US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright speaks to the media, outside of the West Wing of the White House, in Washington, DC, US, March 19, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kent Nishimura

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on Friday that the United States could stop Iran’s oil exports as part of President Donald Trump’s plan to pressure Tehran over its nuclear program.

The January return to the White House of Trump, who in his first term withdrew the US from a 2015 nuclear accord with Tehran and clamped down on its oil exports, has again brought a tougher approach to the Middle Eastern power over its nuclear work.

Wright, speaking to Reuters on a visit to Abu Dhabi, said he thought the Gulf allies of the United States were extremely concerned about a nuclear-powered Iran and shared the US resolve that this is an outcome that is in no one’s best interest.

Iranian oil exports recovered under Joe Biden, who became president after Trump’s first term, and so far in 2025 have yet to show a decline, according to industry data. China, which opposes unilateral sanctions, buys the bulk of Iran’s shipments.

“That’s actually very doable. President Trump actually did it in the first term,” Wright said when asked how the United States can enforce its maximum pressure policy on Tehran. “We can follow the ships leaving Iran. We know where they go. We can stop Iran’s export of oil.”

Asked if the US would directly stop Iranian ships at sea, he said, “I’m not going to talk about the specific methodology of how that’s going to happen. But can we turn the screws on Iran? 100 percent.”

Iran said on Friday that it was giving high-level nuclear talks with the United States on Saturday “a genuine chance” after Trump threatened bombing if discussions failed.

Asked if military action against Iran would lead to regime change, he said he would not talk specifics but “everything is on the table.”

“In the short run, because of the strength of American energy production and our relations with our allies, we‘re going to tighten the sanctions and tighten the ability for Iran to export oil. You start economic, you start with negotiations, we hope that’s enough. But the end of the day is, no nuclear armed Iran.”

OIL PRICES

Wright also predicted that there would be a positive outlook for oil demand and supply in the next few years under Trump’s policies, and the concern of markets about economic growth will be proven wrong.

Comfortable oil price levels are “not meaningfully different from where we are today,” he said.

“But of course industry’s got to be profitable to drive growth. And I think that’s going to come from a combination of structural impediments that are removed by the Trump administration and innovation by the industry.”

There was “no direct coordination” between the US and the OPEC+ producer group about its decision to boost supply “but we have very close relationships with our key allies” in the Gulf, Wright said, adding he believed they share the Trump administration’s view that “the world needs more energy.”

Trump, days after taking office, publicly called on the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and its de facto leader Saudi Arabia to reduce oil prices. OPEC and allies including Russia comprise the wider OPEC+ group. Its supply boost deepened an oil price plunge triggered by Trump’s sweeping tariffs announcement last week.

Wright will fly to Saudi Arabia for his next stop of a Middle East tour that is his first trip abroad in his role, followed by a visit to Qatar.

China will likely have slower oil demand growth over the next few years, he said when asked about the impact of Trump’s tariff policies, but said demand growth would come from places like South Asia and Latin America.

The post US Energy Secretary Says Washington Can Stop Iran’s Oil Exports first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

The New York Times building in New York City. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

The New York Times coverage of the US-Iran nuclear talks seems written from Iran’s perspective.

One Times article reports that the talks “come at a perilous moment, as Iran has lost the air defenses around its key nuclear sites because of precise Israeli strikes last October. And Iran can no longer rely on its proxy forces in the Middle East — Hamas, Hezbollah and the now-ousted Assad government in Syria — to threaten Israel with retaliation.”

For Israel and America, it’s a less perilous moment, as we no longer have to worry about our planes getting shot down by Iranian air defenses. “Perilous” seems to be from the point of view of the Iranian terror-sponsoring regime. For America and Iran, it’s a hopeful moment, as we may finally eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat or, even better yet, the terror-sponsoring and oppressive Iranian regime.

The same Times article, by David Sanger and Farnaz Fassihi, reports,  “Many Iranians have begun to talk openly about the need for the country to build a weapon since it has proved fairly defenseless in a series of missile exchanges with Israel last year.”

That spins the Iranian nuclear weapon as a matter of Iranian defense, when in fact the Iranians have been pursuing it for decades as part of their goal of wiping Israel off the map. Even the Times article concedes as much later on, reporting that “Iran’s nuclear infrastructure has been operating for decades and is spread around the country, much of it deep underground.”

The same Times article goes on to contend, “If Mr. Trump does not achieve full dismantlement, he will be forced to confront questions about whether he got anything more than the Obama administration got a decade ago. Mr. Trump dismissed that accord as a ‘disaster’ and an embarrassment, noting it would lift all restrictions on Iran’s nuclear production by 2030. Now his challenge, experts say, will be accomplishing more than Mr. Obama did.”

Who are these unnamed “experts”? Even if Trump simply walks away from the negotiating table without giving Iran the sanctions relief that Obama and Biden did, relief that that allowed funds and weapons to flow to Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists, he’ll accomplish more than Obama did. The Obama deal provided a $700 billion subsidy to the terror-sponsoring nation that has vowed to wipe Israel off the map, in exchange for unverifiable short-term promises of a pause in work on nuclear weapons, so “accomplishing more than Mr. Obama did” is a low bar. The Times “experts” apparently don’t include any with that opinion, or, if they do, the Times doesn’t share that view with readers.

In another article, the Times portrays it as a “concession” that Iran is merely willing to talk to America.

Iran has been ardently pursuing negotiations with the US for 30 years, since the Clinton administration, because those negotiations have the potential to pay off in sanctions relief of the sort granted by President Obama’s nuclear deal, which enriched the Iranian regime so that it was able to fund more Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism.

The Times reports in another piece previewing the negotiations, also by Farnaz Fassihi: “On Saturday, Iran and the United States will hold the first round of talks in Oman. If this progresses to face-to-face meetings, it would be a sign of a major concession by Iran, which has insisted it does not want to meet Americans directly.” That’s ridiculous. Merely negotiating isn’t a “major concession”—if anything, it’s a concession by America, which might reasonably take the position that Iran must shutter its nuclear weapons and missiles programs, release political prisoners, and cease its backing of terrorist organizations before earning a meeting with the US For Iran, a “major concession” would be verifiably abandoning the nuclear and missiles programs or ending its hostility toward Israel and America. Simply having a meeting is not a “major concession.” That’s Iranian spin, which the New York Times is passing along unlabeled to readers.

The New York Times has a long and not credible history of cheerleading for Iran nuclear deals with the US. Back in 2022, it relentlessly, breathlessly hyped a deal:

March 8, 2022: “Iran Nuclear Deal Nears Completion…”

January 31, 2022: “US and Allies Close to Reviving Nuclear Deal With Iran….”

January 12, 2022: “…the US and Iran Inch Closer to a Nuclear Pact”

Yet that deal never happened, and the Times never really adequately explained to readers why it so misled them about the likelihood of it.

Ira Stoll was managing editor of The Forward and North American editor of The Jerusalem Post. His media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here.

The post New York Times Takes Iran’s Side in US-Iran Talks first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio attends a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, DC, US, April 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Nathan Howard

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Thursday the United States will hold direct talks with Iran this weekend to discuss Iran’s nuclear program.

The talks between US special envoy Steve Witkoff and a senior Iranian leader are scheduled for Saturday in Oman.

“We hope that’ll lead to peace. We’ve been very clear what Iran is never going to have a nuclear weapon, and I think that’s what led to this meeting,” Rubio said during a Cabinet meeting chaired by President Donald Trump.

Trump on Monday made a surprise announcement that the United States and Iran were poised to begin direct talks on Tehran’s nuclear program on Saturday, warning that Iran would be in “great danger” if the talks were unsuccessful.

The announcement caused some confusion because Iran had said the talks would be indirect with the Omanis acting as mediators.

A US official familiar with the planning said the two delegations would be in the same room for the talks.

Trump on Wednesday repeated his threat to use military force if Iran did not agree to end its nuclear program, saying Israel would play a key role in any military action.

Trump said Iran could not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and if it declined to stop development efforts, military action could follow.

The post Rubio Says Direct US-Iran Nuclear Talks to Take Place on Saturday first appeared on Algemeiner.com.