directed toward Heaven and evildoers will meet divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives have been directly or indirectly affected by our actions.

All prophets speak of peace and tranquility for man based on monotheism, justice, and respect for human dignity. Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles -- that is, monotheism, the worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day -- we can overcome the present problems of the world, which are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets, and improve our performance? Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship, and justice? Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected? Will you not accept this invitation -- that is, a genuine return to the teachings of the prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?

Mr. President, history tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted the fate of man to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.

Can one deny the signs of change in the world today? Is this situation of the world today comparable to that of 10 years ago? Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace. The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments of a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the world feel insecure and oppose the spread of insecurity and war and do not approve of or accept dubious policies. The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries. The people are disgusted with increasing corruption. The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion.

World Turning To Religion

The people of the world have no faith in international organizations because their rights are not advocated by these organizations. Liberalism and Western-style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking toward a main focal point -- that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly, through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: "Do you not want to join them?"

Mr. President, whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating toward faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.

Peace to him who follows the rightfully guided,
Mahmud Ahmadinejad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Welcome back to The Farda Briefing, an RFE/RL newsletter that tracks the key issues in Iran and explains why they matter.

I'm RFE/RL correspondent Kian Sharifi. In this edition, I'm looking at the potential economic impact of a massive explosion at Iran's Shahid Rajaei port and whether it will impact Iranian trade and hopes for foreign investment.

What You Need To Know

• Trade Braces For 'Shock' After Port Explosion: The massive explosion at Iran's Shahid Rajaei port on April 26 is unlikely to cripple Iran's economy, but it poses a "big shock" to the country's international trade, analysts say. Iranian authorities say the blast was caused by "noncompliance with safety precautions and negligence," but it remains unclear what exactly caused the blast that killed at least 70 people and injured more than 1,000.

• Nuclear Talks In Rome Postponed: A fourth round of nuclear talks between the United States and Iran was postponed. Mediated by Oman, the talks have reached a crucial phase where bridging differences on key issues were expected to be discussed. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said in a statement on May 1 that the decision had been taken based on the proposal of Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, who cited "logistical reasons" for the delay. He said the meeting, which was to have taken place in Rome, was being rescheduled. State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce said the meeting had never been confirmed. The United States expects another round of talks "will take place in the near future," she said.

• Hijab Warning Text Message Raises Eyebrows: Some women in Tehran have received a text message from a state institution telling them that they have been observed in the city not complying with the mandatory hijab. The move has sparked widespread criticism, with many questioning how these individuals were identified and how their private phone numbers were obtained.

The Big Issue

Scaring Off Investors?

Analysts say the explosion will have major ramifications for not only Iranian trade through its busiest port but will also hinder the country's ability to attract investment.

The explosion obliterated over 10,000 shipping containers and set fuel storage tanks ablaze, causing a temporary suspension of foreign trade.

Paris-based economist Djamchid Assadi told RFE/RL's Radio Farda that while the explosion was unlikely to crippled Iran's sanctions-hit economy, it would have a "very negative" effect on both the supply of goods and securing foreign investment.

He said regardless of whether the accident was caused by incompetence or sabotage, it raises questions about the level of safety in Iran's business environment.

"How can you hope to attract investment when you cannot ensure safety and security in that port?" Assadi argued.

While the authorities insist operations at the port have resumed, Azerbaijan-based energy and economy expert Dalga Khatinoglu said it will be a while before the port can return to business as usual.

"This will be a big shock to Iran's international trade," he told Radio Farda.

Why It Matters: The Shahid Rajaei port in Bandar Abbas is located near the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of the world's oil trade passes.

Commonly dubbed Iran's "golden gateway" to international commerce by Iranian media, Shahid Rajaei port manages about 85 percent of the nation's container throughput, over half of its overall trade, and 70 percent of its transit shipments.

What's Being Said: Hossein Zafari, a spokesman for Iran's crisis management agency, suggested the explosion may have resulted from improperly stored chemical materials within containers at the port.

Publicly available data indicate that shipments of chemical components used in missile propellant were received from China at the port in February and March. Nonetheless, a Defense Ministry spokesman has refuted claims that any military-related cargo, including missile fuel, was present at the explosion site.

Renowned Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi described the explosion as a symbol of "the collapse of a regime that has led Iran into ruin for nearly half a century" and demanded a referendum to "restore sovereignty to the people."

Expert Opinion: "There will be a big shock, particularly if administrative buildings in the terminal are also destroyed, which will cause a serious disruption to imports and exports," Khatinoglu said.

That's all from me for now.

Until next time,

Kian Sharifi

If you enjoyed this briefing and don't want to miss the next edition, subscribe here . It will be sent to your inbox every Friday.

Iran’s judiciary said it has executed Mohsen Langarneshin for allegedly spying for Israel and being involved in the high-profile assassination of an Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) colonel in 2022.

In a statement on April 30, the judiciary described Langarneshin as a “high-ranking spy” for Israel who had “supported several Mossad operations in Iran.”

In addition to his alleged involvement in the killing of IRGC Colonel Hassan Sayyad Khodaei in May 2022, Langarneshin was also accused of playing a role in a January 2023 drone attack on a military factory in Isfahan.

Iran’s judiciary also claimed that Langaranshin had met twice with senior Mossad intelligence officers -- once in Georgia and once in Nepal -- and described him as a “highly trained operative” who had undergone “extensive espionage training and was fully capable of carrying out assigned missions.”

Foreign-based Iranian human rights-focused news outlet HRANA said on April 28 that Langarneshin had made three separate requests for a retrial, all of which were rejected.

The HRANA report said he was moved to solitary confinement in the Ghezel Hesar Prison on April 29, a day before his execution, and allowed a final visit with his parents.

His father, Masud Langaranshin, released a video stating that his son had been sentenced to death “without a fair trial” and that the case was riddled with “inconsistencies and legal flaws.”

Quoting a source close to Langaranshin, HRANA claimed that “he was pressured during detention to make forced confessions” implicating him in the assassination of Sayyad Khodaei.

A shadowy figure in the IRGC, Sayyad Khodaei was killed by gunmen outside his home in Tehran. Israeli media have described Sayyad Khodaei as a key figure behind “plots to kill Israelis and Jews” and to attack Jewish interests around the world.

In an annual report on human rights, Amnesty International said on April 29 that Iran "arbitrarily" executed hundreds of people last year as authorities "used the death penalty as a tool of political repression against protesters, dissidents and ethnic minorities."

The death toll from a massive explosion at Iran’s key Shahid Rajaei port has hit 70, local authorities said, as the interior minister blamed “negligence” for the incident, which injured more than 1,000 people.

Eskandar Momeni told Iranian state television late on April 28 that “noncompliance with safety precautions and negligence” had caused the incident, though it was not immediately clear what started the fire at the hazardous and chemical materials storage depot.

Momeni said several “culprits have been identified and summoned” but did not share further details.

Mehrdad Hassanzadeh, the director of the crisis management office in the southern Hormozgan Province where the port is located, told state television that most of the injured had already been released from hospital.

On April 27, a day after the explosion happened, Hossein Zafari, a spokesman for Iran's crisis management organization, appeared to blame the blast on poor storage of chemicals in containers at the port.

Open-source data suggests that Iran took shipments of chemical ingredients from China used in missile fuel at the port in February and March. However, an Iranian Defense Ministry spokesman has denied that any cargo used for military use, including missile fuel, was being stored at the blast site.

The New York Times quoted an unnamed source with ties to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as saying the substance that exploded was sodium perchlorate, a key component in solid missile fuel.

Amid mounting criticism of officials over the incident, renowned Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi called for a “free and transparent referendum under international supervision to restore sovereignty to the people.”

In a post on Instagram, Panahi described the explosion as a symbol of “the collapse of a regime that has led Iran into ruin for nearly half a century.”

Iran's top diplomat has accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of trying to dictate US policy toward Iran after the premier renewed his call for the full dismantlement of Tehran's nuclear program.

Iranian and US negotiators concluded a third round of indirect talks over Iran's nuclear program on April 26, with a fourth round scheduled for May 3, likely in a European country.

Speaking in Jerusalem a day after the talks, Netanyahu said any deal with Iran must aim for the complete dismantling of the nuclear program and also address Tehran's missile capabilities.

"The real deal that works is the deal which removes Iran's capacity to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons," Netanyahu said, adding that a good agreement should also "bring in the prevention of ballistic missiles."

Writing on X, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said it was "striking…how brazenly Netanyahu is now dictating what President Trump can and cannot do in his diplomacy with Iran."

The Iranian diplomat maintained that his country was "strong and confident enough" to "thwart any attempt by malicious external actors to sabotage its foreign policy or dictate its course."

"We can only hope our US counterparts are equally steadfast," he added.

Netanyahu's comment came after a deadly explosion hit Iran’s Shahid Rajaei port, killing at least 46 people and injuring more than 1,000.

Some speculate that the explosion was linked to a shipment of a chemical ingredient used to make ballistic missile fuel, though Iran denies any sort of fuel was being stored in the container terminal.

Farzin Nadimi, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute, told RFE/RL's Radio Farda that the sharp orange color of the initial fire was consistent with burning sodium perchlorate, a component used in rocket fuel. Open-source data suggests Iran took shipments of the chemical at the port earlier this year.

According to various reports, the Donald Trump administration previously held Netanyahu back from launching strikes on Tehran's nuclear facilities. However, the US president has said he himself would be "leading the pack" toward war with Iran if he cannot clinch a deal.

Ali Shamkhani, a senior aide to Iran's supreme leader and former national security adviser, warned on April 28 that Israel would face "unimaginable consequences" if it attacked Iran's nuclear sites.

"The question is: Are these threats the result of Israel acting on its own, or are they coordinated with Trump to push forward negotiations with Iran?" he wrote on X.

A massive explosion purportedly linked to a shipment of a chemical ingredient used to make missile propellant has killed at least 40 people and injured more than 1,000 others in the southern Iranian port city of Bandar Abbas.

Authorities in Iran offered no clear explanation for what caused the April 26 blast at the Shahid Rajaei port, although independent experts said it appeared to be due to the improper storage of sodium perchlorate, a component used in rocket fuel.

On April 27, state media reported that the blast was now under control.

Iranian President Masud Pezeshkian visited with those some of the injured and told local officials that “we have to find out why it happened,” according to the government website.

The head of the Iranian Red Crescent Society, Pir Hossein Kolivand, said 190 of those injured remained hospitalized as of April 27.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei ordered security and judicial officials to investigate "any negligence or deliberateness" in the incident.

The Shahid Rajaei port is Iran's busiest, processing up to 80 percent of the country's shipping traffic.

Hossein Zafari, a spokesman for Iran's crisis management organization, appeared to blame the explosion on poor storage of chemicals in containers at the port.

"The cause of the explosion was the chemicals inside the containers," he told Iran's ILNA news agency.

"Previously, the director general of crisis management had given warnings to this port during their visits and had pointed out the possibility of danger," Zafari said.

According to the private security firm Ambrey, the port had received a shipment of “sodium perchlorate rocket fuel” in March, which was going to be used to replenish Iran’s missile stocks after being depleted by its direct attacks on Israel during the war with Hamas -- which is designated as a terrorist group by the United States and the European Union -- in the Gaza Strip.

Tehran has not acknowledged taking the shipment, but ship-tracking data obtained by the Associated Press shows vessels believed to be carrying the chemical in the vicinity of the port in March.

Iran Launches Investigation After Port Explosion

Iran's Interior Ministry said it launched an investigation into the port explosion.

The April 26 blast happened as Iran and the United States met in Oman for the third round of talks over Tehran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program. A fourth round is scheduled for May 3, also in Oman.

While no Iranian officials have suggested the explosion was due to an attack, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, who is leading Tehran's delegation in Oman, said earlier this week that "our security services are on high alert given past instances of attempted sabotage and assassination operations designed to provoke a legitimate response."

Deadly incidents have hit Iranian energy and industrial infrastructure in recent years -- such as gas explosions and oil refinery fires -- with many blamed on negligence.

Tehran, however, has also blamed some incidents on its arch-foe Israel, which has carried out attacks on Iranian soil targeting the country's nuclear program. Last year, Israel also bombed Iran's air defenses.

Iran accused Israel as being behind a February 2024 attack on Iranian gas pipelines, as well as a major cyberattack on the Shahid Rajaei port in May 2020, causing transport chaos for days after crashing the facility's computer system.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on April 27 repeated his calls for "all of" Iran's nuclear infrastructure to be dismantled.

"We are in close contact with the United States. But I said, one way or the other, Iran will not have nuclear weapons," Netanyahu told a news conference.

The Shahid Rajaei port is Iran's largest and it mainly handles large volumes of container traffic and also has oil tanks and other petrochemical facilities.

The port is some 1,050 kilometers southeast of the capital Tehran, on the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf where 20 percent of all oil traded globally passes through.

Local officials said that all schools, universities, and offices in Bandar Abbas will be closed on April 27.

With reporting from Reuters and the AP.

Iran and the United States met in Oman on April 26 for the third round of talks over Tehran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program. A fourth round is scheduled for May 3, with the location yet to be announced.

The talks ran for several hours in Muscat, Omani mediators said of the indirect sessions between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and Steve Witkoff, the US special envoy to the Middle East.

"The negotiations were conducted very seriously and professionally," Araqchi said without providing full details. "We are cautiously optimistic."

Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi, who has mediated the two previous round of US-Iran talks in Muscat and Rome, offered a positive note at the end of the negotiations.

Iran and the United States “identified a shared aspiration to reach agreement based on mutual respect and enduring commitments,” Busaidi posted on X after the conclusion of talks in Oman.

“Core principles, objectives and technical concerns were all addressed. Talks will continue next week with a further high-level meeting provisionally scheduled for May 3.”

The talks seek to limit Iran's nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of some of the crushing economic sanctions the United States has imposed on the country.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to unleash airstrikes targeting Iran’s program if a deal isn’t reached.

Iranian officials increasingly warn that they could pursue a nuclear weapon with their stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels.

Welcome back to The Farda Briefing, an RFE/RL newsletter that tracks the key issues in Iran and explains why they matter.

I'm RFE/RL correspondent Kian Sharifi. In this edition, I'm looking at how Iran is seeking to reassure China that, even with a nuclear deal in place with the United States, Beijing will remain a key partner for Tehran.

What You Need To Know

• China Ties A Priority Even Amid Nuclear Progress: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi traveled to China this week, days ahead of a third round of nuclear talks with the United States in Oman. This trip underscored Tehran's commitment to deepening ties with Beijing, signaling that even if a deal is reached with Washington, relations with China will not be compromised.

• New Tunnels Grab IAEA's Attention: The Institute for Science and International Security on April 23 revealed, using satellite imagery, that Iran has set up a new security perimeter around a "new, large, deeply buried tunnel complex" near the Natanz nuclear site. The tunnels are located beneath Mount Kolang Gaz La, south of Natanz. Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), stated that he has repeatedly raised concerns over the tunnels with Iran, but Tehran claims it was not under any obligation to inform the agency. Grossi said it "cannot be excluded" that the tunnels could store undeclared nuclear material.

• Looking To Reconnect With European Powers: Araqchi wrote on X that relations with the E3 are at a low point and urged renewed diplomacy, offering visits to Paris, Berlin, and London. His comments on April 24 come as the E3 (Britain, France, Germany) have been sidelined from current Iran-US nuclear talks, with mediation now led by Oman. The E3 have threatened to trigger the reimposition of UN sanctions on Iran by the end of June if no agreement is reached on Tehran's nuclear program.

The Big Issue

Iran's China Play Won't Change

Araqchi's April 23 visit to Beijing underscored Tehran's commitment to its strategic partnership with China, regardless of progress in nuclear talks with the United States.

Araqchi carried a message from Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to President Xi Jinping, reaffirming that the Iran-China relationship is a long-term priority and will not be affected by developments with Washington. Notably, Araqchi traveled to Russia a week ago, ahead of the second round of talks with the United States, and handed over a message from Khamenei to Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Both Tehran and Beijing pledged to deepen economic and political ties, fast-track a 25-year cooperation pact, and coordinate closely on regional and global challenges.

Why It Matters: China is Iran's largest trading partner and a crucial diplomatic ally, especially as Tehran faces Western sanctions.

For Iran, China offers investment, technology, and a reliable market for its energy exports, while providing political backing in international forums.

For China, Iran is a vital link in its Belt and Road Initiative and a key player in Middle Eastern energy security.

Damon Golriz, a lecturer at The Hague University of Applied Sciences, said Iran is enhancing its relations with Russia and China because it believes the United States's status as a superpower is on the decline.

He told RFE/RL's Radio Farda that Tehran wants to reassure Moscow and Beijing that "agreements with America will not harm Russia and China's interests in Iran."

The message is that "not only will they keep their special place in Iran, but Tehran will also help Russia and China to accelerate America's decline," Golriz added.

China and Russia have both reaped advantages from Iran's tensions with the United States, with Beijing snapping up discounted Iranian oil and Moscow deploying Iranian drones in Ukraine. But if those tensions escalate further, the fallout could be something both powers would rather avoid.

China relies heavily on energy imports, with 16 percent of its oil in March coming from Iran. But its interest in Iran extends beyond oil. If sanctions are lifted, Iran's need for investment in railways and ports, among others, could benefit Chinese companies.

Crucially, over 40 percent of China's energy comes through the Persian Gulf. For Beijing, any military escalation in the region isn't just a geopolitical concern -- it's a direct threat to its energy security and economic stability.

What's Being Said: At the end of his trip, Araqchi wrote on X in Chinese that no matter how the global landscape shifts, "Iran will always see China as a trustworthy and reliable partner."

Taking a dig at the West, Iran's ambassador to China, Mohsen Bakhtiar, said Tehran and Beijing "both stand for international law and multilateralism and see strong-arm tactics as a threat to friendly ties between nations and South-South cooperation."

Expert Opinion: Golriz said the Islamic republic sees its survival as tied to strong relations with Russia and China, which is why Araqchi is tasked not only with securing a deal with Washington to lift sanctions but also with maintaining those strategic ties.

"But I believe this is a very difficult balancing act -- trying to satisfy Russian and Chinese interests on one side, and American demands on the other. Still, if that balance is achieved -- especially by moving closer to the West -- it would ultimately serve the national interest more than the interests of the Islamic republic."

That's all from me for now.

Until next time,

Kian Sharifi

If you enjoyed this briefing and don't want to miss the next edition, subscribe here . It will be sent to your inbox every Friday.

High-stakes nuclear talks between the United States and Iran have already entered the technical phase after just two rounds of negotiations mediated by Oman.

A third round of talks, along with separate technical discussions, is scheduled for April 26 in Muscat.

The progress has fueled speculation, particularly in Iran, that the administration of US President Donald Trump has dropped its demand for the dismantlement of Tehran's nuclear program in favor of simply capping it.

But analysts caution that it's far too early to draw such conclusions.

While the shift to technical discussions might suggest a softening of US demands, analysts say dismantlement could still be the underlying objective -- or at least a point of leverage.

"I never thought that dismantlement was a credible goal," said Richard Nephew, who served as the lead sanctions expert on the US team that clinched the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

"But if this is still in the Trump administration's heads, then the long-term perspective is still bleak."

He noted that technical negotiations also took place during the talks that eventually led to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), even when US demands remained maximalist.

Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), sees the current trajectory not as a concession but as strategic pressure.

"A Trump doctrine on Iran takes shape where it gives Iran a choice: Either you dismantle your nuclear program or the US and/or Israel will dismantle it for you," he said.

Is Iran Running Down The Clock?

Some, particularly proponents of dismantlement, argue that the Islamic republic is dragging out the negotiations to run down the clock on the return of UN sanctions.

Britain, France, and Germany have threatened to trigger the "snapback" mechanism of the JCPOA -- re-imposing UN sanctions against Tehran -- if it fails to reach a deal with the United States by the end of June. However, that mechanism expires in October.

Both analysts agree Iran sees value in prolonging the process to stall pressure, avoid snapback sanctions, or simply buy time.

"There is only a certain amount of pressure that comes to beat that clock, because even after snapback expires, you still have a hostile United States with its national sanctions campaign," Nephew said.

"Iran wants to clinch a decent deal, but they'll take wasted time -- and delayed military action -- as a consolation prize," he added.

Brodsky offered a sharper view, calling the negotiations "a shield" that Tehran uses to protect its nuclear work from further scrutiny or action.

"Iran only loses should the negotiations collapse," he said. "The United States, however, does not need the talks as much as Iran does."

What Would A Good Iran Deal Look Like?

Despite skepticism over whether dismantlement is still a realistic demand, analysts agree a deal that limits Iran's nuclear activities can still be credible, if it includes key safeguards.

"The JCPOA gives us a lot of advice here," said Nephew. "You'd need three things: verification of the cap, physical limitations so that they can't quickly exceed it, and a credible risk of consequences if they cheat."

He noted that while Iran is unlikely to scrap its advanced centrifuges again, as it did under the 2015 deal, "there is still space that a deal could be found."

Brodsky, however, is doubtful that any deal short of full dismantlement can truly prevent Iran from using its nuclear program as leverage.

He views even low-level enrichment -- such as the 3.67 percent limit under the JCPOA -- as a threat.

"Its right to enrich uranium to 3.67 percent under the JCPOA was part of [an] extortion racket," he said, referring to Iran teasing nuclear weapons acquisition.

"The continuation of this negotiation process leads some observers to believe the United States has conceded a right to enrich uranium to Iran," Brodsky said. "I believe the Trump administration is still defining the contours of what an acceptable deal would look like."

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi issued a public call for renewed diplomacy with the E3 -- France, Germany, and the UK -- amid mounting tensions and their exclusion from ongoing nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States.

In a post on X on April 24, Araqchi acknowledged that relations with the E3 are “currently down,” describing the status quo as “lose-lose” for both sides.

He emphasized that “placing blame is a futile exercise” and instead urged a return to dialogue and cooperation, not only on nuclear issues but across all areas of mutual interest.

Araqchi offered to visit Paris, Berlin, and London for direct talks.

“The ball is now in the E3's court,” the Iranian foreign minister wrote, “how we act at this critical junction is likely to define the foreseeable future.”

The foreign minister’s outreach comes as the E3 have been sidelined from the latest round of nuclear negotiations, which are being mediated by Oman rather than European powers.

The E3 were key players in earlier efforts to revive the 2015 nuclear deal, but this time they've been sidelined.

The E3 have threatened to trigger the re-imposition of UN sanctions on Iran if no agreement is reached with the United States by the end of June. The “snapback” of UN sanctions is a provision under the effectively defunct 2015 nuclear deal, which formally expires in October.

Iranian state media have welcomed the E3’s exclusion, with The Tehran Times even accusing them -- without evidence -- of backing UN nuclear chief Rafael Grossi for secretary-general in exchange for helping to “demonize” Iran and justify a return to UN sanctions.

Iranian and US negotiators agreed to hold a third round of high-stakes talks on Iran's nuclear ambitions, a positive signal amid mixed White House messages about potential military action and new demands on Tehran.

The April 19 meetings, held in Rome, were the second time that top-level negotiators from Washington and Tehran had met this month.

There was no immediate comment on the outcome of the Rome talks from the US delegation, which was headed by White House special envoy Steve Witkoff.

But news agencies quoted senior US officials as saying the sides “made very good progress” in the Rome discussions.

"Today, in Rome over four hours in our second round of talks, we made very good progress in our direct and indirect discussions," said an unidentified US official -- who also confirmed a statement by Iran that the two sides agreed to meet again next week.

AP also quoted a US official as confirming that Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Araqchi had spoken face to face.

Iran's foreign minister said the two sides had agreed to meet again on April 26 in Oman, where the first round took place.

"I believe technical negotiations at the expert level will begin in Oman on Wednesday [April 23)] and next Saturday we will meet in Oman and review the results of the experts' work to see how close it is to the principles of an agreement," Araqchi told Iranian state TV.

"It was a good meeting, and I can say that the negotiations are moving forward. This time we managed to reach a better understanding on a series of principles and goals," he said.

The United States and other Western countries have long accused Iran of trying to build nuclear weapons.

Tehran has consistently denied the allegations, insisting that its efforts are aimed at civilian purposes, such as electricity generation.

Conflicting Messages

Following his return to the White House in January, US President Donald Trump, who had previously withdrawn from a 2015 accord known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), revived a "maximum pressure" campaign of sanctions against Iran.

Last month, he sent a letter to Iran's supreme leader urging renewed talks while warning of military action if diplomacy failed.

In the past week, Trump and other White House officials have sent sometimes conflicting messages about the US approach to the talks. The White House has ordered heavy, long-range bombers to the region, along with a second aircraft carrier.

"I'm not in a rush" to use the military option, Trump told reporters on April 17. "I think Iran wants to talk."

On April 18, he told reporters: "I'm for stopping Iran, very simply, from having a nuclear weapon. They can't have a nuclear weapon. I want Iran to be great and prosperous and terrific."

In an interview days earlier on Fox News, Witkoff said that the United States was open to Iran having some sort of limited nuclear program.

But he then walked back that position in a social media post, suggesting that the entire program needed to be dismantled.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meanwhile, said he hoped the Iranian talks would be “fruitful.”

“We would all prefer a peaceful resolution and a lasting one,” he said after meetings in Paris.

But, he added, “It has to be something that not just prevents Iran from having a nuclear weapon now, but in the future as well.”

Israel's Role

Israel’s role in the debate over Iran’s nuclear ambitions is also critical. Israeli officials have vowed to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and Israel has not ruled out an attack on its nuclear facilities in the coming months, according to multiple news reports.

Trump has reportedly told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Washington did not support such a move.

Former officials and experts have long said that Israel would need significant US military support –- and weapons –- to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and stockpiles, some of which are in underground facilities.

With reporting by RFE/RL's Radio Farda, AP, AFP, and Reuters

Iranian and US negotiators will hold a second round of indirect talks on April 19, a week after concluding discussions that both sides described as “constructive” and “positive.”

While the first round was hosted in Oman, the second will take place in Rome. Omani diplomats will continue to mediate the talks.

Here’s where things stand ahead of the next round of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program -- with the possibility of military action still looming.

Witkoff's Reversal On Enrichment Limits

US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, who is leading the US negotiating team, caused a stir when he publicly reversed his position on Iran’s nuclear program.

On April 15, he said Iran would need to limit its uranium enrichment to 3.67 percent -- the cap set by a 2015 nuclear deal that US President Donald Trump withdrew from in 2018.

But within hours, Witkoff walked back the comment after a backlash from hard-liners who favor dismantling Iran’s program. In a statement on social media, he said Iran “must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.”

The about-face appeared to confuse Iranian officials. Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, Iran's chief negotiator, responded that Washington’s “true position must be clarified at the negotiating table.”

Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear program is peaceful and has ruled out dismantling it.

Jalil Roshandel, director of the Security Studies Program at East Carolina University, told RFE/RL’s Radio Farda that the Trump administration is unlikely to maintain its hard-line stance.

“Trump can get a win by accepting the 3.67 percent limit in exchange for other concessions, such as extending the UN sanctions sunset clause set to expire in October,” Roshandel said.

Expanding The Scope Of A Deal

Another sticking point is whether a potential deal will focus solely on Iran’s nuclear activities or also address its missile program.

In an April 15 interview with Fox News, Witkoff said the Rome talks would also cover “verification on weaponization,” including missiles.

But Iran has long refused to negotiate over its missile arsenal, which it considers a vital part of its defense strategy.

The Islamic republic used drones and missiles in two attacks on Israel last year -- the second of which was described as the largest single ballistic missile attack in history.

Mark Fitzpatrick, a former US diplomat and a nonproliferation expert, said expanding the scope of talks could complicate progress.

“It's not surprising that the Trump team would want to put missiles back on the table,” Fitzpatrick told Radio Farda. “But it would make negotiations much more difficult because of Iran's steadfast position that missiles are essential to its defense and deterrence posture.”

European Powers Sidelined

Britain, Germany, and France -- collectively known as the E3 -- are also signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal and played a key role in previous attempts to revive it.

This time, however, they appear to have been completely sidelined. Even though the next round of talks will be held in Italy, it will be Oman -- not the Europeans -- handling mediation.

State-affiliated media in Iran have welcomed the E3’s exclusion. The Tehran Times, an English-language newspaper, claimed -- without evidence -- that the three nations are so frustrated by “their exclusion” that they offered Rafael Grossi, head of the UN nuclear watchdog, their backing to become the next UN chief if he helps “demonize” Iran.

The paper argued that this move is aimed at justifying the return of UN sanctions -- something the E3 have threatened by the end of June if Tehran fails to reach a deal with the United States.

US Military Pressure In The Region

Trump has repeatedly warned that he would resort to military action against Iran’s nuclear program if a deal isn’t reached.

Amid rising tensions -- and a US bombing campaign targeting Tehran’s allies in Yemen -- Washington is bolstering its military presence in the Middle East.

Last month, the United States dispatched at least six B-2 bombers to a joint US-British military base on Diego Garcia, a small island in the Indian Ocean. This week, the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier was sent to reinforce the USS Harry S. Truman already stationed in the region.

Analysts believe Iran takes Trump’s threats seriously, but it remains unclear whether Tehran is willing to risk air strikes on its key nuclear sites.

Trump has said Israel would play a leading role in any such attack.

According to The New York Times, Israel had been preparing to launch air strikes against Iran -- with US assistance -- as early as May, but was held back by Trump in favor of pursuing diplomacy.

With reporting by Reza Jamali and Hannah Kaviani of RFE/RL’s Radio Farda

Iran’s foreign minister has called for Russia to play a role in high-stakes negotiations over the fate of Tehran’s nuclear programs, as he cast doubt on US intentions ahead a new round of talks.

Speaking on April 18 alongside Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Abbas Araqchi said he still believed an agreement was possible.

The Iranian diplomat was set to meet with White House special envoy Steve Witkoff in Rome on April 19, for a second round of talks over Iran’s atomic programs.

"Although we have serious doubts about the intentions and motivations of the American side, in any case we will participate in tomorrow's negotiations," Araqchi said during a joint appearance in Moscow.

Last week’s first round of talks in Oman was the highest-level negotiations between Tehran and Washington since US President Donald Trump abandoned a landmark nuclear deal in 2018.

Western countries, including the United States, have long accused Iran of trying to build nuclear weapons. Tehran has consistently denied the allegations, insisting that its efforts are aimed at civilian purposes, like electricity generation.

Earlier in the week, Witkoff called for an end to all of Iran’s uranium enrichment programs. International inspectors say Tehran has managed to refine its uranium stocks to 60 percent -- which is close to the threshold at which uranium is considered weapons-grade.

Araqchi responded on April 16, saying that Iran's enrichment efforts were not up for discussion.

"If there is similar willingness on the other side, and they refrain from making unreasonable and unrealistic demands, I believe reaching an agreement is likely," Araghchi said.

Since taking office in January, Trump has ratcheted up the pressure on Iran, including by sending more US Air Force and naval assets to the region. But he’s also forced direct talks with Iranian officials.

“I’m not asking for much,” Trump said in comments earlier this month, “but they can’t have a nuclear weapon.”

With reporting by Reuters

The US military said it destroyed a key Yemeni fuel port held by Houthi rebels, who said the air strikes also killed 20 people and wounded 50 others.

The US military’s Central Command said its forces took action on the port of Ras Isa to eliminate a source of fuel for the Iran-backed Houthi rebels and deprive them of revenue.

“The objective of these strikes was to degrade the economic source of power of the Houthis, who continue to exploit and bring great pain upon their fellow countrymen,” Centcom said in a statement.

“This strike was not intended to harm the people of Yemen, who rightly want to throw off the yoke of Houthi subjugation and live peacefully,” Centcom said.

The US air strikes have hammered the Houthis in a campaign launched by President Donald Trump on March 15 to end their attacks on civilian shipping and military vessels in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

Houthi attacks have hampered shipping through the Suez Canal -- a vital route for world seaborne traffic -- forcing many companies to send their ships around the tip of southern Africa.

The Houthis denounced the attack.

“This completely unjustified aggression represents a flagrant violation of Yemen’s sovereignty and independence and a direct targeting of the entire Yemeni people,” the Houthis said in a statement carried by the Houthi-controlled SABA news agency. “It targets a vital civilian facility that has served the Yemeni people for decades.”

Health Ministry spokesman Anees Alasbahi said the preliminary death toll stood at 20, including five paramedics.

There were also "50 wounded workers and employees at the Ras Issa oil port, following the American aggression," he said on X.

"The death toll is likely to rise as body parts are still being identified," he added.

The number of dead represented one of the highest reported death tolls since Trump vowed that military action against the rebels would continue until they are no longer a threat to shipping.

The Ras Isa port lies along the west coast of Yemen on the Red Sea.

Centcom said ships have continued to supply fuel via the port despite Washington designating the rebels a foreign terrorist organization earlier this year. The Centcom statement did not specify the source of the fuel.

US State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce commented earlier on April 17 about China's participation in Yemen. Bruce told journalists that the Chinese satellite firm Chang Guang Satellite Technology Company was "directly supporting” the Houthis.

Bruce said their actions and Beijing's support of the company, “is yet another example of China's empty claims to support peace.”

With reporting by AP and Reuters

Tehran is ready to ease US concerns over its nuclear activities but scrapping uranium enrichment is off the table, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said as the two sides prepare for a second round of talks this weekend over Iran's nuclear program.

Araqchi told reporters after a weekly cabinet meeting in Tehran on April 16 that Iran's enrichment is a "real, accepted matter."

"We're ready to build confidence in response to possible concerns, but the principle of enrichment is nonnegotiable," he said, days ahead of the second round of talks with the United States on April 19, which Iran's state broadcaster announced would take place in the Italian capital, Rome, and not in Oman as previously thought.

Araqchi's comments came in response to a statement by US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on April 15 saying Iran "must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program."

But hours earlier, Witkoff had told Fox News that the Donald Trump administration was seeking to cap Iran's uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent -- the limit set in the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump abrogated in 2018.

"Iran must not possess nuclear weapons, and it should not enrich uranium beyond 3.67 percent," Witkoff said.

His apparent reversal came after a conservative backlash on social media, with the administration being accused of repackaging the 2015 deal, which is formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

"We applaud Special Envoy Witkoff's statement," wrote Mark Wallace, chief executive of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), a US-based nonprofit, after Witkoff changed his tone.

"It is clear under the Trump Doctrine that Iran must verifiably dismantle its nuclear program or the US and Israel will do so," said Wallace, a former US diplomat.

Araqchi, who will travel to Moscow on April 17, noted Witkoff had made "different comments" since the conclusion of the first round of talks but added Washington's "true position must be clarified at the negotiating table."

Trump has made it clear Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, but he has not explicitly commented on whether that involves curbing Iran's nuclear program or fully dismantling it. In the meantime, his administration has been sending out mixed messages.

Quoting an unnamed US official, the Axios news website on April 16 attributed the lack of clarity to ongoing internal discussions.

"The Iran policy is not very clear mainly because it is still being figured out. It is tricky because it's a highly politically charged issue," the official said, according to Axios.

Former US diplomat and nonproliferation expert Mark Fitzpatrick said a deal would be unlikely unless the Trump administration relaxed its position.

"Trump would have to change the position of no enrichment to a position of low enrichment," he told RFE/RL's Radio Farda.

"Iran is not going to go to a 'no enrichment' and it's certainly not going to accept it, but it would be willing to negotiate the levels of enrichment. And yes, this would be like the negotiations under the JCPOA," he added.

With reporting by Hannah Kaviani of RFE/RL's Radio Farda