By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Friday, Nov. 6, that the United States is continuing negotiations with Iran and making progress toward an agreement, despite growing concerns about another round of military strikes, warnings from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and reported emergency preparations near Iranian nuclear facilities. The president’s remarks came one day after Tehran submitted a new diplomatic proposal through Qatari intermediaries, outlining conditions for ending the conflict and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
“We are doing very well with Iran. We’re talking to Iran,” Trump told reporters Friday, maintaining that his administration was pursuing diplomatic progress while keeping military options available. “We have been we haven’t lost a soldier in seven months or six months. We have the Hormuz Strait opening, doing more business than they’ve ever done with oil. And we’re doing very well. And we are talking to them,” the president added.
The comments followed a White House national security meeting Thursday at which Trump reviewed options for further military action against Iran, according to Axios reporting on the administration’s deliberations. The administration has considered additional strikes against Iranian nuclear and military facilities, but officials have also examined whether renewed operations would improve Washington’s negotiating position or risk expanding the conflict. Trump has not announced a decision to resume attacks, and diplomatic contacts involving Qatar and other regional governments remain active.
Iran’s latest proposal was transmitted to Washington on Thursday, according to a Reuters report citing a senior Iranian official. Tehran reportedly presented seven conditions for further negotiations, including relief from American economic sanctions, access to frozen Iranian assets, compensation for wartime damage, an end to the U.S. naval blockade and a reduction in the American military presence in the Middle East. Iranian officials have also sought assurances that a negotiated settlement would permanently end hostilities rather than establish another temporary ceasefire.
The United States is reviewing the proposal, but significant disagreements remain over Iran’s nuclear activities and the sequence in which concessions would be implemented. Washington has insisted that nuclear restrictions form part of any initial agreement, while Iranian officials have demanded tangible American concessions before substantive negotiations proceed. Iranian security official Mohsen Rezaei said Thursday that Tehran would not reopen the Strait of Hormuz or enter negotiations until its conditions were satisfied, underscoring the gap between Trump’s optimistic assessment and Iran’s publicly stated position.
Qatar has intensified its mediation efforts, including discussions over a possible phased arrangement involving sanctions relief, access for international nuclear inspectors and the reopening of the strategic waterway. Trump also spoke with Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani on Friday about efforts to end the conflict, according to a report detailing the diplomatic exchanges. No agreement has been announced, and neither government has publicly accepted the terms under discussion.
The diplomatic efforts are unfolding alongside heightened military preparations. Iranian authorities have reportedly begun distributing potassium iodide tablets to residents living near nuclear installations, according to a report by Britain’s The Times. An Iranian health ministry official said authorities had sought to provide the tablets to communities within approximately two to three kilometers of nuclear facilities during periods of conflict, citing concern about potential radioactive contamination following an attack.
The reported precautions come amid renewed American discussion of strikes against Pickaxe Mountain, a suspected underground nuclear complex believed to be located beneath a heavily fortified mountain in Iran. The facility has attracted attention because of reports that Tehran may have moved uranium-enrichment equipment into tunnels designed to withstand conventional attacks. According to reporting on Iran’s emergency preparations, an Iranian political journalist was told during a recent briefing that officials were seriously considering the possibility of a U.S. nuclear strike against the complex. That account has not been independently substantiated, and the Trump administration has not publicly indicated that it is considering the use of nuclear weapons.
Potassium iodide tablets can reduce the thyroid gland’s absorption of radioactive iodine during certain nuclear emergencies when taken at the appropriate time. They do not prevent exposure to other radioactive materials or protect against the full range of hazards associated with a nuclear explosion or damage to a nuclear installation. The reported distribution therefore represents a precaution against one potential consequence of an attack, rather than evidence that nuclear weapons will be used.
Iranian military officials delivered a separate warning Friday, threatening retaliation against countries that assist the United States in renewed attacks. Brig. Gen. Ali Balali, a senior adviser to the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Aerospace Force, said foreign governments and military forces participating in an American operation would be considered legitimate targets. According to Iran’s Tasnim News Agency, Balali also maintained that Iran possesses domestically produced missiles capable of striking U.S. military installations and Israeli targets throughout the region.
Balali warned that Iran’s response would not necessarily be confined to the immediate area of an attack, while another Revolutionary Guards adviser, Hamid Reza Moqaddamfar, said countries providing military facilities for American operations could face retaliation extending beyond those bases. The warnings appeared directed partly at Gulf governments hosting U.S. forces, including the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Such threats have heightened concerns among regional officials who fear that another round of fighting could disrupt shipping, energy production and civilian infrastructure across the Middle East.
Trump responded to the broader confrontation Friday by defending his administration’s military campaign against Iran and its efforts to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In a Truth Social statement reported by Israel National News, the president wrote, “Israel and, in fact, the entire Middle East, WOULD NOT EXIST TODAY if I did not stop Iran from having a Nuclear Weapon.” He added, “Nobody wants to say that, but everybody knows it’s true!”
The president’s statement followed his announcement earlier in the week that the United States would end approximately $4 billion in annual military assistance to Israel by the end of 2026. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office characterized the proposed funding change as a transition toward a broader strategic partnership, although questions remain about how existing military assistance commitments would be handled. The development comes as disagreements over the Iran conflict have become increasingly visible within Trump’s own administration.
Vice President JD Vance has emerged as a prominent advocate for a negotiated settlement, arguing that the war contributed substantially to Republicans’ losses in Tuesday’s midterm elections. In a Nov. 4 statement reported by CBS News, Vance wrote, “The reason we lost is the war.” He maintained that voters were frustrated by the conflict, rising living costs and the administration’s relationship with Israel, and urged Republicans to address those concerns.
The disagreement extends to Netanyahu’s approach to Iran. According to Axios reporting published Nov. 5, Vance privately accused the Israeli prime minister of “being wrong on everything” regarding the conflict, reflecting tensions between officials who favor renewed military pressure and those advocating diplomacy. The report said Vance had warned that the war’s unpopularity could damage Republican candidates, a concern that became more prominent after Democrats won control of both congressional chambers.
Natan Sachs, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told Fox News Digital that the disagreement could have political implications for Vance as attention turns toward the 2028 presidential election. “Low-level hostility between Vance and Netanyahu is beneficial for Vance,” Sachs said. “It allows him to give some distance from the Trump administration, which has just taken a huge electoral beating, but also to position himself … in a very different position than President Trump himself without attacking Trump.”
Trump has acknowledged that the war and its effect on gasoline prices contributed to Republican election losses, but he has continued defending the decision to launch military operations against Iran. Asked Wednesday about Vance’s assessment, Trump said it was “largely true” that the conflict had affected voters, while maintaining that preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon justified the administration’s actions.
The United States and Israel began their military campaign against Iran on Feb. 28, triggering Iranian attacks against Israel and Gulf countries hosting American military installations. Subsequent fighting involving Iranian-aligned groups in Lebanon and Yemen has added to regional instability, while disruptions in and around the Strait of Hormuz have affected international energy markets. Although periods of reduced fighting have created opportunities for diplomacy, the two governments have not reached a comprehensive settlement addressing nuclear restrictions, sanctions, security guarantees and the future of American military operations.
The administration now faces a choice between continuing the Qatari-mediated negotiations and ordering additional military strikes intended to pressure Tehran into accepting American terms. Iran’s latest proposal demonstrates that diplomatic communications remain open, but its demands for sanctions relief, reparations and reduced U.S. military involvement present substantial obstacles to an agreement. At the same time, threats from Iranian military officials and preparations around nuclear installations indicate that Tehran is considering the possibility of renewed hostilities.
With Trump publicly expressing confidence in negotiations while reviewing military options, the immediate direction of U.S. policy remains unresolved. Any agreement would require significant concessions from at least one side, while another round of attacks could expose American forces, regional allies and international shipping routes to further retaliation.
Original article
Comments