Iran Air Flight 655 – Wikipedia
Iran Air Flight 655 was a scheduled Iran Air passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai. On 3 July 1988, the aircraft operating on this route was shot down by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USSVincennes under the command of William C. Rogers III. The incident took place in Iranian airspace, over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, and on the flight's usual flight path. The aircraft, an Airbus A300 B2-203, was destroyed by SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles fired from Vincennes. All 290 people on board died.[1] The cruiser Vincennes had entered Iranian territorial waters after one of its helicopters drew warning fire from Iranian speedboats operating within Iranian territorial limits.[2][3]
According to the United States government, the crew incorrectly identified the Iranian Airbus A300 as an attacking F-14A Tomcat fighter, a plane made in the United States and operated at that time by only two forces worldwide, the United States Navy and the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force. While the Iranian F-14s had been supplied by manufacturer Grumman in an air-to-air configuration only in the 1970s,[4][5] the crew of Vincennes had been briefed when entering the region that the Iranian F-14s carried unguided bombs as well as Maverick missiles and unguided rockets.[6] The Vincennes crew made ten attempts to contact the crew of the flight on military and civilian radio frequencies, but received no response.[7] The International Civil Aviation Organization said that the flight crew should have been monitoring the civilian frequency.[8]
According to the Iranian government, Vincennes negligently shot down the civilian aircraft: the airliner was making IFF squawks in Mode III (not Mode II used by Iranian military planes), a signal that identified it as a civilian craft.[9][10] The event generated a great deal of criticism of the United States. Some analysts blamed the captain of Vincennes, who had entered Iran's waters, for reckless and aggressive behavior in a tense and dangerous environment.[7][11]
In 1996, the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident...".[12] As part of the settlement, the United States did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran but agreed to pay on an ex gratia basis US$61.8 million, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims.[13]
Iran Air continues to use flight number 655 on the Tehran to Dubai route as a memorial to the victims. This event ranks tenth among the deadliest disasters in aviation history; the incident retains the record for highest death toll of any aviation incident in the Persian Gulf.
In 1984, the war between Iraq and Iran had expanded to include air attacks against oil tankers and merchant shipping of neighboring countries, some of whom were providing aid to Iraq by shipping Iraqi oil. The Flight 655 incident occurred a year after the Iraqi Air Force attack on the U.S. Navy guided-missile frigate USSStark on 17 May 1987, which killed 37 American sailors. U.S. naval forces had also exchanged gunfire with Iranian gunboats in late 1987, and the U.S. Navy guided-missile frigate USSSamuel B. Roberts had struck an Iranian sea mine in April 1988. Two months before the incident the US had engaged in Operation Praying Mantis, resulting in the sinking of the Iranian frigate Sahand. Tensions were therefore high in the Strait of Hormuz at the time of the incident with Flight 655.
In response to the pattern of attacks on shipping, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a NOTAM on 8 September 1987 warning all Persian Gulf countries that civilian aircraft must monitor 121.5MHz VHF aka the International Air Distress [IAD] frequency, or 234.0MHz UHF aka the Military Air Distress [MAD] frequency, and be prepared to identify themselves to US Navy ships and state their intentions.[14]
On 29 April 1988, the U.S. expanded the scope of its navy's protection to all friendly neutral shipping in the Persian Gulf outside declared exclusion zones, setting the stage for the shoot-down incident.[2] At about the same time, USSVincennes was rushed to the area on a short-notice deployment, as a result of high-level decisions, to compensate for the lack of AWACS coverage, which was hampering U.S. monitoring of the southern Persian Gulf. Vincennes, fitted with the then-new Aegis Combat System and under the command of Captain William C. Rogers III,[2] departed San Diego on 25 April 1988 and arrived in Bahrain on 29 May 1988.
As the Strait of Hormuz at its narrowest is 21 nautical miles (39km) wide,[15] in order to traverse the strait, ships must stay within sea lanes that pass through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman under the transit passage provisions of customary Law of the Sea.[16] It is therefore normal for ships, including warships, entering or leaving the Persian Gulf to transit Iranian territorial waters. During the IranIraq War the Iranian forces frequently boarded and inspected neutral cargo ships in the Strait of Hormuz in search of contraband destined for Iraq. While legal under international law, these inspections added to the tensions in the area.[2]
The plane, an Airbus A300B2 (registration EP-IBU), flown by Captain Mohsen Rezaian, 37, a veteran pilot with 7,000 hours of flight time, left Bandar Abbas at 10:17am Iran time (UTC +03:30), 27 minutes after its scheduled departure time. It should have been a 28-minute flight. After takeoff, it was directed by the Bandar Abbas tower to turn on its transponder and proceed over the Persian Gulf. The flight was assigned routinely to commercial air corridor Amber 59, a 20-mile (32km)-wide lane on a direct line to Dubai airport. The short distance made for a simple flight pattern: climb to 14,000 feet (4,300m), cruise for a short time, and descend into Dubai. The airliner was transmitting the correct transponder "squawk" code typical of a civilian aircraft and maintained radio contact in English with appropriate air traffic control facilities.
On the morning of 3 July, Vincennes was passing through the Strait of Hormuz returning from an escort duty.[2] A helicopter from USS Vincennes reported that it received small arms fire from Iranian patrol vessels as it observed from high altitude. The cruiser moved to engage the Iranian vessels, in the course of which they all violated Omani waters and left after being challenged and ordered to leave by a Royal Navy of Oman warship.[17]Vincennes then pursued the Iranian gunboats, entering Iranian territorial waters to open fire. USSSides and USSElmer Montgomery were nearby. Thus, USS Vincennes was in Iranian territorial waters at the time of the incident, as admitted by the US government in legal briefs and publicly by Admiral William Crowe on Nightline.[18][19] Admiral Crowe denied a U.S. government coverup of the incident and claimed that Vincennes's helicopter was over international waters initially, when it was first fired upon by the Iranian gunboats.[18][20]
Contrary to the accounts of various USS Vincennes crew members, the shipboard Aegis Combat System aboard Vincennes recorded that the Iranian airliner was climbing at the time and its radio transmitter was "squawking" on the Mode III civilian code only, rather than on military Mode II.[21]
After receiving no response to multiple radio challenges, and assuming the aeroplane was an Iranian F-14 Tomcat diving into an attack profile, USS Vincennes fired two surface-to-air missiles at the airliner. One of the missiles hit the airliner, which exploded and fell in fragments into the water. Everyone on board was killed.[22]
The event sparked an intense international controversy, with Iran condemning the U.S. attack. In mid-July 1988, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati asked the United Nations Security Council to condemn the United States saying the U.S. attack "could not have been a mistake" and was a "criminal act", an "atrocity" and a "massacre". George H. W. Bush, at the time vice president of the United States in the Reagan administration, defended his country at the United Nations by arguing that the U.S. attack had been a wartime incident and that the crew of Vincennes had acted appropriately to the situation.[23] The Soviet Union asked the U.S. to withdraw from the area and supported efforts by the Security Council to end the IranIraq War. Most of the remainder of the 13 delegates who spoke supported the U.S. position, saying one of the problems was that a 1987 resolution to end the Iran-Iraq war had been ignored.[24] Following the debate, Security Council Resolution 616 was passed expressing "deep distress" over the U.S. attack and "profound regret" for the loss of human lives, and stressing the need to end the IranIraq War as resolved in 1987.[25]
According to the documents submitted to the International Court of Justice by Iran, the aircraft was carrying 290 people: 274 passengers and a crew of 16. Of these 290, 254 were Iranian, 13 were Emiratis, 10 were Indians, six were Pakistanis, six were Yugoslavs and one was an Italian.[26]
According to the U.S. government, Vincennes mistakenly identified the Iranian airliner as an attacking military fighter. The officers misidentified the flight profile being flown by the Airbus A300B2 as being similar to that of an F-14A Tomcat during an attack run; however, the ship's own Aegis Combat System recorded the flight plan of the Iranian airliner as climbing (not descending as in an attack run) at the time of the incident.[21] The commercial flight had originated at Bandar Abbas, which served dual roles as a base for Iranian F-14 operations and as a hub for commercial, civilian flights.[11] According to the same reports, Vincennes tried unsuccessfully to contact the approaching aircraft, seven times on the military emergency frequency and three times on the civilian emergency frequency, but never on air traffic control frequencies. This civilian aircraft was not equipped to pick up military frequencies and the messages on the civilian emergency channel could have been directed at any aircraft. More confusion arose as the hailed speed was the ground speed, while the pilot's instruments displayed airspeed, a 50-knot (93km/h) difference.[27]
At 10:24am, with the civilian jet 11 nautical miles (20km) away, Vincennes fired two SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles, one of which hit the airliner.[22] After the attack, the Vincennes' crew realized that the plane had been a civilian airliner.
This version was finalized in a report by Admiral William Fogarty, entitled Formal Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Downing of Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July 1988 (the "Fogarty report") [6] Only parts of this report have been released (part I in 1988 and part II in 1993). The Fogarty report stated, "The data from USS Vincennes tapes, information from USS Sides and reliable intelligence information, corroborate the fact that [Iran Air Flight 655] was on a normal commercial air flight plan profile, in the assigned airway, squawking Mode III 6760, on a continuous ascent in altitude from take-off at Bandar Abbas to shoot-down".
When questioned in a 2000 BBC documentary, the U.S. government stated in a written answer that they believed the incident may have been caused by a simultaneous psychological condition amongst the 18 bridge crew of Vincennes called 'scenario fulfillment', which is said to occur when persons are under pressure. In such a situation, the men will carry out a training scenario, believing it to be reality while ignoring sensory information that contradicts the scenario. In the case of this incident, the scenario was an attack by a lone military aircraft.[28]
According to the Iranian government, the shooting down of IR 655 by Vincennes was an intentionally performed and unlawful act. Even if there was a mistaken identification, which Iran has not accepted, it argues that this constituted gross negligence and recklessness amounting to an international crime, not an accident.[29](4.524.54)
In particular, Iran expressed skepticism about claims of mis-identification, noting that Vincennes had advanced Aegis radar that correctly tracked the flight and its Mode III beacon; two other U.S. warships in the area, Sides and Montgomery, identified the aircraft as civilian; and the flight was well within a recognized international air corridor. It also noted that the crew of Vincennes was trained to handle simultaneous attacks by hundreds of enemy aircraft.[29](4.50) Iran found it more plausible that Vincennes "hankered for an opportunity to show its stuff".[29](4.52)
According to Iran, the U.S. had previously issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) warning aircraft that they were at risk of "defensive measures" if they had not been cleared from a regional airport and if they came within 5 nautical miles (9.3km) of a warship at an altitude of less than 2,000 feet (610m). IR 655 had been cleared from a regional airport and was well outside those limits when it was attacked.[29](4.62) Even if the plane had truly been an Iranian F-14, Iran argued that the U.S. would not have had the right to shoot it down, as it was flying within Iranian airspace and did not follow a path that could be considered an attack profile, nor did it illuminate Vincennes with radar.[29](4.604.61) Prior to the incident, Vincennes had entered Iranian territorial waters,[29](4.65) and was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched its missiles.[29](1.27) Even had the crew of IR 655 made mistakes, the U.S. Government remained responsible for the actions of the crew of Vincennes, under international law.[29](4.56)
Iran pointed out that in the past "the United States has steadfastly condemned the shooting down of aircraft, whether civil or military, by the armed forces of another State" and cited El Al Flight 402, Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 and Korean Air Lines Flight 007, among other incidents.[29](4.664.70) Iran also noted that when Iraq attacked USSStark, United States found Iraq fully responsible on the grounds that the Iraqi pilot "knew or should have known" that he was attacking a U.S. warship.[29](4.49)
John Barry and Roger Charles of Newsweek wrote in their 13 July 1992 article that Rogers acted recklessly and without due care.[18] However, the subsequent Fogarty report concluded that Rogers acted in a prudent manner based on the information available to him, and the short time frame involved. He also acted according to the prescribed rules of engagement for USN warship captains in that situation.
They also accused the U.S. government of a cover-up, but Admiral Crowe denied any knowledge.[30] An analysis of the events by the International Strategic Studies Association described the deployment of an Aegis cruiser in the zone as irresponsible and felt that the value placed on Aegis cruisers by the US Navy had played a major part in the setting of a low threshold for opening fire.[31]Vincennes had been nicknamed 'Robocruiser' by crew members and other US Navy ships, both in reference to its Aegis system, and to the supposed aggressive tendencies of its captain.[7]
The International Court of Justice case relating to the Airbus attack, "the Aerial Incident of July 3, 1988, (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)", was dropped on 22 February 1996 following settlement and reparations by the United States.[32]
Three years after the incident, Admiral William J. Crowe admitted on American television show Nightline that Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles.[19] This contradicted earlier Navy statements. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) report of December 1988 placed the USSVincennes(CG-49) well inside Iran's territorial waters.[33]
Commander David Carlson, commanding officer of USSSides, the warship stationed nearest to Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported to have said that the destruction of the aircraft "marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers's aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago".[34] His comment referred to incidents on 2 June, when Rogers had sailed Vincennes too close to an Iranian frigate undertaking a lawful search of a bulk carrier, launched a helicopter within 23 miles (3.24.8km) of an Iranian small craft despite rules of engagement requiring a four-mile (6.4km) separation, and opened fire on small Iranian military boats. Of those incidents, Carlson commented, "Why do you want an Aegis cruiser out there shooting up boats? It wasn't a smart thing to do." He also said that Iranian forces he had encountered in the area a month prior to the incident were "pointedly non-threatening" and professional.[35] At the time of Rogers's announcement to higher command that he was going to shoot down the plane, Carlson is reported to have been thunderstruck: "I said to folks around me, 'Why, what the hell is he doing?' I went through the drill again. F-14. He's climbing. By now this damn thing is at 7,000 feet." Carlson thought Vincennes might have more information, and was unaware that Rogers had been wrongly informed that the plane was diving.[34] Carlson is also reported to have written in the U.S. Naval Proceedings that he had "wondered aloud in disbelief" on hearing of Vincennes's intentions, speculating that the ship, known as "Robo Cruiser" for its aggressiveness, "felt a need to prove the viability of Aegis in the Persian Gulf, and that they hankered for the opportunity to show their stuff."[36]
Craig, Morales and Oliver, in a slide presentation published in M.I.T.'s Spring 2004 Aeronautics & Astronautics as the "USS Vincennes Incident", commented that Captain Rogers had "an undeniable and unequivocal tendency towards what I call 'picking a fight.'" On his own initiative, Rogers moved Vincennes 50 miles (80km) northeast to join USS Montgomery. An angry Captain Richard McKenna, Chief of Surface Warfare for the Commander of the Joint Task Force, ordered Rogers back to Abu Musa, but Vincennes helicopter pilot, Lt. Mark Collier, followed the Iranian speedboats as they retreated north, eventually taking some fire:
...the Vincennes jumps back into the fray. Heading towards the majority of the speedboats, he is unable to get a clear target. Also, the speedboats are now just slowly milling about in their own territorial waters. Despite clear information to the contrary, Rogers informs command that the gunboats are gathering speed and showing hostile intent and gains approval to fire upon them at 0939. Finally, in another fateful decision, he crosses the 12-nautical-mile (22km) limit off the coast and enters illegally into Iranian waters.[37]
Throughout its final flight, IR655 was in radio contact with various air traffic control services using standard civil aviation frequencies, and had spoken in English to Bandar Abbas Approach Control seconds before Vincennes launched its missiles. According to the U.S. Navy investigation Vincennes at that time had no equipment suitable for monitoring civil aviation frequencies, other than the International Air Distress frequency. Subsequently U.S. Navy warships in the area were equipped with dialable VHF radios, and access to flight plan information was sought, to better track commercial airliners.
The official ICAO report stated that ten attempts were made to contact Iran Air flight 655: seven on military frequencies and three on commercial frequencies, addressed to an "unidentified Iranian aircraft" and giving its speed as 350 knots (650km/h), which was the ground speed of the aircraft their radar reported.[7] The crew of the Iran Air 655, however, would have seen a speed of 300 knots (560km/h) on their cockpit instruments, which was their indicated airspeed, possibly leading them to conclude that the Vincennes was talking to another aircraft.[citation needed] Both Sides and Vincennes tried contacting flight 655 on several civilian and military frequencies. International investigations concluded that the crew of IR655 assumed that the three calls that they received before the missiles struck must have been directed at an Iranian P-3 Orion (see below).
Robert Entman of George Washington University studied coverage surrounding the incident in U.S. media, comparing it to the similar incident that happened to Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (shot down by Soviet Union five years earlier). Using material from five sources (Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, The Washington Post and CBS Evening News), the research found clearly evident framing techniques used to demonize and blame the foreign enemy.[41] He stated that by "de-emphasizing the agency and the victims and by the choice of graphics and adjectives, the news stories about the U.S. downing of an Iranian plane called it a technical problem while the Soviet downing of a Korean jet was portrayed as a moral outrage".[42] The study is important not only because it demonstrates the ethnocentric media bias, but also because Entman included polling that appears to show the unbalanced coverage swayed public opinion against the Soviet Union and Iran.[43]
In July 2014, when Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down in Ukraine, some commentators noted the discrepancy of U.S. official position and media coverage of the two similar incidents.[36][44][45][46]
Inside Iran, this shoot-down was perceived as a purposeful attack by United States, signalling that US was about to enter direct war against Iran on the side of Iraq.[10] In August 1988, a month after the shoot-down, the Iranian government released a postage stamp illustrating the event, where the ship shooting the missile is painted with the colors of the American flag, and the map of Iran is burning on the background.
In February 1996, the United States agreed to pay Iran US$131.8 million in settlement to discontinue a case brought by Iran in 1989 against the U.S. in the International Court of Justice relating to this incident,[32] together with other earlier claims before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.[12] US$61.8 million of the claim was in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed in the shoot-down: $300,000 per wage-earning victim and $150,000 per non-wage-earner. In total, 290 civilians on board were killed, 38 being non-Iranians and 66 being children. It was not disclosed how the remaining $70 million of the settlement was apportioned, though it appears a close approximation of the value of a used A300 jet at the time.
The U.S. government issued notes of regret for the loss of human lives, but never apologized or acknowledged wrongdoing.[13] George H. W. Bush, the vice president of the United States at the time commented on a separate occasion, speaking to a group of Republican ethnic leaders (7 Aug 1988) said: "I will never apologize for the United States I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy." The quote, although unrelated to the downing of the Iranian air liner, has been attributed as such.[47][48][49]
Bush used the phrase frequently[50] during the 1988 campaign and promised to "never apologize for the United States" months prior to the July 1988 shoot-down[51] and as early as January 1988.[52][53]
The incident overshadowed IranUnited States relations for many years. The former CIA analyst Kenneth M. Pollack wrote: "The shoot-down of Iran Air flight 655 was an accident, but that is not how it was seen in Tehran."[54] Following the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 five months later, the British and American governments initially blamed the PFLP-GC, a Palestinian militant group backed by Syria, with assumptions of assistance from Iran in retaliation for Iran Air Flight 655.
Despite the mistakes made in the downing of the plane, the men of the Vincennes were awarded Combat Action Ribbons for completion of their tours in a combat zone. The air-warfare coordinator on duty received the Navy Commendation Medal,[11] but The Washington Post reported in 1990 that the awards were for his entire tour from 1984 to 1988 and for his actions relating to the surface engagement with Iranian gunboats.[55] In 1990, Rogers was awarded the Legion of Merit "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ... from April 1987 to May 1989." The award was given for his service as the commanding officer of the Vincennes from April 1987 to May 1989. The citation made no mention of the downing of Iran Air 655.[56][57]
Coordinates: 264006N 560241E / 26.66833N 56.04472E / 26.66833; 56.04472
The rest is here:
Iran Air Flight 655 - Wikipedia
- U.S. negotiating position on Iran in flux as talks continue - The Washington Post - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Trump wants Iran deal but will be "leading the pack" for war without one - Axios - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Negotiations between Iran and the US over Tehran's nuclear program return to secluded Oman - AP News - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Congratulations to Paraguay for Confronting Iran and its Proxies - U.S. Department of State (.gov) - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- 'Waste That St': In Interview With Free Beacon, Fetterman Tells Trump To Dump Iran Talks and Destroy Tehran's Nuclear Facilities - freebeacon.com - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Iran rejects demand from US to rely on imported uranium - The Guardian - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Israel said to fear US moving fast toward bad deal that wont block Iran from nukes - The Times of Israel - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Iran fortifying buried nuclear sites as talks with US continue, report says - Reuters - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Iran, France signal readiness for nuclear talks amid US negotiations - Reuters - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Rubio says Iran must give up nuclear enrichment in any deal with the US - AP News - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- The US, Iran and the bomb - Al Jazeera - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- What do 'expert level' talks signal for the progress of Iran-U.S. nuclear negotiations? - NBC News - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Act of negotiating with Iran is 'problematic,' rocket scientist says - Fox Business - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- What do expert level talks signal for the progress of the Iran-US nuclear negotiations? - AP News - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- U.S. Offers Iran Civilian Nuclear Program in Possible Compromise With Tehran - WSJ - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- As Iran fortifies nuke sites, US says it can have civilian nuclear program if no enrichment - The Times of Israel - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Iran weighs pace of nuclear talks with US, unsure if to push for deal with Trump - analysis - The Jerusalem Post - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Iran's FM Araghchi to head to Oman for nuclear talks with US - The New Arab - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- UN watchdog asks Iran to clarify tunnels but upbeat on deal - France 24 - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Trump: Willing to meet Leader Khamenei as Iran talks advance - Shafaq News - - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Rubio says war with Iran would be much messier than what people are used to seeing - The Hill - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- After blows to proxies, Iran advances huge space program with Russian assistance - The Times of Israel - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- Everything you need to know about Iran-US nuclear negotiations - Al Jazeera - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- Source close to White House: US-Iran talks expected to collapse - www.israelhayom.com - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- Iran-US talks over Tehrans nuclear program hinge on a billionaire and a seasoned diplomat - AP News - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- Iran, US task experts with framework for a nuclear deal after 'progress' in talks - Reuters - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- US and Iran say talks over Tehrans nuclear program make progress and set plans for more - AP News - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- Trump cant afford to simply revive Obamas Iran nuclear deal - Atlantic Council - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- What to know about the tensions between Iran and the US before their second round of talks - AP News - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- In Iran Talks, Trump Is Edging Toward Reviving an Old Deal - The New York Times - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- Iran, US report progress in nuclear talks, confirm third round next week - Al Jazeera - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- Iran Says Talks With U.S. to Continue After Positive Meeting - WSJ - WSJ - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- Iran says nuclear deal is possible if Washington is realistic - Reuters - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- After Rome talks, Tehran says Iran and US to start designing framework for nuclear deal - The Times of Israel - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- Trump Is About to Learn That Iran Is a Problem Without a Solution - Foreign Policy - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- Hopes for Iran nuclear talks tempered by threats and mixed messages - BBC - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- With his promises of peace unmet in Gaza and Ukraine, Trump may find Iran just as tough - Reuters - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- Second round of US-Iran nuclear talks end, third round set for next week - France 24 - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- U.S., Iran officials project progress in second round of nuclear talks - The Washington Post - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- Iran offered US a nuclear agreement with same enrichment cap as 2015 deal report - The Times of Israel - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- As Iran talks resume, White House fends off bombing hawks - The Washington Post - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- Trump says he is in no rush to attack Iran over nuclear program - Reuters - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- US-Iran: future stability of Middle East hangs on success of nuclear deal but initial signs are not good - The Conversation - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- Omans sultan to meet Putin in Moscow after Iran-US nuclear talks mediated by Muscat - The Times of Israel - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- Israel said to still eye limited attack on Iran nuclear sites despite Trump waving off plan - The Times of Israel - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- Netanyahu: We will not surrender to Hamas, Iran won't have a nuclear weapon - The Jerusalem Post - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- US and Iran agree to another round of talks to end nuclear stand-off - Financial Times - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- Mossad chief, Dermer meet US envoy Witkoff in Paris ahead of US-Iran nuclear talks - The Times of Israel - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- Iran and US move to expert-level talks after 'good meeting' in Rome - Middle East Eye - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- April 19: US official: Very good progress made in Iran talks; well meet again next week - The Times of Israel - April 21st, 2025 [April 21st, 2025]
- Iran confirms that the 2nd round of nuclear talks with the US will be in Rome - AP News - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Iran's Khamenei sends letter to Putin ahead of talks with US - Reuters - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Saudi defence minister arrives in Tehran ahead of Iran-US talks - Reuters - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Iran Says Despite Shifting U.S. Messages, It Plans to Keep Participating in Nuclear Talks - The New York Times - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Opinion | Its a Mistake to Think the Biggest Problem With Iran Is Nuclear Weapons - The New York Times - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Mike Pompeo: We Dont Need a Fake Deal with Iran - The Free Press - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Ahead of 2nd round of nuclear negotiations, U.S. and Iran harden positions - PBS - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- US, Iran Set for Second Round of Nuclear Talks as Iranian FM Warns Against Unrealistic Demands - Algemeiner.com - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Trump team's Iran divide: Dialogue vs. detonation to end nuclear threat - Axios - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Iran says its right to uranium enrichment is non-negotiable - Reuters - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Iran confirms next round of nuclear talks with US set for Rome on Saturday - Al Jazeera - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Oil posts weekly gain on trade deal hopes, new Iran sanctions - Reuters - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Trump Warns Iran: A Nuclear Iran Will Never Bring Happiness to Its People - kurdistan24.net - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Scoop: Trump holds situation room meeting on Iran nuclear deal negotiations - Axios - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Why Iran Doesnt Need the Bomb - The National Interest - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Iran's folded rocks: The crumpled mountains at the intersection of Asia and Europe - Live Science - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- IAEA chief on Tehran visit: Iran, US dont have much time to reach nuclear deal - The Times of Israel - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Trump Gives Conflicting Signals and Mixed Messages on Iran Nuclear Talks - The New York Times - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Trump holds Situation Room meeting on Iran, officials say - Reuters - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Trump warns Iran it can thrive and be a great country without death - Cleveland.com - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Another US aircraft carrier in Mideast waters ahead of second round of Iran-US nuclear talks - AP News - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Trump blocked Israeli-proposed joint attack on Iran to pursue nuclear deal report - The Times of Israel - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- If US and Iran Clash, This Remote Base Could Be First To Fight - Newsweek - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Trump Trashed the Iran Nuclear Deal. Will His Be Any Better? - The New York Times - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Iran wants to drag out talks, Trump wants a deal now. Neither is good for Israel - The Times of Israel - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Rubio blames Iran for JCPOA collapse, overlooks U.S. withdrawal from the deal - Tehran Times - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Iran seeks Russia's support for its nuclear talks with US - theheraldreview.com - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Iran believes it can reach nuclear agreement with US, wants Russia to play role - The Times of Israel - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- Iran wants guarantees Trump will not quit a new nuclear pact, official says - The Times of Israel - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]
- US-Iran talks to be held in Rome following confusion over location - Euronews.com - April 18th, 2025 [April 18th, 2025]