Iran sought US pressure on Israel for ceasefire via Gulf states, sources say
By Parisa Hafezi, Samia Nakhoul and Andrew Mills
DUBAI (Reuters) -Tehran has asked Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Oman to press U.S. President Donald Trump to use his influence on Israel to agree to an immediate ceasefire with Iran in return for Iranian flexibility in nuclear negotiations, two Iranian and three regional sources told Reuters on Monday.
Gulf leaders and their top diplomats worked the phones all weekend, speaking to each other, to Tehran, Washington and beyond in an effort to prevent a widening of the biggest ever confrontation between longstanding enemies Israel and Iran.
Iran is willing to be flexible in the nuclear talks if a ceasefire is reached, one of the Iranian sources said.
The Gulf states are deeply concerned the conflict will spin out of control, a Gulf source close to government officials told Reuters.
Qatar, Oman and Saudi Arabia have all appealed to Washington to press Israel to agree to a ceasefire and to resume talks with Tehran towards a nuclear deal, the Gulf source said.
A regional source and an official briefed on Iran's communications with the Gulf said Tehran had reached out to Qatar and Oman to mediate a return to nuclear talks, but insisted that a ceasefire with Israel be put in place first.
Iran made clear to Oman and Qatar that it would not negotiate while it is under attack and will only begin serious negotiations once it has finished responding to Israeli strikes, the official said.
Iran's foreign ministry was not immediately available to respond to Reuters' request for comment. Qatar's foreign ministry, Oman's ministry of information, Saudi Arabia's international media office, the White House and the U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office did not respond to a request for comment.
When asked if a diplomatic mechanism was being worked out to end the campaign, Israeli National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi told Army Radio on Monday: "It is a little early for that. You don't go to war and look to end it three days later."
Israel launched a surprise attack on Iran on Friday morning that wiped out the top echelon of Iran's military command and damaged its nuclear sites, and says the campaign will continue to escalate with the stated goal of eliminating Tehran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon.
Iran insists its nuclear programme is civilian, not military.
PUSH TO RESUME TALKS
Mediator Oman is drafting a ceasefire proposal designed to restart talks between the U.S. and Iran on Iran's nuclear programme, another regional source said.
A sixth round of US-Iran that had been planned in Muscat last Sunday was cancelled a day after Israel's surprise attacks on Friday.
The Omani draft calls on the U.S. to accept Iran's suspension of all nuclear enrichment for a minimum of one to three years while allowing firm inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the regional sources told Reuters.
The proposed deal would aim to build trust so Iran could enrich uranium up to a purity of 3.67% and allow an international uranium consortium to take part in Iran's program.
That proposal overlaps with what one of the Iranian sources said Tehran could accept if Israel agreed to an immediate ceasefire: a one-year suspension of nuclear enrichment, full access to IAEA inspectors and confidence-building measures.
In return, the Iranian source said Iran expects the U.S. to recognise its right to a peaceful nuclear program and to lift sanctions.
The two Iranian sources said that Tehran had also asked Turkey to appeal to Trump and that Russian President Vladimir Putin had agreed to speak both to Trump and to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It is unclear if Russia would play a broader diplomatic role.
The Turkish president's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Iran has vowed to "open the gates of hell" in retaliation for Israeli attacks, but the two Iranian sources said that Tehran had also signaled its willingness to halt its strikes if Israel stopped attacking.
Tehran is serious about pursuing a ceasefire because of fears the war could spread across the region with consequences that could last for decades, one of the Iranian sources said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
34 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Is Regime Change Possible in Iran?
Israel's campaign to set back Iran's nuclear program reflects a shared, if mostly unspoken, ambition among Western and Arab allies: to end Iran's clerical regime. The terrible record of regime change efforts by the West has long muted such hopes—but Israel's early successes in the war are giving them interesting new life. The assessment of whether the regime might actually collapse is certainly a factor in America's calculations of how much deeper to involve itself. Washington's stated position of non-involvement is, of course, implausible. Israel would never have acted against U.S. wishes—it depends on America for the spare parts that keep its air force running, a diplomatic shield at the United Nations, legal cover against international tribunals, and critical support in intercepting Iranian missile and drone retaliation. That Israel also struck right around the 60-day deadline President Donald Trump had given Iran for engaging in useful talks—which Iran brazenly flouted—also points in the direction of coordination. But on the other hand, Trump is averse to military action and the United States has vulnerable military personnel, assets, and bases scattered across the region. That said, only the United States has the bunker-busting capability to fully take out the most fortified elements of Iran's nuclear program: the underground facilities at Natanz and Fordow. There is a scenario, after Israel does everything else, in which such an option may look attractive. It is reasonable to expect the Trump administration to first try a return to diplomacy, but of a more muscular variety than it had telegraphed in recent months. The U.S. previously seemed to be headed towards a renewed version of the Obama-era nuclear deal that Trump walked away from (unwisely, in my view) in 2018. But that was before the humiliation the regime has endured since Israel began its strikes Friday. Israeli jets have controlled Iran's skies, having wiped out air defenses; a host of senior figures, including the heads of the military and Revolutionary Guards as well as the top nuclear scientists, have been killed; many missile launchers have been disabled and a host of nuclear sites badly damaged. Most missiles sent from Iran have been intercepted, though some did get through, killing more than 20 people in Israel. With the regime thus exposed, perhaps Trump will finally issue a long-overdue ultimatum to Iran's clerical regime—not only to hand over its enriched uranium but also to end its outrageous efforts to undermine its neighbors with proxy militias and discontinue production of long-range ballistic missiles. If this happens and Iran stuck to its old positions, a U.S. military strike becomes more plausible. And from there, it is easy to envision escalation, especially if Iran hits at American targets like the Al Udeid airbase in Qatar. At that point, undermining the regime itself—through attacks on energy infrastructure, cyberattacks, information campaigns, and more—might be openly on the table. Would any of that be defensible? Do countries not retain the right to govern themselves? Such questions are never clear—but the case for regime change in Iran is good. By nearly every standard, the Islamic Republic has lost its legitimacy. It governs without meaningful consent, relying on violent repression, censorship, and an unaccountable clerical elite. It is anti-democratic by design, structurally incapable of reform, and fundamentally at odds with the aspirations of Iran's overwhelmingly young, urban, and globally aware population. It remains standing not through popular support but because of its efficiency in suppressing dissent, its control over the economy, and the fear it instills. Internationally, Iran's legitimacy is further eroded by its rather obvious pursuit of nuclear weapons, sponsorship of terrorism, and serial violations of human rights. Smoke from an explosion in southwest Tehran billows on June 16, 2025. Smoke from an explosion in southwest Tehran billows on June 16, 2025. ATTA KENARE / AFP/Getty Images The Iranian proxy militia project has devastated the region: Hezbollah has turned Lebanon into a failed state; Hamas and Islamic Jihad have perpetuated cycles of war in Gaza and the West Bank; the Houthis have destabilized Yemen; Shiite militias in Iraq have terrorized civilians. Uncoiling these tentacles would not just restore regional balance—it would free Arab states from the permanent hostage situation engineered in Tehran. Given all this, one could certainly argue that the Iranian regime has lost its right to demand noninterference by being a menace to its region. But that still leaves the question of practicality. After all, history is littered with failed regime change efforts from outsiders. The U.S.-backed invasion of Iraq toppled Saddam Hussein, but unleashed chaos, insurgency, and years of sectarian war. In Afghanistan, 20 years of Western nation-building collapsed in 11 days, ending with the odious Taliban back in power in Kabul. The Bay of Pigs invasion was a debacle that only strengthened Cuba's Fidel Castro. The CIA-backed overthrow of Chilean socialist Salvador Allende led to decades of dictatorship and considerable regret. More recently, Libya collapsed into anarchy after the fall of Moammar Gaddafi, and U.S. attempts to influence regime change in Venezuela have gone nowhere. What these cases teach is not that regime change is always doomed, but that external actors cannot impose internal legitimacy, decency, and stability. You cannot liberate a people who aren't prepared to act—or who might see you as the greater threat. Iran is a deeply nationalistic society, even if the people despise the Islamist regime. Any intervention that appears externally driven risks strengthening the regime's narrative and provoking backlash. The Revolutionary Guards thrive on the image of Iran as a besieged fortress. A misstep could entrench them further. So while regime change is not impossible, it must ultimately be homemade. The challenge is that the clerics have constructed a dense architecture of fear, dependency, surveillance, and economic patronage that enriched the men with guns. Civil society is fragmented, the opposition in exile is divided, and many are economically tied to the state. The most plausible scenario is a palace coup: a rupture within the military, perhaps even inside the Revolutionary Guards themselves. Both organizations have suffered humiliating setbacks in recent days, and it is not inconceivable that to protect their corrupt financial interests they might dump the aging clerical leadership, beginning with 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, compelling top clerics to flee Tehran. Might Trump authorize the carefully calibrated steps that could lead to such a scenario? For all his hawkish rhetoric, America's problematic president has shown a consistent aversion to prolonged military engagements—on top of an odd disdain for his own military and even for the Western alliance. He criticized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, avoided conflict with North Korea, and even declined to retaliate militarily after Iran shot down a U.S. drone in 2019. Yet he is also deeply drawn to dramatic successes and personal credit. Israel's successful strike campaign may prove tempting. A scenario where Trump issues a sweeping ultimatum to Iran, demands the dismantling of its missile and proxy projects, and positions himself as the architect of Iran's "freedom moment" might fit this brand. What follows could be very interesting indeed. At a moment of grave uncertainty, one thing is not in doubt: Even though a period of chaos may follow a collapse of the regime, the 90 million people of Iran deserve better than the theocratic prison they've been consigned to since 1979. Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor (also leading coverage from Iran) and London-based Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books. Follow him at The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Axios
34 minutes ago
- Axios
Most Americans view Supreme Court as partisan: Poll
While Americans have conflicting opinions on the Supreme Court, a majority agree that the Trump administration must comply with federal court orders, two recent polls found. The big picture: The high court is slated to make a slew of rulings in coming weeks on issues Americans remained deeply divided on, including on judicial power, birthright citizenship and gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Zoom in: Americans are divided on their views of the Supreme Court: 55% have a strongly or somewhat favorable view of the high court, while 45% have a somewhat or strongly unfavorable view, an NBC News Decision Desk Poll poll found. There's a partisan divide in how Americans view the judicial body, per a separate Reuters-Ipsos poll: 67% of Republicans viewing the high court favorably, compared to only 26% of Democrats. Something that both sides agree on: Neither Republicans nor Democrats see the court as politically neutral, according to the Reuters poll. Between the lines: The Supreme Court in recent months has been clearing away many of the hurdles lower courts have put in President Trump's path. The court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has three justices appointed by Trump during his first term. Still, legal battles over many aspects of his second-term agenda remain. Zoom out: The Trump administration has defied a number of court orders, particularly related to immigration policies. Americans are not on board, a NBC News Decision Desk Poll found. 81% of respondents believe the administration must follow federal court rulings and stop actions deemed illegal. Meanwhile, 19% believe the administration can ignore court rulings. Details: The Reuters-Ipsos poll, conducted June 11-12, was based on responses from 1,136 U.S. adults. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The NBC News Decision Desk Poll was conducted from May 30-June 10 among a national sample of 19,410 adults aged 18 and over. The error estimate is plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.
Axios
34 minutes ago
- Axios
Crypto, wallets, bibles: Trump's assets top $1.6 billion in latest disclosure
President Trump has made the presidency extremely profitable for himself. Why it matters: Trump continues to pursue wealth-building avenues tied to his political agenda as Democrats continue to allege massive conflicts of interest. Driving the news: The Trump Organization announced a phone business as its next venture on Monday, on the 10th anniversary of Trump announcing his first White House run. By the numbers: Trump reported more than $600 million in income from his cryptocurrency venture and a broad range of merchandise, according to financial documents released on Friday, the first disclosure of his assets since he returned to the White House. According to a Reuters calculation, Trump reported assets worth at least $1.6 billion. Trump disclosed a massive $57 million token sale through WLF Holdco LLC, which owns World Liberty Financial Inc., a Trump family crypto company for which Trump serves as "Chief Crypto Advocate." What they're saying:"President Trump, Vice President Vance, and senior White House staff have completed required ethics briefings and financial reporting obligations," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to Reuters. "The Trump Administration is committed to transparency and accessibility for the American people." Trump's crypto-friendly second-term has raised concerns from progressive Democrats about Trump's own financial stake in crypto, which stands to benefit from pending legislation. The other side: Concerns over the Trump family's crypto ventures have stalled passage of the bipartisan GENIUS Act, the Senate's first-ever stablecoin regulation. Some Democrats raised concerns after the New York Times reported that President Trump's family members could profit from the $2 billion deal of their stablecoins that would be used for a foreign transaction involving an Abu Dhabi investment fund. Merch has also been a boon for the president. Licensing deals that Trump has with companies selling products using his name and likeness translated to millions of dollars in royalties. That includes more than $1.3 million from Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" Bible. Trump, while campaigning in 2024, asked supporters to purchase the Bible – for $59.99 per copy – to "make America pray again." Trump also netted $2.5 million from Trump sneakers and fragrances, $2.8 million selling Trump watches, and more than $1 million on a "45" guitar. What we're watching: The president's phone venture, "Trump Mobile," is up next.
