Tehran media float 'halt for halt' formula as Trump says deal in sight

Ali has been living in Canada for eleven years. When he and his wife immigrated, the Islamic Republic's embassy in Ottawa had already been closed, with diplomatic ties severed two years earlier.

Although Ali has never returned to Iran since arriving in Canada, his wife has made necessary trips back and had to renew her Iranian passport through the Interests Section of the Islamic Republic in Washington, DC.

One of these renewals contained legal errors — leaving her stranded in Iran at the time of the downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752.

On January 8, 2020, amid heightened tensions between Iran and the US following the killing of Qassem Soleimani, Flight PS752 was shot down by two missiles fired by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) just six minutes after takeoff from Tehran.

All 176 people on board — as well as an unborn child — were killed.

Of those passengers, 138 were ultimately headed to Canada. The loss of 55 Canadian citizens and 30 permanent residents turned the downing into a national tragedy and further deepened the diplomatic rift between Ottawa and Tehran.

Canada cut diplomatic ties with Iran and shut down its embassy in Tehran in 2012, citing several concerns: Iran’s support for the Assad regime during the Syrian civil war, its defiance of United Nations resolutions on its nuclear program, ongoing threats against Israel, and security risks to Canadian diplomats after the British embassy in Tehran was attacked in breach of the Vienna Convention.

Iran’s message to Canada’s new government

In a rare development, CBC's senior international correspondent Margaret Evans was granted access to Iran earlier this month. During a press conference, she asked Esmail Baghaei, spokesperson for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, about the future of diplomatic relations with Canada.

Baghaei responded: "The relationship was frozen unilaterally by Canada, not by Iran, and we never welcomed that decision because we think that decision was not for the benefit of either of the two nations."

He added: "I think it's for Canada to decide what course of action they want to take. I think the first step they have to take is to unravel the many sanctions and restraints that they have imposed on themselves and on our bilateral relations. We were never in favor of severing ties. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians live in Canada, and they were the first to suffer from this situation."

But for many in the Iranian-Canadian community, the presence of an Iranian embassy in Canada is not seen as benign — nor missed.

A matter of security and influence

Many Iranian Canadians argue that Iranian embassies abroad function less as diplomatic institutions and more as extensions of the regime’s intelligence and influence operations.

Critics say these missions monitor dissidents and facilitate connections with proxy groups abroad.

Ali, for one, opposes any effort to reopen the Islamic Republic’s embassy in Canada. "Despite weak immigration enforcement that has allowed many former regime officials to settle here," he says.

"The continued closure of the Islamic Republic's embassy in Ottawa has at least prevented further infiltration and harmful activity."

Canada’s official position: no plans to reengage

The Canadian government has made it clear that it has no intention of reestablishing diplomatic ties under current conditions. In response to a request from Iran International, Global Affairs Canada stated:

“Iran must make fundamental changes in its behavior — both domestically and internationally — before the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with Canada can be considered.”

The statement went on to say that Canada remains deeply concerned about:

• Iran’s destabilizing activities in the Middle East
• Violations of international human rights commitments, especially against women, girls, and minority groups

Until meaningful change is seen, Canada will continue its pressure campaign, which includes:

• Listing Iran as a state supporter of terrorism under the State Immunity Act
• Listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization under the Criminal Code
• Imposing targeted sanctions

Conservatives: No normalization with a terrorist state

Since the beginning of Iran’s “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement in 2022, Canadians have repeatedly expressed support for the Iranian people. In 2024, the Canadian government officially listed the IRGC as a terrorist organization — a move long advocated by Conservatives.

Garnett Genuis, the Conservative MP who first introduced a motion in 2018 to designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity, reaffirmed his party’s position in an exclusive comment to Iran International:

“Proposals to re-establish ties with this extremist, terrorist-supporting regime are completely unacceptable. While the Liberals have historically supported reopening relations, Conservatives are proud of our record of standing up to the regime and supporting the Iranian people.”

“The Iranian people deserve the opportunity to choose a government that reflects their aspirations for justice and peace. We stand with the people of Iran — not the regime. That will not change.”

Diplomacy — or expanded access for the Islamic Republic?

Some argue that diplomatic relations might help resolve bilateral issues — such as the investigation into the downing of PS752. Others believe such ties only give the Islamic Republic more room to maneuver. They point to countries like Sweden and the UK, where Iranian embassies exist but have done little to increase Tehran’s accountability.

Iranian Canadians have voiced their stance clearly in recent years. Tens of thousands have participated in public rallies, demonstrating not only their distance from the clerical establishment, but also their commitment to keeping Canada informed about the real demands of the Iranian people.

Today, many like Ali say they are willing to accept the consular complications that come with the absence of an embassy — if it means limiting the Islamic Republic’s access and influence in Canada.

The Truckers and Drivers Union said on Thursday that strikes had expanded to over 141 cities, vowing to continue until demands are met.

“This unity and solidarity is the result of your determination,” the union wrote in a statement. “Thanks to all the drivers, small freight operators, teachers, retirees, workers and free citizens who joined us. Our path is clear and we will persist.”

Truck drivers first walked off the job on May 22 to protest surging fuel costs, a lack of insurance coverage, and stagnant freight rates. Despite efforts by authorities to suppress the action—including arrests and interrogations in multiple provinces—footage from cities such as Bandar Abbas and Marivan shows major highways emptied of heavy vehicles.

Strikes go beyond occupational grievances

Over 180 rights and student organizations aligned with Iran's Woman, Life, Freedom movement announced their backing for the truckers.

“We do not see this as a purely professional dispute,” they said in a joint statement released on Thursday. “It is part of a broader political and nationwide struggle to reclaim livelihood and dignity.”

They urged other sectors—teachers, factory and service workers, healthcare staff, shopkeepers, students—to form coordination councils and join the movement through synchronized action.

Student groups from Tehran, Kordestan, and Isfahan also lent support, along with teachers’ collectives and grassroots youth organizations.

Iran Labor Confederation, based abroad, called the strike emblematic of systemic repression.

“The truckers’ strike is a response to persistent economic abuse and denial of independent union rights,” the group wrote to the International Labor Organization. It demanded the expulsion of Iranian state delegates from the ILO and the release of detained labor activists.

Iran’s freight industry is unusually fragmented. According to official data, more than 550,000 drivers operate 433,000 trucks, but just 7% are owned by companies. The remaining 93% are controlled by individual owner-operators, making collective pressure harder to dissolve.

“Dispersed ownership is exactly why this strike is so hard to break,” said Firooz Khodaei, head of the truckers union. He confirmed the government has temporarily suspended a tiered diesel pricing plan and invited trucker representatives to participate in policy talks.

Although neither Iranian nor Omani authorities have officially announced the proposals' content, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said they are currently under review.

During his meeting with the Sultan of Oman this week, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian praised Muscat’s “active and constructive role in indirect negotiations,” reaffirming that “Iran fully trusts Oman.”

Observers widely believe that Pezeshkian’s visit went beyond the expansion of bilateral ties, as publicly stated, and was primarily focused on Oman’s initiatives.

Consortium or Freeze?

Ahead of Pezeshkian’s visit, conservative lawmaker Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani revealed to Didban Iran news website that Oman had proposed either forming a consortium with Arab nations or implementing a period of freeze in enrichment.

Ardestani, who serves on the Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said Iran had not accepted either plan, warning: “Past experience has shown that the other side tends to make additional demands after receiving concessions.”

The interview was later removed from the website. The outlet may have been instructed by security bodies to remove the interview because Ardestani claimed Iran could produce several nuclear bombs — a remark viewed as highly provocative.

According to media reports and analysts, the proposed consortium could include regional countries such as Saudi Arabia, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, and the United States.

The arrangement would aim to supply Iran with enriched uranium for civilian use in exchange for partial sanctions relief on Iran’s oil exports, central bank, and the shipping sector.

“Members of this consortium could monitor the process and report on it in order to build US trust,” Seyed Jalal Sadatian, former Iranian ambassador to the UK, told Shargh Daily on Tuesday.

“Evidence suggests that the Omani foreign minister is emphasizing this idea, stating that it is the best way to prove the civilian nature of Iran’s nuclear program without forcing Iran to completely halt uranium enrichment — which has always been a red line for Tehran. Furthermore, Iran insists that any action taken must be step-by-step and reciprocal,” he added.

The consortium idea had previously been floated by former Iranian nuclear negotiator Seyed Hossein Mousavian in a post on X ahead of the April 11 talks in Muscat.

Others have also discussed the possibility of a temporary freeze lasting from six months to three years.

“A temporary agreement would mean that Iran suspends uranium enrichment for a limited period, and in return, the United States eases some of the economic restrictions on Iran,” Iran newspaper quoted political analyst Ebrahim Mottaghi as saying.

What Might Tehran Accept?

Iranian media and observers have widely discussed both claimed proposals, ruling out one or both.

“What has been emphasized by Tehran so far is that it will not accept any consortium and, based on its legal rights under the NPT, it will not relinquish uranium enrichment carried out independently and on Iranian soil,” an editorial published by hardline Kayhan newspaper on Tuesday stated.

The idea of a three-year halt in enrichment “is also unacceptable to our country; even a short-term suspension of enrichment is a trick and a trap that must be strictly avoided,” the editorial added.

The IRGC-affiliated Javan newspaper, too, has dismissed the idea of a three-year freeze as “a unilateral proposal, not a middle-ground one.

Mottaghi, however, told Iran newspaper that a temporary agreement appeared to be more viable for both sides. “The reality is that Iran faces fewer challenges in accepting this option in comparison to the United States’ unilateral approaches, which are often marked by signs of maximalism.”

In a commentary for Ham-Mihan newspaper, political commentator Ahmad Zohdabadi argued that the consortium proposal may have lost traction due to disputes over its location, which echo the broader disagreement over recognition of Iran’s right to enrich uranium on its soil.

“Omani officials have taken on an extremely difficult task. Proposing a solution that simultaneously satisfies Iran, the United States, and other stakeholders appears highly improbable,” he wrote.

The core dispute is enrichment.

While Iran has signalled willingness to eliminate its stockpile of highly enriched Uranium (HEU) and accept more intrusive inspections, it insists on its right to enrich Uranium to low levels (LEU) for peaceful use.

Trump argues that even this capability leaves Iran with a latent weapon option.

Iran’s enrichment programme has long served as a symbol of national pride. But beyond its political value lies a costly, outdated infrastructure with limited technological merit and major economic consequences.

This article examines the evolution and efficiency of Iran’s programme, its global standing, and the burden it has imposed on the country’s economy and people.

Missed chances and escalation

Iran’s Uranium enrichment began in 1987, amid the Iran–Iraq War, with help from Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan network. The programme’s roots, however, go back to the Shah era of the 1970s, when Iran pursued a civilian nuclear project under the US-led Atoms for Peace initiative.

In the 1990s and 2000s, Iran partnered with China and Russia on development of nuclear power plants while covertly constructing enrichment facilities like Natanz and Fordow, later exposed to the IAEA.

In the early 2000s, Iran had an opportunity to demonstrate transparency. But the concealment of facilities and obstruction of inspections—combined with no clear economic rationale—fuelled suspicion.

Years of negotiations led to the 2015 JCPOA, which capped Uranium purity and stockpiles, reduced centrifuge numbers, and expanded IAEA oversight in exchange for sanctions relief.

The deal also aimed to reintegrate Iran into the global economy. Although President Hassan Rouhani supported limited engagement, the Supreme Leader blocked foreign investment and rejected deeper ties with the US.

Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA marked the collapse of that effort. Iran responded by breaching its commitments gradually, leading to the reimposition of sanctions.

Powerful actors – especially the IRGC, which benefits from sanctions and thrives under isolationism or a “Protection for Sale” framework – opposed the deal from the outset.

Ultimately, the enrichment programme became a political tool rather than an energy strategy, a token of pride pursued at the cost of people’s welfare.

An outdated, inefficient program

Iran’s programme relies heavily on IR-1 centrifuges, based on 1970s Pakistani designs. These machines are inefficient and prone to malfunction. By contrast, advanced enrichment facilities in the West use high-output centrifuges that deliver more work per unit of energy.

Although exact figures remain classified, estimates suggest Iran’s enrichment costs per Separative Work Unit (SWU) – a standard measure of enrichment effort—range from $200 to $300, compared to roughly $40 in advanced economies.

Iran’s Uranium mining is equally inefficient. According to IAEA data and Iran’s own reporting, the production cost of Uranium oxide (U₃O₈) stands at around $1,750 per kilogram, compared to $60 in Canada.

Iran’s commitment to nuclear self-sufficiency – while politically expedient – has become economically self-defeating.

Worse, there is little domestic demand for Iranian-enriched Uranium. The Bushehr nuclear plant operates on Russian fuel under contract. No Iranian reactor uses domestic LEU. Globally, most countries import nuclear fuel rather than enrich it – making Iran’s programme economically irrational and strategically symbolic.

Sanctions: a decade of economic pain

Iran’s nuclear stance has exacted a high price.

Since 2011, sanctions have devastated trade, investment, and GDP growth. Oil exports dropped from 2.5 million barrels per day in 2011 to under 400,000 during Trump’s first term. Though they rebounded to 1.5 million in 2024, levels remain far below that of pre-sanctions era.

Iran’s real GDP shrank by 13% in 2011. It has yet to recover to its 2010 GDP per capita level. Had Iran maintained its pre-2011 trend line with an average growth rate of 5.9%, 2024 GDP would be more than double current levels – roughly $828 billion versus $400 billion today.

Even after adjusting for global shocks like COVID-19 and commodity price spikes, the opportunity cost of the nuclear programme and associated sanctions is estimated at $399-414 billion.

The rial has collapsed, from IRR 14,200 per US dollar in 2011 to over IRR 818,000 in 2025. Inflation has averaged 40% annually for six years. Real wages have stagnated, fixed-income households have been hit hardest, and inequality has deepened.

Iran’s exclusion from the SWIFT banking system and refusal to comply with FATF standards have further hampered trade, including humanitarian imports. Capital formation has turned negative, and core industries have withered.

The state’s rhetoric of "resistance economy" offers little comfort to citizens facing chronic hardship.

Sanctions have also undercut Iran’s scientific and industrial base. Universities and research institutes face brain drain. Industrial firms struggle to access spare parts, software, or global partnerships. From car production to pharmaceuticals, entire sectors have regressed.

State survival vs people’s welfare

Iran’s enrichment program today serves political survival, not public welfare. It allows the supreme leader to project defiance, enriches the IRGC through sanctions arbitrage, and sustains the state’s ideological base in times of unrest.

But the cost is immense: capital flight, brain drain, and widespread emigration of Iran’s educated youth. Investments in clean energy, digital infrastructure, and global commerce could have transformed Iran’s economy. Instead, resources are wasted on a technology with minimal strategic gain and substantial economic isolation.

Iran’s future cannot rest on symbolic resistance.

The enrichment programme, as currently structured, has brought little benefit and enormous cost – economically, politically, and socially. It has deprived the country of trade, investment, global legitimacy, and, most importantly, the welfare of its people.

The fifth round of Iran–US talks ended without progress. But continued engagement suggests both sides see value in a deal. For Iran, enrichment no longer offers strategic or economic gain. It remains only as a political prop.

Several proposals are under discussion.

One envisions a Persian Gulf regional consortium to oversee enrichment in Iran. This idea lacks a concrete and substantive foundation, but it may open a path to preserve enrichment in principle without allowing full implementation. Another suggests recognising Iran’s theoretical NPT right to enrich while freezing domestic activities. A third offers financial compensation for dismantling facilities.

More creative proposals may yet be found. What matters now is avoiding war.

Iran’s leaders must choose between entrenched defiance and a future grounded in rational diplomacy. The enrichment program has cost far too much – not just in lost GDP, but in the lives and futures of ordinary Iranians.

Symbolic pride is no substitute for real prosperity. It is time to move on.

Mahdi Ghodsi is an Economist at The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies

Behrooz Bayat is Senior Fellow at the Center for Middle East and Global Order (CMEG)

“We are very close to a solution,” Trump said on Wednesday. “If we can make a deal, I’d save a lot of lives," adding that Iran appears willing to engage seriously and that they had constructive discussions.

The talks mediated by Oman have entered crunch time with no date and location yet announced for a sixth round.

The United States and Iran are nearing a broad agreement on the future of Tehran’s nuclear program, CNN reported on Wednesday, with talks progressing in recent weeks toward a framework that could be finalized at a future meeting.

Washington and Tehran are considering a potential multinational consortium—possibly including regional partners and the International Atomic Energy Agency—to produce nuclear fuel for Iran’s civilian reactors and may include US investment, CNN reported citing source familiar with the talks.

A White House official, speaking to Fox News, said nothing had yet been agreed on Iran’s nuclear energy program.

Iran denies enrichment freeze proposal

Tehran says its nuclear program is purely peaceful but Western countries and its Mideast adversary Israel doubt its intentions.

Iran says it is keen to reach a nuclear deal but has maintained a right to domestic enrichment despite US demands to shutter it.

Iran on Thursday denied a Reuters report citing two Iranian officials saying they were mulling a proposal to halt uranium enrichment for a year and ship part of its highly enriched stockpile abroad or convert it into fuel plates for civilian nuclear purposes.

“The continuation of enrichment in Iran is a non-negotiable principle,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Wednesday.

The suggestion mulled by Iranian officials, according to the sources cited by Reuters, envisions the disbursement of funds frozen by Washington and the recognition of Tehran's right to enrich uranium for civilian use in return for the pause.

Meant as a political deal that could pave the way for a broader accord, the proposal not yet been floated in the talks, Reuters cited the Iranian sources as saying.

Austria on alleged Iranian nuclear arms ambitions

Austria’s domestic intelligence agency released a report this week saying Iran's program to develop nuclear arms is far advanced, in wording which appeared to outstrip that of its Western counterparts.

"Nuclear weapons are intended to make the regime untouchable and to expand and consolidate its dominance in the Near and Middle East and beyond," the Austrian Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution said in its annual report.

"The Iranian program for the development of nuclear weapons is far advanced."

The United States has publicly assessed that Iran has not yet decided to build a nuclear weapon but maintains that its nuclear program is aimed at becoming a nuclear threshold state to deter foreign attack.

The Austrian report further alleged that Tehran aims to develop long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads, without citing any evidence.

"An arsenal of ballistic missiles is ready to carry nuclear warheads over long distances."

Iran open to US inspectors

In an apparent policy shift, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization said Tehran may reconsider its longstanding ban on US nuclear inspectors if current talks with Washington lead to a successful agreement.

Mohammad Eslami said American inspectors affiliated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) could be allowed into Iranian sites under a future deal, despite current restrictions on personnel from adversary states.

“It is normal that inspectors from hostile countries are not allowed, but if a nuclear deal is reached, we might allow American inspectors,” Eslami said.

Later on Wednesday, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said any deal between Tehran and Washington that would impose fresh nuclear curbs on Iran should include very robust inspections by the UN nuclear watchdog.

"My impression is that if you have that type of agreement, a solid, very robust inspection by the IAEA ... should be a prerequisite," he said.

"I'm sure it will be, because it would imply a very, very serious commitment on the part of Iran, which must be verified."

US officials have repeatedly said that any new nuclear deal with Iran to replace a lapsed 2015 accord between Tehran and six world powers must include a commitment to halt enrichment, viewed as a potential pathway to developing nuclear bombs.

Iran's stockpile of 60% enriched uranium had increased to 275 kg, enough to theoretically make about half a dozen weapons if Iran further enriches the uranium.

Trump has previously warned that if no agreement is reached, military options remain on the table. “We can blow up a lab,” he said, referring to a hypothetical enforcement scenario under a possible inspection regime, “but nobody’s going to be in the lab.”

Trump, speaking to reporters, also confirmed that he warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to interfere with ongoing US-Iran negotiations.

The comments followed a New York Times report citing Israeli officials saying the Jewish State was preparing for a potential strike on Iranian nuclear sites even if Tehran and Washington clinch a deal.