'Your time is up': EU lawmaker says negotiations with Tehran must end

The victim, Vahid Lazer Monouchehri, had gone missing since widespread protests on January 8,9.

His body was handed over to relatives on Thursday with marks of gunfire and blows from a butcher’s cleaver, the family said.

Manouchehri was buried the following day under tight security in the village of Lazerban near Tonekabon, in Iran’s northern Mazandaran province.

Born on April 14, 1985, Monouchehri was a father of one and originally from Lazerban but had been living alone in Tehran. His family says they were unaware that he had taken part in the protests.

“There was no idea exactly when, where, or under what circumstances Vahid was killed,” the family said.

On Thursday, the Kahrizak forensic medical center contacted the family and asked them to travel to Tehran to collect their son’s body.

When they asked about the cause of death and why they were being contacted only after such a long delay, they say they were told: “There are many bodies here and we don’t know; just come and take the corpse.”

After arriving at Kahrizak, the family received the body along with a death certificate stating that the cause of death was “respiratory failure.”

Before handing it over, however, security officials required them to sign a written pledge not to present any account of his death other than the explanation given in the certificate.

The family then transported the body to his hometown. As it was being washed and prepared for burial, they say they discovered clear signs of severe violence: bullet wounds on his back, deep cuts to his side and a head riddled with shotgun pellets.

“It seems he was shot in the back, fell to the ground, and then officers shot him in the head at close range and hacked his body with a butcher’s cleaver,” a source close to the family said.

“The injuries make clear that the cause of death was not respiratory failure, but a state-ordered killing.”

The family also reported that the heart and kidney areas had been surgically opened and crudely stitched with large sutures. It remains unclear by whom or under what circumstances the procedure was carried out.

As families hold 40th-day memorials and students continue demonstrations on university campuses, the country’s widening crisis has left athletes weighing personal conscience against state pressure.

In the early days of unrest, athletes across disciplines signaled support through Instagram posts. Before the January crackdown, former national football team captain Mohammad Khakpour responded online to the Supreme Leader’s characterization of protesters as “rioters.”

“One cannot expect perpetual silence from the people who are being crushed under the burden of high prices, unemployment, and insecurity and then have their voices silenced by labeling them as rioters.”

He added: “The people who come to the streets defenselessly have neither weapons nor a platform; they only have voices. Silencing their voices with force, bullets, batons, or fear neither solves the problem nor makes the wound smaller."

Some have gone further. Goalkeeper Rashid Mazaheri, long known for outspoken criticism, published a defiant Instagram post on Wednesday addressing the Supreme Leader directly: “Khamenei, beware that your rule on this divine land has ended.”

In the same message, he wrote that being a champion means standing against injustice, not winning medals: “We won’t bow our heads to you!”

The post was removed within hours. His wife wrote on Instagram that she feared for his life and would hold the government responsible for his safety. Supporters interpreted the message as confirmation he had been detained, though authorities have not commented and his whereabouts remain unclear.

The pressure has also reshaped national team rosters. Two women’s national team footballers preparing for the Women’s Asia Cup in Australia this month—Zahra Alizadeh and Kousar Kamali—publicly withdrew from the squad.

Kamali wrote: “When the heart is wounded and the soul is exhausted, football is no longer a refuge. I can’t pretend everything is normal.”

“This decision is not born of anger, but of awareness; it is not out of disrespect, but out of respect for my conscience. I say goodbye not to football, but to the national team — in the hope that one day it will again be possible to play for the people with a peaceful heart.”

Symbolic gestures have also drawn scrutiny. In recent weeks, some footballers have refrained from celebrating goals altogether or marked them with muted gestures reflecting protest or solidarity rather than triumph.

In several competitions, players have reportedly been barred from wearing black armbands or other signs of mourning.

According to Sami Sport FC, match supervisors have been instructed to suspend games if players use black clothing, ribbons or armbands. Facing possible disqualification and citing mounting security pressure, the club announced it would withdraw from the remainder of the season.

Two weeks earlier, Sami Sport players entered the pitch in black kits and armbands. After scoring, they covered their faces in a gesture of mourning rather than celebrating.

The episodes echo earlier moments when Iranian athletes declined to sing the national anthem—reminders that even arenas meant for national unity have become sites of political contest.

The stakes are likely to rise further this year. Iran has qualified for the World Cup, and all three of its group-stage matches are scheduled to be played in the United States. The tournament will place the team under intense international scrutiny, including from a large Iranian diaspora that has become increasingly vocal.

During the 2022 World Cup, many fans harshly criticized the national team and even called for a boycott, accusing players of indifference to the “Women, Life, Freedom” protests and to the state’s violent crackdown.

This time, the political climate is even more charged. Iranian society has grown more radicalized, repression much harsher and mistrust deeper than three years ago.

The government is likely to exert tight control over players to prevent any gestures of dissent on the sport’s biggest stage. But with global attention fixed on the team, even silence—or the absence of it—may carry political meaning.

In a commentary published Friday, IRNA said the two sides’ clashing positions were jeopardizing the talks, laying the blame for such an outcome at Washington’s door.

It also made clear that Tehran is placing considerable hopes in Oman’s foreign minister, Badr Albusaidi, whose quiet mediation has been central to the negotiations.

Albusaidi now carries a “grave responsibility,” the piece argued, with his role beginning in Muscat, continuing through two rounds of talks in Geneva and now entering “another important step” when he meets US Vice President JD Vance in Washington.

Tehran’s official outlet even hinted at the mediator’s message to the American side: a warning that a war with Iran would not remain limited, that regime change is unattainable and that even heavy damage to Iranian targets would not achieve the goals emphasized by President Donald Trump, “just as they did not in the June attacks.”

Iranian media outlets have also begun outlining the main sticking points in the negotiations.

The news website Fararu reported Friday that the talks remain deadlocked over fundamental issues including enrichment levels, sanctions relief and the dismantling of parts of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Another major obstacle, it said, is Iran’s refusal to export enriched nuclear material, with Tehran insisting on maintaining domestic fuel production.

Axios reported that some of Trump’s advisers, including Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, were disappointed with Araghchi’s proposals, arguing that they fell short of US expectations.

Trump himself signaled frustration with Tehran on Friday, telling reporters he was “not happy” with Iran but expected further talks to take place.

Asked about the possibility of using military force, the president said he hoped it would not be necessary but did not rule it out.

Speaking before leaving the White House for a trip to Texas, Trump said he still wants to reach an agreement with Iran but reiterated that Tehran “cannot have a nuclear weapon.”

Fararu suggested Washington may be pursuing a dual-track strategy, combining diplomacy with the threat of limited military strikes to maintain pressure.

The negotiations, it concluded, have entered a “complex and decisive” phase: a potential framework is beginning to take shape, but deep structural disagreements and continued US military signaling are sustaining a high level of uncertainty.

In a separate interview with the website, foreign policy analyst and former Iranian diplomat Jalal Sadatian said President Trump’s tone toward Iran had recently become noticeably “sharper, more decisive and more alarming.”

Sadatian also warned that Iran’s “asymmetric capabilities” mean that even limited military action could quickly escalate in unpredictable ways.

As Donald Trump’s 10-to-15-day deadline for a “meaningful” deal with Iran enters its decisive phase, Iranian officials appear to be reframing diplomacy as a commercial opportunity rather than a strategic concession.

The Financial Times reported on February 26—as talks were underway in Geneva—that Tehran had offered access to major energy and mineral resources in an effort to steer Washington away from military escalation.

This is a shrewd pitch to the current White House. Trump has long favored foreign-policy outcomes he can present as concrete transactions, and Iran appears to be speaking directly to that instinct.

By holding out the prospect of access to one of the world’s largest underdeveloped energy systems, Tehran is trying to make de-escalation look like a win for American business rather than a concession to an adversary. It is hoping that profit would help create a future constituency for restraint in the United States.

In that sense, the proposal is about more than upstream contracts. It is an effort to reshape Washington’s political calculus.

Iran can make such a pitch because the underlying resource base is genuinely exceptional.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, Iran holds the world’s third-largest proven crude oil reserves and the second-largest proven natural gas reserves. The agency’s most recent country brief notes that full sanctions relief could raise output significantly within months.

Most of Iran’s crude and condensate exports already go to China, underscoring both the scale of the prize and the distortions created by sanctions. Tehran is trying to turn geological weight into diplomatic leverage at a moment of vulnerability.

That is also why the offer should be treated with caution. A regime confident that time is on its side does not place strategic sectors in front of an American president who is openly threatening it.

Trump has warned that “bad things” will happen if no meaningful deal is reached within roughly two weeks. The third round of talks ended without agreement, and major gaps remain over the terms of any settlement. The offer is being made because the central dispute remains unresolved, not because it is close to resolution.

On February 25, the US Treasury sanctioned more than 30 individuals, entities, and vessels tied to Iran’s shadow fleet and networks supporting ballistic-missile and advanced weapons procurement.

That is not the legal environment in which American firms begin planning long-term upstream projects. Even if some restrictions were waived, companies would still face compliance risks, financing obstacles, insurance complications, and the danger that any opening could be reversed by the next administration.

For corporate boards, Iran is not simply a market with upside. It is a sanctions minefield. American firms may also remember how quickly Iranian openings can collapse.

During the JCPOA window, Boeing signed a $16.6 billion agreement to sell 80 aircraft to IranAir, widely seen as a symbol of potential commercial normalization. The reimposition of sanctions after Washington left the nuclear deal turned that optimism into a lesson in sovereign and political risk.

Nor is the Venezuela analogy reassuring. Exxon chief Darren Woods was reported to have called the country “uninvestable” without major legal reforms even after Washington encouraged US companies to return.

If Venezuela appears risky even with direct US political backing, Iran looks far more uncertain.

Iranian officials have said they did not offer to suspend enrichment and that the United States did not explicitly demand zero enrichment in earlier exchanges. Yet Washington’s broader position remains that any agreement must prevent Iran from moving toward a nuclear weapon.

Reuters reported on February 26 that the United States is still seeking strict caps on enrichment and stockpiles, while the Associated Press said Iran remains resistant to shipping enriched uranium abroad.

This is not a minor technical disagreement. No serious US company is likely to regard Iran as bankable while that gulf exists. Investors move when the political architecture is credible, not when it is still being contested in Geneva hotel rooms.

That is why Iran’s “commercial bonanza” matters as leverage but not yet as policy. It is a sophisticated attempt to buy time, flatter Trump’s instincts, and raise the perceived cost of escalation by dangling future profits before Washington.

It may help preserve diplomacy for another round and give the White House an off-ramp it can market as commercially rational rather than strategically soft. But it is not a breakthrough. Oil and mining rights alone cannot override sanctions law, congressional hostility, nuclear mistrust, or the coercive logic that still governs US policy toward Iran.

Tehran is offering treasure. The problem is that the minefield around it remains fully intact.

The operative who prosecutors say tried to hire two men to kill Trump for $5,000 upfront demonstrated the plan by placing a vape pen on a napkin to signify his “target,” the hidden camera video released by the New York Post shows.

“This is the target. How will it die?” Asif Merchant said in the meeting.

Merchant, 47, a Pakistani national who entered the United States in April 2024, is accused of attempting to recruit individuals he believed were hired killers.

Prosecutors said he offered cash payments and discussed staging a protest near a campaign rally to create confusion and allow the attackers to escape.

• 

  Iranian official says Trump could face drone attack at Mar-a-Lago

Although Trump was not explicitly named in the recorded exchanges, court documents show that he – then a leading candidate – was the intended target, the Post reported.

Prosecutors allege Merchant believed Trump’s policies had harmed Muslim-majority countries and acted with backing from individuals allegedly connected to Iran.

The scheme began to unravel when a Pakistani-American acquaintance, a former US Army linguist, alerted authorities after growing suspicious of Merchant’s plans. The FBI then arranged undercover meetings that were secretly recorded.

Merchant was arrested in July 2024 at an airport while attempting to leave the United States, authorities said.

He has pleaded not guilty to charges including murder for hire and attempting to commit an act of terrorism transcending national boundaries. If convicted, he faces a potential life sentence.

In November 2024, the US Department of Justice unsealed criminal charges regarding a thwarted plot by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to assassinate Donald Trump prior to the 2024 presidential election.

• 

  Iranian clerical call to kill Trump spreads, attracts alleged fundraising

Trump has been a target for assassination threats since he ordered the 2020 killing of Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force in Iraq.