The suggestion was attributed to Paolo Zampolli, a U.S. special envoy for global partnerships, who according to the Financial Times raised the possibility with U.S. President Donald Trump and FIFA president Gianni Infantino as a contingency plan should Iran withdraw.

Zampolli told the Associated Press the proposal was not political and framed it as a hypothetical scenario. “My request was for the Italian people and the American-Italian people,” he said, adding that Italy’s four World Cup titles could justify its inclusion.Italian officials rejected the idea.

Sports Minister Andrea Abodi said “it’s not possible” and “not a good idea,” while Luciano Buonfiglio said participation in the tournament must be earned on merit. Finance Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti described the suggestion as “shameful.”Iran has not withdrawn from the World Cup and is preparing to play matches scheduled in U.S. cities including Los Angeles and Seattle in June.

FIFA has maintained that Iran’s fixtures will proceed as planned and has declined to comment on proposals to alter the lineup.Speaking at the White House, Trump said he had not given the matter much thought but called it “an interesting question.”

He deferred to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said no U.S. decision had been made to bar Iranian players from entering the country.Rubio indicated that concerns, if any, would relate to non-athlete personnel accompanying the team.

“The problem with Iran would be, not their athletes. It would be some of the other people that they want to bring with them,” he said, adding that authorities might restrict entry to certain individuals.Iran’s embassy in Rome criticized the proposal, saying in a statement on X that football “belongs to the people, not to politicians,” and describing any attempt to exclude the team as unjustified.

Iran secured qualification through the Asian Football Confederation and has publicly affirmed its intention to participate. An Iranian government spokesperson said this week that the national team is preparing for “proud and successful participation.

”Italy failed to qualify for the World Cup for a third consecutive time, following a campaign that led to the resignation of its national team coach and football federation president.

FIFA regulations state that in the event of a team’s withdrawal, a replacement may be selected from another association, though the rules do not explicitly require the substitute to come from the same continental confederation.

Reza Dindar, 44, was arrested in Panama in July at the request of U.S. authorities and transferred to the United States last week. He made an initial appearance in U.S. District Court in Seattle, with arraignment scheduled for May 1, according to officials.

Prosecutors allege that Dindar conspired to violate longstanding U.S. trade sanctions by acquiring military sonar components under false pretenses and rerouting them to Iran. The indictment, unsealed Friday, charges him with conspiracy, smuggling and money laundering.

According to court documents, Dindar operated a company, New Port Sourcing Solutions, based in Xi’an, China, and between 2011 and 2012 arranged the purchase of parts for three military sonar systems from a business in Washington state.

Prosecutors said the transactions were carried out using deceptive practices, including misrepresenting the final destination of the equipment and asserting that no export license was required.

The components, valued at $97,600, were allegedly shipped first to China and then covertly transferred to Iran, in violation of U.S. sanctions imposed in 1995 and reinforced in 2001.Authorities have not disclosed Dindar’s whereabouts in the years between the alleged offenses and his arrest.

His attorney, Farhad Alavi, declined to comment.The case underscores ongoing U.S. enforcement efforts targeting alleged sanctions evasion networks involving dual-use or military-sensitive technologies.

In a separate matter, federal prosecutors said a Los Angeles woman was arrested over the weekend on suspicion of assisting Iran in trafficking weapons to Sudan, though officials said the cases are unrelated.

In an interview published Monday, Trump said the United States was in talks with Qalibaf, a former Revolutionary Guard commander. Qalibaf denied the assertion in a statement, saying Washington was “promoting desires as news while threatening our nation at the same time.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry also dismissed the claim. Spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said no negotiations had taken place, though he confirmed that intermediaries had conveyed proposals to Tehran.

Baghaei said Iran would not overlook what he described as past breaches of diplomacy, referring to indirect talks in 2025 and early 2026 that were followed by military action involving the United States and Israel.

War pressure shapes diplomacy claimsThe exchange comes as Trump has increased pressure on Tehran to reach an agreement to end the ongoing conflict, now in its fifth week following joint U.S.-Israeli strikes launched in late February.

Trump warned that failure to reach a deal “shortly” could result in widespread destruction of Iran’s energy infrastructure and critical facilities, including desalination plants.

Qalibaf’s role under scrutinyQalibaf, long viewed as a pragmatic conservative within Iran’s political system, has previously been mentioned as a potential interlocutor for Western governments.

However, questions remain about his authority within Iran’s complex power structure following the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in a February airstrike.His successor, Mojtaba Khamenei, is believed to maintain ties with Qalibaf, though competing centers of power within Iran’s leadership continue to shape decision-making.

Analysts say references to Qalibaf as a negotiating channel may reflect both external pressure tactics and internal political maneuvering, as Tehran navigates wartime conditions and diplomatic isolation.

In a public message, Trump said time was running out for diplomacy and stressed that the United States would not tolerate Iran pursuing nuclear weapons. He framed negotiations as the only viable path forward, warning that failure to act would bring consequences far worse than previous military actions.

Trump referred to earlier strikes carried out last year as a clear signal of US resolve. He suggested that Tehran should view those attacks as a warning rather than an isolated episode, emphasizing that future responses would be more forceful if Iran ignored US demands.

Iran reacted swiftly, rejecting the tone of the warning while insisting it remained open to dialogue under certain conditions. Officials said Iran would defend itself vigorously if attacked, arguing that threats and military pressure would not force it into submission.

Iran’s mission to the United Nations pushed back by recalling past US military interventions in the region. It highlighted the heavy financial and human costs of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, suggesting that confrontation had historically brought little stability or benefit.

Tehran’s foreign ministry also indicated that no recent talks had taken place with US envoys and denied requesting negotiations. Iranian officials stressed that any dialogue would need to be based on mutual respect rather than pressure or ultimatums.

The situation has been further complicated by the movement of US naval forces into the Middle East. American officials confirmed that a carrier strike group had arrived in the region, a move widely seen as a show of force amid rising tensions.

Washington says the deployment is meant to deter escalation and protect US interests and allies. Iran, however, views the presence of additional US military assets as provocative and indicative of hostile intentions.

Tensions between the two countries have also been fueled by recent unrest inside Iran. Protests over economic hardship and political repression drew international attention, with Trump repeatedly condemning Tehran’s response and warning of possible intervention.

Although large scale demonstrations have subsided, the crackdown has left deep scars and contributed to worsening relations. US officials have linked their hardline stance partly to concerns over human rights and internal stability in Iran.

Trump has consistently argued that his administration will act decisively if Iran resumes activities linked to nuclear weapons development. He has pointed to earlier airstrikes on nuclear facilities as evidence that threats are not merely rhetorical.

Iranian leaders maintain that their nuclear program is peaceful and accuse Washington of undermining diplomacy by withdrawing from previous agreements. They argue that sanctions and military pressure have only deepened mistrust and hardened positions on both sides.

Regional analysts warn that the exchange of threats increases the risk of miscalculation. With military forces in close proximity and diplomatic channels limited, even minor incidents could escalate rapidly.

At the same time, some observers believe the rhetoric is intended to force negotiations rather than trigger conflict. Trump has often used strong language as leverage, while Iran has historically balanced defiance with selective engagement.

The coming weeks may prove decisive in determining whether the standoff moves toward talks or further confrontation. Both sides face domestic and international pressures that could shape their next steps.

As uncertainty grows, global markets and regional governments are watching closely. Any escalation between the United States and Iran would have far reaching implications for security, energy supplies and diplomatic stability across the Middle East.