Rome to host Iran-US talks on Friday
MUSCAT: The Sultanate of Oman on Wednesday announced that the next round of talks between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America (USA), will be held in Rome on Friday.
Sayyid Badr bin Hamad al Busaidy, Foreign Minister, stated that the fifth round of the Iran-US talks will take place in the Italian capital, Rome, on May 23.
The fourth round, held in Muscat on May 11, witnessed valuable ideas that reflect the shared desire of both the Iranian and American sides to reach an honourable agreement.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
an hour ago
- Observer
Is Europe facing civil war?
Whether the debate is occasioned by a polemical book or a movie like last year's 'Civil War', I consistently take the negative on the question of whether the United States is headed for a genuine civil war. In those debates, it's usually liberals warning that populism or Trumpism is steering the United States towards the abyss. But with European politics the pattern is different: In France and Britain; and among American observers of the continent, a preoccupation with looming civil war tends to be more common among conservatives. For years, figures associated with the French right and French military have warned of an impending civil conflict driven by the country's failure to assimilate immigrants from the Muslim world. (The great reactionary novelist Michel Houellebecq's 'Submission' famously imagines this war being averted by the sudden conversion of French elites to Islam.) Lately there has been a similar discussion around Britain touched off by an essay by military historian David Betz that argues that multicultural Britain is in danger of tearing itself apart and lately taken up by political strategist, Brexit-campaign architect and former Boris Johnson adviser Dominic Cummings in an essay warning that British elites are increasingly fearful of organised violence from nativists and radicalised immigrants alike. When I've written skeptically about scenarios for a US civil war, I've tended to stress several realities: the absence of a clear geographical division between our contending factions; the diminishment, not exacerbation, of racial and ethnic polarisation in the Trump era; the fact that we're rich, aging and comfortable, not poor, young and desperate, giving even groups that hate each other a stake in the system and elites strong reasons to sustain it; the absence of enthusiasm for organised communal violence as opposed to lone-wolf forays. Does the European landscape look different? On some fronts, maybe. Tensions between natives and new arrivals are common on both sides of the Atlantic, but ethnic and religious differences arguably loom larger in Europe than they do in the US: There is more intense cultural separatism in immigrant communities in suburban Paris or Marseilles than in Los Angeles or Chicago, more simmering discontent that easily turns to riots. At the same time, British and French elites have been more successful than American elites at keeping populist forces out of power, but their tools — not just the exclusion of populists from government, but an increasingly authoritarian throttling of free speech — have markedly diminished their own legitimacy among discontented natives. This means that neither underassimilated immigrants nor working-class whites feel especially invested in the system, making multiple forms of political violence more plausible: pitting immigrant or native rebels against the government, or pitting immigrants against natives with the government trying to suppress the conflict, or, finally, pitting different immigrant groups against one another. (English cities have already played host to bursts of Muslim-Hindu violence.) Then, too, Western Europe's economies have grown more sluggishly than America's for the last decade, reducing ordinary people's stake in the current order and encouraging alienation and resistance. Finally, there are arguably geographic concentrations of discontent — in the north of England, or in immigrant-dominated cities that Betz warns could become ungovernable — that don't exist in quite the same way in the US. All of this adds up, I would say, to a useful corrective to the progressive tendency to regard America in the Trump era as a great outlier, uniquely divided and deranged and threatened by factional strife, while liberal politics continues more or less as usual among our respectable and stable European allies. Not so: There are clearly ways in which Europe's problems and divides are deeper than our own, with economic and demographic trends that portend darker possibilities and the establishment attempt to keep populist forces at bay may end up remembered as accelerating liberal Europe's downfall. Yet many of the reasons to doubt the imminence of civil war in America still apply to Western Europe. The continent is more stagnant than the US but still rich, comfortable and aged; there's enthusiasm for rioting but rather less for organised violence; and for all the palpable disillusionment, it is hard to glimpse any elite faction yet emerging — right or left, nativist or 'Islamo-Gauchiste' — that would see violent revolution as an obvious means to its ambitions. Meanwhile, there are distinctive European conditions that make civil war less likely there than in the US: Smaller nations with more centralised political systems generally find it easier to police dissent and there's no Second Amendment or American-style gun culture to challenge the European state's monopoly on force. Ultimately, I agree with British writer Aris Roussinos, a pessimist but not a catastrophist, when he writes that the most likely near-future scenarios involve increasing 'outbursts of violent disorder' but not the kind of collapse of central government authority, complete with ethnic cleansing and refugee flows, that the language of 'civil war' implies. And that imprecision matters: As I've suggested before, if you use a civil-war framing to describe a world where rioting is more commonplace and assassination attempts and random forms of terrorism make a comeback, you're describing realities that big diverse societies often have to live with, using terms that misleadingly or hysterically evoke Antietam or Guernica. I don't think America in the 1960s and 1970s experienced a civil war, even though those were certainly chaotic decades. I don't think modern France, with its long tradition of student protests and urban riots, has existed in a perpetual state of civil war. And as we face a future that's clearly more destabilised than the post-Cold War era, it still behooves us to be realistic about the most plausible scenarios: We are still far more likely to be navigating a more chaotic landscape together, as fellow citizens, than shooting at one another across a sectional divide. — The New York Times
Times of Oman
16 hours ago
- Times of Oman
"Good conversation but not conversation that will lead to immediate peace": Trump after talks with Putin
Washington, DC: US President Donald Trump held a telephonic conversation with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and discussed Ukraine's attack on Russia's docked airplanes and various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides. Trump said that his conversation with Putin was "good" but "not a conversation that will lead to immediate peace." He said that Putin "very strongly" said that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields. In a post on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump stated, "I just finished speaking, by telephone, with President Vladimir Putin, of Russia. The call lasted approximately one hour and 15 minutes. We discussed the attack on Russia's docked airplanes, by Ukraine, and also various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides. It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace. President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields." Trump said that he and Putin also spoke about Iran and noted that time is running out for Iran's decision related to nuclear weapons, which must be made quickly. He said that Putin suggested he would participate in talks with Iran and that he could help reach a rapid conclusion. "We also discussed Iran, and the fact that time is running out on Iran's decision pertaining to nuclear weapons, which must be made quickly! I stated to President Putin that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and, on this, I believe that we were in agreement. President Putin suggested that he will participate in the discussions with Iran and that he could, perhaps, be helpful in getting this brought to a rapid conclusion. It is my opinion that Iran has been slowwalking their decision on this very important matter, and we will need a definitive answer in a very short period of time," Trump posted on Truth Social. The talks between the two leaders came after Ukraine and Russia conducted some of the largest drone attacks since the war began nearly three years ago. Ukraine carried out a significant drone attack on Sunday targeting deep inside Russian territory, destroying dozens of nuclear-capable bombers and other military aircraft. Meanwhile, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth will not attend a meeting of 50 defence ministers at NATO headquarters in Brussels on Wednesday, which is important for coordinating military aid for Ukraine, Politico reported. It marks the first time in three years that the US Defence Secretary will not attend the meeting. NATO defence ministers and others have regularly held meetings to coordinate funding for Kyiv, and have emerged as an important component of Western aid for Ukraine amid its conflict with Russia. However, the Trump administration has maintained distance from the group, handing over leadership to Germany and the UK. Hegseth will be in Brussels for a meeting of NATO defence ministers on Thursday. However, US ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker will attend the Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting on his behalf on Wednesday, Politico reported, citing a defence official and two people familiar with their plans, all of whom were granted anonymity to discuss internal matters. The US Defence Department has cited scheduling issues for his absence in the meeting. In a statement, Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson said, "Secretary Hegseth's travel schedule precluded attendance at tomorrow's UDCG meeting." She further stated, "The United States is focused on ending the war in Ukraine as quickly as possible, on terms that establish an enduring peace." Earlier on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said US President Donald Trump remains optimistic about the progress being seen amid the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine and urged his counterparts from Russia and Ukraine to talk directly with one another. While addressing a press briefing on Tuesday (local time), Leavitt noted that Russia had handed over a peace plan to the Ukrainian side, and the two nations had agreed on the exchange of prisoners from each other's nations. When asked about Trump's statement on the Russia-Ukraine war following the Ukrainian drone strike, Karoline Leavitt said, "The President's thinking on the Russia-Ukraine war as it stands, I've spoken to him about it just this morning, is he remains positive at the progress that we've seen. Again, he urged both leaders to sit down and talk directly with one another, and they did that. Russia handed over a memorandum of peace, or a peace plan, or a suggestion of one, I understand, to the Ukrainian side. They also agreed upon the exchange of prisoners or hostages from each other's countries." "He remains positive about the progress that we're seeing, but he also is a realist and he realises these are two countries that are at war and have been for a long time because of his predecessor's weakness and incompetence. So he's working hard to solve this conflict. And that's where his mind is right now on it," she added. Russia and Ukraine held a second round of direct talks in Istanbul on Monday. The two nations agreed to swap dead and captured soldiers, The Washington Post reported. However, there was no significant progress towards ending the war or even agreeing to a ceasefire. Ukrainian Defence Minister Rustem Umerov, who led the Ukrainian delegation, stated that Russia did not agree to an unconditional ceasefire or a bilateral meeting between the leaders of the two nations. However, both nations agreed to exchange gravely wounded prisoners of war, captives under the age of 25, and the bodies of 6,000 killed soldiers from each side.
Observer
a day ago
- Observer
Gaza aid group halts distribution
GAZA: The US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation did not give out any aid on Wednesday as it pressed Israel to boost civilian safety beyond the perimeter of its distribution sites, after dozens of Palestinians seeking aid were killed this week. The GHF said it has asked the Israeli military to "guide foot traffic in a way that minimises confusion or escalation risks" near military positions; develop clearer guidance for civilians; and enhance training to support civilian safety. "Our top priority remains ensuring the safety and dignity of civilians receiving aid," said a GHF spokesperson. An Israeli military spokesperson warned civilians against moving in areas leading to GHF sites on Wednesday, deeming them "combat zones". The new aid distribution process for Gaza's two million-plus population from just three sites was launched in the midst of a fierce new offensive by Israel since late last month. — Reuters
