Iran to submit counterproposal to US via Oman soon

Their accounts document a sprawling overseas network operating under direct orders from the Supreme Leader’s office and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps intelligence arm well out of step with common diplomatic practice.

“Every embassy has a list. People to watch. People to engage. People to silence,” an Iranian former diplomatic employee told Iran International.

“It’s not foreign policy—it’s field execution,” another told Iran International. “The people sent abroad are on assignment, not appointment.”

Their account outlines a foreign service shaped not by diplomacy but by ideology, surveillance and illicit finance.

According to these individuals—whose names are withheld for their safety—Iran’s diplomatic missions double as intelligence gathering hubs tasked with tracking dissidents, surveilling student communities and delivering cash and equipment under the protection of diplomatic immunity.

UK authorities detained eight men in May, including three charged under the National Security Act for surveilling Iran International journalists on behalf of Tehran between August 2024 and February 2025.

It was not clear whether the charges related in any way to the Iranian embassy in London.

Iran’s foreign ministry denounced the charges as politically motivated, but former officials say such actions are core to the Islamic Republic’s overseas agenda.

Iran’s embassies maintain the outward structure of any diplomatic mission—ambassadors, attachés and advisers—but according to the sources, the roles often serve as cover.

“A person listed as a translator might actually coordinate funds for proxy groups,” said one of the former diplomats. “Titles are just for appearances.”

In one high-profile case, Iranian diplomat Asadollah Asadi used his status to transport explosives intended for an opposition rally in Paris. His 2021 conviction in Belgium exposed how far such dual roles can go.

100%

Another ex-staffer recalled colleagues arriving in Istanbul and Baku with briefcases of undeclared dollars. “They know no one will search their bags,” he said.

Cultural attachés, especially those linked to the Islamic Culture and Communications Organization, are said to organize religious events abroad that double as screening grounds for potential recruits.

Germany shuttered the Islamic Center of Hamburg in July over its ties to Tehran and what the Interior Ministry called promotion of extremism and antisemitism.

100%

The diplomatic corps itself, sources say, is dominated by the sons of clerics and system insiders.

“Your father is a Friday prayer leader? Your uncle is close to the Supreme Leader? You’re in,” said one.

Posts rarely align with professional background; language skills and experience are often secondary to loyalty.

Though often expelled or exposed, the structure endures. Loyal staff are rotated across continents with little interruption.

100%

“Each post is a mission. If you complete it to the system’s satisfaction, you’re held in reserve for the next,” one former diplomat said.

The network’s reach is enhanced by front organizations. The Imam Khomeini Relief Foundation has been linked to Hezbollah financing. The Iranian Red Crescent has faced accusations of being used by Quds Force operatives for weapons transport. IRGC members have admitted posing as aid workers during the Bosnian war.

100%

IRIB outlets—Press TV, Al-Alam, Hispan TV—have functioned as propaganda arms and intelligence fronts. France expelled one of their journalists in 2011 for spreading state messaging.

The Iranian Red Crescent and the IRGC officially denied these remarks, saying that any such actions were unauthorized and not representative of their organizations.

100%

Despite the rhetoric of resistance, many live in luxury. One former ambassador’s Paris residence cost over €40,000 per month.

“They send their kids to secular schools while preaching Islamic values,” said another. Leaked records show senior envoys receiving up to $12,000 monthly, with generous stipends and ceremonial budgets.

“It’s both reward and insulation,” an ex-diplomatic employee said. “The system buys loyalty with luxury—and distances them from the reality of ordinary Iranians.”

What emerges is not a diplomatic corps, but a global extension of Iran’s security state—trained, titled, and deployed to safeguard the Islamic Republic, not represent it.

Grown—partly at least—out of necessity, the inaction has with time hardened into a governing doctrine: a form of power rooted less in coherent planning than in the instincts of political survival.

Iran’s rulers have learned to wield ambiguity as leverage, drawing strength not from action but its possibility. That is why they view enrichment as essential.

Maintaining near-weapons level enrichment without actual weaponization—the threshold condition—generates enough uncertainty to make Western powers cautious about Tehran’s next move. It creates a degree of deterrence without escalation.

But that effect appears to be eroding.

Internationally, the tolerance threshold for such maneuvering has narrowed. Domestically, endless uncertainty has undercut the rulers’ legitimacy and drained public resilience—driving growing numbers into apathy or protest.

Enrichment: suspension as power

Iranian officials have repeatedly denied any intention to build nuclear weapons, citing a religious ruling by supreme leader Ali Khamenei that forbade their use in 2010.

Still, after the United States exited the nuclear deal in 2018, Iran resumed enrichment and now possesses more than 274 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent, according to the IAEA’s February 2025 report.

Inspectors have also confirmed that Iran has the technical infrastructure to reach weapons-grade capacity.

Nuclear experts have been debating Iran’s ‘break out time’ for many years. But the threshold status may be less of a transitional stage than it is a chosen posture: deter without provoking.

Without ever testing a bomb, Tehran has altered the regional military balance, particularly with Israel. Ambiguity has kept global powers on alert, calculating whether to cooperate with or contain Iran.

At home, this posture yields symbolic capital: scientific progress, defiance, and dignity. Enrichment has been folded into the Islamic Republic’s core narrative.

As indirect talks with the United States resume, the threshold position remains a pillar of Tehran’s strategy. But this time, the international response is sharper.

Calling for permanent inspections, proposing offshore stockpile transfers and—above all—Washington’s insistence on “zero enrichment” may suggest that the era of ambiguity is running out of road.

Sanctions: prolonging suspension

Sanctions have reinforced the threshold logic. They have damaged Iran’s economy but not collapsed it. They have left the country on the edge—in a prolonged state of uncertainty where everything seems possible, but nothing is guaranteed.

President Trump’s maximum pressure campaign has transformed sanctions: from broad embargoes to surgical strikes, targeting Iran’s critical sectors—missiles, drones, petrochemicals, dual-use technologies—applying pressure where it hurts most.

The aim, it appears, is not just to punish, but to constrict the Islamic Republic’s strategic arteries. Yet the targeted sanctions have not forced a retreat. Even as its economy bleeds and its regional allies perish, the regime’s rhetoric sharpens.

Iran’s increasingly aggressive tone against Britain, France and Germany—who can reimpose UN sanctions halted under the 2015 deal—might be a sign of self-confidence or deep unease.

Sanctions have clearly shaped Tehran’s behavior. But they have not broken its logic.

Iran’s rulers continue to see the nuclear ambiguity as their last safeguard of strategic balance, a critical bargaining chip they cannot afford to lose.

Suspension: eroding the nation

For now, Iran is unlikely to rush toward weaponization. But it is equally unwilling to dismantle its nuclear capability.

Iran's adversaries, lacking better tools, continue to rely on sanctions and vague ultimatums. Both sides, in effect, sustain the Islamic Republic’s threshold posture.

But the logic is fraying.

The United States and Europe appear to have lost patience with Tehran. Washington’s call for zero enrichment and Europe's warnings about a return of UN sanctions may signal a wish to step out of ambiguity, a will to end chronic suspension.

Domestically, too, the cost of this posture is rising.

A society long held in suspense now faces fatigue, frustration, and declining trust. What once symbolized resistance has come to represent gridlock. “Dignity” has curdled into a deadlock.

The leadership in Tehran may persist in this suspended state, but its power to dictate the terms of uncertainty is weakening. The ‘calculated ambiguity’ looks more like a trick revealed.

What once shielded the Islamic Republic is now hastening its erosion. It will either change course or collide with reality, at home and abroad.

The response came after US President Donald Trump signed a proclamation on Wednesday banning most travelers from a dozen nations, citing terrorism and national security concerns.

Alireza Hashemi Raja, director general for Iranian Affairs Abroad at Iran’s Foreign Ministry, said the move reflected “a supremacist and racist mindset” in Washington.

"This decision targets Iranian nationals solely based on their religion and nationality,” he said in a statement. “It constitutes racial discrimination and systemic racism within the American ruling establishment.”

He added that the ban showed "deep-seated hostility toward the Iranian people and Muslims" and amounted to a violation of international legal norms, including the prohibition of discrimination and basic human rights.

Hashemi Raja urged the United Nations and international rights groups to oppose the order, saying Iran would take “all necessary measures” to protect its citizens abroad.

US cites Iran's terror record, lack of cooperation

The proclamation said Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and regularly fails to cooperate with US security agencies. It added that Tehran has historically refused to take back its deported nationals.

“Iran is the source of significant terrorism around the world,” the statement said.

Trump defended the order on Thursday, saying countries on the list “don’t have things under control.” Speaking to reporters at the White House, he added: “We want to keep bad people out of our country.”

Ban includes 12 nations, partial limits for 7 more

Effective June 9, the directive restricts travel from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.

Seven additional countries — Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela — face partial restrictions.

The White House said the decision followed a security review that found “persistent failures” in identity verification, criminal recordkeeping, and counterterrorism cooperation.

Exceptions and past cases cited by US

The order exempts US permanent residents, valid visa holders, and individuals deemed to serve national interests. It also excludes persecuted ethnic or religious minorities from the ban.

Trump cited recent violent incidents involving foreign nationals — including a Molotov cocktail attack in Colorado — as evidence of the need for stronger screening. The suspect in that case was Egyptian, a country not affected by the ban.

The explanatory note, released ahead of a key meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors, criticized the agency’s latest report for relying on “unverified” and “politically influenced” sources, saying the findings reflect a “departure from the principles of impartiality and professionalism.”

“Enrichment to 60% is not banned by the NPT, and all related activities are declared and verifiable,” said the statement published on the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran's website.

Iran further said that traces of uranium found at certain undeclared sites may be the result of sabotage or hostile actions, citing findings by its own security investigations.

The IAEA report, leaked to Western media late last month, concluded that Iran now possesses over 400 kg of 60%-enriched uranium—enough, if further enriched, to build approximately 10 nuclear weapons. The report also cited ongoing Iranian non-cooperation on safeguards and expressed “serious concern” over the country’s continued enrichment at levels with “no civilian justification.”

Iran pushes back against pressure

Iranian officials condemned the IAEA’s findings. Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said the report was based on “fabricated Israeli intelligence” and aimed at reopening matters previously closed under a 2015 resolution. He accused the agency of acting under political pressure from the United States and European powers.

In a phone call last week with IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called on the agency to “reflect realities” and warned that any politically driven action by the IAEA Board would be met with a firm response. “Iran will react strongly to any violation of its rights,” Araghchi said in a separate post on X. “The responsibility lies solely with those misusing the agency to gain political leverage.”

Tensions rising ahead of IAEA board vote

The IAEA board is expected to convene next week, with diplomats telling Reuters the United States and the so-called E3 — Britain, France, and Germany — plan to table a resolution formally declaring Iran in violation of its safeguards obligations. If adopted, it would mark the first such finding since 2005, a move that could pave the way for a referral to the UN Security Council and further sanctions.

Israel has accused Iran of being “fully committed” to obtaining nuclear weapons, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office saying “there is no civilian explanation” for Iran’s current enrichment levels.

Iran, for its part, continues to insist that its nuclear program is strictly peaceful and has dismissed the possibility of negotiating over the principle of enrichment.

No deal without enrichment, Tehran says

In comments echoed by other senior Iranian officials, Parliament National Security Committee chair Ebrahim Azizi said enrichment is a “red line.” “There can be no negotiation over the principle of enrichment,” he said. “It is a matter of national sovereignty.”

Iran also criticized Western suggestions of a fuel consortium or a temporary freeze on enrichment. “Without recognition of our right to enrichment, no agreement will be possible,” said Alaeddin Boroujerdi, another senior MP.

Snapback and retaliation threats

The mounting tension comes as Western capitals also weigh triggering the so-called snapback mechanism under the 2015 nuclear deal, which would restore UN sanctions. Iranian hardline media warned that such a move would be seen as “blackmail” and would provoke a fundamental shift in Iran’s nuclear doctrine.

The conservative daily Khorasan said Iran “could produce 10 atomic bombs” and that its missile program should not be underestimated. It warned that activating the snapback would mean “Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA has yielded nothing.”

Key to that mission, Congressman Cory Mills said, was enabling de facto president Ahmed al-Sharaa to scotch what remains of Iran's influence in Syria.

"What do we truly have to lose in this? You know, we know what we have to lose if they ... allow Iran to create a proxy state and what that means for the region and what that means for our allies," Mills said.

Syria’s new leadership is working to stamp out any Iranian activity on its soil, just months after a rebel advance led by al-Sharaa uprooted the Assad dynasty, Tehran's oldest Arab ally.

Damascus has been expelling proxy fighters, cutting off arms transfers to Hezbollah and pursuing new diplomatic partnerships across the region, including potential ties with Israel, Mills told Eye for Iran.

“He’s not allowing these proxy militias to continue to operate there as they did under the Assad regime,” Mills said.

Syria for Syrians

Mills argues this shift presents an opportunity for Washington to engage—both diplomatically and economically—before Russia, China or Iran move to fill the vacuum.

“If we actually open up the platform to allow for contract bidding, to rebuild infrastructure, that is a great first start,” he said, pointing to areas like water, electricity, and telecoms. “This is one of the most strategic geolocations in the entire region.”

100%

Such engagement, he added, would not only counter authoritarian influence—it would create opportunities for American companies, reinforce regional stability, and help prevent Syria from sliding back into sectarian violence.

“The Iranian people could take a lot away from what has happened in Syria,” he said. “This could be them too. But it has to be an Iranian strategy, not an American strategy.”

Sanctions and Syria's new leadership

Until recently, Ahmed al-Sharaa was himself under US sanctions due to his leadership of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), an Al-Qaeda affiliated group designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department.

On May 13, 2025, President Donald Trump while visiting Saudi Arabia last month made a shock announcement that he was lifting US sanctions on Syria.

Mills stressed that engagement with al-Sharaa must come with clear-eyed realism. “Trust but verify,” he said during the interview. “I think he knows what he has to do. He’s already taken actions that are not just words.”

Diplomatic overtures and regional stability

Mills revealed that al-Sharaa expressed interest in normalizing relations with Israel—albeit cautiously. While no formal talks have begun, the signal alone marks a dramatic shift from the Assad era, which was defined by hostility toward Israel and alignment with Iran and Hezbollah.

“He actually said that we would look at a good relationship and partner with Israel—not the 'Zionist state' ... but he knows the risk that he's taking,” Mills said.

The potential for Syrian-Israeli normalization would echo the Abraham Accords, a US-brokered framework that reshaped parts of the Middle East by bringing Israel into diplomatic relations with several Arab states.

Mills said any future agreements must respect Syria’s sovereignty. “What I don’t support is a balkanization of other sovereign territories,” he said. “I think that good fences make good neighbors.”

The trip to Damascus, however, was not without danger. Mills told Eye for Iran that Islamic State had allegedly plotted to assassinate him while he was in Syria. “They had already put together where they were going to utilize a car bomb,” he said. “They had already put together the location.”

Despite the risks, Mills argued that Syria’s political realignment offers the United States a rare chance to help shape a post-war roadmap—one that sidelines Iran, opens new diplomatic channels and bolsters long-term regional stability.

You can watch the full episode of Eye for Iran with Congressman Cory Mills on YouTube or listen on any major podcast platform like Spotify, Apple, Amazon Music or Castbox.

100%