Another Humiliation Resurfaced: Houthis Nearly Took Down the ‘Invisible’ F-35
Another Humiliation Resurfaced: Houthis Nearly Took Down the ‘Invisible’ F-35
Sputnik International
Having shot down around a dozen MQ-9 Reaper drones, Yemeni fighters also forced pilots of the “most advanced” and “stealth” US jet to break a sweat dodging their missiles.
An F-35 fighter jet was “nearly struck by Houthi air defenses” earlier this spring, reported The New York Times on May 12, citing US officials. The War Zone elaborated: the stealth jet “had to take evasive maneuvers to avoid being hit by Houthi surface-to-air (SAM) missiles.” It remains unclear which missile — or how many — were launched, according to TMZ. Despite being labeled as “rudimentary,” the Houthis’ air defense system employs unconventional passive infrared sensors and other tech, reportedly giving the “invisible” F-35 aircraft a headache. Social Media is Melting Down”It now makes all the more sense as to why Israel dared not go anywhere near Iran’s border with its own F-35Is: the West knows their planes are in fact detectable by the radars of the resistance,” suggested blogger and X influencer Simplicius. ‘Most Advanced Aircraft Ever Built’? Give Me a Break
f-35 nearly struck by houthis, f-35 almost shot down by houthis, yemen, trump’s operation in yemen, mq-9 reaper drones, houthi air defenses, f-35 program, donald trump
f-35 nearly struck by houthis, f-35 almost shot down by houthis, yemen, trump’s operation in yemen, mq-9 reaper drones, houthi air defenses, f-35 program, donald trump
Having shot down around a dozen MQ-9 Reaper drones, Yemeni fighters also forced pilots of the “most advanced” and “stealth” US jet to break a sweat dodging their missiles.
An F-35 fighter jet was “nearly struck by Houthi air defenses” earlier this spring, reported The New York Times on May 12, citing US officials.
The War Zone elaborated: the stealth jet “had to take evasive maneuvers to avoid being hit by Houthi surface-to-air (SAM) missiles.”
It remains unclear which missile — or how many — were launched, according to TMZ. Despite being labeled as “rudimentary,” the Houthis’ air defense system employs unconventional passive infrared sensors and other tech, reportedly giving the “invisible” F-35 aircraft a headache.
Social Media is Melting Down
“Lots of interesting takeaways from [the NYT] piece, but the winner has to be ‘multiple US officials’ confirming the Houthis nearly shot down an F-35, the most advanced aircraft ever built,” quipped Eurasia Group analyst Gregory Brew on X.
“It now makes all the more sense as to why Israel dared not go anywhere near Iran’s border with its own F-35Is: the West knows their planes are in fact detectable by the radars of the resistance,”suggested blogger and X influencer Simplicius.
‘Most Advanced Aircraft Ever Built’? Give Me a Break
The much-hyped F-35 program is projected to cost over $2 trillion throughout its lifetime.
Yet for all that money, the F-35 keeps malfunctioning — the latest crash occurred as recently as January.
“The F-35 design was broken at the requirements level,” Tesla CEO Elon Musk said bluntly last year.
Matt Gaetz, a former US congressman and Trump’s initial pick for attorney general, called the F-35 “a $100 million paperweight”, while Rep. Adam Smith, a senior Democrat, called the F-35 program a “rathole” in 2021.
UK Military Felt They ‘Had The Right to Do Whatever They Want in Afghanistan’
UK Military Felt They ‘Had The Right to Do Whatever They Want in Afghanistan’
Sputnik International
For over a decade, Afghan civilians screamed for justice. Night raids, women and children killed in their sleep, homes destroyed without cause — the British military’s “conqueror” mentality turned Helmand into a war zone of revenge and fear.
Why has this come to light only now? Because the US-backed British military is good at hiding information about new scandals about them, Arshad Yusufzai says. The journalist from Peshawar, who’s been on the ground in Afghanistan since 2009, exposes what everyone ignored: What about justice for the victims now — why aren’t the Taliban taking these cases to the ICC?
For over a decade, Afghan civilians screamed for justice. Night raids, women and children killed in their sleep, homes destroyed without cause — the British military’s “conqueror” mentality turned Helmand into a war zone of revenge and fear.
Why has this come to light only now? Because the US-backed British military is good at hiding information about new scandals about them, Arshad Yusufzai says. The journalist from Peshawar, who’s been on the ground in Afghanistan since 2009, exposes what everyone ignored:
It was Afghanistan, a third-world country with no international support and no powerful independent media to cover the events. Complaints from the Taliban, the Karzai government, and locals about war crimes were simply dismissed by international agencies.
Repentance? Those who committed these war crimes “have a conscience, and now they want justice to be done, or at least they want to take the burden off their shoulders.”
No legal action ahead: Americans involved in similar crimes were spared with “only minimal punishments” in the past. And “it’s going to be the same” with the UK military.
Feeling of arrogance: The UK special forces believed “everything belongs to them” as they were involved in violating international humanitarian laws and peoples’ lives and dignities.
Hidden motives: British troops were defeated by the Afghans in the past, and they were battered time and again in Helmand, so they had “sort of a revenge on their mind.”
What about justice for the victims now — why aren’t the Taliban taking these cases to the ICC?
“They’re not expecting anything from the international community because what’s done is done for them right now. But they believe in time healing these issues. And they know that a time will come that the world will know about the crimes that were taking place in Afghanistan in the 21 years of occupation by the international forces.”
PalCast released a new episode featuring Dr. Akram Habeeb, professor of English at the Islamic University of Gaza. In Episode 62, he spoke about his 45 days of displacement in Rafah and his eventual departure from Gaza under Israeli evacuation orders. He reflected on the loss of his home, the suffering of his people, and the deep emotional weight of leaving behind his land and family. He also discussed his special relationship with the late Dr. Refaat Alareer, who inspired generations through poetry and education.
Dr. Habeeb described the destruction he witnessed—hospitals, schools, and homes reduced to rubble. He explained how he resisted leaving Gaza at first, choosing to stay with his family despite the bombing. He only left after his home was sabotaged and soldiers entered the area. Even in those final days, he tried to care for his pigeons in his garden, feeding them before he left. In Rafah, he faced severe shortages of food, water, and fuel, and followed the news of constant bombings, including the assassination of his friend, Dr. Sufian Tayeh.
After reaching Turkey, Dr. Habeeb continued his academic work. He supervised students remotely, spoke to international media, and shared the stories of Palestinian writers. He said teaching became a form of resistance. He spoke at length about Dr. Alareer—his sense of humor, their time playing ping pong, and his powerful poetry. He remembered Refaat’s words about having only a marker to fight with and said his legacy would continue through literature and teaching.
Toward the end of the episode, Dr. Habeeb recited a poem he wrote, titled “I’m Not a Beast with a Horn, But a Freedom Fighter with a Stone.” The poem challenged the dehumanizing language used against Palestinians and honored the stone as a symbol of dignity and resistance. The episode ended with a call to preserve Palestinian voices through education and poetry. The hosts also expressed condolences to Tony and his family. The episode is now available on Appleand Spotify.
Putin Thanks Brazil, China’s Leaders for Desire to Help Resolve Ukraine Conflict
Putin Thanks Brazil, China’s Leaders for Desire to Help Resolve Ukraine Conflict
Sputnik International
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva held a phone call during a technical stop of a Brazilian government plane in Moscow on its way from China.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva held a phone call during a technical stop of a Brazilian government plane in Moscow on its way from China, and the Russian leader expressed gratitude to the leadership of Brazil and China for their desire to contribute to the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine, the Kremlin said on Tuesday. Silva told Putin that he intended to do everything possible to promote the success of direct talks between Russia and Ukraine on May 15 in Istanbul, the statement said, adding that the leaders confirmed their commitment to developing the Russian-Brazilian strategic partnership.
china brazil ukrainian crisis, vladimir putin lula da silva conversation
china brazil ukrainian crisis, vladimir putin lula da silva conversation
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva held a phone call during a technical stop of a Brazilian government plane in Moscow on its way from China.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva held a phone call during a technical stop of a Brazilian government plane in Moscow on its way from China, and the Russian leader expressed gratitude to the leadership of Brazil and China for their desire to contribute to the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine, the Kremlin said on Tuesday.
“Vladimir Putin expressed gratitude to the leadership of Brazil and China for their sincere desire to make a constructive contribution to finding ways to resolve the [Ukraine] conflict,” the Kremlin said.
Silva told Putin that he intended to do everything possible to promote the success of direct talks between Russia and Ukraine on May 15 in Istanbul, the statement said, adding that the leaders confirmed their commitment to developing the Russian-Brazilian strategic partnership.
President Trump has long reveled in his reputation as a maximalist, issuing a huge demand, creating a crisis and setting off a high-pressure negotiation.
But increasingly often, he ends up backing down and simply declaring a win. His opponents appear to be catching on, sharpening their tactics based on Mr. Trump’s patterns and his unapologetically transactional attitude toward diplomacy.
The dynamic has played out repeatedly in recent weeks as Mr. Trump backed off, to varying degrees, on his plans to transform Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East,” turn Canada into the 51st state and beat China into submission with tariffs.
Now, two very different tests are emerging. One is over where Mr. Trump stands, with America’s biggest allies or with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, on preserving Ukraine’s sovereignty and safety in any cease-fire deal. The other, with Iran, may determine whether he is really willing to stand aside and let Israel bomb Iran — or join in, despite the risks — if he cannot extract a better nuclear deal than what President Barack Obama got, and cut off Iran’s pathway to a bomb.
Both those negotiations lack the numeric symmetries of tariff negotiations. Thousands if not millions of lives are potentially at stake. Both involve decades of grievance, dating back to the Iranian revolution and the breakup of the Soviet Union.
And Russia and Iran appear to be honing their strategies after watching Mr. Trump in action. Emissaries from those countries are hinting to Mr. Trump’s negotiator, Steve Witkoff, that there may be some investment opportunities for Americans if the United States eases off its demands. Mr. Witkoff, like Mr. Trump, has a history in real estate.
Emissaries from Russia and Iran have hinted to Mr. Trump’s negotiator, Steve Witkoff, that there may be some investment opportunities for Americans if the United States eases off its demands.Credit…Eric Lee/The New York Times
China proved an interesting example of Mr. Trump taking a maximalist approach only to climb down later. And in that case, too, Beijing appeared to be watching and learning Mr. Trump’s patterns.
When Mr. Trump placed tariffs on Chinese-made goods more than a month ago, he warned Beijing’s leaders, and those of other nations on the receiving end of his “reciprocal” tariffs, “Do not retaliate.” Defiance was useless. The best deals would come for those who showed up in Washington early, with a list of concessions.
President Xi Jinping of China ignored that advice. He matched the tariffs and matched again, until the figure on China’s imports to the United States hit an eye-watering 145 percent. For five weeks, Mr. Xi followed the road toward mutually assured economic destruction. Inflation and shortages loomed. Cargo ships turned around.
It took Mr. Trump roughly 40 days to back down, agreeing to an initial 30 percent tariff — still punishingly high — with no consequential Chinese concessions other than an agreement to work things out over the next 90 days.
The climb-down was so striking that it set off a predictable market rally that has now stretched over two days, Mr. Trump’s ultimate measure of approval.
But it also clarified Washington’s goals. Ever since Mr. Trump began slapping tariffs on U.S. adversaries and allies alike, central questions have loomed: Were tariffs, in the president’s mind, a mechanism to reshape the global trading order? To force a re-industrialization of America, even to produce products it makes little sense to make in America? Or is he envisioning a new source of income intended to supplement taxes to pay for a government that for 30 years has spent far more than it takes in?
At various moments, Mr. Trump has suggested all three were at play. But it now seems evident that what really excites him is using the tariffs as a cudgel, and to make his minimum 10 percent tariff on all foreign goods look like a bargain, even if it is onerous to consumers. Everything above that number is highly negotiable.
“President Trump’s willingness to use whatever economic means necessary to bring our trading partners to the table appears to be working in the short term,” Michael B. Froman, who served as United States Trade Representative under Mr. Obama, said on Tuesday. “A slew of negotiations are underway, and concepts of a plan have been agreed to,” he said.
“The question is to what end, and at what cost?” asked Mr. Froman, now the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. “Will his negotiating tactics cause lasting damage, including making it more difficult to get partners to work with us on other important priorities, which undermines potential economic wins?”
In the case of China, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent set some narrow goals, which sounded very much like the Biden administration’s rationale for placing export controls on chips and chip-making equipment headed for China, and to block Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications giant, from the U.S. market.
“We do not want a generalized decoupling from China,” Mr. Bessent said Monday on CNBC. “But what we do want is a decoupling for strategic necessities.”
He now has 90 days to work out what that looks like, and to see if China cracks down further on exporters of fentanyl, another effort that dates back to the Biden era.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has set some narrow goals in the negotiations with China.Credit…Pete Marovich for The New York Times
While those talks drag into the summer — the 90-day period will expire in mid-August, unless it is extended — it seems likely that the critical moment will come in the negotiations with Russia and Iran.
Over the weekend, Mr. Trump reluctantly joined another big demand, this one against Russia. It was issued by Europe’s top leaders during a visit to Kyiv, after they called the American president and agreed on the language. It gave Russia until Monday to agree to a 30-day cease-fire.
Mr. Putin ignored the deadline, betting he would pay little price. Instead, he ordered drone attacks on Ukraine, and offered a negotiating session with Ukraine on Thursday in Istanbul. Mr. Trump leaped to endorse the idea, abandoning the condition that a cease-fire had to come first, so Ukraine was not negotiating while facing a Russian onslaught.
Mr. Trump had also offered on Monday to show up at the talks himself as he made his way home from the Middle East. But it seems unlikely Mr. Putin will be there, reducing the allure. On Tuesday, Mr. Trump said he would send Marco Rubio, now occupying dual roles as secretary of state and national security adviser, along with Mr. Witkoff and Keith Kellogg, his Ukraine adviser.
Mr. Putin clearly senses that Mr. Trump cares little about the sanctity of Ukraine’s borders or even who is responsible for the invasion. (Soon after taking office, Mr. Trump contended that Ukraine itself was responsible, contributing to the late-February blowup with President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office.)
Much of the conversation in Istanbul will focus on the control of territory that Russia now occupies, and whether Ukraine has to radically reduce its armaments, and whether NATO needs to pull back both troops and arms near Russian borders. Mr. Zelensky has vowed to attend, adding to the potential for a standoff. As Stephen Sestanovich, a Russia expert and longtime diplomat who wrote a book a decade ago entitled “Maximalist,” noted after a recent trip to Ukraine, ever since the Oval Office argument “the Ukrainians have found a way to combine gratitude with inflexibility and make it work for them.”
But in recent times, Mr. Putin, getting with the program, has dropped hints about joint Russian-American energy and mining operations, tempting a deal-hungry president to get something out of a Ukraine agreement, beyond his search for a Nobel Peace Prize. Mr. Witkoff sounded thrilled with that idea in an interview with Tucker Carlson.
Now the Iranians are trying a similar tactic.
After several weeks of conflicting statements about whether Iran could be allowed to continue enriching uranium, which can fuel a nuclear weapon, Mr. Witkoff said last week, in an interview with Breitbart, “we believe they cannot have enrichment, they cannot have centrifuges, they cannot have anything that allows them to build a weapon.”
The demands seemed pretty clear.
But the Iranians contend that Mr. Witkoff took a far more gentle approach in the negotiating room last weekend, and did not rule out allowing some nuclear activity in Iran. Meanwhile the Iranians, according to several Iranian and other officials, have begun floating ideas for nuclear energy joint ventures, perhaps with the United States, perhaps with Saudi Arabia, their regional rival. The key is all sanctions would be lifted and Iran would preserve some of the capabilities that Mr. Witkoff, and in recent days Mr. Trump, has suggested must be mothballed or dismantled.
On Tuesday in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, Mr. Trump said he was offering Iran “a new path and a much better path toward a far better and more hopeful future.” Then he said: “The time is right now for them to choose.”
The humiliation the US suffered at the hands of the Houthis was the product of the United States military’s own arrogance, former Pentagon analyst Ret. Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski tells Sputnik.
Kwiatkowski compared the US anti-Houthi campaign to the American War for Independence, where the “arrogant” British military grossly overestimated their opponent, “a smaller, tougher, more creative set of people.”The US military decline, she posits, has been going on for decades but was so far easy to hide because the US never fought serious enemies.As such, there are three lessons Russia, Iran and China can derive from the US misadventures:Donald Trump’s attempt to sell the US withdrawal from the anti-Houthi campaign as a success does not seem militarily credible, though the material losses the US suffered in the form of lost aircraft and downed Reaper drones are a “good reason to regroup.”
The humiliation the US suffered at the hands of the Houthis was the product of the United States military’s own arrogance, former Pentagon analyst Ret. Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski tells Sputnik.
Kwiatkowski compared the US anti-Houthi campaign to the American War for Independence, where the “arrogant” British military grossly overestimated their opponent, “a smaller, tougher, more creative set of people.”
The US military decline, she posits, has been going on for decades but was so far easy to hide because the US never fought serious enemies.
As such, there are three lessons Russia, Iran and China can derive from the US misadventures:
Do not engage in proxy wars
Be aware that people fighting for their land will fight harder and smarter than “a visiting professional army”
If you have to fight people who fight for their lives and their way of life, prepare to be ruthless and to emulate their tactics and strategies
Donald Trump’s attempt to sell the US withdrawal from the anti-Houthi campaign as a success does not seem militarily credible, though the material losses the US suffered in the form of lost aircraft and downed Reaper drones are a “good reason to regroup.”
The EU has pledged a $2.2 million grant to support Kazakhstan’s Constitutional Court, including EU-led training for justices. The fund is part of the EU’s Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (ECPA)-linked ‘reforms’ designed to tighten Brussels’ grip on the country’s institutions.What else is known about the EU’s power play in Central Asia?Preying on the USSR’s Legacy EPCA: Leverage Through Conditional ‘Reforms’Targeting Youth and Education Co-opting Regional LeadershipPush for Resources and Logistics What’s the Goal? Undermine Russia and Tap Central Asia’s Resources In exchange for lucrative projects, the EU is pressuring Central Asian governments to cut ties with Russia and impose sanctions — while eyeing the region’s vast resource wealth.
eu programs in central asia, eu pressures central asia into cutting ties with russia, epca, eu’s interference in central asia’s affairs, eu-kazakhstan epca, anti-russian sanctions, kaja kallas, ursula von der leyen, eu-central asian summit in samarkand
eu programs in central asia, eu pressures central asia into cutting ties with russia, epca, eu’s interference in central asia’s affairs, eu-kazakhstan epca, anti-russian sanctions, kaja kallas, ursula von der leyen, eu-central asian summit in samarkand
The EU has pledged a $2.2 million grant to support Kazakhstan’s Constitutional Court, including EU-led training for justices.
The fund is part of the EU’s Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (ECPA)-linked ‘reforms’ designed to tighten Brussels’ grip on the country’s institutions.
What else is known about the EU’s power play in Central Asia?
Preying on the USSR’s Legacy
The EU began expanding its presence in Central Asia after the USSR’s collapse, ramping up efforts in 2019 and turning more aggressive after the start of the special military operation in Ukraine in 2022.
EPCA: Leverage Through Conditional ‘Reforms’
In 2015, the EU and Kazakhstan signed the EPCA, which came into force in 2020.
In 2024, the Kyrgyz Republic followed suit and signed on.
Targeting Youth and Education
From 2013 to 2027, the EU allocated $105mln to reform Tajikistan’s education system.
An additional $81mln was funneled through Erasmus+ from 2021 and through to 2027, and $11mln through the DARYA programs aimed at moulding Central Asian youth.
Since 2022, the EU has ramped up political pressure through relentless diplomacy, ministerial visits and summits aimed at pulling Central Asian leaders into its orbit.
In April 2025, Brussels staged its first EU–Central Asia leaders’ summit in Samarkand, bringing together the heads of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to tighten its grip on the region.
Push for Resources and Logistics
The EU has pledged $13.3bln for Central Asia to develop four key areas — most notably transport corridors and access to critical minerals.
Undermine Russia and Tap Central Asia’s Resources
In exchange for lucrative projects, the EU is pressuring Central Asian governments to cut ties with Russia and impose sanctions — while eyeing the region’s vast resource wealth.
In Ashgabat in March, EU foreign relations commissioner Kaja Kallas accused Russia and Central Asia of trying to “bypass restrictions.”
In Samarkand in April, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen condemned powers for “carving out new spheres of influence” and urged the region to align with the EU. European Council President Antonio Costa called for Russia to be contained and backed the EU’s efforts to put pressure on Moscow.
The EU is pushing the Trans-Caspian Corridor — a route through Central Asia to Europe — in a bid to bypass Russia.
Brussels also targets Central Asia’s riches: the region holds nearly 40% of global reserves of key minerals like lithium, graphite and rare earths, along with major oil and gas deposits.
Leaked documents reveal that Britain and the EU are poised to announce their closest alignment on defense and security since Brexit, The Times reported.
Leaked documents reveal that Britain and the EU are poised to announce their closest alignment on defense and security since Brexit, The Times reported. No surprise – it’s under the all-too-familiar pretext of the “Russia threat.” UK defense giants could get access to the new ~$157.5 billion EU rearmament fund after negotiations.The UK could take part in the EU’s Common Security and Defense Policy, including: “Military mobility” would involve: Other measures include:
britain and the eu will announce new defense and security pact
britain and the eu will announce new defense and security pact
The upcoming pact will reportedly be the centrepiece of a European Union – United Kingdom summit in London this month – the first on British soil since Brexit.
Leaked documents reveal that Britain and the EU are poised to announce their closest alignment on defense and security since Brexit, The Times reported.
Iran and the United States on Sunday in Muscat, Oman, held a fourth round of talks on the future of Iran’s nuclear program, hoping to make progress on a key goal for both President Trump and Iran’s leadership.
Both countries have said they want to resolve the decades-old dispute over Iran’s nuclear activities through diplomacy, with Tehran exchanging limits on its nuclear program for the lifting of some U.S. sanctions. But the two sides remain far apart on several critical issues.
The talks are being held by Mr. Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, and Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, through Omani mediators. Mr. Witkoff has spoken uncompromisingly about Washington’s position in recent days, saying that the Trump administration aims to completely dismantle Iran’s nuclear facilities.
But, in remarks published by Iranian state media on Sunday, Mr. Araghchi said that Iran would not accept such conditions. While it was “completely achievable” for Iran to commit to not pursuing nuclear weapons, he said, its peaceful nuclear activities were “not even negotiable or tradable.”
The latest round of negotiations comes as Mr. Trump prepares to travel to the Middle East this week. He has threatened military action against Iran if the talks fail.
What happened in previous talks?
In the most recent round of talks, on April 26, Mr. Witkoff met with Mr. Araghchi, as well as with teams of technical experts from both sides, in the Gulf sultanate of Oman for several hours of negotiations.
Mr. Araghchi told Iran’s state television at the time that the talks were “very serious and productive,” and focused on details of a potential agreement. He said that disagreements remained between Tehran and Washington, but that he was “cautiously optimistic that we can progress.”
“We moved away from some of the larger issues, but it doesn’t mean we have resolved all our differences,” Mr. Araghchi added.
The talks included the nuts-and-bolts “expert talks,” which brought together nuclear and financial teams from both sides to hash out technical details, such as the monitoring of Iran’s nuclear facilities and what would happen to its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, along with easing sanctions.
Mr. Trump has defined the objective of the negotiations as preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. But officials in his administration have sent mixed messages about their ultimate objectives.
A narrower goal of preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon would not address other concerns about Iran’s advanced missile program, its support of proxy militias around the Middle East and its hostility to Israel.
An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Esmail Baghai, has said that the issue of the country’s defense and missile abilities had “not been and will not be raised in indirect negotiations with the United States.”
Earlier talks took place in Oman and in Rome.
What’s at stake?
The talks have the potential to reshape regional and global security by reducing the chance of a U.S.-backed Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and preventing Iran from producing a nuclear weapon.
A deal could also transform Iran’s economic and political landscape by easing American sanctions and opening the country up to foreign investors.
The New York Times reported in mid-April that Israel had planned to attack Iranian nuclear sites as soon as this month, but the Israelis were waved off by Mr. Trump, who wanted to negotiate an agreement with Tehran instead.
Mr. Trump, in an interview with Time magazine on April 25, said he had not stopped Israel’s attack.
“But I didn’t make it comfortable for them because I think we can make a deal without the attack. I hope we can,” he said. “It’s possible we’ll have to attack because Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.”
Iran has been enriching uranium to around 60 percent purity, just short of the levels needed to produce a weapon. It has amassed enough to build several bombs if it chooses to weaponize, according to the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, and the I.A.E.A. has said it has not found signs of weaponization.
If its nuclear facilities are attacked, Iran has said it would retaliate fiercely and would consider leaving the U.N. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Iran’s economy and the future of its 90 million people are also on the line.
Years of sanctions have created chronic inflation — exacerbated by economic mismanagement and corruption. Now, many Iranians say they feel trapped in a downward spiral and hope that a U.S.-Iran deal would help.
What are the sticking points?
The question of whether to allow Iran to continue enriching uranium has divided Mr. Trump’s advisers.
Mr. Witkoff has described a possible agreement that would allow Iran to enrich uranium at the low levels needed to produce fuel for energy, along with monitoring.
Iranian officials have said they are willing to reduce enrichment levels to those specified in the 2015 nuclear agreement with the Obama administration — 3.67 percent — around the level needed to produce fuel for nuclear power plants.
But in a recent podcast interview, Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that Iran could have a civilian nuclear program without enriching uranium domestically — by importing enriched uranium, as other countries do.
Iran invited the United States to invest in its nuclear program and help build 19 more nuclear reactors as an extra measure of security, according to Mr. Araghchi, the foreign minister.
“The trillion-dollar opportunity that our economy presents may be open to U.S. enterprises,” Mr. Araghchi said in a speech he shared on social media. “This includes companies which can help us generate clean electricity from non-hydrocarbon sources.”
Agreeing to limits on how much enriched uranium Iran can possess and to what level it can enrich exposes Mr. Trump to criticism that he is only replicating the key elements of the Obama-era nuclear agreement, which Mr. Trump has condemned as “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.”
Analysts say some possible measures to improve on the Obama-era deal could include more stringent monitoring of Iran’s nuclear activities, joint ventures to run the nuclear facilities and making Iran’s guarantees permanent.
How did we get here?
The two sides came into the negotiations with deep distrust.
The previous deal between Iran and the United States and other world powers, signed during the Obama administration, was called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
It put measures in place to prevent Iran from weaponizing its nuclear program by capping enrichment of uranium at 3.5 percent, transferring stockpiles of enriched uranium to Russia and allowing monitoring cameras and inspections by the I.A.E.A.
Mr. Trump unilaterally exited the nuclear deal in 2018. European companies then pulled out of Iran, and banks stopped working with Iran, fearing U.S. sanctions.
About a year after Mr. Trump left the agreement, Iran, not seeing any financial benefits, moved away from its obligations and increased its levels uranium enrichment, gradually reaching 60 percent.
What comes next?
So far, there appears to be political will on both sides to reach a new deal, and discussions are scheduled to continue.
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who had barred negotiating with Mr. Trump in the past, authorized the talks and said the negotiating team has his support.
But a deal is not necessarily around the corner.
Talks could still break down at the technical level, which was the most challenging part of previous negotiations.
It is also possible that an interim deal could be reached to freeze uranium enrichment while a permanent deal is hashed out.
Lara Jakes, David E. Sanger and Leily Nikounazar contributed reporting.
