Damascus Documents in Geneva Negotiations: Incitement against the Regime is High Treason

Damascus Documents in Geneva Negotiations: Incitement against the Regime is High Treason
TT

Damascus Documents in Geneva Negotiations: Incitement against the Regime is High Treason

Damascus Documents in Geneva Negotiations: Incitement against the Regime is High Treason

“You are neither my friend nor my brother, you are just a colleague,” said one of the members of the Damascus delegation to a representative from the “other party” during the meetings of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva, which concluded on Friday evening.

These verbal comments do not reflect the depth of the gap between the parties to the talks. This rift, however, was highlighted in the texts of the counter proposals, which were obtained by Asharq Al-Awsat.

A document submitted by the head of the pro-government delegation, Ahmed al-Kuzbari, stated that a person, who violates the political system of governance, by using force, threats, incitement, or by provoking aggression on the territory of the state, communicating with hostile parties and dealing with any external party in any way that harms national interests, shall be convicted of high treason.

In another document, the pro-government delegation said: “The law shall criminalize anyone, who calls for the consolidation of subnational identities that affect the unity and security of society.”

It added: “The Constitution preserves cultural diversity within the framework of national unity,” pointing out that harming the army is “a crime punishable by law.”

UN Envoy Geir Pedersen

The seventh round of the Constitutional Committee meetings ended on Friday. While UN envoy Geir Pedersen did not announce a new date for the next round, the Damascus delegation proposed that they take place at the end of May.

Russian presidential envoy Alexander Lavrentiev, US envoy Ethan Goldrich, his Turkish counterpart Sedat Unal and other Western officials accompanied the negotiations, which were held within the framework of UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

Pedersen, who as usual avoided a press conference, said in a statement: “The Committee members in the first four days discussed draft constitutional texts on four basic constitutional principles: Basics of Governance, submitted by nominees of the Syrian Negotiations Commission, State Identity, submitted by some of the civil society nominees, State Symbols, submitted by nominees of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic and Regulation and Functions of Public Authorities, submitted by nominees of the Syrian Negotiations Commission.”

He continued: “On the fifth day, in line with the agreement, the delegations were expected to submit revisions to reflect the content of the discussions during the previous four days. All delegations offered at least some revisions to some of the texts presented. Some of these embodied amendments indicating an attempt to reflect the content of the discussions and narrow differences. Others contained no changes.”

On the Agreement

The node in the previous rounds was related to the fifth day of the session, as the Damascus delegation refused to reach joint formulations with the delegation of the Negotiations Commission headed by Hadi al-Bahra. This position forced Pedersen to shuffle between Moscow, Damascus and other capitals, until an understanding was reached that the counter-papers would be exchanged on the fifth day.

Some suggested that this meant formulating common texts, while Damascus interpreted it as a request to submit written comments, based on its reading of Pedersen’s invitation letter to the seventh round of talks.

Thus, 15 papers were submitted in response to four documents presented over the four days of the seventh round. These papers, the texts of which were obtained by Asharq Al-Awsat, revealed the depth of the gap between the parties.

State Symbols

Al-Kuzbari said in one of the documents: “Our delegation followed all the discussions that took place during the third day of the meeting on the principle of state symbols, as well as the proposals submitted by other parties about it. Our delegation expresses its dissatisfaction with any of the discussions or proposals presented to amend it, and affirms its adherence to the aforementioned principle, which states the following:

“The symbols of the Syrian Arab Republic represent higher national and well-established cultural values, and express its history, heritage and unity, and they are all unchangeable...

1- The flag of the Syrian Arab Republic consists of three colors: red, white and black. It has two green stars, each with five prongs. The flag has a rectangular shape, its width is two-thirds of its length, and consists of three rectangles of equal dimensions along the length of the flag, the top in red, the middle in white, and the bottom in black. The two stars are in the middle of the white rectangle.

2- “Humat ad-Diyar” is the national anthem of the Syrian Arab Republic.

3- Arabic is the official language of the Syrian Arab Republic.

4- The Syrian lira is the currency of the Syrian Arab Republic and the unit of measurement for its money.

5- The emblem of the Syrian Arab Republic is an Arab shield on which the national flag of the Syrian Arab Republic is engraved in its colors. The shield embraces an eagle holding in its claws a ribbon on which the “Syrian Arab Republic” is written in the Kufic script. At the bottom of the shield are two ears of wheat. The eagle, the ribbon, and the two ears of wheat shall be in golden color, and the writing and wing lines shall be in a light brown color.”

The delegation of the Negotiations Commission presented a document pertaining to state symbols, which read: “The history of the Syrian flag: it appears to the observer that it was subjected to alteration and modification several times, due to events or changes in the state, which, in the view of those concerned, required an alteration or modification, or a return to the adoption of another flag for a reason related to the context of historical events."

Since the Constitution is a text that has a spirit… there is a mutual influence relationship between the constitution and reality, a dialectical relationship represented in the impact of the political reality on the written texts, as well as the adaptation of the texts of the constitution to political developments…

We, in Syria, currently have two flags among the set of historical flags that are approved by millions of Syrians. A group believes that the independence flag (22/02/1932) represent them, while another group states that it is represented by the flag of unity (1/1/1958), which was adopted by [late Egyptian President] Gamal Abdel Nasser.

In our estimation, the revolution, which began with peaceful demonstrations since March 2011, has developed into what we all know. These events and circumstances deserve to be a reason to demand changing the flag again by more than half of the Syrian population.

Looking at the contexts of the Syrian constitutions, we find that the flag, slogan and anthem were referred to a special law that clarifies them:

- Article 6 of the 1950 Constitution states: “the emblem and national anthem of the Republic shall be designated by law.”

- In the 1973 Constitution, Article 6 states: “The law shall specify the state’s flag, emblem, anthem, and the provisions pertaining to each of them.”

The delegation of the Negotiations Commission added: “We are going through a historical stage that calls for change. As it is decided historically and in reality, there is no constitution that remains the same. Rather, it can vary with the change in the circumstances of the social contract that originally established it. We are undoubtedly facing the creation of a new social contract.”

State Identity

The document of the Damascus delegation stated: “Our delegation believes that there is no independent principle called "the identity of the state" in the constitutional sense, but principles or articles in the constitution that reflect this identity, however, to interact with the propositions and discussions that took place, we present the following modified vision":

“1 - Arabism is the basis, the historical origin and the unifying identity of all the people of the region, as well as the unifying framework for all the citizens of the Syrian Arab Republic, culturally, socially, civilly and humanly. It is not a choice governed by an interest or a goal, but rather an affiliation that is broader than being limited to race, religion, sect, language or interest.

2- The Arabic language is the official language of the Syrian Arab Republic. The state, with all its bodies, especially the educational, cultural and media institutions, guarantees its promotion and consolidation as one of the foundations of its national identity.

3 - The Syrian people, with their diverse social fabric, are an integral part of the Arab nation. They are proud of their Arab affiliation and are proud of their nation and its eternal civilizational message throughout history, in the face of all colonial, separatist and terrorist projects aimed at the disintegration of states.

4- The law criminalizes anyone who calls for the consolidation of subnational identities that affect the unity and security of society, and the constitution protects cultural diversity within the framework of national unity.”

Basics of Governance

The proposal submitted by the Negotiations Commission on Monday stated that the “system of governance in the state is republican based on the rule of law, respect for human dignity and the will of the people, and a full commitment to building a free, just and solidarity society.”

It added that sovereignty must be exercised by the people through the means of voting established in the constitution, “allowing them to freely and democratically express their will to choose who exercises power on their behalf, at the national and local levels, within the framework of political pluralism and the peaceful transfer of power.”

The document said that political parties are “an expression of political pluralism.” “Parties are established and they exercise their activities freely within the framework of the laws regulating their work, in a manner that does not conflict with the provisions of the Constitution.”

Al-Kuzbari presented a counter-paper, in which he stated: “Since the title presented by the other party, “Basics of Governance”, does not constitute a constitutional principle, and our delegation made this clear during the meetings, we present the following modified vision, based on a conceptual, not constitutional standpoint:

The Constitution preserves the political system of governance in the state. Any violation of it in any illegitimate way, especially through the use of force, threat of force, incitement, or encouragement of aggression against the state’s territory, communication with hostile parties, and dealing with any external party in any way that harms national interests, shall be condemned on charges of high treason.

“Loyalty to the state, its institutions, its Syrian Arab army and its armed forces is the duty of every citizen. Any intimidation against it, undermining its prestige or its role, or trying to change the structure of state institutions with the aim of weakening it, is a crime punishable by law.

“Political parties express political pluralism and contribute to the formation of the popular will. Any political activity outside the framework of licensed parties is prohibited by law. The creation and financing of parties and organizations is governed by national laws and regulations. Establishing parties, organizations or groupings on the basis of religious, sectarian, regional, ethnic or foreign allegiance is prohibited.”

In response to another paper, entitled, the Work of Institutions, the Damascus delegation presented a document, stating that the title was not a constitutional principle, and thus could not be discussed “before clearly defining the tasks and duties of the legislative, executive and judicial authorities, and the bodies and institutions emanating from them.”

Tension and Calm

The discussions that were taking place under Russian, American, regional and Western “censorship” saw tense and calm moments, amid an atmosphere that lacked warmth. Participants from Damascus stressed their “refusal of friendship or brotherhood.” There were calls to “focus on the richness of discussion and the evolvement of ideas, even with the lack of willingness to translate the progress of the dialogue into final proposals.”

Pedersen emphasized this last point, as he stated that he became “more optimistic at the end of the last session,” where he noticed a greater desire for discussion, dialogue and hearing opinions.

But he also pointed out that the gap remained wide and that the Committee should be governed by a sense of compromise and constructive engagement aimed at reaching a general agreement of its members, in line with the Terms of Reference and Core Rules of Procedure.

Pedersen said that he would soon seek, after consulting with the two co-chairs, to set the date of the next round in May, and that he would communicate with the government and the Negotiations Commission to develop more practical proposals to improve the process.

“Two-and-a-half years after the launching of the Constitutional Committee – an event that took nearly two years to bring about – there is a clear need for this commitment to be embodied in the Committee’s work, so that substantive issues begin to be bridged, and that the Committee begins to move substantively forward on its mandate to prepare and draft for popular approval a constitutional reform,” the UN envoy stated.



Is Iran Pushing Houthis Toward Military Action Against Washington?

Houthis continue mobilization, fundraising, and declare combat readiness (AP) 
Houthis continue mobilization, fundraising, and declare combat readiness (AP) 
TT

Is Iran Pushing Houthis Toward Military Action Against Washington?

Houthis continue mobilization, fundraising, and declare combat readiness (AP) 
Houthis continue mobilization, fundraising, and declare combat readiness (AP) 

As US military movements intensify in the Middle East and the possibility of strikes on Iran looms, Yemen’s Houthi group has continued military preparations, mobilizing fighters and establishing new weapons sites.

The Houthi mobilization comes at a time when the group is widely viewed as one of Iran’s most important regional arms for retaliation.

Although the Iran-backed group has not issued any official statement declaring its position on a potential US attack on Iran, its leaders have warned Washington against any military action and against bearing full responsibility for any escalation and its consequences.

They have hinted that any response would be handled in accordance with the group’s senior leadership's assessment, after evaluating developments and potential repercussions.

Despite these signals, some interpret the Houthis’ stance as an attempt to avoid drawing the attention of the current US administration, led by President Donald Trump, to the need for preemptive action in anticipation of a potential Houthi response.

The Trump administration previously launched a military campaign against the group in the spring of last year, inflicting heavy losses.

Islam al-Mansi, an Egyptian researcher specializing in Iranian affairs, said Iran may avoid burning all its cards unless absolutely necessary, particularly given US threats to raise the level of escalation should any Iranian military proxies intervene or take part in a confrontation.

Iran did not resort to using its military proxies during its confrontation with Israel or during a limited US strike last summer because it did not perceive an existential threat, al-Mansi said.

That calculation could change in the anticipated confrontation, potentially prompting Houthi intervention, including targeting US allies, interests, and military forces, he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Al-Mansi added that although Iran previously offered, within a negotiating framework, to abandon its regional proxies, including the Houthis, this makes it more likely that Tehran would use them in retaliation, noting that Iran created these groups to defend its territory from afar.

Many intelligence reports suggest that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has discussed with the Houthis the activation of alternative support arenas in a potential US-Iran confrontation, including the use of cells and weapons not previously deployed.

Visible readiness

In recent days, Chinese media outlets cited an unnamed Houthi military commander as saying the group had raised its alert level and carried out inspections of missile launch platforms in several areas across Yemen, including the strategically important Red Sea region.

In this context, Yemeni political researcher Salah Ali Salah said the Houthis would participate in defending Iran against any US attacks, citing the group’s media rhetoric accompanying mass rallies, which openly supports Iran’s right to defend itself.

While this rhetoric maintains some ambiguity regarding Iran, it repeatedly invokes the war in Gaza and renews Houthi pledges to resume military escalation in defense of the besieged enclave’s population, Salah told Asharq Al-Awsat.

He noted that Iran would not have shared advanced and sophisticated military technologies with the Houthis without a high degree of trust in their ability to use them in Iran’s interest.

In recent months, following Israeli strikes on the unrecognized Houthi government and several of its leaders, hardline Houthi figures demonstrating strong loyalty to Iran have become more prominent.

On the ground, the group has established new military sites and moved equipment and weapons to new locations along and near the coast, alongside the potential use of security cells beyond Yemen’s borders.

Salah said that if the threat of a military strike on Iran escalates, the Iranian response could take a more advanced form, potentially including efforts to close strategic waterways, placing the Bab al-Mandab Strait within the Houthis’ target range.

Many observers have expressed concern that the Houthis may have transferred fighters and intelligence cells outside Yemen over recent years to target US and Western interests in the region.

Open options

After a ceasefire was declared in Gaza, the Houthis lost one of their key justifications for mobilizing fighters and collecting funds. The group has since faced growing public anger over its practices and worsening humanitarian conditions, responding with media messaging aimed at convincing audiences that the battle is not over and that further rounds lie ahead.

Alongside weekly rallies in areas under their control in support of Gaza, the Houthis have carried out attacks on front lines with Yemen’s internationally recognized government, particularly in Taiz province.

Some military experts describe these incidents as probing attacks, while others see them as attempts to divert attention from other activities.

In this context, Walid al-Abara, head of the Yemen and Gulf Studies Center, said the Houthis entered a critical phase after the Gaza war ended, having lost one of the main justifications for their attacks on Red Sea shipping.

As a result, they may seek to manufacture new pretexts, including claims of sanctions imposed against them, to maintain media momentum and their regional role.

Al-Abara told Asharq Al-Awsat that the group has two other options. The first is redirecting its activity inward to strengthen its military and economic leverage, either to impose its conditions in any future settlement or to consolidate power.

The second is yielding to international and regional pressure and entering a negotiation track, particularly if sanctions intensify or its economic and military capacity declines.

According to an assessment by the Yemen and Gulf Studies Center, widespread protests in Iran are increasingly pressuring the regime’s ability to manage its regional influence at the same pace as before, without dismantling its network of proxies.

This reality is pushing Tehran toward a more cautious approach, governed by domestic priorities and cost-benefit calculations, while maintaining a minimum level of external influence without broad escalation.

Within this framework, al-Abara said Iran is likely to maintain a controlled continuity in its relationship with the Houthis through selective support that ensures the group remains effective.

However, an expansion of protests or a direct military strike on Iran could open the door to a deeper Houthi repositioning, including broader political and security concessions in exchange for regional guarantees.


The Gaza Ceasefire Began Months Ago. Here’s Why the Fighting Persists

Israeli soldiers and tanks stand in Gaza, as seen from the Israeli side of the Israel-Gaza border, in Israel, February 4, 2026. REUTERS/Amir Cohen
Israeli soldiers and tanks stand in Gaza, as seen from the Israeli side of the Israel-Gaza border, in Israel, February 4, 2026. REUTERS/Amir Cohen
TT

The Gaza Ceasefire Began Months Ago. Here’s Why the Fighting Persists

Israeli soldiers and tanks stand in Gaza, as seen from the Israeli side of the Israel-Gaza border, in Israel, February 4, 2026. REUTERS/Amir Cohen
Israeli soldiers and tanks stand in Gaza, as seen from the Israeli side of the Israel-Gaza border, in Israel, February 4, 2026. REUTERS/Amir Cohen

As the bodies of two dozen Palestinians killed in Israeli strikes arrived at hospitals in Gaza on Wednesday, the director of one asked a question that has echoed across the war-ravaged territory for months.

“Where is the ceasefire? Where are the mediators?” Shifa Hospital's Mohamed Abu Selmiya wrote on Facebook.

At least 556 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli strikes since a US-brokered truce came into effect in October, including 24 on Wednesday and 30 on Saturday, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. Four Israeli soldiers have been killed in Gaza in the same period, with more injured, including a soldier whom the military said was severely wounded when militants opened fire near the ceasefire line in northern Gaza overnight.

Other aspects of the agreement have stalled, including the deployment of an international security force, Hamas' disarmament and the start of Gaza's reconstruction. The opening of the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt raised hope of further progress, but fewer than 50 people were allowed to cross on Monday, The Associated Press said.

Hostages freed as other issues languish In October, after months of stalled negotiations, Israel and Hamas accepted a 20-point plan proposed by US President Donald Trump aimed at ending the war unleashed by Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack into Israel.

At the time, Trump said it would lead to a “Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace."

Hamas freed all the living hostages it still held at the outset of the deal in exchange for thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel and the remains of others.

But the larger issues the agreement sought to address, including the future governance of the strip, were met with reservations, and the US offered no firm timeline.

The return of the remains of hostages meanwhile stretched far beyond the 72-hour timeline outlined in the agreement. Israel recovered the body of the last hostage only last week, after accusing Hamas and other militant groups of violating the ceasefire by failing to return all of the bodies. The militants said they were unable to immediately locate all the remains because of the massive destruction caused by the war — a claim Israel rejected.

The ceasefire also called for an immediate influx of humanitarian aid, including equipment to clear rubble and rehabilitate infrastructure. The United Nations and humanitarian groups say aid deliveries to Gaza's 2 million Palestinians have fallen short due to customs clearance problems and other delays. COGAT, the Israeli military body overseeing aid to Gaza, has called the UN's claims “simply a lie.”

Ceasefire holds despite accusations

Violence has sharply declined since the ceasefire paused a war in which more than 71,800 Palestinians have been killed, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. The ministry is part of the Hamas-led government and maintains detailed records seen as generally reliable by UN agencies and independent experts.

Hamas-led militants killed some 1,200 people in the initial October 2023 attack and took around 250 hostage.

Both sides say the agreement is still in effect and use the word “ceasefire” in their communications. But Israel accuses Hamas fighters of operating beyond the truce line splitting Gaza in half, threatening its troops and occasionally opening fire, while Hamas accuses Israeli forces of gunfire and strikes on residential areas far from the line.

Palestinians have called on US and Arab mediators to get Israel to stop carrying out deadly strikes, which often kill civilians. Among those killed on Wednesday were five children, including two babies. Hamas, which accuses Israel of hundreds of violations, called it a “grave circumvention of the ceasefire agreement.”

In a joint statement on Sunday, eight Arab and Muslim countries condemned Israel’s actions since the agreement took effect and urged restraint from all sides “to preserve and sustain the ceasefire.”

Israel says it is responding to daily violations committed by Hamas and acting to protect its troops. “While Hamas’ actions undermine the ceasefire, Israel remains fully committed to upholding it,” the military said in a statement on Wednesday.

“One of the scenarios the (military) has to be ready for is Hamas is using a deception tactic like they did before October 7 and rearming and preparing for an attack when it’s comfortable for them,” said Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani, a military spokesperson.

Some signs of progress

The return of the remains of the last hostage, the limited opening of the Rafah crossing, and the naming of a Palestinian committee to govern Gaza and oversee its reconstruction showed a willingness to advance the agreement despite the violence.

Last month, US envoy Steve Witkoff, who played a key role in brokering the truce, said it was time for “transitioning from ceasefire to demilitarization, technocratic governance, and reconstruction.”

That will require Israel and Hamas to grapple with major issues on which they have been sharply divided, including whether Israel will fully withdraw from Gaza and Hamas will lay down its arms.

Though political leaders are holding onto the term “ceasefire” and have yet to withdraw from the process, there is growing despair in Gaza.

On Saturday, Atallah Abu Hadaiyed heard explosions in Gaza City during his morning prayers and ran outside to find his cousins lying on the ground as flames curled around them.

“We don’t know if we’re at war or at peace,” he said from a displacement camp, as tarpaulin strips blew off the tent behind him.


What to Know as Iran and US Set for Nuclear Talks in Oman

The flags of USA and Iran are displayed in Muscat, Oman, 25 April 2025. EPA/ALI HAIDER
The flags of USA and Iran are displayed in Muscat, Oman, 25 April 2025. EPA/ALI HAIDER
TT

What to Know as Iran and US Set for Nuclear Talks in Oman

The flags of USA and Iran are displayed in Muscat, Oman, 25 April 2025. EPA/ALI HAIDER
The flags of USA and Iran are displayed in Muscat, Oman, 25 April 2025. EPA/ALI HAIDER

Iran and the United States will hold talks Friday in Oman, their latest over Tehran's nuclear program after Israel launched a 12-day war on the country in June and Iran launched a bloody crackdown on nationwide protests.

US President Donald Trump has kept up pressure on Iran, suggesting America could attack Iran over the killing of peaceful demonstrators or if Tehran launches mass executions over the protests. Meanwhile, Trump has pushed Iran's nuclear program back into the frame as well after the June war disrupted five rounds of talks held in Rome and Muscat, Oman, last year.

Trump began the diplomacy initially by writing a letter last year to Iran’s 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to jump start these talks. Khamenei has warned Iran would respond to any attack with an attack of its own, particularly as the theocracy he commands reels following the protests.

Here’s what to know about Iran’s nuclear program and the tensions that have stalked relations between Tehran and Washington since the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

Trump writes letter to Khamenei Trump dispatched the letter to Khamenei on March 5, 2025, then gave a television interview the next day in which he acknowledged sending it. He said: “I’ve written them a letter saying, ‘I hope you’re going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing.’”

Since returning to the White House, the president has been pushing for talks while ratcheting up sanctions and suggesting a military strike by Israel or the US could target Iranian nuclear sites.

A previous letter from Trump during his first term drew an angry retort from the supreme leader.

But Trump’s letters to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in his first term led to face-to-face meetings, though no deals to limit Pyongyang’s atomic bombs and a missile program capable of reaching the continental US.

Oman mediated previous talks

Oman, a sultanate on the eastern edge of the Arabian Peninsula, has mediated talks between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff. The two men have met face to face after indirect talks, a rare occurrence due to the decades of tensions between the countries.

It hasn't been all smooth, however. Witkoff at one point made a television appearance in which he suggested 3.67% enrichment for Iran could be something the countries could agree on. But that’s exactly the terms set by the 2015 nuclear deal struck under former President Barack Obama, from which Trump unilaterally withdrew America. Witkoff, Trump and other American officials in the time since have maintained Iran can have no enrichment under any deal, something to which Tehran insists it won't agree.

Those negotiations ended, however, with Israel launching the war in June on Iran.

The 12-day war and nationwide protests Israel launched what became a 12-day war on Iran in June that included the US bombing Iranian nuclear sites. Iran later acknowledged in November that the attacks saw it halt all uranium enrichment in the country, though inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency have been unable to visit the bombed sites.

Iran soon experienced protests that began in late December over the collapse of the country's rial currency. Those demonstrations soon became nationwide, sparking Tehran to launch a bloody crackdown that killed thousands and saw tens of thousands detained by authorities.

Iran’s nuclear program worries the West Iran has insisted for decades that its nuclear program is peaceful. However, its officials increasingly threaten to pursue a nuclear weapon. Iran now enriches uranium to near weapons-grade levels of 60%, the only country in the world without a nuclear weapons program to do so.

Under the original 2015 nuclear deal, Iran was allowed to enrich uranium up to 3.67% purity and to maintain a uranium stockpile of 300 kilograms (661 pounds). The last report by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran’s program put its stockpile at some 9,870 kilograms (21,760 pounds), with a fraction of it enriched to 60%.

US intelligence agencies assess that Iran has yet to begin a weapons program, but has “undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so.” Iranian officials have threatened to pursue the bomb.

Decades of tense relations between Iran and the US Iran was once one of the US’s top allies in the Mideast under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who purchased American military weapons and allowed CIA technicians to run secret listening posts monitoring the neighboring Soviet Union. The CIA had fomented a 1953 coup that cemented the shah’s rule.

But in January 1979, the shah, fatally ill with cancer, fled Iran as mass demonstrations swelled against his rule. The Iranian Revolution followed, led by Grand Khomeini, and created Iran’s theocratic government.

Later that year, university students overran the US Embassy in Tehran, seeking the shah’s extradition and sparking the 444-day hostage crisis that saw diplomatic relations between Iran and the US severed.

The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s saw the US back Saddam Hussein. The “Tanker War” during that conflict saw the US launch a one-day assault that crippled Iran at sea, while the US later shot down an Iranian commercial airliner that the US military said it mistook for a warplane.

Iran and the US have seesawed between enmity and grudging diplomacy in the years since, with relations peaking when Tehran made the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. But Trump unilaterally withdrew America from the accord in 2018, sparking tensions in the Mideast that persist today.