‘Red lines' stalk fifth round of Iran-US nuclear talks
Iran and the United States are set to hold a fifth round of talks on Tehran's nuclear programme amid uncompromising rhetoric on both sides.
Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US President Donald Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff are due to meet in Rome on Friday.
The ongoing talks, mediated by Oman, seek a new deal in which Iran would be prevented from producing nuclear weapons while having international sanctions eased. However, little progress has been made so far, and both Washington and Tehran have taken a tough stance in public in recent days, particularly regarding Iran's enrichment of uranium.
Witkoff has said Iran cannot be allowed to carry out any enrichment.
Tehran, which has raised its enrichment to about 60 percent, well above civilian needs but below the 90 percent needed for weaponisation, has rejected that 'red line'.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called the demand 'excessive and outrageous,' warning that the ongoing talks are unlikely to yield results.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Tuesday that Washington is working to reach an agreement that would allow Iran to have a civil nuclear energy program but not enrich uranium, while admitting that achieving such a deal 'will not be easy'.
On Thursday, the State Department announced new sanctions on Iran's construction sector.
'Figuring out the path to a deal is not rocket science,' Araghchi said on social media on Friday morning. 'Zero nuclear weapons = we DO have a deal. Zero enrichment = we do NOT have a deal. Time to decide…'
A spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tehran took aim at the new sanctions, calling the move 'vicious, illegal, and inhumane'.
The stakes are high for both sides. Trump wants to curtail Tehran's potential to produce a nuclear weapon that could trigger a regional nuclear arms race.
Iran insists its nuclear ambitions are strictly civilian, but seeks to ease international sanctions that hamper its economy.
During his first term, in 2018, Trump nixed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a 2015 agreement that saw Iran scale back its nuclear programme in exchange for eased sanctions.
After his return to the White House for a second term in January, Trump renewed his 'maximum pressure' programme against Iran, piling further economic pressure, for example, by choking the country's oil exports, particularly to China.
Iran responded defiantly, promising to defend itself against any attack and escalating enrichment far beyond the 2015 pact's limits.
Tensions began to ease in April as the two countries launched the talks mediated by Oman, but Tehran's enrichment programme has become a major point of contention.
Should that see the talks fail, the cost could be high. Trump has repeatedly threatened military action if no deal is reached.
Israel, which opposes the US talks with its regional foe, has warned that it would never allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Following reports that Israel may be planning to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, Araghchi warned on Thursday that Washington will bear legal responsibility if Iran is attacked.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
5 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
US Supreme Court grants DOGE access to sensitive Social Security data
The United States Supreme Court has sided with the administration of President Donald Trump in two cases about government records — and who should have access to them. On Friday, the six-member conservative majority overturned a lower court's ruling that limited the kinds of data that Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) could access through the Social Security Administration (SSA). In a separate case, the majority also decided that DOGE was not required to turn over records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a government transparency law. In both cases, the Supreme Court's three left-leaning justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan — opposed the majority's decision. DOGE has been at the forefront of Trump's campaign to reimagine the federal government and cut down on bureaucratic 'bloat'. Unveiled on November 13, just eight days after Trump's re-election, DOGE was designed to 'dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies'. At first, it was unclear how DOGE would interact with the executive branch: whether it would be an advisory panel, a new department or a nongovernmental entity. But on January 20, when Trump was sworn in for his second term, he announced that the existing US Digital Service — a technology initiative founded by former President Barack Obama — would be reorganised to create DOGE. The government efficiency panel has since led a wide-scale overhaul of the federal government, implementing mass layoffs and seeking to shutter entities like the US Agency for International Development (USAID). It also advertised cost-savings it had achieved or alleged fraud it had uncovered, though many of those claims have been contradicted or questioned by journalists and experts. In addition, DOGE's sweeping changes to the federal government made it the subject of criticism and concern, particularly as it sought greater access to sensitive data and systems. Up until last week, DOGE was led by Elon Musk, a billionaire and tech entrepreneur who had been a prominent backer of Trump's re-election bid. Musk and Trump, however, have had a public rupture following the end of the billionaire's tenure as a 'special government employee' in the White House. That falling-out has left DOGE's future uncertain. One of DOGE's controversial initiatives has been its push to access Social Security data, in the name of rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. Early in Trump's second term, both the president and Musk repeated misleading claims that Social Security payments were being made to millions of people listed as 150 years old or older. But fact-checkers quickly refuted that allegation. Instead, they pointed out that the Social Security Administration has implemented a code to automatically stop payments to anyone listed as alive and more than 115 years old. They also pointed out that the COBOL programming language flags incomplete entries in the Social Security system with birthdates set back 150 years, possibly prompting the Trump administration's confusion. Less than 1 percent of Social Security payments are made erroneously, according to a 2024 inspector general report. Still, Trump officials criticised the Social Security Administration, with Musk dubbing it 'the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time' and calling for its elimination. In March, US District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander blocked DOGE from having unfettered access to Social Security data, citing the sensitive nature of such information. Social Security numbers, for instance, are key to verifying a person's identity in the US, and the release of such numbers could endanger individual privacy. Lipton Hollander ruled that DOGE had 'never identified or articulated even a single reason for which the DOGE Team needs unlimited access to SSA's entire record systems'. She questioned why DOGE had not sought a 'more tailored' approach. 'Instead, the government simply repeats its incantation of a need to modernize the system and uncover fraud,' she wrote in her ruling. 'Its method of doing so is tantamount to hitting a fly with a sledgehammer.' The judge's ruling, however, did allow DOGE to view anonymised data, without personally identifying information. The Trump administration, nevertheless, appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that Judge Lipton Hollander had exceeded her authority in blocking DOGE's access. The Supreme Court granted its emergency petition on Friday, lifting Lipton Hollander's temporary restrictions on the data in an unsigned decision. But Justice Brown Jackson issued a blistering dissent (PDF), suggesting that the Supreme Court was willing to break norms to assist a presidency that was unwilling to let legal challenges play out in lower courts. 'Once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them,' Brown Jackson wrote. She argued that the Trump administration had not established that any 'irreparable harm' would occur if DOGE were temporarily blocked from accessing Social Security data. But by granting the Trump administration's emergency petition, she said the court was 'jettisoning careful judicial decision-making and creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process'. The second Supreme Court decision on Friday concerned whether DOGE itself had to surrender documents under federal transparency laws. The question was raised as part of a lawsuit brought by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a government watchdog group. It argued that DOGE's sweeping powers suggested it should be subject to laws like FOIA, just like any other executive agency. But CREW also alleged that the ambiguity surrounding DOGE's structures had kept it insulated from outside probes. 'While publicly available information indicates that DOGE is subject to FOIA, the lack of clarity on DOGE's authority leaves that an open question,' CREW said in a statement. The watchdog group sought to compel DOGE to provide information about its inner workings. While a US district judge had sided with CREW's request for records in April, the Supreme Court on Friday paused that lower court's decision (PDF). It sent the case back to a court of appeals for further consideration, with instructions that the April order be narrowed. 'Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade,' the Supreme Court's conservative majority ruled. It also said that the courts needed to exercise 'deference and restraint' regarding 'internal' executive communications.
Al Jazeera
7 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Deported man Kilmar Abrego Garcia returned to US to face charges
A man the Donald Trump administration mistakenly deported to El Salvador has been brought back to the United States, where authorities say he will face criminal charges. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, 29, a Salvadoran immigrant who had lived nearly half his life in Maryland before he was deported in March, faces charges of transporting undocumented migrants inside the US, according to recently unsealed court records. US Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Friday that Abrego Garcia was returned to the US to 'face justice'. The indictment against him was filed on May 21, more than two months after he was deported in spite of a court order barring his removal. The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop by the Tennessee Highway Patrol, which suspected Abrego Garcia of human trafficking but ultimately issued only a warning for an expired driver's license, according to a Department of Homeland Security report. Bondi, speaking at a news conference, said a grand jury had 'found that over the past nine years, Abrego Garcia has played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring'. She said Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele agreed to return Abrego Garcia to the US after American officials presented his government with an arrest warrant. Abrego Garcia had been sent to El Salvador as part of a Trump scheme to move undocumented migrants it accuses of being gang members, to prison in the Central American country without due process. Bukele said in a social media post that his government works with the Trump administration and 'of course' would not refuse a request to return 'a gang member' to the US. Al Jazeera's Rosiland Jordan, reporting from Washington, DC, said Abrego Garcia could face up to 10 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted. But 'that does not deal with the ongoing matter of whether or not he should be deported', she added. 'That's a separate legal matter.' Abrego Garcia will have the chance to enter a plea in court and contest the charges at trial. If he is convicted, he would be deported to El Salvador after serving his sentence, Bondi said. In a statement, Abrego Garcia's lawyer, Andrew Rossman, said it would now be up to the US judicial system to ensure he received due process. 'Today's action proves what we've known all along – that the administration had the ability to bring him back and just refused to do so,' said Rossman, a partner at law firm Quinn Emanuel. Abrego Garcia's deportation defied an immigration judge's 2019 order granting him protection from being sent back to El Salvador, where it found he was likely to be persecuted by gangs if returned, court records show. Trump critics pointed to the erroneous deportation as an example of the excesses of the Republican president's aggressive approach to stepping up deportations. Officials countered by alleging that Abrego Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang. His lawyers have denied that he was a gang member and said he had not been convicted of any crime. Abrego Garcia's case has become a flash point for escalating tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary, which has ruled against a number of Trump's policies. The US Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, with liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying the government had cited no basis for what she called his 'warrantless arrest'. US District Judge Paula Xinis also opened a probe into what, if anything, the Trump administration did to secure his return, after his lawyers accused officials of stonewalling their requests for information.
Al Jazeera
11 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
US transport dept says Biden fuel economy rules exceeded legal authority
The United States Department of Transportation (DoT) has declared that former President Joe Biden's administration exceeded its authority by assuming a high uptake of electric vehicles in calculating fuel economy rules. With that declaration on Friday, the DoT paved the way for looser fuel standards and published the 'Resetting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program' (CAFE) rule. A future separate rule from the administration of President Donald Trump will revise the fuel economy requirements. 'We are making vehicles more affordable and easier to manufacture in the United States. The previous administration illegally used CAFE standards as an electric vehicle mandate,' Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a statement. The department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in writing its rule last year under Biden, had 'assumed significant numbers of EVs would continue to be produced regardless of the standards set by the agency, in turn increasing the level of standards that could be considered maximum feasible,' it said Friday. A shift away from Biden policies In January, Duffy signed an order directing NHTSA to rescind fuel economy standards issued under Biden for the 2022-2031 model years that had aimed to drastically reduce fuel use for cars and trucks. In a release last year, the DoT, then led by Pete Buttigieg, put in place a required fuel economy to increase by 2 percent for cars made between 2027 and 2031. At the time, the DoT said it would help save consumers upwards of $600 on gas every year. It was also part of the Biden administration's plan to address climate change. 'These new fuel economy standards will save our nation billions of dollars, help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and make our air cleaner for everyone. Americans will enjoy the benefits of this rule for decades to come,' then NHTSA Deputy Administrator Sophie Shulman said at the time. In June 2024, the NHTSA said it would hike CAFE requirements to about 50.4 miles per gallon (4.67 litres per 100km) by 2031 from 39.1mpg currently for light-duty vehicles. The agency last year said the rule for passenger cars and trucks would reduce gasoline consumption by 64 billion gallons and cut emissions by 659 million metric tons, cutting fuel costs with net benefits estimated at $35.2bn. Late on Thursday, Senate Republicans proposed eliminating fines for failures to meet CAFE rules as part of a wide-ranging tax bill, the latest move aimed at making it easier for automakers to build gas-powered vehicles. Last year, Chrysler-parent Stellantis paid $190.7m in civil penalties for failing to meet US fuel economy requirements for 2019 and 2020 after paying nearly $400m for penalties from 2016 through 2019. GM previously paid $128.2m in penalties for 2016 and 2017. Stellantis said it supported the Senate Republican proposal 'to provide relief while DoT develops its proposal to reset the CAFE standards … The standards are out of sync with the current market reality, and immediate relief is necessary to preserve affordability and freedom of choice.' GM declined to comment.
