Listen to the complete interview (about 27 minutes):
Real Audio Windows Media

RFE/RL: As underscretary of state for public affairs and public diplomacy, what are the main opportunities and challenges you are facing in fulfilling your mission?

Karen Hughes: I really view my job and the way I describe it in simple terms is [that] I'm focusing on America's conversation with the world. And I say "conversation" because I think sometimes the world thinks we speak at them, rather than listening to them. So I've tried to focus a great deal on listening and engaging in dialogue.

And as I travel the countries I try to meet with people. I meet with a wide sector of people, young professionals, people in low-income neighborhoods. Many people have told me that I've gone places where an American has never gone before. I try to appear on television shows where they've never interviewed an American before, to really reach out. The core of public diplomacy is, I believe, people-to-people programs and exchanges and ways that we can actually reach out to people.

I have three strategic goals for the way I look at, the way I constantly ask my staff to look at, our public-diplomacy efforts and I'll just go through them all quickly. The first is I believe it's very important that America continue to offer the world a positive vision of hope and opportunity that’s rooted in our values, our belief in freedom, our commitment to human rights, our belief in the worth and dignity and equality and value of every single person in the world. I saw a focus-group interview [with] a young man in Morocco and he said: "For me, America represents the hope of a better life." And I think it's vitally important that our country continue to offer that hope to people everywhere, whether it's people in Afghanistan, or Uzbekistan, or Iran -- that we've got to offer that hope that’s rooted in our fundamental values again. The most fundamental of all is that we believe every person matters, every person counts, and every person has the right to live a life that’s meaningful and to contribute.

A second strategic imperative is to work to isolate and marginalize the violent extremists and to undermine their efforts to impose their vision of ideology and tyranny on the rest of us. And so we work very hard to encourage interfaith dialogue, to talk about the fact that we think people of all faiths share certain beliefs -- in the value of human life, for example. And the violent extremists obviously don't value human life -- they've targeted innocents and committed horrible crimes against innocent civilians across the world. So I think it's very important that we, as a world community, as an international community, draw a very clear contrast between our vision -- which is for education and openness and tolerance and inclusiveness -- and the extremist vision, which is a very narrow, rigid ideology. Essentially they say, "You have to agree with us, or we want to kill you." And so it's very important that we draw that distinction in very stark terms.

And the final strategic imperative is that I believe it's very important for America to foster a climate of common interests and common values between Americans and people of different countries and cultures and faiths across the world. And that's particularly important at this time when we are engaged in a worldwide war against terror. One of our former ambassadors, when I met with him, said to me: "Karen, you know, American foreign policy can't be just seen as focusing on common threats. We have to focus on common interests and common values." And I find as I travel the world we do have a lot in common, even though we don't always recognize that. If you ask a lot of people around the world "what's most important to you," frequently they’ll say their faith, their family, their sense of social justice and responsibility. If you ask Americans "what's most important to you," we'll say "our faith, our family, our communities." Often, though, if you ask the people in other parts of the world "do you think Americans value faith and family," they don't understand that about us. So I think it's very important that we talk and engage in dialogue so that we understand that we do have a lot in common.

I'm a mother. I have a son who I love dearly and a daughter, and I want the best for them. I want them to be educated; I want them to have a chance to travel around the world and meet other people; I want them to grow up and have an opportunity for a job and a productive, meaningful life. And that's what parents across the world want for our children. And so I think it's very important that we reach out in that spirit to the rest of the world.

RFE/RL: You just spoke about the importance of having a dialog between the United States and the Muslim world. Do you see a role that international broadcasters could play in that dialogue?

Hughes: Absolutely. I'm here at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and I was just told that of the 28 countries where you broadcast, I think, 18 have majority Muslim populations. And so that's a very important voice for our values going into those countries. Your mission here is to provide the truth and to provide audiences in those countries with information that is accurate. One of the challenges, I think, that I face in my job, one of the things I say, is that I want people to be able to decide for themselves. And I think that's very different from the extremists that we face. The extremists want a very narrow, rigid view of the world. They basically say, "it's our way, or you're wrong."

We want people to decide for themselves, and I think that's a very powerful point, particularly for young people. Young people want to learn; they want to make up their own minds; they want to explore; they want to hear a variety of news and information. And broadcasting helps provide that credible source of news and information, often in countries whose governments control the news or control information about what is happening within their own borders. So your service provides open information and an opportunity for young people to decide for themselves.

Another big part of my strategy is to try to empower our own citizens. We have in America 6-7 million Muslim-Americans, and I believe they are a very important bridge to the wider Muslim, Islamic world because many of them are from cultures around the world, came from those countries, and so know both cultures, know both their home culture and their now American home culture. And so I think they are an important bridge.

I was in Germany not too long ago, and I was meeting with a group of Muslims who live there and this woman was telling me how isolated her community is. And I said, "Well, could I come meet and maybe talk with people in your community?" And she looked at me and kind of shook her head and said: "No, not really." I was kind of taken aback and I said, "What do you mean?" And she said, "Well, we wouldn't want our own government officials to come and meet with us, so why would we want yours?" Because there is such a hostility, a sort of disconnect, the community feels very isolated there. And I said, "what if I sent a group of Muslim-American citizens over here to meet and talk with you?" And she said, "that'd be great!"

And so, beginning next week, we're going to be sending Muslim-Americans to different regions of the world to meet with Muslim communities and begin a dialogue. And so I think one of my roles is to help empower those voices and to let Muslim communities across the world hear different points of view and hear debates, and I know that's one of the things that our broadcasting encourages is: "Let's look at...." [and] "We've got to talk about...."

We have in America separation of church and state, but that doesn't mean -- I think I'm worried that sometimes freedom of religion has come to mean freedom from religion. And I don't think that's what was intended. America has people of many different faiths -- Muslims work and worship and practice their faith very freely in my country. And so do many Jewish citizens. So do many Christian citizens of all different denominations. And some Americans choose to practice no faith at all, and that's fine too. So we have a very diverse and tolerant society. And I think it's important that we allow and, through our broadcasting, that we allow discussion of these kinds of issues.

RFE/RL: There are countries in the world that you can visit, where you can talk directly to people. But there are countries, like Iran, that are much more difficult to visit. Do you have different strategies for communicating with people in more isolated societies?

Hughes: That's where broadcasting [into Iran] becomes even more important, because Radio Farda does reach an audience that we're not able to reach. President Bush has recently requested supplemental funding for additional broadcasting into Iran and also for an opportunity to try to begin some people-to-people exchange programs, where we could begin to try to have some exchanges. That's going to be difficult and we recognize that.

So our broadcasting becomes very important in terms of being able to establish a dialogue, and some of the correspondents here were sharing with me that you hear from many of your listeners within Iran, that they would call and leave messages or they would send e-mails. I think that's a very important dialogue.

We, of course, have many Iranians in America and they are in touch with people in Iran. For example, recently, I reached out to them and had conference calls with them to get their points of view about events in Iran and how we might better engage with the people of Iran. But clearly it's a problem.

In societies such as Cuba, for example, as well. Again we try to broadcast into Cuba, but we don't have formal relations, therefore we don't have formal exchanges. We, again, have a lot of Cuban-Americans who communicate to some extent with family back at home. So we have to adapt our strategies to each country. By and large, however, I think that in today's world, it's very different than public diplomacy was in the Cold War. In the Cold War, as you know because Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty was such a vital part of it, we were broadcasting news and information into societies that were largely closed, that were hungry for that information. That's still the case in Iran today, or in places like Cuba.

However, in much of the world -- particularly across much of the Middle East, for example -- there's no longer an information deficit. In fact there is an explosion of information, and it's a completely different world that we're dealing with because a lot of it is propaganda, a lot of it is not true, a lot of it is rumor and myth and it goes around the world instantly on the Internet. I remember one of the great ironies that I saw recently of the modern communications age was when one of Saddam Hussein's ministers -- the minister of information -- was standing outside Baghdad, saying that American troops weren't there [while] you could see on your television screen that, yes in fact they were, and you could see Baghdad in the background.

And so today, in today's world, when we see on our television stations pictures from around the world in an instant what we're vying for, I think, is attention and credibility in the midst of an often-crowded communications environment and that's why it is so important, I think, that our broadcasting is committed to telling the truth and to portraying truthful, accurate information without bias, without propaganda, without slant, but providing the truth to people across the world.

RFE/RL: You earlier indicated that you have made several trips to Afghanistan and you are a good friend of the Afghans, especially the women. Are there any concerns about what seems to be a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan with advances by the Taliban and especially the anti-U.S. rioting that took place recently? And you are also welcome to make any statement for Afghan listeners.

Hughes: Well, thank you so much. Afghanistan stole my heart on my first visit to Afghanistan several years ago. I was so impressed by the great courage, particularly of the women there who have been through so much after years of war and years of the Taliban rule. Yet I met women who, despite threats of really their life in some cases, were having home reading classes to teach little girls to read because little girls were forbidden from going to school or learning to read. And I met women who just had so much courage, who had lost husbands at war and yet had been struggling to try to support their families.

Of course, everywhere I went, the people were so gracious, so warm. You’d meet people who had virtually nothing and yet they would offer you everything. They’d invite you to their home, and serve you tea and greet you with great warmth. I really admire the courage of the people of Afghanistan.

And I found when I was in Afghanistan that the people of Afghanistan were very grateful. Everywhere I went, they said two things to me. They said: “Tashakkour” -- “Thank you.” And then they said “don’t leave,” because they very much want a chance at peace and stability.

I think what we are seeing now is some Taliban remnants try to take advantage of a situation there as NATO takes the lead of the operations for the coalition there. I think we are seeing increased presence of NATO in the southern part of Afghanistan, and so we are encountering some Taliban forces that we had not encountered before because we hadn’t had that kind of presence in the southern part of the country.

I saw the American ambassador to Afghanistan interviewed about the riots. He said he thought it was more of a crowd that got out of control, and was just sort of in a very ugly, feisty bad crowd dynamics. Because he said his experience is still by and large the same as mine, and that is that the majority of the Afghan people want the presence of American forces and coalition and NATO forces in Afghanistan, because they know that is the best hope to have peace and prosperity in their future.

I am looking forward to going back to Afghanistan. I again think the people there very much want.... They are very entrepreneurial. I remember seeing, I would see piles of rubble from the destruction of war and then every few feet the bricks had been cleaned up and someone had put up a sign and they were going into business. I think that’s a very moving tribute to the spirit and the character of the Afghan people.

We are committed to Afghanistan. America is committed to Afghanistan. NATO is committed to Afghanistan. And we want Afghanistan to succeed. It’s fairly exciting that we have a democratically elected government there. I had the privilege of attending President [Hamid] Karzai’s inaugural and watching the Supreme Court under the new constitution administer the oath of office to the new president, the chief justice. I couldn’t help but think, you know, two years ago none of this was here. There wasn't a constitution; there wasn't an elected president; there wasn’t.... Now we have a parliament with a number of women in parliament. I am looking forward to visiting with some of them on my next trip to Afghanistan.

RFE/RL: There seems to be a problem between two important allies in the war against terrorism -- Pakistan and Afghanistan. Using your status in the administration in promoting communication and dialogue, can you influence this? Can you do anything about it?

Hughes: Well, I certainly hope I can. I’ve been to both countries. I was in Pakistan not too long ago. I led a group of business leaders to Pakistan to help raise money for recovery from the horrible [October 2005] earthquake there.

I am aware that there are tensions and, unfortunately, there are some very difficult regions along the border between the [two] countries. Americans ask me all the time, why haven’t we caught [Al-Qaeda leader] Osama Bin Laden if he is there? I have flown over that country. As you know, it is extremely rugged. It’s hard to imagine. I remember flying over some of those mountains and thinking there is no way anyone could live there. And then they had put me on night-vision goggles and I looked down and there were hundreds of fires where people had campfires, where people were living all throughout those mountains and they go for miles and miles, and it was incredibly rugged and incredibly hostile territory and incredibly difficult to imagine. And of course, [there are] long traditions and long grievances. So it’s difficult. But I certainly hope that America, our government could in some way perhaps encourage better relations.

RFE/RL: You have spoken about the importance of faith, at least of telling the world that Americans are people of faith. How important is sensitivity to religious issues in your communications strategy, especially sensitivity to Islam? And would you talk a little bit about the role of this interfaith dialogue you have been active in? How that is involved in your strategy?

Hughes: I think it is absolutely vital, because as a communicator I understand that the way that you really communicate with people is that you have to speak in ways that are relevant to their lives. And so if you are speaking with someone whose faith is the most important thing in their life, which it is for many people across our world, you can’t just ignore that factor.

I was one of the people who advocated that the president visit the mosque in the aftermath of [the] September 11[, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington] to send a signal that we understood that we have many Muslims in America who are very peaceful citizens, who are proud Americans, and that this was not about the faith of Islam, but this was about some people who were violent extremists, who were trying to use the cloak of religion to try to cover acts that were really acts of murder. So I was an advocate of that, and I think it’s very important that we show the world that America is a very tolerant and diverse society where people are welcome to practice their faith.

It’s interesting, I was in Morocco last week and I was talking with a couple of people who had been on exchanges and I asked them what their feeling was in America. And they said they felt so free -- they couldn’t believe how free they felt. A woman who wore cover told me how sometimes when she travels to Europe and other places, she feels as if people stare at her and look at her as is she is a little different or a little suspect. And yet she said in America she felt totally free, and she didn’t have that feeling in America. Because we are a very diverse and very welcoming country and society.

And I think it is important that we seek to foster interfaith dialog and that’s one of the things that President Bush asked me when I took this job. He said, "meet with religious leaders, foster conversations among religious leaders." I’ve attended a number of interfaith conferences. Because again you have to recognize that faith is very important to many people’s lives. So if you exclude that from your conversation, you are excluding something that is very important to many people.

The other thing is that the world’s major faiths have many things in common. The world's major faiths all believe that we should try to live in peace and love for each other, that we should love God and love our neighbor. All believe and teach that life is precious and that the taking of innocent life is wrong. It’s important that we talk about these things. Sure, we have differences. We have important theological differences. But we also have much in common. And I think it is very important that we foster that kind of dialogue.

RFE/RL: The United States has been accused of having allies that are undemocratic even as America promotes democracy and freedom. How do you answer critics who charge that the United States preaches one thing but practices another?

Hughes: President Bush made it very clear in his second inaugural address that he felt that America had to stand for freedom everywhere in the world and that, in the aftermath of September 11, America had reevaluated our national security, had looked at the situation around the world and had realized that when you have regions where there is a freedom deficit, then you often have the kind of conditions that can be taken advantage of. You have a kind of hopelessness, you have a sense of simmering anger that can lead people to get on airplanes and do crazy things like flying them in the buildings full of innocent people. He recognized that we had to address that.

So in the aftermath of September 11, the president made it our policy to foster freedom everywhere, to foster democracy, to encourage the democratic aspirations of people, because -- again -- we feel that’s in our national interests as well as in their interests. He said we have no monopoly on freedom in America. We believe that men and women were endowed by their creator with certain rights, as our Declaration [of Independence] says, and among them are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- in other words, to freedom. And so we have an obligation to stand for that everywhere. He also said we recognize that will come in different ways in different places, and that the pace of change will be different in different places.

For example, in some place like Egypt, we spoke up and commended the step of having a multiparty presidential election. I remember being in Egypt and talking with a young man -- he was not much older than my son -- and he had just voted for the first time in the presidential election and I said, “did you have a choice of candidates?” And he said “yes.” And that was the first time that there had been a choice like that.

Then they had parliamentary elections that were not as open and not as free. And we expressed our concerns about that. So when there are crackdowns against people who are trying to peacefully exercise their right to speak out, we will speak up and say that we disagree with that.

Again, we recognize that the pace of change will be different in different places. There will be slow steps in some places. In other places, there will be bigger steps. But what we are seeing across the world, we hope, and what we are trying to encourage, is the advance, greater liberties, greater freedoms.

The women of Kuwait, for example, now have the right to vote and the right to run for office. So we are seeing advances.

We’ve seen elections in the Palestinian territories. [We] didn’t agree with the positions of the government of Hamas that was elected there. Yet we absolutely agree that the Palestinian people have a right to make a choice. Once they make that choice, however, the international community can say: "Well, we don’t agree with some of the actions of that government. We don’t agree with a government that refuses to renounce terror and that refuses to recognize its neighbor’s right to exist, and that refuses to live up to previous obligations under the peace process. But we do agree that it is good for the people to get involved, to make their voices heard.

And so slowly, but surely, we believe that freedom is on the advance. We have in the world today many more democratic nations than we had in the past. So we are making progress, and the United States will continue to stand for greater freedom, for greater human rights, and for the voices of those people in their societies to speak out and influence the direction of the governments of their societies.

RFE/RL: Central Asia is exactly a region with a "freedom deficit," as you put it. Does it pose a dilemma for the United States, as on the one hand most of the governments in Central Asia are undemocratic, and, on the other, they are strategically important in the war against terrorism? Is it a dilemma for the United States whether to support them and to cooperate with them in the war against terrorism or do you see undemocratic governments as a cause of terrorism?

Hughes: I think I would separate the two slightly in that President Bush has said we want to work across the world with people who want to crack down in the fight against terrorism. We want to work on a lot of different levels. We work with the governments, for example, to try to withhold funding to terrorist organizations. We try to share intelligence. We try to share law enforcement. And that is a global strategic issue with which we work with governments across the world.

I hope most governments in the world want to protect their citizens. President Bush believes that the most fundamental responsibility of government is to try to protect its citizens’ right to not have airplanes fly into buildings where you are just going to work one day. So we work in cooperation with governments across the world to try to share information and intelligence to protect the lives of our citizens.

At the same time, we speak very proudly on behalf of human rights. And when we see governments repressing the human rights of their people, we speak out against that. When we see, for example, as we have recently in Russia, independent media being shut down and harassed and driven out of the country, we speak out against that. So we seek to foster in countries around the world a climate of opportunity for people to participate.

We recognize that in Central Asia that’s a very great challenge. So, one of the things I work to do in my area is to foster the kind of exchanges, the kind of growth of civil society, to try to have people come to the United States and meet with civil-society organizations with the hopes that they can go back to their country and help form those kinds of civil-society organizations. We recognize that in many countries, it’s very difficult to do. It’s difficult for citizens to peacefully assemble and try to either express their political views or even express nonpolitical, charitable [views], to assemble together. But we work. And again, some of this is a process that takes a great deal of time.

As people here in the Czech Republic know very well, it takes time sometimes. But we are confident that as we work to exchange people and exchange ideas, as we work to support civil-society institutions, as we work to support education programs, as we work to broadcast truth and information into these societies -- that ultimately will help to empower people, so that they themselves have the information and the skills and the strength to make their societies a better place.

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

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appeared to back the continuation of nuclear discussions between Tehran and Washington, though he said he is neither "overly optimistic nor overly pessimistic" about the talks as they head toward a second round this weekend.

In his first public comments on the initiation of talks between Iran and the United States last weekend, Khamenei on April 15 said Iranian negotiators need to proceed with caution.

"A decision was made [to enter the talks] and has been carried out well in the initial steps. Going forward, we need to move carefully. Our red lines -- and the other side's -- are clearly defined," Khamenei said at a gathering of the senior members of the three branches of power.

"The negotiations may or may not lead to a result. We are neither very optimistic nor very pessimistic about these talks. Of course, we are very pessimistic about the other side, but we are optimistic about our own capabilities," he added.

Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, urged officials "not to tie the country's affairs" to the negotiations.

The first round of talks, which were mostly carried out indirectly, were held in Muscat on April 12, with the next round scheduled for April 19.

Italy was initially set to host the second round, but Iran later said Oman would continue to host the talks. None of the parties involved have elaborated on why the venue was changed.