Iran’s foreign minister issued a stern warning to the United States this week, declaring Washington legally responsible for any Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, as tensions flare over media reports that Israel is preparing for such an attack. At the same time, the fifth round of direct nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States, mediated by Oman, is set to take place in Rome on Friday, highlighting both the fragile diplomatic tracks and the escalating regional threats.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi delivered Iran’s message in a letter to the United Nations, underscoring Tehran’s view that any Israeli aggression could not occur without at least tacit American support.
“We believe that in the event of any attack on the nuclear facilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran by the Zionist regime, the US government will also be involved and bear legal responsibility,” Araghchi wrote.
American media outlets this week reported that Israeli intelligence and military planners are drawing up scenarios for a possible strike on Iran’s key nuclear sites. Though Israel has neither confirmed nor denied the reports, they coincide with escalating public rhetoric from Israeli officials, who view Iran’s nuclear programme as an existential threat.
The Israeli government has repeatedly expressed skepticism over the ongoing nuclear talks, warning that Tehran is using diplomacy as a cover to advance its uranium enrichment activities. Prime Minister Yoav Gallant recently described Iran’s programme as being “within weeks” of producing weapons-grade material.
In response to the reports, Araghchi emphasized that Iran would consider any attack not as an isolated act by Israel, but as an act of aggression implicitly supported by Washington. Tehran has long contended that the U.S. plays a decisive role in enabling Israeli military actions through arms sales, diplomatic cover, and shared intelligence.
Despite mounting tensions, diplomacy continues. On Wednesday, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi announced that Iran and the United States would hold their fifth round of nuclear talks in Rome on Friday.
“The 5th round of Iran-US talks will take place in Rome this Friday,” Albusaidi said in a post on X (formerly Twitter).
Iran’s foreign ministry confirmed its participation shortly thereafter, stating that it had agreed “to a proposal put forward by (mediator) Oman… to organise another round of Iran-US talks.”
The dialogue marks the highest level of contact between the two nations since 2018, when former U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal.
The renewed talks are aimed at crafting a fresh agreement that would restrain Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for relief from crippling U.S.-led sanctions. However, both sides remain far apart on core issues—particularly the future of Iran’s uranium enrichment program.
In an interview with the conservative outlet Breitbart News, U.S. lead negotiator Steve Witkoff stated bluntly that “an enrichment programme can never exist in the state of Iran ever again. That’s our red line. No enrichment.”
That stance has been flatly rejected by Tehran. Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have called uranium enrichment a sovereign right.
“Denying Iran’s right to enrich uranium was a big mistake,” Khamenei said earlier this week, casting doubt on the efficacy of ongoing negotiations. “We don’t think it will lead to any outcome. We don’t know what will happen.”
Foreign Minister Araghchi echoed that view, insisting on Sunday that Iran would continue its enrichment activities “with or without a deal.”
Currently, Iran enriches uranium to 60 percent—well above the 3.67 percent cap allowed under the 2015 deal but still below the 90 percent threshold required for a nuclear weapon. This has alarmed Western powers and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which continues to express concerns over limited access to Iranian sites and data.
The original JCPOA was hailed as a diplomatic triumph in 2015, brokered by the Obama administration along with the European Union, China, and Russia. It provided sanctions relief in return for stringent restrictions and oversight on Iran’s nuclear programme.
But Trump’s 2018 withdrawal unraveled much of that framework, reimposing sanctions that severely damaged Iran’s economy and drove Tehran to roll back its compliance with the accord. In the aftermath, Iran resumed enrichment beyond JCPOA limits and restricted access for international inspectors.
The Biden administration has sought to restore a deal but has struggled to bridge key differences amid shifting political landscapes in both Washington and Tehran. Moreover, Iran’s expanded nuclear capabilities since 2019 have made the original terms increasingly obsolete, prompting negotiators to explore a modified, more comprehensive framework.
Meanwhile, the three European signatories of the 2015 deal—France, Germany, and the United Kingdom—are reportedly considering whether to trigger the JCPOA’s “snapback” mechanism. This clause would automatically reimpose all previous UN sanctions on Iran if it is found to be in breach of its commitments.
The deadline for using this mechanism expires in October, and European diplomats have voiced increasing frustration with Iran’s refusal to return to full compliance.
Araghchi has warned that triggering snapback sanctions would have “irreversible” consequences for diplomatic engagement.
Iran’s government faces increasing domestic pressure to resist U.S. and European demands. With inflation surging and sanctions still choking its economy, Iran’s leadership is leveraging nationalist sentiment around its nuclear program. Enrichment is often portrayed as a symbol of independence and technological self-reliance.
In parallel, hardline factions within Iran’s political elite are using the talks to test the West’s willingness to make concessions. The upcoming presidential elections in Iran, set for next year, also complicate the diplomatic environment.
For its part, Israel has made clear it will not tolerate what it calls a nuclear-armed Iran. While Israeli officials have stopped short of publicly confirming plans for a preemptive strike, the nation’s history of unilateral action—such as the 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor and the 2007 bombing of Syria’s suspected nuclear site—serves as a warning that it could act without coordination.
The risk of regional escalation is acute. A strike on Iranian facilities would likely provoke retaliation not just from Tehran but from its allied militias across the region, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and armed groups in Iraq and Syria. U.S. bases and assets throughout the Middle East could become targets in a broader conflict.
The United Nations has yet to issue a formal statement on Araghchi’s letter, but diplomats in New York say there is concern over the implications of a preemptive strike. The UN Security Council has repeatedly called for restraint and a return to diplomacy, but it remains divided over how to handle Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Russia and China, both Security Council members and signatories to the JCPOA, have pushed back on U.S. attempts to tighten sanctions or isolate Tehran further. They argue that Washington lost moral authority by withdrawing from the deal in the first place.
Meanwhile, regional powers like Saudi Arabia and the UAE are closely watching the Rome talks. Though historically hostile to Iran, they are also wary of another war in the Gulf that could disrupt energy markets and regional stability.
As Iran and the U.S. prepare to resume talks in Rome, the stakes could hardly be higher. The prospect of military confrontation looms large, diplomatic progress remains uncertain, and the nuclear clock continues to tick. Both sides appear dug in, and unless a breakthrough occurs soon, the window for a peaceful resolution may begin to close.
Iran has made clear that it views diplomacy as a path worth pursuing—but not at any cost. And as long as threats of military action hang over the negotiations, Tehran’s nuclear program will remain both a bargaining chip and a red line.
