Pope Leo XIV said Saturday that remarks he made this week in which he said the "world is being ravaged by a handful of tyrants" were not directed at President Donald Trump, a report said. 

The pope, speaking onboard a flight to Angola during his 10-day tour of Africa, said reporting about his comments "has not been ‌accurate in all its aspects" and his speech "was ⁠prepared two weeks ago, well before the president ever commented on myself and on the message of peace that I am promoting," according to Reuters.

The news outlet cited the pope as saying his comments were not aimed at Trump.

"As it happens, it was looked at as if I was trying to debate the president, which is not in ​my interest at all," the pope reportedly said.

'60 MINUTES' ACCUSED OF USING LEFT-LEANING CARDINALS TO BAIT TRUMP INTO FEUD WITH VATICAN

Vice President JD Vance later took to X to thank the pope for clearing the record.

"While the media narrative constantly gins up conflict — and yes, real disagreements have happened and will happen — the reality is often much more complicated," Vance wrote. "Pope Leo preaches the gospel, as he should, and that will inevitably mean he offers his opinions on the moral issues of the day.

"The President — and the entire administration — work to apply those moral principles in a messy world," he continued. "He will be in our prayers, and I hope that we'll be in his."

The vice president's comments came days after he told Fox News' Bret Baier on "Special Report" that it would be best for the Vatican to "stick to matters of morality."

"Let the President of the United States stick to dictating American public policy," Vance said Tuesday.

Trump last Sunday accused Pope Leo XIV of being "terrible" on foreign policy after the pontiff criticized the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.

"He talks about 'fear' of the Trump Administration, but doesn’t mention the FEAR that the Catholic Church, and all other Christian Organizations, had during COVID when they were arresting priests, ministers, and everybody else, for holding Church Services, even when going outside, and being ten and even twenty feet apart," Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. 

"I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon."

POPE LEO SLAMS THOSE WHO 'MANIPULATE RELIGION' FOR MILITARY OR POLITICAL GAIN, TRUMP RESPONDS

During a speech in Cameroon on Thursday, the pope said, "We must make a decisive change of course — a true conversion — that will lead us in the opposite direction, onto a sustainable path rich in human fraternity.

"The world is being ravaged by a handful of tyrants, yet it is held together by a multitude of supportive brothers and sisters.

"Woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic or political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth."

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment. 

Fox News Digital’s Landon Mion contributed to this report. 

With a second round of talks likely to take place between the U.S. and Iran’s regime this week over its illicit nuclear weapons programs, leading experts on Tehran’s program say the Trump administration was right to walk away.

After nearly a day of talks, Vice President JD Vance’s team pulled the plug on the negotiations taking place in Pakistan, something welcomed by experts in the field.

"The U.S. team was wise to walk away once it became clear the Iranians would not agree to Washington’s core nuclear demands. Tehran maintaining enriched uranium stocks and uranium enrichment capabilities provides it with a pathway to nuclear weapons, plain and simple," Andrea Stricker, deputy director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ nonproliferation program, told Fox News Digital.

A core dispute between the U.S. and Iran is over Tehran’s desire to enrich uranium — the material used to build nuclear weapons.

WITKOFF WARNS IRAN IS ‘A WEEK AWAY’ FROM 'BOMB-MAKING MATERIAL' AS TRUMP WEIGHS ACTION

In 2018, President Donald Trump withdrew from President Barack Obama’s nuclear weapons deal with Iran because his administration argued that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the formal name of the deal, permitted Iran to build an atomic bomb.

When asked what a good nuclear agreement would look like, Stricker said, "A good deal requires the regime to not only turn over its nuclear fuel, dismantle key facilities, and commit to a permanent ban on enrichment, but to cooperate with an IAEA investigation that fully and completely accounts for and dismantles Iran’s nuclear weapons-relevant facilities, equipment, documentation, centrifuges and related production capabilities."

Stricker acknowledged that the process could take several years, but noted that "the IAEA is well-equipped for this mission and has experience dismantling nuclear weapons programs in Iraq, Libya and South Africa. Anything less and Iran will likely cheat on its commitments and reconstitute a breakout pathway."

TRUMP REVEALS IRAN MADE 'SIGNIFICANT PROPOSAL' AFTER ULTIMATUM, BUT 'NOT GOOD ENOUGH'

Sen. Lindsey Graham said Monday he opposes a reported proposal by the U.S. for a 20-year ban on Iran’s uranium enrichment under a potential deal.

"I appreciate President Donald Trump’s resolve to end the Iranian conflict peacefully and through diplomacy. However, we have to remember who we’re dealing with in Iran: terrorists, liars, and cheaters," Graham posted on X.

"If this reporting is accurate, the idea that we would agree to a moratorium on enrichment rather than a ban on enrichment would be a mistake in my view," he said.

"Would we agree to a moratorium for al Qaeda to enrich? No."

A regional official from the Mideast confirmed to Fox News Digital that a 20-year moratorium on enriched uranium was made by the U.S. and rejected by the Islamic Republic.

David Albright, a physicist who is the founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, D.C., praised the U.S. decision to end the talks in Pakistan. Writing on his X account, which is closely followed by Iran watchers, he stated: "The U.S. was Right to Walk Away in Islamabad."

Albright told Fox News Digital the move by the U.S. negotiators "makes it clear that this is not negotiating for negotiating’s sake. And leaving threw Iran on the defensive, signaling it as the losing state in the war. Moreover, the Iranians would not have shifted their positions in any significant way. They usually have no flexibility. But Iran wanted to have negotiations continue in order to try to tie the hands of the U.S. and Israel, while trying to portray themselves as victors. Now, Iran has to decide whether to accept the U.S. offer or risk war resuming."

He added that a good nuclear deal for the U.S. would mean "no enrichment and no stocks of HEU [Highly Enriched Uranium] and LEU [Low Enriched Uranium]; Iran cooperating with the inspectors and verifiably ending its nuclear weapons program and providing a complete nuclear declaration, something it has never done."

Albright continued that "If Iran signals willingness to accept the U.S. position, meeting again makes sense. 

"Iran has absolutely no need to enrich. Its only civil need is for a small amount of 20% enriched for its small research reactor, the Tehran Research Reactor, and it has enough 20% enriched uranium in fuel or nearly made into fuel stored in Iran and in Russia under JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] arrangements for 20 years."

He concluded, "To be flip, and paraphrase Abbie Hoffman, I have the right to yell theater in a crowded fire, but I don’t. Iran’s emphasis on its right to enrich is as irrelevant and beside the point."