Former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has shifted her stance on Iran's nuclear capabilities, now suggesting the country could develop a nuclear weapon "within weeks." This follows criticism from former President Donald Trump, who previously called her "wrong" for claiming Iran wasn't pursuing nukes.

Editor’s Note: Gabbard’s reversal adds fuel to an already tense debate about Iran’s nuclear ambitions—a topic with huge implications for global security. Whether you trust her assessment or not, it underscores how murky and high-stakes nuclear intelligence can be, especially when political figures publicly clash over it.

A former Iranian nuclear negotiator and diplomat, Sayed Hossein Mousavian, sat down with FRANCE 24 to discuss how he’d approach rebuilding trust in Iran’s nuclear program if he were still at the negotiating table. Now a Princeton scholar, Mousavian shared his perspective on diplomacy and the challenges of easing global concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Editor’s Note: With stalled nuclear talks and lingering skepticism about Iran’s intentions, insights from an insider like Mousavian offer a rare glimpse into the diplomatic playbook. His views matter because they hint at potential pathways—or roadblocks—to reviving the 2015 nuclear deal or forging new agreements. For anyone tracking geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, this is a nuanced take worth paying attention to.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi has landed in Istanbul for the 51st Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) meeting, where he’s pushing for the bloc to condemn what he calls Israel’s aggression against Iran. Araqchi plans to rally support from other foreign ministers and Turkish leaders, arguing that Tehran’s right to self-defense should be recognized. This comes after recent talks with European officials and Iran’s demand that Israel halt its alleged attacks.

Editor’s Note: Tensions between Iran and Israel are spilling over into international forums, with Tehran trying to drum up solidarity among Muslim-majority nations. If the OIC takes a strong stance, it could further isolate Israel diplomatically—or deepen divisions within the group if some members hesitate to back Iran. Either way, it’s another flashpoint in a region already on edge.

Iran has shut the door on any new nuclear talks until attacks between itself and Israel stop, escalating tensions just a day after Tehran rejected negotiations over its nuclear program. The back-and-forth strikes suggest a dangerous cycle of retaliation, with no diplomatic off-ramp in sight.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just another headline about distant conflicts—it’s a worrying signal that diplomacy is crumbling when it’s needed most. With Iran digging in on its nuclear stance and violence flaring, the risk of a wider regional crisis is growing. For global security and energy markets, that’s a big deal.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, citing a recent IAEA report that found no evidence of Iran pursuing nuclear weapons. His remarks come amid ongoing international scrutiny over Iran's nuclear program.

Editor’s Note: This isn't just about Iran—it's a geopolitical chess move. Putin's statement reinforces Russia's support for Iran amid Western suspicions, while also highlighting the IAEA's role as a watchdog. For readers, it’s a reminder that nuclear energy debates are as much about politics as they are about science.

If Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were to lose power, there’s no clear path for what comes next—and Israel might be rolling the dice by assuming his successor would be any more moderate. Experts warn that the next leader could be just as hard-line, or even more so, leaving regional tensions unresolved.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just about Iran’s internal politics—it’s a high-stakes question for the entire Middle East. If Israel (or others) are banking on a softer regime post-Khamenei, they might be in for a rude awakening. The uncertainty alone could fuel more instability in an already volatile region.

President Trump is hitting pause on any immediate military action against Iran, opting to wait and see if the escalating nuclear crisis resolves itself in his favor. But this two-week delay is risky—it could either defuse tensions or give Iran more time to advance its nuclear program. The big question is: how long will this waiting game last before a decision is forced?

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just about Trump’s next move—it’s about whether stalling avoids war or makes it more likely. With Iran’s nuclear ambitions at the center, the stakes are high, and the clock is ticking. The world’s watching to see if this gamble pays off or backfires.

Former Democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has publicly supported Donald Trump’s unverified claim that Iran could develop a nuclear weapon "within weeks." Meanwhile, Trump continues to push baseless allegations of election fraud in the 2020 race, insisting the evidence is "massive" without presenting any. The article also links to ongoing coverage of tensions between Iran and Israel.

Editor’s Note: Gabbard’s endorsement of Trump’s claim adds fuel to an already heated debate about Iran’s nuclear capabilities—a topic with serious geopolitical implications. At the same time, Trump’s recycled election fraud rhetoric keeps divisive political narratives alive, despite a lack of evidence. Together, these developments underscore how polarizing figures shape public discourse on national security and democracy, often with little factual grounding.

The article suggests that diplomacy, not military action, is the most viable path to addressing Iran's nuclear ambitions. It highlights President Trump's perspective that a negotiated deal could prevent the U.S. from getting entangled in another costly Middle Eastern conflict while also avoiding economic fallout like surging oil prices.

Editor’s Note: This isn't just about nukes—it's about avoiding a chain reaction of bad outcomes. Another war in the region would strain global stability, and spiking oil prices would hit everyday wallets. The story underscores how high-stakes diplomacy can ripple far beyond the negotiating table.