Iran will never cease uranium enrichment, Pezeshkian tells Oman Daily

Former commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Mohsen Rezaei on Thursday dismissed US President Donald Trump's demand for the total dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, calling it “a combination of delusion, bluff, delirium, and confusion.”

“As long as he (Trump) and his team align themselves with a mentally unstable person like Netanyahu and cannot make decisions free from the Zionist and neocon lobbies, they will remain stuck in the delusion of dismantling Iran’s nuclear facilities,” Rezaei wrote in a post on X.

"Trump should know that he is facing a great country and nation and an established system in Iran that will force America to accept realities and avoid illusions," he added.

A senior Iranian lawmaker has criticized what he described as contradictions in US behavior during nuclear negotiations, saying it is making progress difficult.

“The Americans’ contradictions make things difficult for everyone. They say one thing at the negotiating table and something else in their media statements,” Fadahossein Maleki, a member of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, said on Thursday.

Maleki said that Iran should not be blamed if the talks fail.

“Given that Iran holds a strong position and has arguments to present at the table, the Americans have no justification against us,” he said.

Iran’s top demands in ongoing nuclear negotiations remain the complete lifting of sanctions and the preservation of its right to enrich uranium, he added.

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.

The path forward in Tehran-Washington nuclear negotiations remains uncertain, but Oman has reportedly made two separate proposals to Iran that could provide a potential breakthrough in the stalled talks.

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 sits 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.”

Read more

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.