Middle East
What China's Xi Is Learning From War In Iran
The war in Iran is giving Beijing a real-time window into how the United States wages modern war.
The war has shown the reach of US military power while also raising questions about Washington's ability to manage multiple crises at once. For Beijing, that combination could influence how it assesses risk, timing, and opportunity in any future confrontation with the United States and any kind of future scenario toward Taiwan, a self-governing island of 23 million that China claims as its own.
To better understand what China may be learning from Iran, RFE/RL spoke with Mick Ryan, a retired Australian major general and military strategist who is now a senior fellow at the Lowly Institute, an Australian think tank.
RFE/RL: What is the biggest lesson that Chinese President Xi Jinping has learned so far from the war in Iran since it started in late February?
Mick Ryan: There are many lessons, but the biggest one that Xi has probably learned is that the US military is still a very powerful organization. It can deploy overwhelming force and conduct sustained precision operations, at least from the air and from the sea for some time. That will be very important for him and the People's Liberation Army (PLA) to understand if they're ever going to undertake some kind of blockade or invasion of Taiwan.
RFE/RL: War is part of a wider environment, so if we're speaking about lessons Xi might be drawing from the war in Iran, how should this one about US military power be seen in the wider context?
Ryan: Notwithstanding the US military's very powerful capability, it's being used by an administration that really is only able to fight one war at a time.
I think the attention span of the administration only allows it to do that, but it's stripped out many of the normal decision support mechanisms that would come through the National Security Council. These decisions look to be being made much more on impulse, and as we've seen from the meandering set of different strategic objectives from this war, it's an administration that is OK with launching something like this without necessarily knowing what it wants from this kind of large-scale conflict.
RFE/RL: How might that then apply toward something like Taiwan? How might that inform their preparations, or what they're going to be doing next in the coming years?
Ryan: I think this shows the Chinese that if they have a better strategy in place, they do have an improved chance of success. Being good at military operations is important. If you can't win battles, then you can't win wars. But strategy is even more important, and having the right strategic assumptions and the right strategic decision mechanisms for executing that strategy is something the Chinese might think that they're better at than the United States at the moment. A strategy gap when you're planning for a war and executing a war can be a real advantage.
RFE/RL: You spoke about some impulsiveness coming out of Washington. For Beijing, I imagine that's something that can cut both ways?
Ryan: Yeah, absolutely. It's obviously a double-edged sword.
As Americans would understand, General Stonewall Jackson was a great example of an unpredictable leader from the US Civil War. He was known for an unpredictability that hurt the enemy, but it also sometimes hurt his own forces. I think US President Donald Trump is very much in the same mold.
He is very unpredictable, and the Chinese are uneasy about that unpredictability. Trump is very unlike any of his predecessors, and the Chinese can't really war game what his reaction to any kind of event might be because he just really is all over the place when it comes to his responses. That will, more than anything, probably induce caution in Xi and the PLA just because of the deep uncertainty they probably feel with Trump's decision making.
RFE/RL: We're talking about war in Iran right now, but obviously there's been another war going on for several years in Ukraine. What sort of lessons have the Chinese taken from Ukraine and how might those compound with these lessons from Iran?
Ryan: The Chinese have been very good at studying other people's wars ever since the Falklands War in 1983 [between Britain and Argentina] and all the way through the succeeding 43 years.
Starting from the top, they've learned political lessons about how NATO as an alliance works and how it makes decisions. They've also learned lessons about how they might split NATO allies away from the United States. I think they've learned lessons about the global misinformation campaign and the conduct of information warfare, which we've also seen both Iran and the United States engage in since late February.
Then there's the obvious ones around drone warfare. In their last big military parade last year, all of the armored vehicles the PLA had on display had drones on them. They've taken those different lessons from Ukraine and they've been reinforced by their learning from the current war in Iran.
RFE/RL: If you're Xi today and you're watching what's happening in Iran, how are you feeling about it as a whole? There's a global energy crisis, and some of that is definitely going to be affecting your economy, but how do you think Beijing feels about the United States beyond the strict military perspective?
Ryan: If I'm Xi, I'm probably thinking that his narrative about the West being in decline is probably right. You're seeing the breakdown of US alliance systems and deepening distrust between America's allies and the Trump administration. For Xi, that confirms his long-term prognosis about the rise of China.
Whether that's right or not remains to be seen, but I think from his perspective -- and it's important to note that he lives in an echo chamber, like many dictators do -- that's probably what he sees.
I don't think that means he's going to instinctively want to invade Taiwan next week, but I think he will be looking for opportunities. A Trump administration, which has degraded its military munition stockpiles because of this war and is potentially distracted by a bitter Congressional elections campaign through October into November, might be distracted enough that the Chinese could see an opening that might be too good to pass.
RFE/RL: We've been focused about China and its designs on Taiwan, but that's also a huge spectrum in terms of what that could actually look like, ranging from installing a loyal local government to a blockade of the island to the most extreme case -- an actual military invasion.
If you're a Chinese planner right now and you're looking at this slew of options, does anyone look more appealing or perhaps increase its chances of success now based on what you're seeing happen in Iran?
Ryan: We should all understand the desired endgame, which is that Xi believes Taiwan should be part of the People's Republic of China. The ways and means, as you point out, are uncertain. There are many different options. I think two paths will be particularly attractive to them.
One would be a mega deal between Trump and Xi, where essentially Trump throws Taiwan under the bus or at least indicates that he wouldn't defend them. Another one would be the opportunity for some kind of lightning Chinese military strike against Taiwan to decapitate and degrade them and potentially invade them.
Those are probably two prominent ones they would be planning for, but there's lots of other iterations that Chinese strategists have been thinking about for decades.
The interview below has been edited for length and clarity.
- By RFE/RL
Pezeshkian Says Iran Has 'Necessary Will' For Peace, Buoying Hopes Deal May Be Nearing
Iranian President Masud Pezeshkian says his country has the "necessary will" to end the war with the United States and Israel depending on conditions, a possible sign the countries may be moving toward settling the conflict.
On a day when US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the coming days "will be decisive," Pezeshkian appeared to move away from Iran's hard line in recent days that it was not talking with Washington.
"We possess the necessary will to end this conflict, provided that essential conditions are met -- especially the guarantees required to prevent repetition of the aggression," Pezeshkian said in a March 31 phone conversation with European Council President Antonio Costa, according to a statement from his office.
"The solution to normalizing the situation is the cessation of their aggressive attacks," Pezeshkian added.
While some have warned Pezeshkian is not a power broker within Iran's leadership despite his title, his comments boosted markets in the United States and led to a dip in oil prices.
The United States said last week it put forward a 15-point plan that includes Iran dismantling its nuclear facilities, limiting its missile capabilities, and ending its support for regional proxy forces.
Senior Iranian officials have denied Tehran is in negotiations with Washington, but Iran said on March 25 that it was reviewing a 15-point US proposal and had put forward what it said were five conditions that needed to be met in order for the conflict to end.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said in an interview with broadcaster Al Jazeera on March 31 that he continues to receive messages from US special envoy Steve Witkoff but that does not mean "negotiations" are taking place between Tehran and Washington.
The comments by Iran's top diplomat are the latest in a series of mixed messages from both sides about efforts to end the conflict, which began on February 28.
US President Donald Trump has said several time in recent days that a deal to end the war was nearing. At the same time, US forces continue to build in the Middle East.
Hegseth stressed during a briefing on the military operation that has decimated Iran's military and nuclear capabilities that he would prefer to end the war with a peace deal.
"We don't want to have to do more militarily than we have to. But I didn't mean it flippantly when I said, in the meantime, we'll negotiate with bombs," Hegseth said.
Further buoying hopes of a settlement, China and Pakistan vowed on March 31 to "strengthen strategic communication and coordination" as they seek to help broker a deal.
Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar met with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, in Beijing and reiterated their call for Iran and the United States to work toward ending the war, which has killed thousands across at least nine countries and is costing economies around the world billions of dollars a day.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said both sides agreed to pursue de-escalation and that the two countries will "jointly advocate for peace and justice, and make new efforts to promote reconciliation and prevent conflict."
Political analyst Anton Penkovsky said contacts between Iran and the United States are likely continuing despite public denials by Tehran.
Speaking to Current Time, Penkovsky said Iran's strategy of denial is "purely for domestic political reasons, so as not to appear weak to its internal audience, especially given that social tensions in Iran remain quite high."
He also cautioned that signs of progress shouldn't obscure the likelihood that major obstacles remain on the path to peace.
"The first is the scope of restrictions on Iran's nuclear program, including the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and the transfer of all nuclear materials to the United States -- a position on which the United States has insisted and, apparently, is not willing to make concessions or compromises," Penkovsky said.
"For Iran, this is a matter of sovereignty and strategic deterrence against its enemies in the region."
Retired US Army General Joseph L. Votel -- who led US Central Command from 2016 to 2019 -- told RFE/RL in an interview that Iran is using tactical delay as a strategy in talks to end US and Israeli strikes.
He says the deployment of troops to the Middle East sends a message' to Iran.
"You have to recognize, first and foremost, that part of the purpose of those deployments is a messaging to the Iranians," Votel said.
"This is also about making sure we can provide the maximum amount of options for our military leaders and our civilian leaders, so that, if the president decides something, he has an array of forces from which his military commanders can devise courses of action and approaches that he might approve."
Deploying Forces To Middle East 'Sends Message' To Iran, Says Ex-US General
WASHINGTON -- Iran is using tactical delay as a strategy in talks to end US and Israeli strikes that have decimated Tehran's military capabilities amid a continued buildup of US forces in the Middle East, retired US Army General Joseph Votel -- who led US Central Command from 2016 to 2019 -- told RFE/RL in an interview on March 30.
Votel outlined the risks of escalation in the conflict and warned that without a political settlement to keep Iran from blocking the Strait of Hormuz, a prolonged international military presence might be required to keep the the key oil and gas transit route open.
RFE/RL: The United States is in a 10-day pause ordered by US President Donald Trump after threatening strikes on Iran's energy infrastructure, allowing more time for talks. At the same time, Iran has allowed ships through the Strait of Hormuz. Do you see that as a sign Tehran wants a deal, or is it acting in its own interest?
Joseph Votel: We know Iran has a history of trying to prolong, prolong, prolong negotiations, and try to drag things along. So certainly, I think that's a tactic they have tried, so on one hand we have to take that into consideration.
Secondly, in terms of the negotiations themselves, I don't know how far along we actually are in this. I do think we are probably using third parties right now to help us with our negotiations. I know the Pakistanis had stepped up and were trying to assist with this. So it takes a little bit of time to get to some kind of meaningful discussion.
It may be a combination of both: the Iranians are trying to string us along, but also a recognition on the part of the administration that it does take a little bit of time to get these talks set up -- meaningful talks set up -- so that we can move toward some type of end state for the conflict.
RFE/RL: At the same time, the United States is increasing its military presence in the region. Does this buildup suggest something beyond negotiation tactics?
Votel: You have to recognize, first and foremost, that part of the purpose of those deployments is a messaging to the Iranians.
This is also about making sure we can provide the maximum amount of options for our military leaders and our civilian leaders, so that, if the president decides something, he has an array of forces from which his military commanders can devise courses of action and approaches that he might approve.
Those two things -- the messaging aspect and providing flexibility -- are very, very important. And I think that is probably the most important thing these forces are doing right now. Certainly they can do other things, like going to Kharg Island or other actions, for example. But this messaging and being able to provide a lot of options for our leaders are two of the primary things we're doing right now.
RFE/RL: The administration has said it wants to ensure the Strait of Hormuz remains open. From a military standpoint, what would that actually involve? Would it necessarily fall to US forces, or will Israel play a direct role in such an operation? What could these ground operations look like?
Votel: I don't know if the Israelis have forces postured for this. Certainly the United States is trying to do this.
One of the things that's been talked about is going in and securing Kharg Island. And I think the purpose of that would be to secure the oil infrastructure and make sure it is in US hands. That could be a bargaining chip with the Iranian regime.
What that would look like is taking one of these elements that's been deployed -- whether Marines or Army forces -- and deploying them onto the island, sustaining them and protecting them, and making sure they could stay there while we continued to pursue operations.
What that would do is give us control of the primary oil export location that the Iranians rely on. That may force them to act. Of course, that might generate a response from the Iranians -- who probably would respond -- so we would have to be prepared for that. But that's what I think some of this might look like.
RFE/RL: Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested this could be achieved without ground troops. Do you agree?
Votel: Ground troops play an important role in this, whatever we decide to do. They are going to be critical, if not for seizing this island then as a quick reaction force and being ready to respond to developments as they take place.
We have done escorts through the Strait of Hormuz without troops before, back in the 1980s. But we didn't have the same threats then. Iran didn't have the same capabilities.
So the nature of the threats Iran possesses today makes it more likely that some troops would be required.
In terms of what it looks like and how this ends, I think there are three broad objectives. First, a regime that is effectively "defanged," that does not have the capabilities it had in the past and cannot threaten its neighbors.
Second, its military capabilities have to be diminished to the point where they cannot be effectively employed beyond its borders; that includes missiles, drones, the Iranian Navy, the IRGC Navy, and the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz or rely on proxies.
And third, we have to make sure they have no way to pursue a nuclear weapon. That includes not only destruction of infrastructure, but also bringing the highly enriched uranium they have produced under responsible control.
RFE/RL: During his recent trip to Europe, Rubio discussed with Group of Seven (G7) allies the need for potential long-term international patrols in the Strait of Hormuz. Even if active fighting stops, does this signal the US and its partners should expect a prolonged military presence in the region?
Votel: I definitely think that's right. If we open up the Strait of Hormuz and we don't have some kind of political settlement to the war then we will be doing this for a long period of time, and we need to be prepared for that.
That's why coalition partners and international partners will be critical: to sustain it long term. Without a political settlement, we are going to have to hold this for as long as we can.
RFE/RL: What about Iran's leadership? We're hearing increasing discussion in Washington about potential interlocutors within Iran's current leadership, including parliamentary speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf. Does this suggest the United States is preparing to engage with elements of the existing regime rather than seeking its replacement?
Votel: What is likely, and what the United States government is beginning to appreciate, is that there will be some form of the regime that remains in place.
Our hope is there will be a leader who exhibits a level of pragmatism that we can work with to move this situation in a more positive direction and stop the fighting.
My concern is that the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) leadership appears to have very heavy influence, which means there are significant hard-liners still associated with the government. That may make it more difficult.
It's also important to recognize there is no apparent opposition force ready to take over. The regime is the regime, and we are going to have to deal with it as we move forward.
RFE/RL: How do Iranian-backed groups like the Houthis affect the situation?
Votel: The Houthis could be a problem. They have a lot of capabilities, and while there was a cease-fire in place, they appear to have been taking measures that could allow them to cause real problems.
They are a significant concern. Shi'a militia groups in places like Iraq could also be a problem, but they can be dealt with by host nation forces with some US assistance.
The Houthis are more concerning because they have a much greater capability than many of the other Shi'a militia groups.
RFE/RL: There are increasing reports that Moscow is not only providing intelligence to Iran -- including potentially targeting information -- but also sharing drone technology and battlefield tactics refined during the war in Ukraine. How significant is this kind of support, and how is it shaping both the trajectory and the complexity of the conflict?
Votel: It's a big problem, and it is definitely something the United States should be addressing with the Russians. If they are providing target information or capabilities that are prolonging this conflict, that needs to stop.
That is not necessarily going to be done militarily; it will have to be done diplomatically. We have to put pressure on the Russians to stop because this could prolong the conflict and make it even more difficult for us to achieve what we have already initiated.
The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
- By Ray Furlong and
- RFE/RL's Radio Farda
New Executions A Sign Of Growing Repression In Iran Amid War
Iran announced the execution of two political prisoners on March 31, a day after the death penalty was also carried out on two others, in a sign that the clerical authorities are stepping up a crackdown on internal opposition in the country.
The men, identified as Babak Alipour and Pouya Ghobadi, were accused of membership in the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), an exiled opposition group that seeks to overthrow the Islamic republic and that Tehran regards as a terrorist organization.
The executions show that despite US and Israeli strikes wiping out much of Iran's leadership and degrading its military-industrial capacities, there are no visible signs that the clerical authorities are losing control. In fact, repression appears once again to be on the rise.
The men's lawyer, Babak Paknia, wrote on social media that hours after the executions his office had still not received the verdict from the trial that sealed their fate.
"Before the sentence is carried out, it is necessary to notify its contents to the defense lawyers or at least to the defendant himself. The minimum right of the convicted person is to be able to benefit from the right to retrial and to a stay of execution," he added.
Three other men were executed earlier this month.
Torture, Confessions
Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, an Iranian human rights campaigner based in Norway, told RFE/RL's Radio Farda that Alipour and Ghobadi were "kept in solitary confinement for long periods after their arrest. They were tortured and confessions were extracted from them -- confessions that, even under the laws of the Islamic republic itself, are not actually legal."
In a statement responding to the executions, the MEK said "this reflects the regime's fear of the people and their embrace of the resistance units. This bloodshed will forever roll up the disgraceful scroll of the regime."
The MEK described the two men as "heroic" members, but their affiliation with the organization could not be independently confirmed.
Meanwhile, two other defendants in the same case, Vahid Bani-Amirian and Abolhassan Montazer, could face the same sentence.
"The Islamic republic's main threat -- what truly endangers its survival -- is the Iranian people and popular protests. The goal of these executions is to instill fear among the population," Amiry-Moghaddam said.
Iran was wracked by mass protests in January that were brutally suppressed by security forces. HRANA, a US-based human rights monitoring group, said it had verified nearly 7,000 deaths during Iran's crackdown on protesters in January and many more arrests. It says 1,574 civilians have died since the United States and Israel launched air strikes on Iran on February 28.
Before the strikes began, US President Donald Trump had written on social media that "help is on the way" for Iranian protesters and said achieving regime change in Iran would be "the best thing that could happen."
Recent statements by US officials, however, have not listed regime change as a campaign objective, though Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters at a briefing in Washington on March 31 that "regime change has occurred" and the "primary" focus now is getting Iran to make a deal.
'Clashes' In Iranian Prison
State media have reported increasing numbers of people arrested for being "spies" and "mercenaries."
Police chief Ahmadreza Radan was quoted as reporting hundreds of arrests on various charges relating to the war. This also raises the issue of conditions within prisons.
"Access to even basic necessities is extremely limited. Food conditions were already very bad before the war, but since the war started they've become much worse," Reza Younesi, whose father is in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison, told Radio Farda on March 31.
"Beyond that, the explosions in Tehran -- some of which occurred near Evin -- have had severe psychological effects on the prisoners. Fear and anxiety dominate the prison atmosphere under these wartime conditions," he added.
Younesi's brother and father are being held in different prisons, having both been accused of MEK membership.
Younesi, who now lives in Sweden, also described a riot in Iran's Ghezel Hesar Prison, where his brother is incarcerated. The incident occurred on March 30 when two prisoners there, Mohammad Taghavi Sangdehi and Akbar Daneshvarkar, were taken for execution.
"Other prisoners resisted and clashes occurred," he said, adding that about 20 prisoners were taken away and "most likely transferred to solitary confinement, but we don't know exactly where they are."
These latest executions of four men, on March 30-31, follow that of three men on March 19. These three were arrested during the January protests, while those most recently executed had been in jail since 2024.
Amiry-Moghaddam, who heads a group called Iran Human Rights, said the clerical authorities in the country were using the war as a cover for executions.
"In the shadow of war, the political cost of these executions is much lower. Normally, if a protester or a political prisoner were executed, the Islamic republic would face much harsher reactions from the international community…. But now attention is focused on the war," he said.
On March 30, a UN expert panel issued a statement expressing "grave concern" about the executions carried out that day, plus the others earlier in March. The statement also condemned US and Israeli military action, stating "the people of Iran are under attack from outside and from within."
The statement also notes that Iran's authorities have imposed an Internet blackout in the country that has now lasted 32 days, "cutting people off from information and causing severe economic harm."
- By Merhat Sharipzhan and
- Colin Hood
China, Pakistan Coordinate On Iran Talks As War Disrupts Global Trade
China and Pakistan vowed to "strengthen strategic communication and coordination" as they seek to help broker a deal to end the war in Iran, now in its fifth week with no clear end in sight.
Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar met with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, in Beijing on March 31 and reiterated their call for Iran and the United States to work toward ending the war, which has killed thousands across at least nine countries and is costing economies billions of dollars a day.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said both sides agreed to pursue de-escalation and that the two countries will "jointly advocate for peace and justice, and make new efforts to promote reconciliation and prevent conflict."
Pakistan has emerged as a key player in efforts to broker peace, leveraging its working ties with both US President Donald Trump and longstanding bonds with Iran. The push comes as Beijing and Islamabad seek to position themselves as stabilizing actors while avoiding direct entanglement in the widening conflict.
“By publicly pledging to strengthen cooperation with Islamabad on Iran, China is in a way moderating the conflict indirectly and amplifying the voice of Pakistan, which is clearly a trusted ally," Alicia Garcia-Herrero, the chief Economist for Asia Pacific at French investment bank Natixis, told RFE/RL.
Dar hosted foreign ministers from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt in Islamabad on March 29 in an effort to build consensus around a cease-fire and renewed negotiations.
Pakistani officials say the initiative centers on five principles, including civilian protection and maritime security.
"Pakistan is very happy that both Iran and the US have expressed their confidence in Pakistan to facilitate their talks," Dar said in a televised briefing after the talks.
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif framed the effort as part of a push to position Pakistan as a "credible intermediary," leveraging ties with Washington and Tehran.
China has publicly backed the initiative, with Mao saying following the talks that Beijing "appreciates Pakistan's efforts."
Iran's response has been cautious, though reports suggest Tehran may be using Pakistani channels for indirect communication with Washington.
On March 26, Dar said Islamabad has been serving as a conduit for message exchanges between Washington and Tehran.
“Pakistan is used as a way to give China influence without seeing China in the cease-fire talks," said Garcia-Herrero, who is also a senior fellow at the Brussels-based think tnak Bruegel. "The goal is to stop the fallout, stabilize energy prices, and prevent other unpredictable factors that Trump might be working on.”
Shipping Disruptions Intensify Diplomacy
Diplomatic urgency is rising amid mounting disruptions to maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global energy shipments, particularly oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG).
Shipping has slowed sharply since the United States and Israel launched their military operation against Iran on February 28, with vessels delayed and exports from Gulf producers constrained.
China confirmed that several of its ships recently transited the strait following "coordination with relevant parties." Data from MarineTraffic showed two vessels belonging to the Chinese state-owned COSCO shipping company passing through the strait on March 30 after aborting earlier attempts.
Iran has indicated the waterway remains open to "friendly countries," widely interpreted to include China, its top oil customer.
China relies heavily on energy from the Middle East, particularly seaborne exports that pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
China has so far weathered the worst shocks of the energy crisis thanks to diversified supply, falling domestic demand, and strategic reserves. According to Kpler, a commodity intelligence firm, Chinese refineries had stockpiled between 1.2 and 1.4 billion barrels of oil as of the end of 2025, which could last up to three months.
Beijing's response has been comparatively restrained, analysts say.
"Beijing prefers the restoration of stability over an expanded role in a more turbulent order. It wants access to energy, markets, and influence in the Middle East -- not the burdens of regional stabilization or balancing among competing powers," Zongyuan Zoe Liu, a senior fellow at the Council for Foreign Relations, wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine on March 30.
Trump has sent varying signals about Washington's next steps for the war, saying the United States was already negotiating with Tehran while also suggesting the military campaign could expand.
Iran has repeatedly denied it is in talks with the United States.
With reporting by Xinhua, Global Times, Reuters, Al Jazeera, The News Pakistan, and The Wall Street Journal
- By RFE/RL's Radio Farda and
- Will Tizard
Iranian And Israeli Oil Facilities In Flames As Strikes Continue
Iran and Israel continued to trade attacks that left a petrochemical plant in the Iranian city of Tabriz in flames, according to Iran's state media on March 30. It was followed by a strike on an Israeli refinery in Haifa. An Iraqi Air Force transport plane was also targeted by Iran-backed militias at Baghdad International Airport as the conflict in the region entered its fifth week.
- By RFE/RL
Trump Says He Wants Iran's Oil, Insists Peace Talks Going 'Extremely Well'
US President Donald Trump said he wants to "take the oil in Iran" and perhaps seize Kharg Island, while at the same time insisting Washington is doing "extremely well" in negotiations with Iran and that he is "pretty sure" a peace deal will be reached "soon."
The mixing of threats and the possibility of a peace deal with Tehran came in an interview published late on March 29 by the Financial Times and in remarks an hour later to the press aboard Air Force One.
To reporters, Trump hailed progress in talks with Iran, saying they were being held directly and indirectly with "reasonable" leaders and asserted Tehran was partially opening the crucial Strait of Hormuz, the waterway through which some 20 percent of the world's oil and natural gas supplies pass.
He didn't elaborate on what he called direct talks with Iran, whose leaders deny negotiations are taking place. Tehran has said it received, reviewed, and rejected a 15-point US peace plan that was delivered through Pakistani emissaries.
Trump said: "We are doing extremely well in that negotiation. But you never know with Iran because we negotiate with them and then we always have to blow them up...whether it's with B52 bombers" or by having torn up the 2015 nuclear deal that Tehran signed with world powers, including the United States, Russia, and China.
"I think we will make a deal with them. Pretty sure. But it's possible we won't," he told reporters. "But we've had regime change already. [The Iranian] regime was decimated, destroyed. They're all dead."
He said, without being specific, that the current leaders have been "very reasonable."
"I do see a deal in Iran. Could be soon," he said.
'Preference' Is To Take Iran's Oil
In the FT interview, Trump said that his "preference would be to take the oil," likening the situation to that of Venezuela, where he said he intends to take control of the country's oil industry "indefinitely" after US forces captured leader Nicolas Maduro in January.
"To be honest with you, my favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran, but some stupid people back in the US say: 'Why are you doing that?' But they're stupid people," Trump was quoted by the FT as saying.
"Maybe we take Kharg Island, maybe we don't. We have a lot of options," Trump said, referring to the hub where most of Iran's oil is exported.
"It would also mean we had to be there [in Kharg Island] for a while," he said "I don't think they have any defense. We could take it very easily."
Trump has imposed an April 6 deadline for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz and accept a deal ending the war or face US strikes on its power plants.
Pakistan Seeks To Host Talks
Earlier in the day, Pakistan said it was looking to hold direct peace talks in Islamabad this week, but the violence in the Middle East and harsh rhetoric between Washington and Tehran showed no signs of letting up.
"Pakistan will be honored to host and facilitate meaningful talks between the two sides in the coming days, for a comprehensive and lasting settlement of the ongoing conflict," Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said following a March 29 meeting of the region's top diplomats.
Washington and Tehran did not comment on the proposed peace talks as the casualties and damages in the Middle East continued to rise. In a new development over the weekend, Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen entered the fray, launching missiles toward Israel, including a third salvo early on March 30.
The developments come as thousands more US Marines arrived in the region, as Washington continued laying the groundwork for a possible land invasion of Iran, though US officials said no decisions have been made whether to invade.
With the US-Israeli war with Iran in its fifth week, Iran's powerful parliament speaker, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf -- seen as a possible contender to lead the country after US-Israeli air strikes killed its leadership -- accused the United States of "secretly" planning a ground attack despite talking about peace.
"We are certain we can punish America and make it regret ever considering an attack on Iran," he said.
Iran late on March 29 launched a missile strike that injured at least 11 people in the desert city of Beersheba, Israeli authorities said. In one strike, a large fire broke out at a chemical plant on the outskirts of the city.
The Israeli military, in its "24-hour recap," said it had launched more than 140 air strikes on central and western Iran, including Tehran, over the 24 hours through the evening of March 29. It said ballistic missile launch sites and storage facilities, among other targets, were hit.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on March 29 that Iran's heavy-water reactor at Khondab, near the city of Arak, which Tehran reported had been attacked on March 27, has suffered severe damage and is no longer operational.
The Israeli military had said it struck the facility, officially known as the Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor. The site has been previously hit in an Israeli air strike during the 12-day war in June 2025.
The reactor is part of a sprawling nuclear complex in central Iran that includes heavy-water production facilities, which allow Iran to use natural uranium as fuel without the need for high-level enrichment.
Tehran Power Outages
Israel's military also said it carried out new strikes against sites linked to Iran's regime figures, but it did not provide specifics.
Iran's Energy Ministry said US and Israeli strikes late on March 29 targeted power supply facilities in the capital, Tehran, leading to outages in several districts.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he has instructed the army to advance further into southern Lebanon to expand what he called the "existing security strip."
Netanyahu said the goal was to prevent the threat posed by Iran-backed Hezbollah -- deemed a terrorist organization by Israel and the United States -- and the firing of rockets from the area.
"We are determined to fundamentally change the situation" in southern Lebanon, he said.
With reporting from RFE/RL's Radio Farda, RFE/RL's Radio Mashaal, Reuters, AFP, and dpa
- By Kian Sharifi
Houthi Entry Into Iran War Raises Specter Of Twin Chokepoint Crisis
Yemen's Houthi rebels on March 28 fired their first missiles at Israel since the Iran war began, but analysts warn the more consequential threat is not the projectiles aimed at Israeli territory -- it is what the group could do to global energy markets.
Hours later, the rebels announced their second launch, describing it as "a barrage of cruise missiles and drones targeting several vital and military sites" in Israel. Details were not immediately available.
A US-designated terrorist organization, the Houthis' involvement risks prolonging a war that has already drawn in US forces, Gulf Arab states, and Israel across multiple fronts.
Their entry into the conflict, ending nearly a month of restraint since the war began, raised immediate fears of a simultaneous disruption to two of the world's most critical shipping lanes. Iran has already effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz; the Houthis have now signaled they could move against the Bab al-Mandab Strait, through which roughly 10 percent of the world's seaborne oil passes.
But analysts say the attacks may have been less about Israel than about Riyadh. Michael Horowitz, an independent defense analyst based in Israel, noted that the Houthi military spokesman laid out specific conditions that would trigger full entry into the war, among them any countries actively participating in the US-Israeli war against Iran.
"This, in my opinion, is an indirect message to the Gulf and particularly Saudi Arabia, warning them against joining the war against Iran, or letting US forces use more of their bases," Horowitz told RFE/RL.
The month-long delay in Houthi involvement, Horowitz said, likely reflected the group's own calculations rather than Iranian direction. The Houthis may have been reluctant to jeopardize ongoing diplomatic efforts with Saudi Arabia that could yield economic incentives, he said, while Israeli strikes last year on civilian and economic targets in Houthi-controlled areas had already worsened conditions on the ground.
Energy Pain
Danny Citrinowicz, a security analyst at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies, said the broader threat lay in Iran's economic campaign against the United States.
"While Houthi strikes against Israel should not be dismissed, from Iran's perspective, as part of a broader economic campaign against the United States, the central issue lies in their demonstrated ability to threaten critical energy transit routes at both maritime chokepoints," he wrote on X.
Horowitz outlined three scenarios for full Houthi entry into the conflict: a resumption of their Red Sea blockade similar to operations during the Gaza war; strikes on Saudi energy facilities on the Red Sea, including the port of Yanbu -- an overland alternative that carries Saudi crude from the Persian Gulf coast to the Red Sea, bypassing Hormuz entirely; and potential strikes against the US aircraft carrier group in the Arabian Sea, though Horowitz said he doubted such efforts could succeed.
Energy markets research firm HFI Research put a number on the potential damage. A Houthi move on the Bab al-Mandab would put an additional 4 million barrels per day of Saudi crude exports at risk. "It won't be as bad as the disruption in the Strait of Hormuz thanks to the Suez Canal," the firm wrote, "but the market won't care."
Citrinowicz said the trajectory pointed in one direction. "With each passing day of the conflict, particularly in light of its expanding scope against Iran, the likelihood of this scenario materializing continues to grow. It is increasingly not a question of if, but when."
- By Kian Sharifi and
- Hannah Kaviani
Three Islands That Could Be Key In Keeping The Strait Of Hormuz Open
US President Donald Trump has warned of possible further action against Kharg Island, a key oil terminal of Iran and a major cog in the country's economic machine.
But three other Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf could be just as strategic in efforts to pressure Tehran into reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a key artery for global oil and gas supplies.
The tiny islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb sit near the mouth of the 39-kilometer-wide waterway, giving them strategic value. The islands are controlled by Tehran but long claimed by the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
US media outlet Axios reported on March 26 that the Pentagon is preparing a range of military options for a potential "final blow" against Iran. They include seizing Abu Musa and the two other islands.
The capture of other Iranian islands, including Qeshm, Larak, and Kharg, are also on the table, according to Axios. The country has over 400 islands along its southern coast.
RFE/RL requested comment on the Axios report from the White House, which forwarded a March 21 statement by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.
In the statement, Leavitt said: "It's the job of the Pentagon to make preparations in order to give the Commander-in-Chief maximum optionality. It does not mean the President has made a decision, and as the President said in the Oval Office recently, he is not planning to send ground troops anywhere at this time."
Meanwhile, Iran's speaker of parliament Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf wrote on X on March 25 that Tehran's intelligence had indications that "Iran's enemies, with the support of a country in the region, are preparing an operation to occupy one of Iran's islands."
His comment was seen as a reference to Abu Musa and Iran's claims that the UAE could help the United States take it.
Internationally recognized as part of Iran, the islands are also claimed by the UAE. Tehran gained control of the territories just a day before the creation in 1971 of the UAE, which was until then was an informal British protectorate.
The largest of the islands, Abu Musa, is home to around 2,000 people. The two smaller islands are mostly uninhabited and home to naval and military facilities.
Pressure Tactic
Global oil and gas prices have soared since Iran effectively closed the narrow passage -- which accounts for about one-fifth of the world's oil and gas transit -- since the war began on February 28.
The United States could seize control of the islands to break Iran's chokehold on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz in hopes it will help push oil prices back down.
Seizing the three strategic islands could also give Washington a bargaining chip in any negotiation with Iran to end the war, experts say.
"The likelihood that they intend to occupy these islands is very high," Mohammad Farsi, a former Iranian military officer who was stationed on Kharg Island in the northern Persian Gulf before the Islamic Revolution in 1979, told RFE/RL's Radio Farda.
The deployment of two American expeditionary units, with thousands of Marines and supporting ships and aircraft, has added to speculation that Trump could at some point order the invasion of the islands.
Would It Actually Work?
Farsi said he was skeptical that seizing Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb would achieve its stated goal of keeping the strait open for oil tankers.
"The threat from Iran doesn't require ships or vessels," he said. "Iran can strike from a distance with drones and missiles."
As long as Iran's missile and drone infrastructure on the mainland remains intact, Farsi said, no island garrison or naval escort force can reliably guarantee safe passage through the strait.
H.A. Hellyer, a senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, says Iran's leadership views the Strait of Hormuz as a leverage point: "a pressure mechanism affecting global energy markets and international opinion."
Thus, control over the three islands for the United States would be "geographic and strategic."
"These islands sit near the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints. Control over them has implications for shipping lanes, energy flows, and potential military positioning in any scenario involving reopening or securing the strait," he said, adding he wasn't advocating for the United States to make such a move.
"In the end, these islands are not peripheral. They sit at the intersection of territorial dispute, maritime security, energy markets, and evolving Gulf alliances. Any move involving them would reshape the strategic landscape around Hormuz."
Rubio Says US Expects To End Iran Campaign In 'Weeks, Not Months,' Can Achieve Goals Without Ground Troops
PARIS -- The United States expects to wrap up its military operation in Iran within "weeks, not months" and believes it is possible to achieve its goals without ground troops, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on March 27.
Rubio, speaking in the French capital after a meeting with the other Group of Seven (G7) foreign ministers, also said Iran may seek to set up a toll system for passage through the Strait of Hormuz as the US-Israeli war approached its fifth week.
“We are on or ahead of schedule…and expect to conclude it…in a matter of weeks, not months,” he said of the military campaign.
“We’re going to destroy their navy…their air force…their ability to make missiles and drones…and dramatically reduce missile launchers," Rubio said, adding: “We can achieve all of our objectives without any ground troops…this is not going to be a prolonged conflict.”
Referring to US troops dispatched to the region, he said the deployments were meant "to give the president maximum optionality and maximum opportunity to adjust the contingencies, should they emerge."
Rubio's remarks came as Iran warned of new attacks across the Middle East and urged civilians to avoid areas near US forces, a day after US President Donald Trump extended a deadline for Tehran to open the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial oil-and-gas transport route from the Persian Gulf to global markets, until April 6.
In a statement, the G7 foreign ministers and the European Union's top diplomat called for an immediate halt to attacks against civilian infrastructure in the US-Israeli war with Iran.
"There can be no justification for the deliberate targeting of civilians in situations of armed conflict as well as attacks on diplomatic facilities," they said. The G7 comprises the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan.
Iran made no move to open the Strait of Hormuz. In a statement on March 27, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) said it would keep the waterway closed and any potential attempts at transit involving the Unites States, Israel, or their allies would face "harsh measures."
Following the IRGC's warning, media reported that three vessels of various nationalities were turned back from the Strait of Hormuz on March 27.
The Strait of Hormuz accounts for around one-fifth of global oil shipments and the effective closure of it by Iranian forces has become a central issue of the conflict, which started with US-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28.
Rubio said that Iran may decide to set up a toll system for the strait, calling that "unacceptable" and stressing that European and Asian countries that benefit from trade through the waterway should help ensure free passage when the conflict is over.
“We’re not asking anybody to join the war," Rubio said, adding that "countries that are most impacted [by closure of the strait]…need to be ready to do something about it.”
A day earlier, Trump for a second time postponed threatened attacks on Iranian power plants if it does not reopen the key waterway, citing what he said was a request from Tehran. He set a new deadline of 8 p.m. Eastern time on April 6.
Last weekend, Trump said the United States would "obliterate" Iran's power plants if Tehran keeps blocking the Strait of Hormuz after 48 hours. He later extended the deadline until March 27, then extended it another 10 days.
On March 27, Trump said Iran is "on the run" and that talks with Tehran were still ongoing.
"We're negotiating now, and it would be great if we could do something, but they have to open it up," Trump told a Saudi-backed investment forum in Miami, referring to the Strait of Hormuz.
US Special envoy Steve Witkoff said the Trump administration is "hopeful" that "there will be meetings this week."
"We have a 15-point deal on the table that the Iranians have had for a bit of time. We expect an answer from them, and it would solve it all," he said at the Miami investment forum.
Senior Iranian officials have denied Tehran is in negotiations with Washington, but Iran said on March 25 that it was reviewing a 15-point US proposal and put forward what it said were five conditions that needed to be met in order for the conflict to end.
The US plan reportedly repeated Washington's demands for Iran to dismantle its nuclear facilities, limit its missile capabilities, and end its support for regional proxy forces.
Rubio said on March 27 that the United States had not yet received a response from Iran, and suggested contacts had been indirect.
"We've had an exchange of messages and indications from the Iranian system, whatever's left of it, about a willingness to talk about certain things," he said. "We're waiting for further clarification about...who is it that we will be talking to, what will we be talking about, and when will we be talking."
Informally, Tehran has responded sharply to the 15-point plan, saying the US conditions were excessive and that it will end the war when it chooses and if its conditions are met, insisting on its right to freely develop its ballistic missile program.
Trump said on March 26 that he believed Iran was seeking negotiations because of its "present" to the United States, which he said allowed 10 oil tankers to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
Tehran has suggested that ships from "non-hostile" nations would have clear passage through the Strait of Hormuz. However, even if some vessels are allowed through, the overall uncertainty has made it difficult to secure insurance, effectively preventing ships from using the waterway.
With the war showing few signs of easing after almost four full weeks, the fighting has continued to cause casualties and damage across the Middle East.
In a social media post on March 27, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said Tehran would exact a "HEAVY price for Israeli crimes," after what he said were strikes on "2 of Iran's largest steel factories, a power plant, and civilian nuclear sites among other infrastructure."
The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran said the Chondab heavy-water reactor and a production facility in Ardakan for yellowcake, which is used to manufacture nuclear fuel elements, were targeted.
The Israeli military confirmed the attack on the Arfakan site in Yazd province. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said no increase in off-site radiation levels was reported.
Following air strikes on various parts of Iran over the previous 24 hours, the authorities of Iran's Qom Province on March 27 reported at least three attacks on residential buildings in the Pardisan neighborhood of Qom city.
Morteza Heydari, a spokesman for the Qom governorate, told the IRGC-affiliated Tasnim news agency that 18 people had been killed and 10 injured following the reports.
Separately, two Israeli soldiers -- both aged 21 -- were killed in Lebanon, according to a statement released by the Israeli military late on March 26.
The deaths brought the number of Israeli troops killed in the recently launched ground operations in southern Lebanon to four, according to military figures.
Israeli media reported one of the soldiers was killed in a rocket attack by Hezbollah, an Iran-backed group based in Lebanon that's deemed a terrorist organization by Israel and the United States. The second soldier was killed in an exchange of fire with fighters from the Shi'ite group, local media reported.
Citing information provided by the Iranian Red Crescent, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies has reported more than 1,900 people have been killed since the beginning of the war, adding that at least 20,000 more have been injured. RFE/RL cannot independently verify the figures.
With reporting by RFE/RL's Radio Farda, Reuters, and AFP
In Photos: Week Four Of The Iran War
A Palestinian man scales Iranian missile debris that landed in the Israeli-occupied West Bank on March 24.
Images from the fourth week of the ongoing US-Israeli war with Iran as results of the conflict ripple out from the region.
Rubio In France For First In-Person G7 Meeting Since War With Iran Began
PARIS -- US Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrived in France early on March 27, joining G7 foreign ministers and allied representatives who have already gathered for the second day of a high-stakes meeting overshadowed by tensions over Iran, Ukraine, and global security.
Rubio is set to attend formal sessions of the G7 Foreign Affairs Ministerial in Cernay-la-Ville, near Paris. This will be his first face-to-face engagement with key allies since President Donald Trump intensified Washington's messaging on Iran.
The gathering, hosted nearby in the Vaux-de-Cernay Abbey under France's rotating G7 presidency, brings together top diplomats from Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, the European Union, and Japan, along with guest countries, including Ukraine.
Strait Of Hormuz At Center Of Disputes
Ahead of his departure for Paris on March 26, Rubio signaled that a central message for allies would be the urgency of reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global transit route effectively blocked by Iran.
"It's in their interest to help," Rubio told reporters at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, emphasizing that US partners rely more heavily on energy flows through the strait than the United States does.
He declined to specify what kind of assistance Washington might seek, saying such decisions would fall to defense officials, but framed the issue as one requiring collective action.
"It's not help for us," Rubio said. "It's the world that has a great interest in that, so they should step up and deal with it."
The disruption has rattled global energy markets, with roughly one-fifth of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas typically passing through the waterway in peacetime.
Rubio said indirect talks with Tehran were continuing through intermediaries and described "some concrete progress," while cautioning that the situation remains fluid.
"There are intermediary countries that are passing messages," he said. "That's an ongoing process."
His comments align with Trump's earlier statement that discussions with Iran were "very substantial," as Washington pauses strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure until April 6 to allow space for diplomacy.
Allies Seek Coordination Amid Friction
The meeting marks the first in-person gathering of G7 foreign ministers since Trump publicly pressed allies to take a stronger stance on Iran -- a push that has exposed differences within the group.
While Washington has prioritized Iran and freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, several G7 countries remain focused on the war in Ukraine and are wary of deeper involvement in the Middle East crisis.
Rubio underscored longstanding US frustrations over burden-sharing, pointing to American support for Kyiv.
"Ukraine is not America's war, and yet we've contributed more to that fight than any other country," he said, adding that US policy ultimately answers to domestic priorities.
"I work for the people of the United States," Rubio said.
A Difficult Diplomatic Test
Analysts say Rubio faces a delicate balancing act as he engages with counterparts who are dealing with the economic fallout of the Hormuz disruption while weighing their own strategic priorities.
Paul Saunders, who served as undersecretary of state for global affairs during the Bush administration from 2003-05, told RFE/RL that the top US diplomat must juggle competing expectations.
"Secretary Rubio will have to navigate between US interests and needs, President Trump's expectations, other G7 members' perspectives and priorities, and France's goals as the host. It won't be easy," said Saunders, currently the president of the Washington think tank Center for the National Interest.
He added that frustration among allies could complicate discussions.
"Other G7 members are frustrated at having had an energy and economic crisis thrust upon them without warning," Saunders said, noting many are more focused on Ukraine -- and, in Japan's case, China.
France, he added, is also seeking to assert its independence and leadership role in Europe, "which could lead to some tense exchanges."
According to Saunders, the central question looming over the talks remains unresolved: "When and how will the Iran war end?"
Rubio is expected to join the March 27 sessions covering cross-cutting threats, support for Ukraine, the situation in Iran, and broader peace and security issues.
The discussions in Cernay-la-Ville will test whether the G7 can close ranks -- or whether divisions over Iran and global security will persist at a moment of mounting international strain.
Exhausted, Divided, And Waiting: Iranians On A Month Of War
Continuing US-Israeli air strikes have left parts of Tehran in rubble and the nerves of many in the capital frayed.
As the war nears the one-month mark, US Central Command (CENTCOM) says over 10,000 targets have been struck across Iran. According to the US-based human rights group HRANA, at least 1,464 civilians -- including at least 217 children -- have been killed in Iran since fighting began on February 28.
RFE/RL's Radio Farda gathered testimonies from Iranian civilians about daily life amid the air strikes. Reaching ordinary Iranians remains very difficult amid the Iranian government's ongoing Internet blackout, which has now lasted more than 600 hours.
One Tehran man says that while trauma and anxiety in the current situation are universal, he holds out hope for the prospect of what he calls "final victory" -- the moment, he says, when Iranians, rather than the current leadership, have the upper hand.
He does not believe in diplomacy: "Peace and all that? That's a pipe dream. You answer slaps and punches with bullets and bombs."
Another resident says she felt a moment of relief when Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior officials were killed on February 28, but then she learned that dozens of schoolchildren in Minab had died in an air strike on the same day.
"The country is being destroyed," she writes. "The only thing I want is for the war to end. These horrible sounds of explosions and this anxiety we're living with are no longer bearable."
While air strikes by all sides continue -- Iran has launched daily barrages of missiles and drones at Israel and targets around the Middle East -- Washington and Tehran have begun to exchange proposals through intermediaries that Washington says could lead to talks.
The United States is pressing Iran to surrender its enriched uranium and curb its missile program, among other things; Iran is demanding reparations and recognition of its sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.
The gap between those positions remains wide.
A common worry was expressed by one Tehran woman: What happens if the regime manages to stay in place?
"I'm worried that after the war, they'll become more savage and execute young people," she writes. "They executed three people in the middle of the war."
After every explosion, a woman in her 40s who contacted RFE/RL from Tehran reaches for her phone to check whether friends and family are still alive. "We genuinely don't know if we'll be alive tomorrow, or even in the next hour."
"I think even those who wished for America and Israel to attack didn't know what war was," one mother writes.
- By RFE/RL
Trump Warns Iran To 'Get Serious' But Extends Strait Of Hormuz Deadline
US President Donald Trump postponed threatened attacks on Iranian power plants for a second time, apparently giving Tehran 10 more days to open the Strait of Hormuz to shipping, and said talks on ending the war were going "very well."
Trump announced the postponement in a March 26 social media post that followed a series of public warnings that Iran had better free up the crucial waterway and comply with US conditions "before it is too late."
“As per Iranian Government request…I am pausing the period of Energy Plant destruction by 10 Days to Monday, April 6, 2026, at 8 P.M., Eastern Time,” (2 a.m. CET on April 7) he wrote on his platform, Truth Social.
On March 21, Trump said the United States would "obliterate" Iran's power plants if Tehran did not open the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial oil and gas transport channel that Iran has effectively blocked to most traffic amid the war with the United States and Israel, within 48 hours. He later extended the deadline to March 27.
Senior Iranian officials have denied Tehran is in negotiations with Washington, but Iran said on March 25 that it was reviewing a 15-point US proposal and put forward what it said were five conditions that needed to be met in order for the conflict to end.
"Talks are ongoing and, despite erroneous statements to the contrary by the Fake News Media, and others, they are going very well," Trump said in the Truth Social post on March 26.
In a post earlier in the day, Trump said Iranian negotiators "better get serious soon, before it is too late, because once that happens, there is NO TURNING BACK, and it won't be pretty!"
"They are 'begging' us to make a deal, which they should be doing since they have been militarily obliterated, with zero chance of a comeback, and yet they publicly state that they are only 'looking at our proposal,'" he wrote.
During a cabinet meeting at the White House, he said Iran has a chance "to permanently abandon their nuclear ambitions and to join a new path forward. We'll see if they want to do it. If they don't, we're their worst nightmare. In the meantime, we'll just keep blowing them away."
The details of the US plan have not been disclosed, but Western media have widely reported the proposal included some of the key demands Washington has been pushing for since before the current conflict began with US-Israeli air strikes against Iran on February 28.
Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff confirmed that the United States had sent Iran a "15-point action list."
Speaking to reporters during the cabinet meeting, he suggested the diplomacy could be successful "if we can convince Iran that this is the inflection point with no good alternatives for them other than more death and destruction."
"We have strong signs that this is a possibility," Witkoff said. He said Pakistan had acted as a mediator, confirming statements by Pakistani officials.
While the US plan reportedly suggested dismantling Iran's nuclear facilities, limiting its missile capabilities, and ending its support for regional proxy forces, it was also thought to include some new elements, such as ones concerning the Strait of Hormuz, which has all but shut after several vessels were struck by Iran.
Iran has responded sharply, saying the US conditions were excessive and that it will end the war when it chooses and if its conditions are met. Tehran insisted on its right to freely develop its ballistic missile program and sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.
On March 26, a senior Iranian official reportedly told Reuters that Tehran sees the 15-point plan as only serving the interests of the United States and Israel, calling it "one-sided and unfair."
A day earlier, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters there were "elements of truth" in the media reports but did not confirm any details.
She also suggested Trump will consider wider strikes on Iran if Tehran fails to "understand that they have been defeated militarily."
On March 26, US-based news outlet Axios cited two US officials and additional sources who said the US military is preparing a range of options for a potential "final blow" against Iran.
According to the report, possible scenarios included a US invasion or blockade of Kharg Island, Iran's primary oil export hub, as well as an invasion of Larak Island, which plays a key role in Tehran's control over the Strait of Hormuz.
A key oil and gas transit route, the Strait of Hormuz has became a central issue of the US-Israeli war with Iran. Shipping in the waterway -- a major artery for global oil and gas supplies -- has ground to a virtual halt due to Iranian strikes on some vessels and threats of more from Tehran.
During a press conference at the White House on March 26, Trump said he believed Tehran was seeking negotiations because of its "present" to the United States, which he said allowed 10 oil tankers to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
Tehran has said ships from "non-hostile" nations would have clear passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Officials have not specified which countries that includes, though vessels from Malaysia and Pakistan have reportedly been allowed passage.
Even if some ships are allowed through, the overall uncertainty, however, for shipping traffic has made it impossible to secure insurance, effectively blocking them using the
Separately, Trump has been pushing US allies to help the United States open the vital waterway. Several European countries said they were willing to consider helping once the conflict had ended, while others outright rejected the request, which came with no specifics.
On March 26, Trump criticized his NATO allies for not helping the United States in the campaign, adding that "the USA needs nothing from NATO."
"NATO nations have done absolutely nothing to help with the lunatic nation, now militarily decimated, of Iran," he wrote using all capital letters.
Speaking to Fox News last weekend, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said he understood Trump's frustration, adding the alliance was looking to work on the issue together with Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain.
At his annual remarks on March 26, Rutte did not mention the Strait of Hormuz but warned of Iran's ties with Russia.
He also reiterated that US weapon deliveries to Ukraine paid by Kyiv's European allies were "critical" as global attention has vastly shifted from Moscow's invasion to the conflict in the Middle East.
With reporting by Axios, Reuters, and Fox News
Landon Derentz: Markets Expect Quick Off-Ramp From Iran War
As the war with Iran continues, access to the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway that sees about one-fifth of the world's gas and oil transit through it, has become an urgent -- and uncertain -- objective.
US President Donald Trump called on NATO allies and major Asian partners, including China, to help secure the vital maritime corridor, but the response to his request was mixed.
Meanwhile, energy markets are reacting sharply: Brent crude surged past $115 per barrel last week before retreating slightly, and attacks on key infrastructure in Iran and Qatar have raised fears of a broader, longer-lasting supply shock.
Against this backdrop, Alex Raufoglu, RFE/RL's senior correspondent in Washington, D.C., spoke with Landon Derentz, former White House energy director during the first Trump administration and now vice president for energy and infrastructure at the Atlantic Council, about how markets are interpreting the crisis and what may come next.
RFE/RL: As markets respond to escalating tensions, with Brent crude now trading above $115 per barrel [at time of publication, the price was $106], are current price levels primarily reflecting a temporary geopolitical risk premium, or do they suggest investors are beginning to price in a more prolonged and structural supply shock?
Landon Derentz: I think they are looking at a premium right now. There is a distance between the physical market and the gap of losing 10 to 13 million barrels a day, and where the market is actually pricing the consequences of the current shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz.
So for me, there is still a bit of a transient nature to some of the price markers around the world, in particular Brent crude, because having a shortfall -- a market disruption of the scale we are seeing right now -- for any longer duration is going to lead to much higher prices over time.
RFE/RL: In that broader context, and given the recent attacks on Qatar's Ras Laffan Industrial City -- which accounts for roughly 20 percent of global LNG supply -- how should we understand the implications of this damage for the longer-term balance between oil and natural-gas markets?
Derentz: It is an interesting question, and it is a really important distinction. We talk significantly about the Strait of Hormuz in the context of shutting down oil, but it also has an impact on natural-gas markets.
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a major part of the global economy today. There are really three major exporters of liquefied natural gas: the US, Australia, and Qatar. Russia is also a significant exporter.
Ultimately, what has happened in the context of Ras Laffan is that natural gas is already shut in; the LNG cannot be exported because of constraints and shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, as Iran threatens global shipping and maritime navigation through the strait. So you cannot move LNG already, and about 20 percent of global liquefied natural gas comes through the Strait of Hormuz out of Qatar.
Now the Iranian regime has attacked the actual facilities, and that moves the natural-gas conversation from one that is transient, as we still see in the oil market, into one that is much more structural. QatarEnergy has announced that repairs could take between three to five years, and the amount of supply that is out is about 25 percent of its production.
We are looking at 20 million tons of liquefied natural gas on an annual basis that is not on the market, or about 5 percent of global supply. The consequences of what is going on right now in the Middle East will reverberate for some time, and not just during the conflict with Iran.
RFE/RL: Drawing on your experience in the first Trump administration, what is the current policy priority here: reopening the Strait of Hormuz or degrading Iran's asymmetric capabilities -- and how do these objectives interact?
Derentz: It is an interesting and nuanced question. The president made the decision to go into Iran because Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons. Throughout many administrations -- and even after the decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities earlier in his administration -- the reality is that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons at a relatively rapid rate. As we know, they have a missile and rocket capability that would make that even more damaging to global security and stability.
The president decided to take this action to address the nuclear weapons program, not so much regime change but that component of the discussion. The reason we are talking so much about the Strait of Hormuz is because it is a question of duration.
Historically, Iranian deterrence has been discussed in three categories. First is the global proxy network -- Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis -- as forward-deployed components to challenge adversaries outside of Iran and create chaos. The second is their missile and rocket program, including short-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles that challenge Israel, US installations, and partners in the Arab Gulf. The third is the nuclear program, where a nuclear-armed Iran would be far more difficult to address, similar to North Korea.
What we are seeing now with the Strait of Hormuz is effectively a fourth line of deterrence: asymmetric drone warfare and the geopolitical threat of holding the global economy hostage by disrupting trade flows and a significant share of global oil and gas through the strait. So the rationale for entering Iran is about the nuclear program. The importance of the Strait of Hormuz is that it provides the timeline and bandwidth to address the broader problem that triggered this confrontation.
RFE/RL: Given the administration's public appeals for allied support and the relatively cautious response from European and Asian partners so far, how does limited coalition participation affect both the speed and the overall feasibility of reopening the Strait of Hormuz?
Derentz: Every nation has limits in how it can extend its footprint in a given theater of conflict. If European partners, as well as those from East Asia and elsewhere, were to help secure and provide assets to protect critical energy infrastructure in the Gulf alongside our Gulf Arab allies, it would allow the United States to project its military power more forward over Iran.
Every incremental contribution from partners allows resources to be reallocated in ways that make it more difficult for Iran to succeed. From an ally's perspective, the key question is how existential this challenge is.
In my view, an Iran that emerges from this situation with a nuclear weapons program and the regime intact would be more dangerous over the long term. So the question becomes whether it is better to address this now or face a more difficult situation later as Iran continues to hold the global economy at risk.
RFE/RL: Staying with market dynamics and investor expectations, to what extent do you think markets are relying on the president to identify and implement an off-ramp to de-escalate the conflict, and, in your view, is that confidence potentially misplaced?
Derentz: This is a subject of a lot of debate. The reality is that markets still anticipate that the president will find an earlier off-ramp than may be realistic. That is partly because it does not depend only on President Trump's willingness to de-escalate. The Iranian regime sees this as an existential crisis for its survival and leadership, and it may not share the same interest.
It is reasonable to expect that Iran may continue to apply pressure on the global economy so that the consequences of a conflict with Iran are remembered. The key takeaway is that this conflict may extend far beyond a short-term action.
Even if the president decides to pivot to a cease-fire, that does not mean the Iranian regime will do the same. We should be prepared for a longer-duration conflict.
RFE/RL: At this stage, given that energy demand remains highly inelastic in the short term, what policy tools or market mechanisms -- if any -- could realistically contribute to bringing prices down in a sustained way?
Derentz: There are not many market mechanisms available to solve this problem. We are already drawing on global reserves, including barrels of oil already on the market. The president has even eased sanctions on Russian and Iranian cargo so that fuel continues to flow if it is already in transit.
The International Energy Agency and the United States have also used strategic petroleum reserves to provide a supply-side buffer. But these are temporary measures. Over time, as reserves are drawn down, there is no mechanism to offset a sustained shortfall of more than 10 million barrels per day.
The result is demand destruction, with significant consequences, particularly for emerging markets that cannot afford energy at elevated prices given the inelasticity of demand.
RFE/RL: In addition to supply disruptions, there is also the issue of damage to critical energy infrastructure. Even if the strait were to reopen in the near term, can markets truly stabilize while such damage may take years to repair?
Derentz: There is still an ongoing assessment of how much damage has been done. Iran has attacked some downstream refining capacity in Gulf Arab states, but, for the most part, oil markets appear intact. The major export infrastructure remains operational and capable of meeting global supply.
The question becomes how long it takes to ramp production back up and bring shut-in capacity online. Countries like Iraq and Kuwait have reduced production because storage is full. So it is largely a matter of timing and how quickly the system can return to full capacity if a cease-fire is reached.
RFE/RL: Expanding the lens beyond Western allies, how significant is China's position -- particularly given its dependence on energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz -- in shaping both market expectations and broader US strategic calculations in this crisis?
Derentz: China is one of the major pressure points for the Iranian regime. Over the past several years, China has built a very large strategic petroleum reserve, likely in the billions of barrels. That provides a buffer against short-term volatility, but China is still a major importer of crude oil, at around 10 to 12 million barrels per day. That is similar to where the United States was at its peak import dependence in the early 2000s.
While China has taken steps to enhance its supply security, that buffer will eventually decline. Over time, that could increase pressure on Iran.
At the same time, this is not only about supply. China depends on a stable global economy for growth. A prolonged period of high energy prices and economic slowdown could incentivize Beijing to push Iran toward de-escalation despite its existing buffer.
RFE/RL: Finally, when you look at this crisis, how is it different from the oil shocks of the 1970s, especially in terms of infrastructure targeting and broader vulnerabilities? What do you think the administration is getting right or wrong in trying to avoid a similar outcome?
Derentz: The crises of the 1970s were driven by producers choosing to constrain supply to exert geopolitical pressure. In this case, you have an adversary constraining global commerce at a scale that is largely unprecedented. There has not been a disruption of this magnitude since World War II in global energy markets.
This is not about suppliers withholding products: It is about a single actor using drones and missiles to disrupt global commerce and target partners in the region that had not inflicted damage on it.
What we are seeing is an Iranian regime acting out of desperation, with limited options and a willingness to escalate. That is a key distinction, and it underscores the scale of what is now the largest disruption to oil markets since World War II.