US President Donald Trump said on Thursday that Washington is “very close” to reaching a nuclear deal with Iran after Tehran “sort of” agreed to its terms.

“Iran has sort of agreed to the terms: They’re not going to make, I call it, in a friendly way, nuclear dust. We’re not going to be making any nuclear dust in Iran,” he said.

Speaking at a business roundtable in the Qatari capital Doha, Trump reiterated that Iran “can’t have a nuclear weapon” and suggested that negotiators are “getting very close to maybe doing a deal.”

During his Gulf tour, Trump has repeatedly warned that Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon, threatening to strike the country if it fails to reach a nuclear deal. But he has not explicitly ruled out Iran enriching uranium on its own soil. While uranium is used as a nuclear fuel, it can be weaponized if enriched to high levels.

Iran has said that its right to enrich uranium is non-negotiable, but the Trump administration has sent mixed signals on its position on the matter.

In an interview with Breitbart last week, US foreign envoy Steve Witkoff said that an enrichment program in Iran is a “red line” for the US. In an earlier interview with Fox News, he had suggested that Iran could be allowed to enrich uranium to low levels.

Several rounds of talks have taken place between the US and Iran, but the most recent one in the Omani capital Muscat last weekend was described by the Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson as “difficult.”

Global oil prices fell after Trump’s comments. The price of a barrel of Brent crude, the global oil benchmark, fell over 3% Thursday morning to $64 a barrel. West Texas Intermediate, the US oil benchmark, was trading down 3.5% to almost $61 a barrel around the same time.

‘We are going to protect this country’

It is unclear what Trump meant by “nuclear dust,” but Gulf states, including Qatar, are concerned that an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could cause an environmental catastrophe in the region and drag them into a wider regional war.

Speaking in Doha, Trump vowed to “protect” Qatar.

“For this country in particular, because you’re right next door, you’re a stone’s throw away, not even, right? You’re a foot away. You can walk right into Iran. Other countries are much further away, so probably it’s not quite the same level of danger, but we are going to protect this country, this very special place with a special royal family,” he said.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian lambasted the threatening remarks by Trump.

The US president “is naive for thinking that he can come to our region, threaten us, and hope that we back down against his demands,” Pezeshkian told a group of academics during a gathering in Kermanshah Province on Wednesday, according to the Iranian media. “We will never negotiate our dignity. This is in the blood of every Iranian,”

“You have tried to bring Iran to its knees for the past 47 years. We have existed for thousands of years and will continue as one for the years to come,” he said.

On Wednesday, Trump repeated his threats, saying he doesn’t want nuclear talks in Iran to take a “violent course.”

“Two courses, there’s only two courses. There aren’t three or four or five, there’s two. There’s a friendly and a non-friendly, and non-friendly is a violent course, and I don’t want that. I’ll say it up front. I don’t want that, but they have to get moving,” the president said.

A controversial new American-backed organization, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), has announced it will begin delivering aid to the besieged territory within two weeks and says it has Israel’s approval.

The move would provide some relief for Gazans facing acute hunger from 19 months of war and a two-and-half month Israeli blockade of all food, water, medical and humanitarian supplies.

More than half of Gaza’s population faces “emergency” or “catastrophic” levels of hunger, according to a UN-backed panel considered an authority on the matter.

But the foundation has come under significant criticism from top humanitarian officials, who warn that it is insufficient, could endanger civilians and even encourage their forced displacement.

Here’s what we know about the new aid mechanism.

Why is Israel blocking food from entering Gaza?

Israel started a total blockade on Gaza on March 2, the day after the initial phase of a ceasefire with Hamas expired.

Officials said their goal was to force the group to accept new ceasefire terms and release hostages taken from Israel on October 7, 2023.

Israel and the United States have also accused Hamas of stealing aid intended for Gaza’s civilian population. Hamas has rejected those claims, and humanitarian aid organizations say the overwhelming majority of food aid reaches civilians in need.

Whatever the motivation, the impact is clear.

The hunger crisis long predates Israel’s total blockade. Since Hamas’ attack, Israel has severely restricted the amount of aid that can enter Gaza. And even before October 2023, Israel and Egypt had imposed a partial blockade on Gaza, meaning that 63% of the population was food insecure.

Now that figure is 100%, according to the World Food Programme (WFP). It says that 70,000 children need urgent treatment for “acute malnutrition.”

What is the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation?

It’s a non-profit set up at the urging of the American government to help alleviate hunger in Gaza, while complying with Israeli demands that the aid not reach Hamas.

The American ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, laid out some of the goals for the organization in a press conference in Jerusalem last week.

It’s being led by Jake Wood, a US military veteran who founded and ran Team Rubicon, which has provided humanitarian relief during natural disasters.

“Aid diversion, active combat, and restricted access have prevented life-saving assistance from reaching the people it is meant to serve and eroded donor confidence,” the foundation said in a memorandum on its objectives. “GHF was established to restore that vital lifeline through an independent, rigorously-audited model that gets assistance directly – and only – to those in need.”

In its initial press releases, the GHF listed some heavy hitters that would sit on its board, lending it significant legitimacy: David Beasley, the former executive director of the WFP, and Nate Mook, the former head of World Central Kitchen.

How would it work?

The foundation says that it will set up “Secure Distribution Sites” to feed 1.2 million of Gaza’s estimated 2.1 million population – eventually ramping up, it hopes, to serve every Gazan.

It says that it will provide “pre-packaged rations, hygiene kits, and medical supplies.” It plans to move the aid through “tightly controlled corridors, monitored in real time to prevent diversion.”

It will accept both financial donations and “goods-in-kind,” meaning direct donations of food and other aid.

The group says that it will coordinate with the Israeli military, but that security will be provided by private military contractors, including an American firm that was on the ground during a ceasefire earlier this year.

The foundation said in a statement on Wednesday that it has called on Israel to authorize the entry of aid through existing mechanisms as a stop-gap measure until it is up and running. Israel has not yet publicly agreed.

Where would the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation get its food and money?

It’s unclear.

In its announcement this week, the GHF said that it was “in the final stages of procuring large volumes of food aid to supplement existing pledges from humanitarian organizations operating in Gaza.” It said that that would equate to more than 300 million meals.

It did not list the suppliers.

Huckabee told reporters last week that “there are some people who have already committed to helping fund” but that “they don’t want to be disclosed as of yet.”

What about the United Nations?

The UN has long carried the heaviest burden in feeding, education, and treating Palestinians in Gaza.

Israel has long had a contentious relationship with UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, but it was completely ruptured in the aftermath of October 7.

The Israeli government says that some UNRWA staff members participated in the October 7 attack on Israel; the agency fired most of those accused, but says that Israel never provided it with evidence against them.

That led Israel’s parliament to ban UNRWA from operating in Israel, making any UN-led humanitarian efforts extremely difficult.

But more importantly, the UN has said that it refuses to participate in the new American-backed Gaza aid initiative.

Why are the UN and humanitarian groups so critical of it?

The UN’s humanitarian chief called it a “cynical sideshow” at the UN Security Council this week.

The UN and other aid groups say that the way the GHF intends to work violates some basic humanitarian principles.

The fact that the initial sites would only be in southern and central Gaza could, the UN warned, be seen to be encouraging Israel’s publicly stated goal of forcing “the entire Gazan population” out of northern Gaza, as Defense Minister Israel Katz put it earlier this month. (The foundation says it has asked Israel to help up set up distribution points in the north.)

The UN says that the Israeli military’s involvement in securing the sites – even at a remove – could discourage participation, or lead to recipients facing reprisals. Private military contractors, the UN warns, could use force as a crowd control mechanism.

And crucially, it says that the initiative is simply insufficient. There are currently 400 distribution points in Gaza; this program would only have a handful, forcing people to “walk long distances carrying heavy rations.”

The US and the GHF have both been at pains to say that it is not an Israeli initiative – despite Israel’s support for it, and role in designating and securing the distribution sites.

“They will not be involved in the distribution of the food or even in the bringing of the food into Gaza,” Ambassador Huckabee said, referring to Israel. “Their role will remain on the perimeter.”

The UN’s humanitarian chief, Tom Fletcher, was scathing in his assessment to the UN Security Council this week.

“It restricts aid to only one part of Gaza, while leaving other dire needs unmet,” he said. “It makes aid conditional on political and military aims. It makes starvation a bargaining chip. It is cynical sideshow. A deliberate distraction. A fig leaf for further violence and displacement.”

Jeremy Diamond contributed to this report.

In the end, it is the Kremlin’s plan playing out, and there appears to be little the White House will do about it.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s decision to send defense minister Rustam Umerov to meet with a low-level Russian delegation in Istanbul was a difficult choice forced by necessity. Its audience is one man: US President Donald Trump.

Kyiv must show it is willing to take any step at all to foster any kind of peace, or else it risks Trump slowly finding the pro-Kremlin voices around him rising in volume, getting bored of the processes entirely, and/or limiting aid to Ukraine.

But ultimately, the peace process is going exactly how Russia wants it to. Slowly, and with the Kremlin as its scheduler.

In the past week, since France, the United Kingdom, Germany and Poland stood with Ukraine and demanded a 30-day unconditional ceasefire to start on Monday, we have learned a lot about Putin and Trump’s real emotions here.

Firstly, the main revelation is the Kremlin is unafraid of further sanctions, of European pressure, and not cajoled by Trump. For now, Russian President Vladimir Putin sees the potential domestic pitfalls of a photo opportunity alongside the US president and his Ukrainian enemy to be far greater than the possible damage incurring Trump’s wrath may cause.

His rejection of this initiative is a calculated risk that may already be paying off. Trump’s reaction – to suggest “nothing is gonna happen” until he and Putin meet – throws all expectations for diplomacy to the wind until the pair have a bilateral summit. It permits Putin to pursue any course at liberty, aware the White House head does really believe there can be progress until the two presidents meet in person.

It is not impossible a bilateral meeting could happen soon, or even that the talks in Istanbul on Friday could spawn a leadership summit at the weekend. But Putin is likely relishing seeing the peace process inch forwards with just enough faux sincerity that the White House won’t drop it. Why rush? His forces are amassing near the eastern frontline, clearly with a larger Russian strategic objective in mind.

Putin’s decision to reject the overtures of Trump to attend reveal two key parts of his thinking. He was willing to endure the further “massive sanctions” France threatened for rejecting the ceasefire – and then the Istanbul summit too. And he likely also foresaw and gambled on, correctly, Trump’s limited anger. The Kremlin head was even willing to risk three days of speculation – and with it reject cajoling from Trump – as to whether he would attend, by keeping the world waiting for the composition of the Russian Istanbul delegation.

Putin may have been negotiating a bilateral with Trump as part of Turkey talks, or explicit conditions or concessions ahead of a presidential summit, or may have had absolutely no intention of accepting Zelensky’s offer. We may never know.

Zelensky now faces an awkward moment during which he must hover around the talks in case they suddenly escalate, yet not be seen be waiting Putin’s next move. A convenient summit – pre-planned, he said – awaits in Albania for Friday, but then he must urgently return to the war.

It is slowly becoming apparent that Trump may continue to shy away from the extra sanctions and consequences for Russia that Europe and his White House have hinted at. The limited and “technical” nature of the Russian team in Istanbul will provide just enough reason for Trump to hold out hope of progress, and delay adding pain to Moscow. The talks will likely sputter ahead, see the Kremlin present a series of maximalist demands, and Ukraine angrily demand a ceasefire that Russia continually rejects.

Even with the addition of Trump’s senior officials to the mix on Friday, there will likely be minimal progress and talks about further talks. And that is exactly how the Kremlin wants it.

After five days of confusion over Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposal for direct talks with Ukraine, the day they were supposed to begin initially brought only more of the same: a seven-hour stakeout on the banks of the Bosphorus, an unruly scrum at the Russian consulate, and finally a decision from Ukraine’s president that may open a new chapter in this intractable conflict.

Russia’s dogged defense of its position is a key reason the Russian president unexpectedly proposed these talks five days ago. Faced with an ultimatum from Kyiv and its allies to sign on to a 30-day ceasefire or face major new sanctions, Putin chose a third path.

“We are proposing to the Kyiv authorities to renew the negotiations, that they cut off” in 2022, he told journalists in a briefing early Sunday. And so, to reinforce that point, he picked the same city that hosted some of those early peace talks – Istanbul – and, he revealed late Wednesday, the same lead negotiator, Vladimir Medinsky, a former culture minister and chairman of Russia’s Military-Historical Society.

“The delegation is committed to a constructive approach,” Medinsky said in a brief appearance Thursday afternoon at the Russian consulate, in which he took no questions. The media scrum was so intense that consular officials could be overheard threatening to cancel the briefing if journalists didn’t calm down.

Medinsky claimed the direct talks were to “establish long-term peace, eliminating the root causes of the conflict.” The use of the phrase “root causes,” which for Russia run the gamut from Ukraine’s NATO ambitions all the way to its existence as a sovereign state, was a reminder of just how distant a deal could be.

And yet, to complicate things further, Russia and Ukraine are now balancing their own interests with their relationship with Donald Trump. The US president once again Thursday dangled the prospect of his own attendance at the talks, saying “if something happened” he would consider going on Friday. White House envoys Keith Kellogg and Steve Witkoff are already slated to be in Istanbul on Friday.

And Zelensky made no attempt to hide Trump was a key part of his eventual decision to engage with Russia. Emerging from his meeting with Erdogan in late afternoon, he said he would not only send a delegation to Istanbul, but it would be led by a higher-ranking official than the Russian side – Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, “out of respect for President Trump.”

Russia is also watching closely for Trump’s next move, still holding out hope for that promised reset in relations. And Trump may have raised those hopes Thursday, telling reporters as he arrived in Abu Dhabi, “nothing’s gonna happen until Putin and I get together.”

Former Russian diplomat Boris Bondarev, who left his post in Geneva in 2022, said he believes a meeting with Trump would be a major win for Putin, while he remains uninterested in meeting with Zelensky.