Iran open to full nuclear verification, president says

"Everything we can do to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and ultimately to support regime change in Iran would be an improvement in US national security", Texas Senator Ted Cruz said.

"I think we have many points of leverage short of military action and economic and diplomatic pressure can have a profoundly powerful effect," he added. "The Ayatollah's intentions are unquestionably hostile. He is a theocratic genocidal lunatic."

Trump has threatened to bomb Iran if it does not reach a new nuclear accord. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has vowed retaliation in the event of an attack.

Previously, the populist US President who campaigned in part on avoiding foreign wars has said he wishes the Iranian people well and suggested he does not seek the overthrow of its theocratic rulers.

Trump in February reinstated the "maximum pressure" campaign of sanctions on Iran from his first term with the aim of bringing Iranian oil sales down to zero.

Tehran denies seeking nuclear weapons but the United Nations nuclear watchdog said it now possesses the largest stockpile of enriched uranium of any non-nuclear armed state.

Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama expressed support for increased pressure on Iran, emphasizing sanctions targeting key sectors like oil and gas.

“If you're going to put sanctions on somebody – what President Trump does—for Iran and for the regime that's even killing its own people—is, you do blockade," Tuberville told Iran International.

"You take away their source of being able to make a living, and that’s through their oil and gas."

Their conclusion, after facing militants' bullets and a ghostly encounter with the shell-shocked monarch, was that the US could no longer support its longtime ally's rule.

The consequences of Islamic Revolution to follow reverberate to the present day.

Ambassador John Craig, 80, was a young American diplomat when he was tasked with joining an exclusive group to meet the Shah alongside Senate majority leader Senator Robert Byrd.

It was a mission that went undisclosed even to American Ambassador to Iran William Sullivan, Craig told Iran International in an interview in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, where he teaches at the local university.

In a storied career, Craig went on to serve as US ambassador to Egypt and Oman.

“President Carter asked Senator Byrd to make a special trip to Tehran to give him a personal assessment of the longevity of the Shah. There was great concern in Washington”, said Craig, “Could the Shah hold on? Could the Shah defeat the revolution?”

Their task was to help Carter transcend the disagreements within the US foreign policy over whether one of Washington's key allies in the turbulent region could be salvaged and provide an unvarnished take on the Shah's mettle.

“Some were saying, yes, the Shah could hold on, others no. One of the issues in that debate was how much force should be used to put down the revolution,” said Craig.

"There were those who felt that the Shah should really be aggressive and shoot people. And there were those who felt that reforms were the way to defeat the revolution.”

Mission: Tehran

To camouflage the trip's true purpose, Craig and the rest of the group made a diplomatic tour across the Middle East and the North Africa before arriving in Tehran.

Craig touched down in December 1978, just a few months before the Shah was ultimately toppled and as rebellion roiled cities nationwide.

Violence was escalating and martial law was in place as armed anti-Shah demonstrators roamed the streets chanting ‘death to the Shah!’

Because of the security risk, Craig and the team were not able to drive to the Shah’s Niavaran palace and instead flew by helicopter.

“We were flying. You could see out the windows that people were shooting at us,” Craig said.

When they arrived, Craig said he was astonished to see bare walls - no paintings, no antiques - in what was once among the world's most opulent palaces.

It became clear that the Shah was preparing to flee.

“I'm saying to myself, this is really weird. I said to myself immediately, these guys have packed up. They are ready to go. No question about that,” Craig said.

Entering the palace’s Hall of Mirrors, Craig caught sight of the Shah and his wife, Empress Farah Diba, standing to greet them.

'Inert' emperor

“He was comatose. Standing, but inert,” said Craig.

“I noticed that the Shah was looking straight ahead. He was not interacting. His eyes weren't moving. He did not raise his hand. But when the person put their hand in his hand, he didn't grasp it and he didn't shake it,” Craig said.

They went on to have lunch in the palace. Craig said the Shah did not speak once over the course of the meal, leaving the Empress to do all the talking. She appeared to be in control and running the country in the last days of their rule, Craig concluded.

“He didn't eat. He didn't move. He didn't say a word,” said Craig about the Shah.

Pleasantries and small talk dominated the discussion and the violence in the streets went unmentioned. Senator Byrd and Ambassador Craig left convinced that the Shah was unfit to rule.

Little did anyone at the time realize it, but the lunch was to help determine US policy and Iran's future course for the coming decades.

Screaming match

What followed next was a visit by Senator Byrd and Ambassador Craig to Ambassador Sullivan’s house in Tehran to break the news on the special visit.

While Ambassador Craig did not partake in the conversation, he could hear what Sullivan and Byrd were saying.

“There was a lot of screaming and yelling. They were arguing about what our policy should be going forward,” said Craig on the encounter between the two men.

The conversation lasted about three hours, with Sullivan coming to the defense of the Shah and pushing to have the Americans keep him in power. Byrd argued the Shah was already done for and unable to rule over a people in revolt.

On the flight back to the United States, Senator Byrd prepared his report to Carter.

“We were such a small group, of course, that we could hear what the senator was dictating in the memo to the president. So we we all knew what the senator was saying in his memo,” said Craig.

Once they arrived back to D.C, the Senator had a car waiting to take him straight to the White House, where he informed the president of his dire conclusion: the scion of Iran's 2,500-year monarchy was doomed.

“He went back and told the president: This is not going to work," Craig said.

"The Shah cannot continue.”

You can watch the full interview with Ambassador John Craig on YouTube.

"We don't hold discussions with the Iranians, as you know, but they made it clear they are ready to an indirect negotiations with the US, and I will not be surprised if such negotiations will start," Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said on Thursday following a meeting with his French counterpart in Paris.

“What's important is the objective, and the objective is not to have Iran with nuclear weapon. I think it's international consensus, and we don't exclude the diplomatic path,” he added.

Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons, though hardliners are calling for the country's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to drop the religious ban on nuclear weapons, an argument that has gained pace in the wake of threats from US President Donald Trump.

Trump recently threatened to bomb Iran if a deal is not reached within a two month deadline, prompting a sharp response from Khamenei, who warned of a "heavy blow in return" if Iran were attacked. The exact start date of Trump's deadline to Iran remains unclear.

According to two US officials cited by Axios, the White House is seriously considering the Iranian proposal for indirect nuclear talks, even as the US military significantly increases its presence in the Middle East.

"Iran is a dangerous state with an extremist regime that works intensively against regional stability, exporting the Islamist revolution and spreading terrorism in the region," Saar said after the meeting with Jean-Noël Barrot.

Since October 7 when Iran-backed Hamas invaded Israel, killing 12,000 mostly civilians and taking more than 250 others hostage, Iran's allies have launched attacks on Israel from Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen.

"The most extremist regime in the world shouldn't possess the most dangerous weapon in the world," he added.

Along with the US, France was pivotal in securing the ceasefire between Israel and Iran's largest proxy, Hezbollah in Lebanon. Following the Lebanese militia's assault on Israel in allegiance with Hamas in Gaza, the archenemies came the closest to war since 2006 before the ceasefire which came into effect in November.

"We shouldn't allow Hezbollah to recover and rearm, and we will not let it happen," said Saar, as the fragile ceasefire continues amid allegations from both sides of breaches.

"Inside Lebanon, there is cooperation between Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas, and we will not allow terror activities from there against Israel and our civilians. We will not allow to come back to the reality of October 6th on any of Israel's borders."

On Tuesday, the Israeli military said it assassinated a Revolutionary Guards member coordinating Hamas and Hezbollah operations in Lebanon.

Hassan Ali Mahmoud Badir, a member of Hezbollah's Unit 3900 and the Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, was killed in the Dahiyeh area of Beirut, a stronghold of the Iran-backed Hezbollah militia.

"Badir recently operated in cooperation with the Hamas terrorist organization, directed Hamas terrorists, and assisted them in planning and advancing a significant and imminent terror attack against Israeli civilians," a statement released on Tuesday said.

"Given the immediacy of the threat, Badir was struck immediately in order to eliminate the threat posed by a terror attack intended to harm Israeli civilians."

Jalal Sadatian, who previously served as Iran’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, told the ILNA news website in Tehran: “It is important to recognize that there are serious enemies of Iran’s national interests who do not want to see improved relations with Europe and the United States.”

In recent months, numerous media outlets, political figures, and former officials have cautioned against relying on Russia as a mediator between Tehran and the West, accusing Moscow of seeking to keep Iran within its own geopolitical orbit.

“Maintaining a balanced foreign policy is essential to safeguard the country’s national interests and security,” Sadatian said, adding, “We must remain aware of the severe risks posed by sanctions in order to navigate this critical phase successfully.”

The former diplomat pointed out that the dynamics of the Middle East have shifted dramatically, citing Israeli strikes on Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the fall of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. He emphasized that the Islamic Republic has effectively lost its military foothold in Syria.

Sadatian also noted a shift in Iraq’s political landscape—one that appears unfavorable to Iran. He highlighted growing pressure from senior Iraqi officials and Shiite religious leaders on pro-Iran militias to either disarm or formally integrate into the Iraqi army.

On the prospect of renewed talks with the United States, Sadatian warned that Tehran must remove “serious and illogical impediments rooted in domestic political disputes.” He added, “We must be aware of the serious dangers posed by sanctions in order to navigate through this phase successfully.”

In a televised interview on Monday, Ali Larijani suggested that if Iran were attacked and public demand for nuclear weapons emerged, even the Supreme Leader’s religious decree (fatwa) against weapons of mass destruction could be reconsidered. Nonetheless, he insisted that Iran is not pursuing nuclear arms and remains committed to cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Khamenei’s ruling was presented by Iranian officials at the International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament in April 2010. But such religious decrees could be altered or overturned given the ‘requirement of time and place’ as many historical instances prove.

Many hardliners and ultra-hardliners in Tehran—typically staunch critics of the moderate conservative Larijani—have embraced his remarks on social media.

“Had any other political figure raised the possibility of the Islamic Republic moving toward nuclear weapons, they would have been accused of warmongering or bluffing. Dr. Larijani’s decision to bring it up was a wise move and a timely act of sacrifice,” wrote Vahid Yaminpour, a prominent ultra-hardliner and former state television executive, on X.

“The Iranian nation wants nuclear weapons,” declared Seyed Komail, an ultra-hardliner social media activist with 27,000 followers, in response to Larijani’s remarks.

Abdollah Ganji, former editor of the IRGC-linked Javan newspaper, dismissed concerns over potential US or Israeli strikes, arguing that Iran’s nuclear facilities are too deeply fortified to be destroyed. He warned that an attack could lead to Iran's withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and retaliation against US military bases and Israel.

However, Larijani’s remarks stand in contrast to official government positions. Soon after his interview, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reaffirmed on X that Iran “under no circumstances” would seek, develop, or acquire nuclear weapons, emphasizing that diplomacy remains the best course of action.

Nour News, an online outlet believed to be affiliated with Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), also weighed in, questioning whether the US is prepared to face the consequences of further escalation.

Larijani’s statements have drawn strong criticism as well. Detractors argue that such rhetoric provides the US and Israel with an excuse to justify pre-emptive military action. “The Leader’s fatwa prohibiting nuclear weapons is absolute and without exceptions,” posted cleric Saeed Ebrahimi on X, adding that raising the prospect of nuclear bombs would only give Iran's enemies justification for aggression.

Mohammad Rahbari, a prominent political commentator in Tehran, suggested that Larijani’s remarks signaled Iran may be alarmingly close to nuclear capability—precisely the kind of pretext Israel has been seeking for a preemptive strike. Senior reformist journalist Mohammad Sahafi also warned that such nuclear posturing could alienate potential allies who might otherwise support Iran in the face of Western pressure.

“Larijani's comment was unprofessional and came from a position of weakness; it had no merit. It also gave the other side an excuse to have strong reasons for pre-emptive action and to shape a global consensus. In short, if we are concerned about our homeland, we should not take such a reckless stance,” Hemmat Imani, an international relations researcher in Iran, wrote.

Others speculate that Larijani’s remarks are part of ongoing indirect negotiations with Washington. “Ali Larijani’s ‘warning’ should be seen as a calculated move in high-level negotiations,” suggested Iranian environmental journalist Sina Jahani.

Describing Larijani’s remarks as “a form of nuclear blackmail the Islamic Republic has used as a tool of threat for years,” Arvand Amir-Khosravi, a Norway-based academic and monarchist, wrote on X that the threat was “nothing more than a propaganda ploy to gain leverage in potential negotiations,” adding that pursuing nuclear weapons would invite military retaliation rather than enhance Iran’s security.

The United States Office of the Director of National Intelligence reported in November 2024 that, as of September 26, Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon. However, last month, Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), described Iran’s nuclear program as extremely ambitious and wide-ranging. He warned that the country's uranium enrichment had reached near weapons-grade levels and was alarmingly close to the threshold for acquiring nuclear weapons.