Introduction
The United States and Iran have resumed a new phase of negotiations aimed at resolving the nuclear dispute. While the current talks focus primarily on curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, there is skepticism about President Donald Trump’s commitment to securing a broader agreement that addresses all contentious issues. Observers have noted similarities to the 2015 nuclear deal, suggesting a potential return to its framework. However, Trump is unlikely to forgo the chance to leverage pressure and coercive diplomacy to not only prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons but also to reshape the broader relationship. His strategy appears to target a deeper transformation — moving beyond decades of estrangement since 1979 and steering Iran toward a shift in its regional policies that the United States views as detrimental to its interests and those of its allies in the Middle East.
Iran, grappling with serious internal and external challenges, has agreed to negotiate under mounting pressure but remains divided between two conflicting camps. The first, aligned with the “hardliner” faction, views diplomacy as a tactical tool —offering calculated concessions to safeguard the establishment’s continuity. Yet, in a notable shift, this faction appears to be signaling flexibility toward the Trump administration, proposing unprecedented incentives that extend beyond the nuclear file. These include openness to economic cooperation and even allowing US investment in key sectors such as oil and nuclear energy. Still, it insists on maintaining certain red lines, notably its ballistic missile program, which has emerged as a sticking point in the talks. On the other hand, a more pragmatic faction advocates for a break from rigid ideological constraints. This faction views reconciliation with the United States as essential for overcoming the persistent economic crisis and moving beyond the cycle of confrontation that has defined Iran’s recent history.
This study explores a critical question: to what extent is Trump’s strategy influencing Iran’s stance on non-nuclear issues and what impact will this have on the future of US-Iran relations? In doing so, it examines several key issues, including the nature of the non-nuclear disputes between the two countries, the incentives and pressures shaping Iran’s current position on these issues and the likelihood of progress on some fronts versus the persistence of firm red lines on others.
This study adopts a neoclassical realist framework to examine the extent to which Iran may respond to US pressure, particularly under Trump’s strategy of coercive diplomacy. By focusing on both internal state-level dynamics and broader international systemic influences, the study seeks to understand the limits and drivers of Iran’s behavior on strategic issues beyond the nuclear file. Employing an inductive methodology, the study prioritizes the meticulous collection and analysis of data to establish broader patterns and relationships. This approach begins with specific observations and cases, then extrapolates general conclusions. Case studies serve as a key tool to assess how domestic, regional and global factors shape Iran’s stance toward Trump’s use of power and diplomatic pressure.
The Non-nuclear Issues Between the United States and Iran
For more than four and a half decades since the Iranian revolution, US-Iran relations have been marked by persistent tensions and unresolved disputes. The most significant of these contentious issues can be summarized as follows:
Ideological Divergence and Diplomatic Rupture
Since the Iranian revolution, hostility has dominated the relationship between Iran and the United States. Tehran has long viewed Washington as the main source of threat and instability, leading to a deep and enduring rupture across political, diplomatic and economic spheres. Tensions first escalated with the US response to the revolution and the establishment of the Iranian republic, and over time, the two nations became embroiled in complex disputes that have hindered any real rapprochement. Although there have been moments suggesting a possible shift —such as the post-Khomeini era, the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the 2015 nuclear deal, and subsequent efforts to revive it in 2021 and 2022 — these have not altered the revolutionary ideology or the entrenched anti-US rhetoric. The chant “Death to America” continues to symbolize Iran’s official stance, especially among political and religious elites, reinforcing the perception of the United States as an enduring adversary and keeping relations largely frozen.
Regional Agenda
Iran has long harbored ambitions for regional dominance, a role the United States once supported prior to the 1979 revolution when it aligned with US interests. However, after the revolution, Tehran challenged the US-designed post-World War II regional order, shifting from a strategic ally to a perceived threat. The Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s exemplified the growing rift, as Iran pursued its revolutionary agenda across borders, prompting US involvement in defense of its allies. Since then, Iran’s regional policy — rooted in the export of its ideology and the strategy of forward defense — has remained a key point of friction. Tehran has extended its influence by cultivating Shiite allies and proxy forces in countries like Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen, reinforcing its regional presence and challenging US interests. This strategy, primarily aimed at deterring Washington and its partners, has intensified tensions and culminated in a broad, multifront confrontation following the events of October 7, 2023.
The Ballistic Missile Program
Following the Iran-Iraq War, Iran prioritized the development of a missile program with support from countries like Syria, Libya, China and North Korea. This program became central to Iran’s defense strategy and ideological identity, aligning with its principle of self-reliance and deep mistrust of the West —particularly the United States, which Tehran viewed as intent on undermining the revolution. Over time, the missile program evolved into a core element of Iran’s strategic doctrine, particularly its forward defense policy aimed at deterring external threats and projecting power beyond its borders. Iran has bolstered the missile capabilities of allied groups such as Hezbollah and Palestinian factions in Gaza, integrating them into its broader strategy to pressure US allies and counter US influence in the region. As the program advanced, it became a key pillar of Iran’s foreign and defense policy, serving as a deterrent against US and Israeli military assets stationed across the region. Its strategic value was demonstrated during the conflict following Israel’s war on Gaza, when Iran launched attacks deep into Israeli territory. Iran-backed groups, particularly the Houthis, have also used missile technology to disrupt maritime routes in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait, and to strike US targets, further highlighting the program’s regional impact.
Global Standing
For decades, Iran has actively worked to build alliances that counter US and Western influence, aiming to reshape the global order in its favor. Central to this strategy is Tehran’s “Look East” policy, which emphasizes strengthening ties with major Eastern powers — particularly China and Russia. Iranian leaders envision an anti-US coalition, including nuclear-armed states like Russia and China, with the aim to form a new power bloc in Asia that challenges US dominance and deters potential US military action against Iran. In pursuit of this vision, Iran has pushed for full membership in both the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS group. Regionally, it has led efforts to consolidate an anti-US coalition known as the “Axis of Resistance,” which includes various allied forces and states across the Middle East and Central Asia. Beyond the region, Tehran has cultivated partnerships with governments in Latin America and Africa that share its opposition to US foreign policy, expanding its network of influence on a global scale.
Pressures and Sanctions
Disagreements over various issues, especially the nuclear program, have resulted in unprecedented sanctions and pressure on Iran, building up over decades since the revolution. These sanctions have led to the establishment’s international isolation and imposed restrictions on its leaders, institutions and allies. As a result, the establishment has been deprived of resources and its ability to influence the nation’s development and modernization. The issue became particularly significant during the Obama administration, with the imposition of secondary sanctions that ultimately brought Iran to the negotiating table, leading to the 2015 nuclear agreement. It remained a critical issue after Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement, when he adopted a strategy of maximum pressure. Today, Iran insists that the removal of sanctions is a key condition for any further negotiations, as these sanctions have contributed to economic hardships and undermined the regime’s legitimacy. Iran continues to condition progress in nuclear talks on the lifting of US sanctions – with associated guarantees.
Motivations and Drivers of Change
The ongoing negotiations between the United States and Iran mark a significant shift from nearly five decades of diplomatic engagement. Unlike the indirect negotiations that led to the 2015 nuclear agreement, these talks are now direct, with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi meeting face-to-face with the US envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff. While the discussions have thus far focused solely on the nuclear issue, there appears to be potential for a broader resolution that could address the full range of contentious issues driving the confrontation between the two nations since the 1979 revolution.
Given the current developments, several pressures and challenges may prompt Iran to reconsider its stance on non-nuclear issues that have impacted its relationship with the United States, as outlined below:
Peace Through Strength Approach
Through his assertive approach, Trump aims to impose a comprehensive shift in Iran’s behavior. Upon returning to the White House, he reinstated his maximum pressure campaign, including threats of military action unless Iran agreed to negotiate for peace. This strategy extended beyond economic sanctions, which targeted the Iranian economy by attempting to reduce oil exports to zero, and included a decisive military campaign against the Houthis, an Iran-aligned regional faction that continues to challenge the United States and Israel. Additionally, US-Israeli military cooperation and joint training exercises created the impression of coordinated military readiness to strike Iran. This included military reinforcements, notably the deployment of stealth aircraft to a base in the Indian Ocean, potentially preparing for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.[1] Trump’s letter to the supreme leader in early March 2025 seemed to leave Iran with a stark choice: engage in negotiations or face an unprecedented US campaign that had already been readied.[2]
Trump is not seeking a temporary or partial settlement with Iran. He wants a historic agreement that addresses more than just the nuclear issue and ends the longstanding hostility. He refuses to sign a nuclear deal while Iran continues its hostile actions, such as seeking to remove US influence in West Asia, advancing its missile program and disrupting freedom of navigation in the region. Trump also does not want the economic benefits of the agreement to help Russia and China, while denying the United States potential gains. He also aims to prevent Iran from restoring its anti-Israel axis and sponsoring militias that destabilize the region. This reflects a broader goal to reshape not just Iran, but the entire region. Trump’s reshuffling of his team, the potential appointment of hardliner Michael Anton, and the inclusion of non-nuclear issues in talks signal a strong desire for a comprehensive deal. The explosion at Shahid Rajaee Port also sends a clear message, showing the consequences if Iran does not make meaningful progress in the negotiations.[3]
Iran’s Dilemma Amid Mounting Internal Pressures
The Iranian establishment is facing a multifaceted crisis. Politically, it is grappling with a legitimacy crisis, marked by declining public satisfaction, worsening living conditions and rising discontent due to repressive actions. The issue of succession also looms as a potential challenge in case of a sudden vacancy of the supreme leader’s position. More critically, the leadership’s longstanding narratives have been undermined by Israeli attacks, which have dismantled Iran’s regional project, draining the country’s resources. These attacks have exposed Iran’s security vulnerabilities, targeting key strategic sites and assets, presenting a dire threat to the regime’s survival. Economically, despite its vast wealth, Iran’s ideological stance has led to deep rifts with the West, resulting in decades of isolation and sanctions that have stunted development and modernization. Iran’s policies, both domestically and its shift toward the East, have not shielded the country from these crises. As these issues threaten the establishment’s survival, domestic voices are now calling for a radical shift in relations with the United States to avert further collapse. Iran’s claims of military and technological advancement have been exposed as hollow in the face of real regional challenges.
Collapse of Deterrence Force and Failure of Strategic Depth Doctrine
Iran’s extensive investments in its missile program, nuclear capabilities and network of regional proxy groups had previously limited US strategy in the Middle East. However, this balance shifted dramatically following the October 7 attacks, with strikes against Iran supported by the United States and Israel.[4] These strikes not only targeted Iran’s sovereignty and military infrastructure, exposing vulnerabilities in its defense capabilities, but also highlighted the significant imbalance in military power. As a result, Iran’s regional influence took a severe blow, and its forward defense strategy, which had been a major focus of its resources, faltered. Israel and the United States successfully diminished the influence of Iran-backed groups in Lebanon and Iraq, causing substantial leadership and equipment losses. The situation in the Arab Levant worsened for Iran as the Syrian regime fell, Assad fled and opposition forces seized power. The aforesaid developments forced a shift in Iran’s approach, making engagement with the United States more necessary, particularly as US pressure continued to intensify.
Iran’s Aspiration to Bridge the Development Gap and Enhance Regional Cooperation
Iran aims to narrow the development gap with its regional rivals, especially the Gulf states, which have advanced significantly across various sectors and are using their resources to modernize and improve living standards. These countries have also adopted diverse and independent foreign policies, gaining recognition among global powers. This progress may have influenced Iran’s recent openness to economic cooperation with the United States. The supreme leader, who had previously banned US investment after the 2015 deal, now supports allowing US capital into Iran — a notable shift from his earlier preference for China and Russia. At the time, the Obama administration viewed this Iranian policy as undermining the spirit of the agreement. Reflecting this change, Araghchi described Iran as a “trillion-dollar opportunity” for US companies in a Washington Post article. He even invited the United States to bid on contracts to build 15 nuclear reactors. These gestures signal a policy shift aimed at appealing to the United States’ economic interests. More broadly, resolving disputes with the United States would allow Iran to join regional integration efforts and become part of global infrastructure projects, instead of being isolated by security arrangements meant to contain it.
Conditions and Limitations
While incentives exist that could encourage Iran to revise its stance on non-nuclear issues with the United States, several challenges and obstacles may hinder the resolution of these disputes. Chief among these are the following:
Legacy of Tensions and “Hardliner” Opposition
The historical legacy continues to cast a shadow over US-Iran relations. Despite many initiatives, decades of mistrust have kept both sides waiting for the other to act first. This has fueled mutual suspicion, with each side viewing the other as hostile, irrational and prone to reversing any agreement. In Iran, the ongoing negotiations are deeply shaped by this legacy. While pragmatists favor engagement to solve Iran’s problems, “hardliners” led by the supreme leader, though accepting talks, remain skeptical of US intentions. The supreme leader frequently urges caution,[5] as the regime’s legitimacy — both domestically and among its allies — rests on its anti-US stance. Reversing this position could damage its image and credibility. Furthermore, powerful institutions such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) oppose rapprochement, fearing that ties with the United States would reduce their political clout and economic dominance, which have expanded under sanctions. It would also restrict their foreign activities and ideological mission of exporting the revolution. As long as their core interests are not threatened, the IRGC and similar institutions have little incentive to accept any deal that curbs Iran’s regional ambitions or lessens tensions with the United States.
Iran’s Extensive Negotiating Experience and Deft Sanctions Evasion
If Trump’s escalation is limited to pressure and sanctions, Iran may be able to endure his term without concessions, as it did before. The country has significant experience in circumventing sanctions. It also has strong negotiating skills, and the current talks seem to have absorbed Trump’s momentum, softened Netanyahu’s hardline stance, and reduced the threat of military action. Although Trump hoped for a quick agreement, the ongoing talks are moving slowly and involve complex technical issues that may take time. Iran has a track record of overwhelming negotiations with details to buy time, and it seems to be using this tactic again — keeping the focus on the nuclear file and exploiting US concerns over it. Global distractions, including international competition, Trump’s trade wars and growing chaos in the global order, may also help Iran avoid pressure. The time since Trump’s return has made his strategy look ineffective and overly costly. His retreat from certain decisions, inability to resolve the Russia-Ukraine war and failure to stop the Gaza conflict reinforce this perception.
US Priorities
The United States seems to have responded to Iran’s demands in the current negotiations, largely due to the urgent need to address the nuclear threat now given that Iran is nearing the nuclear threshold. This may encourage Iran to limit talks to nuclear concerns alone, avoiding any discussion of other disputes. Iran’s technical capability in uranium enrichment gives it the option to move toward nuclear weapons within a short timeframe if it chooses. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) February 2025 report, Iran’s stockpile of 60% enriched uranium rose to 275 kilograms, up from 182 kilograms in November 2024[6] — showing a clear acceleration in production. A confidential IAEA report also revealed the installation of new centrifuges at the Fordow site, suggesting a sharp increase in output.[7] As of February 8, Iran held 274.8 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, an increase of 92.5 kilograms since the agency’s last report.
Israel Potentially Sabotaging the US-Iran Understanding
Israel may see improved US-Iran relations as a strategic setback, comparable to a nuclear deal that allows Iran to enrich uranium on its own soil. As a result, Israel may try to obstruct negotiations, pressure the United States to take a tougher stance, or influence both the agenda and the content of the talks. Netanyahu has called not only for dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, following the Libyan model, but also for including restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile development in any deal.[8] Israel could also act unilaterally to subvert any US-Iran rapprochement by launching military strikes on Iranian interests — actions that Tehran may interpret as US-approved, potentially derailing the negotiations entirely.
To What Extent Is the United States Ready to Lift Sanctions?
Iran seems to be desperately in need for a deal that brings an end to years of unrelenting sanctions that have battered the economy and shore up the establishment’s fragile legitimacy. As a result, it is tying any concessions in the talks to the United States easing the sanctions imposed after its withdrawal from the nuclear deal. More importantly, Iran wants the agreement to include verification measures and guaranteed access to its frozen assets abroad.
Iran’s Potential Options Regarding Non-nuclear Issues
The United States and Iran are holding unconventional talks amid shifting regional and global conditions. The talks are taking place in the context of a sharp power imbalance and a US president known for unpredictable actions and decisions. This will inevitably affect Iran’s choices regarding its disputes with the United States in the following ways:
Potential Flexibility Signaling a Transformational Shift From Entrenched Hostility
Some may see an understanding with the United States as a historic opportunity for Iran to decisively end the punishing sanctions regime and external pressure that it continues to endure, and potentially curtail the influence of Israel and pro-Israel lobbies on US policymaking. Trump’s presidency has presented a rare opportunity “for a lasting deal with the United States and the potential to resolve a diplomatic rift nearly five decades long.”[9] Such a resolution could also help avoid future confrontations between the two sides, including direct attacks on Iran’s nuclear program or moves to bring down the establishment. It could also restrain Israel from acting unilaterally against targets inside Iran. Moreover, settling disputes with the United States could create a more trusting environment with the Gulf countries, offering a chance to shift regional dynamics in Tehran’s favor after years of efforts to contain its influence. At the same time, a US-Iran understanding would limit China and Russia’s ability to use Iran as a bargaining chip in their own international and regional strategies.
Despite this, an anti-United States identity has become deeply entrenched in Iran, and as long as the current leadership remains in power, it is difficult to retract from the hostile rhetoric directed at Washington. It is well known that the Iranian establishment was compelled to engage in negotiations to ensure its survival and avoid large-scale military action against its critical interests. However, as long as the “hardliner” faction continues to undermine any chances of rapprochement with the United States during different periods, and although the establishment has offered Trump economic opportunities and mutual investments — especially in the energy and nuclear sectors — Khamenei’s speech, urging caution and recommending that Iran attempt to solve its problems without relying on negotiations, suggests that the leadership view these talks as tactical, rather than a means for a strategic breakthrough. Iran, from its ideological perspective, still sees itself in a state of disagreement and hostility with the United States, operating within a different international and regional structure, and relationships that are not easily normalized overnight.
Regional Truce That Does Not Fully End Dominance Ambitions
Despite recent setbacks in the region, Iran retains the foundation needed to rebuild its regional influence, particularly if it reaches an agreement with the United States that eases tensions. A thaw in US-Iran relations could create a more favorable environment for Tehran to restore the strength of its “Axis of Resistance,” much like the boost it received following the 2015 nuclear deal, when sanctions were eased and frozen assets were released. A similar outcome is possible if a new agreement with the Trump administration avoids imposing restrictions on Iran’s regional activities. While Tehran’s influence has waned following the Gaza war and under sustained pressure from US and Israeli efforts, it still maintains a significant presence across the region. Aside from Syria, Iran continues to wield influence across the political landscapes of Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen. Moreover, the actions of Israel — marked by regional aggression, disregard for sovereignty and attempts to marginalize the Palestinian cause — may inadvertently preserve the conditions for Iran’s continued relevance.
Diverse International Relations – Though Leaning Toward the East
Iran’s alignment with China and Russia, and its role within an international bloc seeking to challenge the US-led global order, suggests that Tehran may continue its Turning Eastward policy even if it signs a new nuclear agreement with the United States. This inclination is driven by lingering distrust following the US withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal, which left many Iranians doubtful about the reliability of Western commitments. Furthermore, Iran’s ideological outlook — rooted in religious and sectarian principles — underpins its transnational, anti-hegemonic agenda.
However, if Tehran adopts a pragmatic stance focused on economic recovery and security needs, it may reconsider its global strategy. Under a potential agreement, possibly with the Trump administration, Iran might move toward a more diversified and balanced foreign policy — similar to that of Gulf states or global middle powers — leveraging great power competition to its advantage.[10] It may also pursue a dual-track approach that balances relations with both Eastern and Western powers. In this context, Tehran could seek to assure Beijing and Moscow that improved ties with Washington and the lifting of financial restrictions would ultimately facilitate deeper strategic cooperation with both.
Iran’s Ballistic Missile Program, a Potentially Negotiable Red Line for Iran
Ballistic missiles remain one of the most divisive points in the ongoing negotiations between the United States and Iran. Iranian officials have consistently asserted that the missile program is a red line that will not be compromised.[11] This firm stance is rooted in Iran’s perception of its strategic vulnerabilities — the missile arsenal is seen as the country’s primary tool for projecting power and deterring regional adversaries. Tehran views any rollback of this capability as a direct threat to its national security, potentially exposing it to attacks without an effective means of response. The missile strikes Iran launched against Israel in the aftermath of the Gaza war underscored the program’s centrality to its regional deterrence posture.
As a result, Iran is expected to persist in developing its missile capabilities, especially with potential backing from Russia under the framework of their strategic partnership. Despite this, the United States continues to treat the issue as a priority, maintaining sanctions on Iran’s missile program even as diplomatic efforts unfold. The Trump administration, in particular, has signaled a tougher approach, pairing negotiations with heightened pressure and threats. Still, there are indications that the Iranian leadership might be willing to entertain dialogue on the missile file, depending on how talks evolve.
Sanctions, a Crucial but Outstanding Issue
While the current technical negotiations focus on Tehran’s nuclear commitments in return for the lifting of US sanctions, uncertainty lingers over several broader issues. Iran remains skeptical that Washington is prepared to make substantial changes to the sanctions regime without receiving significant concessions on non-nuclear issues. This perception could hinder overall progress in the talks and complicate efforts to reach common ground on other contentious points beyond the nuclear file.
Conclusion
US-Iran relations are currently at a critical juncture, facing a serious test as both sides navigate a highly complex and sensitive negotiation process. Iran entered the talks with modest expectations, aiming for limited understandings focused on resolving the nuclear issue in exchange for the easing of key sanctions — essentially seeking a revival of the 2015 nuclear agreement under updated terms. However, in response to Washington’s firm stance, Tehran may be willing to consider broader compromises, potentially extending to its regional conduct. Indeed, Iran has already shifted toward a more conciliatory posture, likely driven by concerns over escalating losses.
Despite showing some flexibility on the nuclear file and regional matters, Iran continues to draw a clear red line around its ballistic missile program, which it regards as a sovereign and non-negotiable right. At the same time, Iran’s involvement in international alliances opposed to the United States remains a bargaining chip it could leverage to serve its strategic interests.
Yet this approach may not satisfy Trump, who may push for a more transformative deal. From a position of perceived strength, Trump could seek to put a wide array of contentious issues on the table, viewing this moment as a historic opportunity to reshape the bilateral relationship. Faced with mounting economic pressures and a tense internal environment, Iran might find itself compelled to respond. Signs of such a shift are already visible; notably, the supreme leader has expressed openness to economic engagement and investment with the United States. If these gestures reflect genuine intent rather than mere negotiating tactics, they could mark the beginning of a new phase in US-Iran relations — one grounded in mutual interests rather than ideological confrontation and longstanding mistrust.
[1] Kamil Khoshestheh, “Three Reasons Behind Iran’s Shift in Behavior Toward Trump,” Khorasan Newspaper, April 30, 2025, accessed April 30, 2025, https://bit.ly/3YlFxI3.
[2] “Inside Story: Iran, US Move Towards ‘Indirect Talks’ as Letters Exchanged,” Amwaj Media, April 7, 2025, accessed April 5, 2025, https://2u.pw/HxwJN.
[3] Yasser Rafe’iyan, “Tough Diplomacy: A Narrative of Change in Iran–US Negotiations,” Shargh Newspaper, April 29, 2025, accessed April 30, 2025, https://tinyurl.com/25zs6vrc. [Persian].
[4] Dana Stroul, “The Narrow Path to a New Middle East,” Foreign Affairs, April 2, 2025, accessed 29 April 2025, https://tinyurl.com/24jjlpx7.
[5] “Khamenei and the ‘Art of Negotiation:’ Iran–US Talks Between Caution and Optimism,” Middle East, April 26, 2025, accessed April 29, 2025, https://tinyurl.com/23vxeoda.
[6] “IAEA Director General’s Introductory Statement to the Board of Governors,” IAEA, March 3, 2025, accessed May 1, 2025, https://tinyurl.com/2b92npf7
[7] Rosaleen Carroll, “IAEA’s Grossi to Visit Tehran Ahead of Second Round of US–Iran Nuclear Talks,” Al-Monitor, April 14, 2025, accessed April 29, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/2db7abgr.
[8] “Amid U.S.-Iran Talks, Netanyahu Says Iran’s Enrichment Program Must Go,” Reuters, April 28, 2025, accessed April 15, 2025, https://tinyurl.com/2ddc2j9r.
[9] Farnaz Fassihi, “Why Iran’s Supreme Leader Came Around to Nuclear Talks With the U.S.,” The New York Times, April 11, 2025, accessed April 15, 2025. https://2u.pw/LxNaj.
[10] Fatemeh Khadem Shirazi, “Iran’s Chess Map: Clever Maneuver or Strategic Stalemate,” Diplomatic Strategy Post, April 26, 2025, accessed April 30, 2025, https://bit.ly/42vFhe0.
[11] “News Report: Nuclear Negotiations – Iran Talks about ‘Disputes’ in Negotiations,” China International Television Network (CGTN Arabic), April 28, 2025, accessed April 29, 2025, https://tinyurl.com/28adz6s.
