Iran-US nuclear talks end with no agreement but ‘possibility of progress'
Talks between Iran and the US on whether Iran will be allowed to continue to enrich uranium inside the country have ended without an agreement, but apparently without the feared breakdown.
The indirect talks between the two sides were mediated by Oman and held in Rome.
Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said late on Friday: 'I hope that in the next one or two meetings we can reach solutions that will allow the negotiations to progress. With Oman's solutions to remove obstacles, there is a possibility of progress, but the negotiations are too complex to be resolved in one or two meetings.'
The Oman foreign ministry said in a statement: 'We hope to clarify remaining issues in coming days to allow us to proceed towards a common goal of reaching a sustainable and honourable agreement.'
The talks are being held against the backdrop of repeated threats by Israel to strike Iran's nuclear sites. Israel has long feared Iran is preparing to build a nuclear bomb, and is not, as it claims, pursuing a civil nuclear programme.
Donald Trump has been told by Gulf states that they do not want a further conflict in the Middle East that would be sparked by an Israeli attempt to bomb Iran, and the US president has shown a surprising willingness to reach an agreement with Tehran.
Before the talks the US said it was a red line to prevent Iran undertaking any domestic enrichment, while Iran has insisted that as a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty it cannot be singled out by preventing it from continuing with a programme of domestic uranium enrichment.
It has offered to put strict limits on the size of its stockpile and the purity of the uranium.
The starkness of the public differences on both sides concerning enrichment led observers to fear that this fifth round of talks would lead to a collapse with unpredictable consequences for the Middle East.
But although Oman did not immediately set a date for the next talks, there seemed to be a consensus that a further round would occur. Oman's foreign minister, Badr Albusaidi, said on X there had been 'some but not conclusive progress'.
Countries such as the United Arab Emirates that have a small nuclear programme based on imported uranium have suggested Iran could follow this example by importing the required uranium, but Iran regards its position as different since it has had to undertake so much sacrifice in the form of US economic sanctions to pursue what it says is a peaceful civil nuclear programme. It believes it has a sovereign right to enrich uranium, and points out Israel has an undeclared nuclear weapon that the US does not demand it relinquish.
Some mediators suggested as an alternative that Iran could pause enrichment for a fixed period, or that in addition to enriching domestically it could form a civil nuclear consortium with Saudi Arabia, so providing extra reassurance and knowledge about the nature of its domestic programme.
For reasons not yet clear, Steve Witkoff, the US chief negotiator, left the meeting early, and the US, unlike Iran, issued no immediate statement on the talks. Before the meeting Witkoff had met Israeli officials, including the head of Mossad, David Barnea, as he had in the context of previous negotiating sessions with Iran.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
42 minutes ago
- Reuters
Iran says US travel ban shows 'deep hostility' for Iranians, Muslims
June 7 (Reuters) - Iran's foreign ministry said a U.S. travel ban that includes Iran showed "deep hostility of American decision-makers towards the Iranian people and Muslims", the ministry posted on the X platform on Saturday.
The National
42 minutes ago
- The National
Owen Jones: The UK media has ignored this hugely revealing scandal
And yet Benjamin Netanyahu – the Israeli prime minister subject to an International Criminal Court arrest warrant – has been accused of forging this alliance by the Israeli political class. And yet – once again – the Westminster media has overwhelmingly failed to cover this latest profoundly revealing scandal. Avigdor Lieberman is a far-right opposition leader who once served as Netanyahu's deputy prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister. This week, he publicly announced: 'The Israeli government is giving weapons to a group of criminals and felons, identified with Islamic State, at the direction of the prime minister.' Did Netanyahu come out swinging, accusing his opponent of antisemitism, as he did when another opposition leader, former Israeli general Yair Golan, declared that Israel was killing babies as a hobby? READ MORE: Patrick Harvie: Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely He did not. Instead, Netanyahu bragged that 'Israel is working to defeat Hamas in various ways, on the recommendation of all heads of the security establishment'. In a video message, he clarified that Israel had 'activated clans in Gaza that oppose Hamas', shamelessly calling it 'a good thing' which was saving the lives of Israeli soldiers. 'What's wrong with that?' We're talking here about a militia headed by a man named Yasser Abu Shabab. He styles his faction as the 'Anti Terror Service', but it is a criminal gang operating in an area of Rafah firmly under Israeli military control. His own family has not only disowned him, but backed his execution. According to Palestinian analyst Muhammad Shehada, his militia is composed of 300 'drug dealers and criminals.' And here's the important detail. To justify imposing a total siege on Gaza, Israel claimed that Hamas was stealing humanitarian food. Among those pointing out this wasn't true was Cindy McCain, widow of the late hawkish Republican senator John McCain, and now director of the World Food Programme. But we do know that Shabab's Israel-backed gang has been stealing aid. As ever with the Israeli authorities: every accusation is a confession. This is just another plank of Israel's starvation policy. But again, the Western media has overwhelmingly failed to clearly spell out what Israel is actually doing. Having imposed a total siege on Gaza since March 2, Israel set up a US-backed shadow entity named the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to explicitly supplant the UN. It hasn't just been rejected by every aid agency – even the US marine who heads it resigned on the basis it contradicted the basic principles of humanitarianism. The Foundation set three aid checkpoints in the south in an effort to concentrate Gaza's entire population into a confined area – a concentration camp. Too little aid was delivered, much of it unusable given the siege on cooking materials. But in any case, the Israeli military repeatedly fired on starving Palestinians. In the words of Tory MP Kit Malthouse, the UN system had been replaced with a 'shooting range, an abattoir'. But when the Israeli military massacred dozens of starving Palestinians, they deployed their usual strategy: deceive, deflect, deny, distort. Even though the shootings happened in an Israeli military zone, and despite the overwhelming evidence of Israeli lies, the Western media indulged Israeli claims that Hamas was responsible as if they were credible. CNN belatedly published a clear rebuttal of Israeli lies, but attention had already moved on. As ever, the Western media overall fail to allow Israeli responsibility for atrocities to stick. And yet now, even as Yair Lapid – the main opposition leader – states Netanyahu is 'giving weapons to organisations close to ISIS in Gaza', this latest plank of Israel's starvation strategy barely gets any coverage. This is despite Israel's 'Hamas is ISIS' campaign long being used to justify the genocide. This all fits a classic pattern, of course. Israel encouraged the rise of Hamas in the 1980s in order to undermine its public enemy number one at the time, Yasser Arafat's Fatah. More recently, Netanyahu worked with Qatar to transfer money to prop up Hamas – with the hope of dividing the Palestinian nation and movement so an independent state was impossible. Remember too how the West armed and backed the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s, playing a crucial role in creating the global Islamist fundamentalist movement. You would think the Western media might take an interest given the precedents. It is true that there is a shift taking place. Israeli spokespeople are suddenly being taken apart on mainstream television. Sky News is demanding the Prime Minister answer if genocide is taking place. But the media narrative still has not clearly shifted to reality – that is, a crime of historic proportions is being facilitated by Western governments, which means questions should be focused on 'how can this crime be stopped, and perpetrators held to justice' rather than 'is Israel doing something very bad here?' The latter is an improvement on where the narrative was stuck for so long – which was essentially 'Israel is waging a war of self-defence', with a side debate about whether the 'response' was 'proportionate'. What is clear is that an understanding is creeping into the political and media elites that a reckoning is coming, where those who facilitated this abomination will be forced to answer for what they did and what they didn't do. Time is running out.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Leaders of the Jan. 6 riot take revenge against US after securing pardon from Trump
Five former members of the Proud Boys are looking for a little revenge after getting a pardon from Donald Trump, filing a $100million lawsuit against the Department of Justice. One of the first moves of Donald Trump's second term was to pardon all January 6 defendants which included members of the far right Proud Boys. Former Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, Ethan Nordean and Dominic Pezzola have filed the suit in Orlando federal court. While Tarrio received a pardon, the other four plaintiffs had their sentences commuted. The lawsuit said all four applied for pardons on May 13. They claim their constitutional rights were violated when they were prosecuted for their participation in the attack on the U.S. Capitol. The suit seeks unspecified compensatory damages plus 6% interest and $100 million plus interest in punitive damages. 'There was hostages in this country,' Tarrio said during a news conference Friday afternoon. 'It's not about any other country today, and that's why this lawsuit is so important to bring back law and order into our system.' The lawsuit claims the men were arrested with insufficient probable cause and that government agents later 'found' fake incriminating evidence. They also claim they were held for years in pretrial detention, often in solitary confinement. 'The Plaintiffs themselves did not obstruct the proceedings at the Capitol, destroy government property, resist arrest, conspire to impede the police, or participate in civil disorder, nor did they plan for or order anyone else to do so,' the lawsuit said. Tarrio, Biggs, Rehl and Nordean were all convicted of seditious conspiracy and other crimes for their participation in the Capitol riot that sought to stop Congress from certifying former U.S. President Joe Biden ´s win over President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Pezzola was acquitted on the conspiracy charge but convicted of stealing a police officer's riot shield and using it to smash a window. After returning to office earlier this year, Trump granted pardons to almost all of the more than 1,500 people who stormed the Capitol. The U.S. Justice Department didn't immediately respond to a message seeking comment. Speaking to a media gaggle packed into his White House office the night of the inauguration, Trump said he was pardoning about 1,500 defendants and issuing six commutations. Ex-Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was a guest of honor at the Reagan Tribute at Mar-a-Lago – just two weeks after his prison sentence was commuted by President Donald Trump's executive order Zachary Rehl (pictured left) and Ethan Nordean (pictured right) are two of the plaintiffs in the suit He also directed the attorney general to seek dismissal of about 450 pending criminal cases against Jan. 6 defendants. The pardons fulfill Trump's promise to release supporters who tried to help him overturn his election defeat four years ago. 'These are the hostages,' he said while signing the paperwork in the Oval Office. Trump declared at his indoor parade earlier that day that he will sign pardons for 'a lot of people' who were convicted for the attack on the U.S. Capitol as the crowd cheered enthusiastically. 'We won, we won, but now the work begins,' Trump said to start his remarks at the end of the parade in the packed Capitol One Arena in Washington, DC. Tarrio, one of the biggest names to get a pardon, has since said he plans to run for public office. He was sentenced in September 2023 to serve 22 years in prison after he was convicted of seditious conspiracy for his role in the January 6 attack – even though he was not present at the Capitol that day. And just two weeks later, Tarrio was among the guests of honor during a Reagan Tribute event at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida. Tarrio, who was chairman of the Proud Boys at the time of the Capitol attack, said he would neither 'support' nor 'condemn' the riot. The far-right activist did insist, however, that he did not 'sympathize' with lawmakers who were terrified in their offices that day. At least 37 members of the Proud Boys were arrested, charged or indicted for alleged roles in the Capitol riot by January 2022. By then, Tarrio was no longer a leader of the group. He served as chairman from 2018 to 2021. The House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack subpoenaed Tarrio to testify in November 2021 and in February 2022, he gave a deposition to the committee investigators and two members.
