Iranian lawmakers accuse US and Israel of planning nuclear talks trap
DUBAI, June 10 (Reuters) - The United States and Israel are seeking to turn nuclear talks into a "strategic trap" for Iran, Iranian lawmakers said in a statement on Tuesday, days before a planned sixth round of Iran-U.S. nuclear talks.
"The U.S. is not serious in negotiations at all. It has set the goal of talks as imposing its demands and has adopted offensive positions that are diametrically opposed to Iranians' inalienable rights," the statement from parliamentarians said.
U.S. President Donald Trump highlighted on Monday that the two sides remained at odds on the issue of uranium enrichment in Iran, which Iranian lawmakers say is a non-negotiable part of the country's nuclear programme.
While Trump said the next round of talks would take place on Thursday, Iran's foreign ministry spokesperson said it was planned to take place on Sunday in Oman.
Iran is to share a counterproposal to a U.S. offer for a nuclear deal, which it says is not acceptable considering its position on enrichment and lack of detail on the lifting of sanctions.
"The only acceptable deal is one that permanently lifts all sanctions with the aim of achieving economic benefits for Iran," lawmakers added in their statement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
14 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Middle East nations call for urgent de-escalation after Israel's strikes on Iran
Nations across the Middle East condemned the Israeli strikes on Iran on Friday, calling for urgent de-escalation amid concerns that tit-for-tat retaliation could lead to a wider war with regional fallout. Israel's carried out hundreds of strikes across Iran, killing top military and nuclear officials and targeting nuclear facilities – the most serious Israeli attack on Iran ever. Iran responded by launching at least 100 drones and ballistic missiles in Israel's direction, most of which were shot down, according to the Israeli military. Iran has vowed revenge, with the country's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei threatening 'severe punishment.' The foreign ministries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries – with the exception of Bahrain – all denounced the Israeli strikes and urged a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. Lebanon and Jordan issued similar statements. Saudi Arabia's foreign ministry said that the Israeli attacks against Israel 'constitute a clear violation of international laws and norms'. 'While the Kingdom condemns these heinous attacks, it affirms that the international community and the Security Council bear a great responsibility to immediately halt this aggression,' a statement from the Saudi foreign ministry said. The Saudi foreign minister, Faisal bin Farhan, later called his Iranian counterpart, urging a 'rejection of the use of force'. Though many states in the Middle East, particularly in the Arab Gulf, are historically hostile to Iran and its influence in the region, a fully fledged war between Israel and Iran is not in their interest. Escalation threatened regional fallout, with intercepted Iranian missiles falling in the countryside of southern Syria, schools closing in south Lebanon and Jordanian jets shooting down drones and missiles. In the past, Iran and its proxies' targets have included oil facilities in Saudi Arabia and US military personnel in the Middle East. The US has military bases across the region, including in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the UAE. Iran's ability to disrupt the oil trade, with their control over the strategic strait of Hormuz, could threaten the economic interests of the Gulf states. Iran backs a network of militias across the region, such as the Houthis in Yemen, the popular mobilisation forces in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon, which could all also be involved in an Iranian war with Israel. The militias are a core part of Iran's defence doctrine, a concept it refers to as strategic depth, which relies on its allies and proxies to create layers of defence and deterrence throughout the Middle East. Under the doctrine, an Israeli attack could be met with a missile from neighbouring Lebanon, Yemen or Iraq. Iran's allies, however, have been severely weakened by almost two years of fighting with Israel. Hezbollah, Iran's most important regional proxy, had most of its senior leadership killed in Israeli strikes last autumn and its weapons caches have been confiscated by the Lebanese state. The Iran-backed militias gave no indication on Friday that they would get involved in the Iran-Israel conflict, issuing relatively measured statements in the aftermath of the strikes. Hezbollah condemned the attacks but said the group would not initiate a strike on Israel, while the Houthis said that they 'support Iran's right to defend itself'. Hezbollah and other members of the Iranian axis have been severely battered over the past year of fighting with Israel, as well as by the fall of Iran's ally Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The lukewarm response by Iran's allied militias was a strong contrast to its first attack on Israel in April 2024, when drones and missiles were launched from Lebanon, Iraq and Syria alongside its own.
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump wanted to unleash the troops on George Floyd protests. Now the gloves are off
President Donald Trump saw an opportunity to deploy thousands of active-duty troops to American streets in 2020 after the police murder of George Floyd galvanized protests across the country. However, some officials in his first administration resisted the idea and checked some of Trump's more violent impulses when it came to resistance against his agenda. Trump ultimately did not invoke the Insurrection Act that year — reportedly at the guidance of officials who are no longer in his circle. Five years later, the president — surrounded by 'law and order' loyalists — federalized the National Guard for the first time in more than 50 years to deploy 4,000 service members across Los Angeles. Another 700 U.S. Marines are standing by, with dozens already guarding federal agents while they make immigration arrests. The administration appears to be aiming to avoid what Trump sees as a mistake from his first term. The White House and Homeland Security have spent weeks planning how to more broadly deploy the nation's military into American cities to support the president's anti-immigration agenda. A spark from protests in Los Angeles, largely confined to pockets of the sprawling city's downtown areas and two nearby communities, appeared to give officials the fire they were looking for to put the plan into action and boots on the ground. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told members of Congress on June 11 that Trump's order sending the Guard to California could apply to other states. He called it 'getting ahead of the problem.' 'So that if in other places, if there are other riots, in places where law enforcement officers are threatened, we would have the capability to surge National Guard there, if necessary,' Hegseth told House lawmakers. Trump now appears to be trying to avoid a repeat of the summer of protests that plagued the final months of his first term in office and derailed a campaign he ultimately lost at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and political debate focused on racial justice. 'Can't you just shoot them?' Thousands of people flooded streets across the country throughout the summer of 2020. The police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor sparked daily demonstrations against police brutality and racism, including in the streets of Washington, D.C. It led to violent clashes and vandalism in cities. Pictures of burning buildings and cops in riot gear dominated news coverage. 'Can't you just shoot them?' Trump said at the time, according to his former Defense Secretary Mark Esper. 'Just shoot them in the legs or something?' 'I had to figure out a way to walk Trump back without creating the mess I was trying to avoid,' Esper wrote in his book A Sacred Oath, describing Trump as 'red faced and complaining loudly about the protests underway' in the nation's capital. Trump demanded law enforcement officers 'crack skulls' and 'beat the f*** out' of protesters, according to the book Frankly, We Did Win This Election: The Inside Story of How Trump Lost by The Wall Street Journal 's Michael Bender. 'Don't we have an island that we own? What about Guantanamo?' Trump reportedly said, referring to the Cuban naval base that became a notorious prison during the War on Terror. Esper and General Mark Milley, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff serving as the nation's top military leader, appeared to be among the only senior administration officials who could confront the president and his chief loyalists. During one Oval Office debate, Trump's adviser Stephen Miller compared scenes of burning buildings and crowds clashing with police to war zones — which infuriated Milley, according to Bender's book. 'Shut the f*** up, Stephen,' Milley reportedly fired back. But in public, Trump praised Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, whose state erupted with unrest and chaotic scenes after Floyd's murder. 'I know Governor Walz is on the phone, and we spoke, and I fully agree with the way he handled it the last couple of days,' Trump said at the time. 'I was very happy with the last couple of days, Tim,' he said. 'You called up big numbers and the big numbers knocked them out so fast it was like bowling pins.' Trump even dismissed the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act at the time and suggested he could not go over the heads up governors to deploy federal troops into the states. 'We have laws. We have to go by the laws. We can't move in the National Guard. I can call insurrection, but there's no reason to ever do that,' Trump said during an election town hall. 'We can't call in the National Guard unless we're requested by a governor,' he said. 'If a governor or a mayor is a Democrat, like in Portland, we call them constantly.' 'We're gonna have troops everywhere' Trump is no longer moored by advisers willing to argue against his instincts. During his 2024 campaign, Trump appeared to change his tune, suggesting that he would call on the National Guard 'if things were getting out of control.' 'I would have no problem using the military, per se,' he told Time in April 2024. 'We have to have safety in our country. We have to have law and order in our country. And whichever gets us there, but I think the National Guard will do the job.' Within weeks after his inauguration, administration officials began to discuss how to leverage the military to support the president's immigration enforcement plans, a hallmark of his 2024 campaign, according to CNN. First, Trump sent thousands of active-duty troops to the U.S.-Mexico border with permission to detain anyone caught illegally crossing until law enforcement officers arrived on the scene. Troops have been deployed to the southern border under previous administrations, typically in a supporting role alongside federal officers. But under Trump, federalized troops are allowed to detain and search anyone within a 170-mile stretch of federal land spanning three states. The administration also is mulling the use of military bases to detain immigrants. A February memo outlined a plan to detain roughly 1,000 immigrants at Fort bliss in Texas. That plan could serve as a model for immigration detention at several other military bases, according to DHS officials. In January, Trump outlined a plan to detain as many as 30,000 immigrants inside the notorious naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The detention center has held dozens of immigrants at various points since February. But officials have also discussed how to send troops into the nation's interior, and whether they could act as a protective body for federal agents performing raids and arrests. After anti-ICE raid demonstrations kicked off across Los Angeles, Trump mobilized the California National Guard against the wishes of Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. His order said troops would protect federal property and federal personnel. Then he announced active-duty Marines would support local law enforcement, escalating a response that critics fear is a test for Trump's radical expansion of military force against civilians. Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act, though the president and administration officials have repeatedly labeled protesters 'insurrectionists' and 'seditionists' — sparking fears that the president is laying the groundwork for mass deployment of military assets across the country. Both actions drew legal challenges from Newsom and watchdog groups. In a televised address, Newsom said Trump's actions put his state and the nation at the brink of authoritarian control. 'California may be first, but it clearly won't end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next,' he said. Another lawsuit from watchdog group American Oversight called the deployment 'an opening salvo in a coordinated national strategy and not simply an isolated incident.' 'Deploying the military to quash protests over the administration's inhumane and legally dubious immigration policies — especially over the objection of elected state leaders — is a dangerous, though unfortunately predictable, escalation by the Trump administration,' according to American Oversight executive director Chioma Chukwu. 'If left unchecked, this abuse of power under thin legal pretense can be readily replicated across other states in the future,' he added. In his testimony before House lawmakers on June 12, Hegseth refused to answer whether the Defense Department would respect court rulings — including the Supreme Court — if they struck down Trump's order. 'We should not have local judges determining foreign policy or national security policy for the country,' he said. Asked on June 8 whether he planned to send troops to other parts of the country, Trump said 'we're gonna have troops everywhere.' 'We're not going to let this happen to our country. We're not going to let our country be torn apart like it was under Biden,' he said. Two days later, he warned that any protests during a military parade in Washington, D.C. would be met with 'very heavy force.' 'If there's any protester who wants to come out, they will be met with very big force,' he said from the Oval Office. 'I haven't even heard about a protest, but [there are] people that hate our country.' Noem, appearing next to the president that day, said Minnesota's Governor Walz 'let his city burn' in 2020. 'The president and I have talked about this in the past,' she said. 'He was not going to let that happen to another city and to another community, where a bad governor made a bad decision.'
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Consumer sentiment rose in June for 1st time this year as inflation remains stayed tame
Consumer sentiment increased in June for the first time in six months, the latest sign that Americans' views of the economy have improved as inflation has stayed tame and the Trump administration has reached a truce in its trade fight with China. The preliminary reading of the University of Michigan's closely watched consumer sentiment index, released Friday, jumped 16% to 60.5. The large increase followed steady drops that left the preliminary number last month at the second-lowest level in the nearly 75-year history of the survey. Consumer sentiment is still down 20% compared with December 2024. ' Consumers appear to have settled somewhat from the shock of the extremely high tariffs announced in April and the policy volatility seen in the weeks that followed,' Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, said in a written statement. 'However, consumers still perceive wide-ranging downside risks to the economy.' Americans have largely taken a darker view of the economy's future after President Donald Trump unleashed a wide-ranging trade war, imposing steep tariffs on China, the European Union, and dozens of other countries. Yet in April Trump postponed a set of sweeping tariffs on about 60 nations and last month reached a temporary truce with China, after both sides had sharply ratcheted up tariffs on each other. U.S. duties remain elevated compared with historical levels, but so far they have not worsened overall inflation.
