ROME—Iran and the United States are poised to resume nuclear negotiations in Rome on Saturday, in a renewed effort to bridge a decades-long impasse over Tehran’s atomic programme.
The talks, taking place under the looming threat of potential U.S. military action, come as President Donald Trump reasserts his hardline stance. “I’m for stopping Iran, very simply, from having a nuclear weapon. They can’t have a nuclear weapon. I want Iran to be great and prosperous and terrific,” he told reporters on Friday.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, are expected to engage in indirect discussions mediated by Omani officials. This follows a first round in Muscat last week, which both sides described as constructive.
Despite signs of progress, Tehran has sought to temper expectations, cautioning against the assumption that sanctions relief is imminent. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, remarked this week that he remains “neither overly optimistic nor pessimistic” about the negotiations.
Trump, who withdrew from the 2015 nuclear accord during his first term and reinstated harsh sanctions, has ramped up pressure since returning to office in January. Washington is demanding that Iran cease its enrichment of uranium to levels it believes could lead to the development of nuclear weapons.
Tehran, for its part, insists its nuclear programme is strictly for peaceful purposes. Officials have signalled a willingness to discuss limits on enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief, but are demanding firm guarantees that the U.S. will not walk away from any future agreement, as it did in 2018.
Since 2019, Iran has significantly exceeded the uranium enrichment limits set by the 2015 deal, amassing stockpiles far beyond what Western powers deem necessary for civilian energy use. It has also ruled out negotiations over its missile programme or other aspects of its military capabilities.
Although both sides have publicly committed to diplomacy, substantial differences remain. The two countries have not engaged in direct nuclear talks since 2015. Last week’s brief interaction between Araqchi and Witkoff marked a rare moment of contact, but Saturday’s discussions in Rome will again proceed indirectly, facilitated by Omani intermediaries.
![UK Supreme Court Declares Transgender Women Not Legally 'Woman' Under Equality Act The United Kingdom Supreme Court has declared that transgender women, even those with Gender Recognition Certificates, do not fall under the legal definition of "woman" as set out in the landmark Equality Act 2010. The judgment, delivered by five justices on Wednesday could upend years of hard-fought progress by the trans rights movement and is already fuelling calls for a redraft of the Equality Act. The case, a flashpoint in an increasingly polarised gender rights war, was triggered by a challenge from gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS). Backed in part by author J.K. Rowling and the advocacy group Sex Matters, FWS argued that the term "woman" in the Equality Act must be understood biologically, and not through self-identification or legal paperwork. The Scottish government, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with trans rights advocates, defended its stance. Its lawyers leaned heavily on the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which states that individuals issued a GRC have legally changed their sex “for all purposes.” That, they argued, should include legal protections reserved for women. The Supreme Court’s central concern in its ruling was that treating trans women as women would create insurmountable “practical problems”. “The meaning of the terms ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the [Equality Act] 2010 refer to biological sex, as any other interpretation would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate,” the court ruled. The judges noted that protections for pregnant women would collapse unless “man” and “woman” had a biological meaning. They also found that considering trans women with gender recognition certificates as having a female “certificated sex” created further issues. Lord Hodge said that “interpreting sex as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the [Equality Act 2010] – and thus the protected characteristic of sex – in an incoherent way.” In its reasons, the Supreme Court found that the notion of “certificated sex” would also “weaken the protections given to those with the protected characteristic of sexual orientation,” for example by “interfering with their ability to have lesbian-only spaces and associations”. The justices also found that blurring the boundary of sex would also create “confusion and impracticability” around the provision of “single sex characteristic associations and charities, women’s fair participation in sport, the operation of the public sector equality duty, and the armed forces”. Reacting, the UK Government hailed the “clarity” provided by the Supreme Court’s ruling. “We have always supported the protection of single sex spaces based on biological sex,” a spokesman said. “This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs. “Single sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this Government.”](https://newsbulletin.com.ng/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/1744804310668-300x169.jpg)
