Iran insists it will not give up uranium enrichment
Iran will not give up its independent uranium enrichment program under any circumstances, even if a regional nuclear consortium is established, a foreign ministry spokesman says.
"The crucial point is that a consortium is not an alternative and cannot replace uranium enrichment in the country," Esmaeil Baghaei said, according to the Tasnim news agency.
He declined to comment on whether this demand was included in the latest proposal made by the United States to Iran. Unconfirmed reports suggest the US demanded a complete halt to Iranian uranium enrichment in a written proposal to Tehran.
In return, Washington is said to have offered the country the civilian use of nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment, within the framework of a regional consortium under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Baghaei said Iran will give an appropriate response to the US proposal in due course.
Until then, the country will insist on both its own uranium enrichment and the lifting of US sanctions in the next round of negotiations, he said.
After five rounds of talks between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and President Donald Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff to resolve the nuclear standoff, many issues remain unresolved.
Among clashing red lines is Iran's rejection of a US demand that Tehran commit to scrapping uranium enrichment, viewed as a potential pathway to developing nuclear bombs.
Tehran says it wants to master nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and has long denied accusations by Western powers that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
Tehran demands the immediate removal of all US-imposed curbs that impair its oil-based economy. But for the US, the removal of nuclear-related sanctions should be done in phases.
Dozens of Iranian institutions vital to Iran's economy, including its central bank and national oil company, have been sanctioned since 2018 for, according to Washington, "supporting terrorism or weapons proliferation".
Trump's revival of a "maximum pressure" campaign against Tehran since his return to the White House in January has included tightened sanctions and threats to bomb Iran if current negotiations yield no deal.
During his first term, Trump in 2018 ditched Tehran's 2015 nuclear pact with six powers and reimposed sanctions that have crippled Iran's economy. In return, Tehran has rapidly violated the 2015 nuclear pact's curbs on its nuclear program.
The 2015 deal required Iran to take steps to restrict its nuclear program in return for relief from US, EU and UN economic sanctions.
with DPA
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Trade talks to start between US and China next week
US President Donald Trump has confirmed trade talks between the US and China will commence next week in London. President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping have spoken on the phone in the last 24 hours. Allegedly, the US government has asked the UK government to facilitate these talks.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Aldi is known for drawing inspiration from big brands. Here's how experts say the retailer does it
It's no secret that Aldi, the supermarket chain that once had the slogan "like brands, only cheaper", sells products visually similar to well-established competitors. In the cereal aisle of each store, brown boxes of Power Grain are reminiscent of their Kellogg's counterpart, and in the snack aisle packets of Blackstone chips appear to draw inspiration from Red Rock Deli. In the US, blue boxes of Aldi-brand cream-filled biscuits are so similar to Oreos that the company behind the snack giant is suing the supermarket for "blatant copying". It's not the first time the chain has landed in legal trouble over its cheaper, duplicated private-label brands. In Australia, there have been several legal cases against Aldi. But intellectual property and consumer experts are not worried about this case creating legal implications for Australian consumers, who they say are largely unphased by Aldi's "phantom labels". "Ultimately the key reason they [Aldi] do this is about visual congruence," retail expert Gary Mortimer said. "So, when we're shopping in a supermarket, it's historically a mundane, habitual, low-involvement decision-making context. 'You walk down an aisle and you think Cadbury is purple. They [consumers] are influenced by pack colour, brand name or packaging shape." Professor Mortimer said when a consumer saw a product similar to another brand's, they might infer it was the same. "What the danger is, is a customer goes, 'Well, actually, their cereal is just as good as the Kellogg's version,'" he said. "Brands themselves spend a lot of money ensuring their brand is high quality. "Then a new player enters with a private label that looks very similar and, therefore, all of that positioning you've done with that product, the private label takes advantage of that position. "Brands would be concerned about that." Professor Mortimer said the private Aldi label was perceived as higher value than, say, the Coles or Woolworths generic-brands. "You won't get Aldi-brand biscuits, you'll get Belmont." In fact, they are so popular, other chains are taking a leaf out of the Aldi playbook, creating their own, cheaper, private brands. He said Woolworths and Coles had created private labels that sold cleaning products and pet food. "To some point, supermarkets understand we won't feed our dog Woolworths pet food but we might feed them a cheaper brand like Baxter's, which is actually Woolworths owned." With Choice ranking Aldi as the cheapest supermarket in Australia in its past five surveys, legal experts say the occasional legal challenges Aldi faces for sailing "close to the wind" with its packaging and branding are largely justified. While Aldi has faced legal challenges in Australia in the past over its packaging and the likeness of its products to rivals, the University of Sydney's Fady Aoun says it is far more challenging to take Aldi to court here. The senior lecturer in intellectual property law said this was because Australia's legal systems were vastly different to those in the US, for instance. "In the realm of trademark law and other forms of forms of policing commercial practices, American law is vastly different to Australian law," he said. "And, in addition to trademark infringement, they have something called unfair competition, which Australian law doesn't adopt "Their trademark law is far more protective of arguably trading interests and goes further than the Australian law in this respect." But there are several ways legal action can be pursued. Last year in Australia the company Hampden Holdings and Lacorium Health Australia successfully sued Aldi Foods for breach of copyright in relation to children's food products. Hampden licenses intellectual property to Every Bite Counts, which sells children's food products under Baby Bellies, Little Bellies and Mighty Bellies, which are sold in Australia. In 2018 and 2019, Aldi engaged the company Motor Design to re-design the packaging for its baby food and product range. The case found that in April 2019, Aldi instructed Motor Design to reuse the Little Bellies brand as the "benchmark" for the re-design of the packaging for its Mamia dry food range. The packaging and labelling were put side by side in court documents to highlight how similar each looked. "Aldi, they sail close to the wind," Dr Aoun said. "They sometimes overstep the mark. Other times they're just short of what is impermissible. "I suspect there is a strong legal department there and that's their business mode." The court found Hampden and Lacorium's owned the packaging designs. Aldi is currently appealing against the court decision. It was approached for comment. "The typical claims in Australia here are trademark infringement, misleading and deceptive conduct and — much more difficult — the common law action of 'passing off'," Dr Aoun said. "Hampden is just a company that holds IP rights and they are the holder of the copyright," Jane Rawlings, an intellectual property barrister said. "So they weren't suing on the trademark; they were suing on the look of the packaging, how it presents itself to consumers. "That was successful because the court had found Aldi had deliberately modelled their snacks on the Baby Bellies." Separately, Aldi won a federal court appeal in 2018 against a deceptive conduct ruling over hair care products brought against the supermarket chain by Moroccanoil Israel. Dr Rawlings said this was harder to prove. "You have to show there is reputational goodwill in the brand, and in this purpose it is by using a similar name, brand or look that misleads consumers and that damages the goodwill of the brand because they're being diverted to a cheaper alternative or because the brand owner is losing sales," she said. "You have to still prove the conduct has been deceptive and what Aldi do is tread a fine line where they've got a lookalike brand but it's not enough to argue consumers are being misled." In the UK in 2023, Cider producer Thatcher's successfully won a legal battle against Aldi, claiming it "copycatted" its Cloudy Lemon Cider in "taste and appearance". This was a lookalike trademark case that argued Aldi's Taurus drink had been "deliberately riding on the coat-tails" of the cider company's reputation as a brand. Dr Rawlings said she believed registering a brand as a trademark was one of the best ways to protect it. "To be honest, and if I were a brand owner trying to protect the look of packaging, I'd be looking very seriously at trademarking registration because it's relatively cheap and then you can basically sue on the trademark registration." Ultimately, experts agree the impact on consumers is relatively low. "What Aldi will typically say is our consumers are not confused [and that] while they may draw inspiration from leading brands there's no confusion people know what they're getting," Dr Aoun said.
The Age
3 hours ago
- The Age
Build-up to a blow-up: Inside the Trump-Musk meltdown
This account of the crumbling ties between the president and Musk is based on interviews with 13 people with direct knowledge of the events, all of whom asked for anonymity to describe private discussions. Loading While the relationship had been losing steam over the past several months as Musk clashed with Trump officials, people close to both men said the disagreement over Isaacman accelerated the breakup. Musk had been planning to exit the White House relatively quietly – before Isaacman's ouster left him feeling humiliated. Now the two men, who seemed inseparable at one point, are on opposite sides. Musk suggested Trump should be impeached. Trump has threatened to cancel government contracts with Musk's companies. And in recent days, Trump has been telling people close to him that he believes Musk is acting 'crazy' and must be doing drugs. For Musk, there were few positions across the thousands in the federal government that mattered more to him than the head of NASA, because of its critical importance to SpaceX, his rocket business. So it was of great personal benefit to Musk when Trump chose Isaacman – who has flown to space twice with SpaceX – to oversee the agency. Isaacman's donations to Democrats had not always been a problem. While Trump privately told advisers that he was surprised to learn of them, he and his team had been briefed about them during the presidential transition, before Isaacman's nomination, according to two people with knowledge of the events. But by last Friday, when Trump went through the file containing details of the donations, he clearly had changed his mind. Musk barely mounted a defence of his friend. He was anxious about doing so with other people around, including Sergio Gor, director of the presidential personnel office, who had clashed with Musk over other staffing matters. Musk believed that he would be able to talk to the president at some point after the gathering, privately. But Musk never got a chance to make his case. In the hours after the Oval Office farewell, Trump decided he would withdraw Isaacman from consideration. Musk was stunned by how fast it all happened. Musk's allies have argued privately that Isaacman's recent donations to Democrats were not ideological and made at the encouragement of Senator Mark Kelly, a former astronaut. A spokesperson for the Democratic senator for Arizona declined to comment. Loading As Musk dealt with the fallout from the tanked nomination, he spent part of the weekend outside Missoula, Montana, as a guest at 'Symposium' – an event for tech executives, investors and startup founders thrown by Founders Fund, the venture capital firm founded by Peter Thiel. He mingled with guests at Paws Up, a high-end resort with glamping tents and luxury cabins set on 15,000 hectares of a historic cattle ranch. There, he had a wide-ranging conversation with Thiel, who could sense no coming feud with the president, according to a person familiar with the talks. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI who has been openly feuding with Musk, also attended, though the two men did not speak. For Musk, the goings-on in Washington were still top of mind. After spending a day in Montana, he turned his attention in earnest to assailing the top domestic priority of Trump: the Republican bill making its way through Congress that would slash taxes and steer more money to the military and immigration enforcement. Privately and publicly, Musk stewed over the bill, believing that its spending would erase the supposed savings of his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and add to the federal deficit. Some Republican lawmakers had tried to assuage Musk's fears. On Monday, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson walked the billionaire through the bill and said that Congress would try to codify the work done by DOGE. After the call, Johnson told associates that he felt Musk was uninformed about the legislation and the congressional process, but that he had been able reason with the world's richest man, according to a person familiar with the conversation. On Monday evening, Musk still had concerns. He hinted at them on his social platform X, reposting a chart apparently showing the yearly increase in the national debt. 'Scary,' Musk wrote as a caption. Trump did not respond to Musk's criticisms of the bill and maintained a light public schedule. The Trump-Musk alliance fully ruptured Thursday, six days after the two men put on the collegial display in the Oval Office. Musk, who had largely focused his attacks on Republicans in Congress, had started directing more ire at the president. So when Trump was asked about Musk's comments during a meeting with Friedrich Merz, the new German chancellor, the president finally let loose. He said he was 'disappointed' in Musk, downplayed the billionaire's financial support for his presidential campaign and posited that Musk developed 'Trump derangement syndrome' after leaving the White House. Musk fired back in real time. Using X, he unleashed a torrent of attacks. He claimed there were references to the president in government documents about Jeffrey Epstein, the sex offender, and indicated his support for the president's impeachment. He also said Trump's tariffs would cause a recession by the end of the year. Loading Later, Trump, using his own social media platform, threatened to cut billions of dollars in federal contracts with Musk's companies. By Thursday evening, Musk signalled he would be open to de-escalating the fight, while the president seemed to have little interest in an immediate reconciliation. White House officials said Trump had no plans to call Musk. 'President Trump is the unequivocal leader of the Republican Party, and the vast majority of the country approves of his job performance as president,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. 'Inflation is down, consumer confidence and wages are up, the jobs report beat expectations for the third month in a row, the border is secure and America is hotter than ever before.' A spokesperson for Musk did not respond to a request for comment. Loading Musk, his allies and even some White House officials now pin the blame on Gor, believing he sabotaged Isaacman as Musk was on his way out. But some close Trump allies say Gor was being unfairly criticised for a decision that ultimately rests with the president. Gor and Musk had clashed several times early in Trump's second term, including at two Cabinet meetings, when Musk questioned how swiftly Gor was moving to fill the top ranks of agencies. Musk's and Gor's teams often disagreed over personnel and the amount of power that should be given to aides at DOGE. But Gor's title – director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office – does not convey the scope of his influence in the president's orbit. Gor founded a pro-Trump super political action committee during the 2024 presidential election, and co-founded a publishing house with Donald Trump jr that has published books by the president and his allies. The president's aides and allies quickly jumped to Gor's defence on Friday. 'Sergio Gor is a vital member of the team, and he has helped President Trump put together an administration that is second to none,' Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, said in a statement. As for Musk? White House officials said on Friday that Trump was considering selling the bright red Tesla he got in March as a show of support for Musk.
