Trump team holds 'constructive' face-to-face nuclear talks with Iran, will meet again next weekend
The meeting between U.S. Special Envoy Steven Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was the first face-to-face exchange since President Donald Trump returned to office as Iran continues to expand its nuclear program.
The White House described the discussions as "very positive and constructive," adding, "the United States deeply thanks the Sultanate of Oman for its support of this initiative."
Witkoff, joined by U.S. Ambassador to Oman Ana Escrogima, told Araghchi Trump had personally instructed him to try to resolve differences through diplomacy, if possible.
The talks took place on the outskirts of Oman's capital, Muscat, and lasted just over two hours. Omani Foreign Minister Said Badr hosted the meeting.
Iranian state TV later confirmed the sides exchanged several rounds of messages, and there was a short, direct conversation between the American and Iranian diplomats.
Military pressure appears to be a big reason Iran came to the table. Rebecca Grant, a senior fellow at the Lexington Institute, told the "Fox Report" Saturday the U.S. has sent a clear signal by moving powerful military assets into the region.
"All the options are not only on the table. They're all deployed to the Middle East," Grant said. "Somewhere between four and six B-2 stealth bombers [are] forward in Diego Garcia, [along with] two aircraft carriers. That has really gotten Iran's attention."
Grant said Iran now faces a choice.
"Iran either has to talk or get their nuclear facilities bombed," she said.
Tensions between the two countries have been high since 2018, when Trump pulled the U.S. out of the 2015 nuclear deal.
That agreement placed strict limits on Iran's nuclear program. Since then, Iran has been enriching uranium at much higher levels. The latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says Iran is enriching uranium to 60% purity, just below weapons-grade, and has stockpiled over 18,000 pounds of it. Under the original deal, Iran was limited to 3.67% purity and a much smaller stockpile.
While U.S. intelligence agencies do not believe Iran has started building a nuclear weapon, they warn the country is getting closer to being able to do so if it decides to.
Gen. Jack Keane, a Fox News military analyst, said Iran's leaders now believe Trump is serious about using military force if they don't agree to limit Iran's nuclear program.
"They've come to the conclusion that the president is dead serious about supporting an Israeli-led, U.S.-supported strike on Iran to take down their nuclear enterprise," Keane said.
Grant explained that the U.S. and its allies are ready for such a strike if talks fail.
"Israel took out a lot of Iran's air defenses last year," she said. "Then you have two [U.S.] carriers, land-based fighters in the region and B-2 bombers with bunker-busting bombs. That's the threat display."
She added that Iran has no real need to enrich uranium since it can buy nuclear fuel on the open market.
"It is time for them to start to make a deal," she said. "And I think, maybe, due to our military pressure and Trump's resolve, they're beginning to realize it."
Iran's president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has said he's not open to direct negotiations on the nuclear program but has also blamed the United States for breaking past promises.
"They must prove that they can build trust," Pezeshkian said in a recent Cabinet meeting.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei warned of consequences if threats continue.
"Violence breeds violence, peace begets peace," he wrote on social media. "The US can choose the course... and concede to consequences."
Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News no deal can happen unless Iran gives up its nuclear weapons plans.
"We have to fully, verifiably eliminate their nuclear weapons program for there to be any agreement," he said. "All we ask is that they behave like a normal nation."
Grant said any future deal will need strict terms.
"It's going to have to include real inspections," she said. "It's going to have to include them giving up, frankly, some of that enriched uranium. There will have to be some limits on their ballistic missile development."
The two nations are scheduled to meet again April 19 in Oman, according to the White House statement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
a few seconds ago
- Newsweek
We Must Protect American Courtrooms From Foreign Interference
In most American courtrooms today, a party in court could be financed by foreign interests (and other unrelated third parties) without the other party ever knowing it. This alternate funder may be an investor hoping for uncorrelated returns, a wealthy donor with personal or business interests in the case, or an affiliate of an adversarial nation seeking to undermine U.S. competitiveness. The third-party litigation funding industry operates in the Wild West. Any outside group can pay the bills for a party in a legal dispute. They do this often in exchange for a percentage of an eventual settlement. Absent a handful of states that have passed disclosure laws affecting their own state court systems, the vast majority of state and federal courts do not require parties to disclose who's paying their legal costs—not to other parties and not even to the presiding judge. A stone sign for the United States Court House in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. is pictured. A stone sign for the United States Court House in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. is pictured. Getty Images But disclosure is critical and not just for transparency's sake. Incentives matter in the courtroom. The American civil litigation system is premised on fairness, impartiality, and the pursuit of justice. If a party's funders have hidden motives that stray from the desire to fairly resolve a dispute, trust in the system is put at risk. Foreign sources of litigation funding introduce a whole new set of perverse incentives. A foreign funder may finance a case in order to gain access to sensitive intellectual property or even to evade sanctions that prohibit transactions or investments in U.S. capital markets. Also, since litigation funders have their own monetary and non-monetary goals, the funder may push its client to demand steeper settlement terms than the client would otherwise consider. These are not hypothetical situations. In 2024, Bloomberg Law reported that a group of sanctioned Russian billionaires created an investment fund to back bankruptcy lawsuits in New York and London thus allowing the oligarchs to steer (launder) tens of millions into western financial institutions. In another instance, China-based technology firm PurpleVine financed several intellectual property lawsuits against Samsung. This was discovered by a lone overseeing judge in Delaware who luckily requires litigation financing disclosure in his courtroom. Had the case not crossed his desk, the defendants may never have known that their case was hardly a mere legal challenge but, in actuality, a case with national security importance. Foreign donors may also fund lawsuits that advance their personal agendas. Last year, Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings revealed that an Australian mining billionaire was paying the legal bills for a coalition of environmental nonprofits in their lawsuit against ExxonMobil. The billionaire, Andrew Forrest, runs a mining empire that he aims to convert into a clean-energy provider—demonstrating both ideological and anticompetitive reasons to target an American oil major that he would not otherwise have standing to sue. This backdoor litigation is getting foreign companies and even foreign governments into American courtrooms they otherwise wouldn't be able to access. Since the third-party litigation funding industry is entirely unregulated, each of these examples only came to light by accident: strong investigative reporting; a lone judge's standing transparency order; and a buried FARA filing. But in each instance, the discovery of foreign funding changed both public perception and legal strategy. Routine civil suits became vehicles for money laundering, corporate espionage, and personal grievance. Unregulated third-party litigation financing is a crucial vulnerability for American competitiveness and national security. In order to secure a just and fair civil justice system, it's only common sense that parties should know who they're up against. We must act quickly as this "hidden party" industry is growing at a pace stressing the non-existent regulatory regime. One estimate values the global market at $17.5 billion in 2025, and it is forecasted to grow to $67.2 billion by 2037. Naturally, it's also becoming more complex. Opportunistic actors are developing secondary markets—a "stock exchange for lawsuits"—which, if left unregulated as well, will only create new avenues for foreign actors to distort the civil justice system and surreptitiously move capital. Regulators can be certain that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and other adversarial nations have taken notice of this influx of cash into the industry. The CCP may be responsible for a significant part of this cash flow, but we cannot be sure. Under the current system, neither national security officials nor legal professionals have any way to discern the source of billions of dollars propping up civil suits from behind the curtain. A number of bills in state legislatures and in Congress have been introduced to require disclosure of any third-party litigation financing—of foreign funding in particular. This is a welcome development. Lawmakers in Washington and in statehouses across the country should move with alacrity and act on this issue before American companies, our justice system, and our capital markets are subjected to further foreign meddling. Former Representative Michael Patrick Flanagan (R-Ill.) previously represented the 5th District of Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives and sat on the Committee on the Judiciary. An attorney, he previously served in the U.S. Army and retired at the rank of captain. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Politico
a few seconds ago
- Politico
Musk-linked PAC spends big to promote newly enacted megabill
President Donald Trump pounds a gavel presented to him by House Speaker Mike Johnson after he signed his signature bill at the White House on July 4, 2025. | Evan Vucci/AP By Gregory Svirnovskiy 08/04/2025 05:55 AM EDT Building America's Future, a PAC that has been supported by Elon Musk, is shelling out more than a million dollars to promote recent White House wins, including a GOP domestic policy package the Tesla CEO and former Trump administration employee once called 'a disgusting abomination.' The 30-second ad, titled 'Independence,' is set to run nationally on Fox News and will congratulate President Donald Trump on the passage of Republicans' 'One Big, Beautiful Bill,' which extends his 2017 tax cuts alongside other GOP wins at the expense of nearly $1 trillion in coming Medicaid cuts. 'This Independence Day, President Trump and Congress made the working family tax cuts law,' the spot, which is to debut Monday, will say. 'Freeing Americans from taxes on their tips and overtime, doubling the child tax credit, and cutting taxes for seniors. Republicans know that our country is better off when working families keep more of what they earn. Now, they will.'
Newsweek
a minute ago
- Newsweek
Fewer Than 1,000 Trump Gold Cards Will Be Sold—Experts
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. While Trump administration officials have said that more than 70,000 people have expressed interest in the Trump "gold card" visa, some industry experts suggest the number of sales may be significantly lower. Latitude Managing Director Chris Willis told Newsweek, "In the end, less than 1,000 Trump Cards will be sold—far below the standards for a golden visa program." Newsweek has contacted the U.S. Commerce Department for comment. Why It Matters The gold card proposal, introduced in February, would grant U.S. residency to foreign nationals who invest $5 million in the United States. The fast-track pathway targets high-net-worth individuals looking for a route to American citizenship. Since returning to office on January 20, President Donald Trump has enacted sweeping changes to U.S. immigration policy and has moved to limit other immigration pathways, with his administration pausing the processing of some green card applications and ending the temporary legal status of certain migrant groups. A person in Shanghai, China, holds a smartphone displaying the website for registering interest in the new U.S. gold card visa on June 12. A person in Shanghai, China, holds a smartphone displaying the website for registering interest in the new U.S. gold card visa on June 12. Wang Gang/VCG via AP What To Know Since Trump announced the gold card visa program, it has drawn criticism, with experts calling it too expensive. "The key flaw with the Trump Card is that it's overpriced. The Trump administration is overestimating the value of American citizenship," said Latitude CEO Eric Major, who founded HSBC's Global Investor Immigration Services. Latitude, a global advisory firm, advises wealthy clients on dual passports and gold visas worldwide. "A required $5 million donation—not even an investment—is at least five times higher than comparable pathways in Europe," Major told Newsweek. "Without a proper legal basis, the Trump Card lacks legitimacy in the eyes of the market," he added. A key feature of the proposed visa is that recipients would be taxed solely on income they earn in the U.S., rather than on their worldwide income. The program faces several obstacles, Major said. To create such a pathway, the U.S. would need to significantly revise the Internal Revenue Code. This would include establishing a new classification of taxpayers that is separate from citizens, green card holders and those meeting the substantial presence test. These groups are currently taxed on worldwide income. Such changes cannot be made through executive order. It would require legislation passed by both chambers of Congress. According to the global investment migration firm Henley & Partners, interest in U.S. residency programs among wealthy individuals has increased, driven in part by renewed attention to established initiatives such as the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program following the gold card announcement. The EB-5 program, created in 1990, requires applicants to pay fees ranging from $100,000 to $200,000 to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, invest between $800,000 and $1 million, and create a minimum of 10 jobs for American workers. In June, the administration launched a website where foreign nationals can register their interest in the program. Registration is open to anyone. What People Are Saying Latitude CEO Eric Major told Newsweek: "The Trump Card, as currently presented, appears to have been launched for political branding. Even though they appear to have received close to 70,000 registrations, this reflects expressions of interest only. No formal applications have been processed, and the scheme still faces severe legal and legislative uncertainty, including whether Congress will approve the new visa category." Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, previously told Newsweek: "President Trump is a businessman and innovator who is always looking for new ways to bring investment back to the United States and encourage legal immigration." David Lesperance, the managing partner at Lesperance & Associates, told Newsweek: "I doubt if the Trump Card will ever see the light of day." What Happens Next While individuals and businesses can register their interest in the visa on details about official application procedures and the vetting and approval processes have not been announced.
