Iran may pause enrichment for US nod on nuclear rights, release of frozen funds, Iranian sources say
In Washington, a US official said the proposal aired by the Iranian sources had not been brought to the negotiating table to date. The US state department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on this article.
Iran's semi-official Fars news agency said Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei denied Reuters report and said 'enrichment in Iran is a non-negotiable principle'.
The Iranian sources said Tehran would not agree to dismantling of its nuclear programme or infrastructure or sealing of its nuclear installations as demanded by US President Donald Trump's administration.
Instead, they said, Trump must publicly recognise Iran's sovereign right to enrichment as a member of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and authorise a release of Iranian oil revenues frozen by sanctions, including $6bn in Qatar.
Iran has not yet been able to access the $6bn parked in a Qatar bank that was unfrozen under a US-Iranian prisoner swap in 2023, during US President Joe Biden's administration.
'Tehran wants its funds to be transferred to Iran with no conditions or limitations. If that means lifting some sanctions, then it should be done too,' the second source said.
The sources said the political agreement would give the nuclear diplomacy a greater chance to yield results by providing more time to hammer out a consensus on hard-to-bridge issues needed for a permanent treaty.
'The idea is not to reach an interim deal, it would (rather) be a political agreement to show both sides are seeking to defuse tensions,' said the second Iranian source.
Western diplomats are sceptical of chances for US-Iranian reconciliation on enrichment. They warn that a temporary political agreement would face resistance from European powers unless Iran displayed a serious commitment to scaling back its nuclear activity with verification by the UN nuclear watchdog.
Even if gaps over enrichment narrow, lifting sanctions quickly would remain difficult. The US favours phasing out nuclear-related sanctions while Iran demands immediate removal of all US-imposed curbs that impair its oil-based economy.
Asked whether critical US sanctions, reimposed since 2018 when Trump withdrew Washington from the 2015 pact, could be rescinded during an enrichment pause, the first source said: 'There have been discussions over how to lift the sanctions during the five rounds of talks.'
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'.
Iran's clerical establishment is grappling with mounting crises — energy and water shortages, a plunge in the value of its currency, losses among regional militia proxies in wars with Israel, and growing fears of an Israeli strike on its nuclear sites — all worsened by Trump's hardline stance.
Trump's revival of a 'maximum pressure' campaign against Tehran since he re-entered the White House in January has included tightened sanctions and threats to bomb Iran if negotiations yield no deal.
Iranian officials told Reuters last week Tehran's leadership 'has no better option' than a new deal to avert economic chaos at home that could jeopardise clerical rule.
Nationwide protests over social repression and economic hardship in recent years met with harsh crackdowns but exposed the Islamic Republic's vulnerability to public discontent and drew more Western sanctions over human rights violations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
Most South African farmers are black: why Trump got it so wrong
There are more black farmers in South Africa than white farmers,says the authors Image: Karen Sandison/ Independent Newspapers When world leaders engage, the assumption is always that they engage on issues based on verified facts, which their administrative staff are supposed to prepare. Under this assumption, we thought the meeting at the White House on 21 May between South Africa's president, Cyril Ramaphosa, and US president Donald Trump would follow this pattern. Disappointingly, the televised meeting was horrifying to watch as it was based on misrepresenting the reality of life in South Africa. Issues of agriculture, farming and land (and rural crime) were central to the discussions. What is clear to us as agricultural economists is that the skewed views expressed by Trump about these issues originate in South Africa. This includes Trump's statement: 'But Blacks are not farmers.' In our work as agricultural economists, we have, in many pieces and books (our latest titled The Uncomfortable Truth about South Africa's Agriculture), tried to present South Africans with the real facts about the political economy policy reforms and structural dimensions of South African agriculture. Writing on these matters was necessary given that official data – agricultural census 2017, as well as the official land audit of 2017 – all provide an incomplete picture of the real state and structure of South African agriculture. The reason is that the agricultural census, which is supposed to provide a comprehensive and inclusive assessment of the size and structure of the primary agricultural sector, and the land audit, which was supposed to record the ownership of all land in South Africa, are incomplete in their coverage. The incomplete and inaccurate official data provides fertile ground for radical statements by the left and the right – and novices on social media. This is why South Africa has to deal with falsehoods coming from the US. These include Trump's statement that black people are not farmers in South Africa. South Africa is to blame for providing inaccurate data to feed these false narratives. The facts presented here should allow a more nuanced interpretation of South Africa's farm structure. Firstly, there are more black farmers in South Africa than white farmers. And not all white commercial farm operations are 'large-scale', and not all black farmers are 'small-scale', 'subsistence' or 'emerging'. Most farm operations can be classified as micro, or small in scale. This is important so that one doesn't view South Africa's agriculture as mainly white farmers. Indeed, we are a country of two agricultures with black farmers mainly at small scale and accounting for roughly 10% of the commercial agricultural output. Still, this doesn't mean they are not active in the sector. They mainly still require support to expand and increase output, but they are active. The facts In the wake of the circus in the Oval Office, we were amazed by the total silence of the many farmers' organisations in South Africa. We have not seen one coming out to reject all of Trump's claims. The only thing we can deduce from this is that these falsehoods suit the political position of some farmer organisations. But at what cost? Will many of their members be harmed by trade sanctions or tariffs against South Africa? The US is an important market for South Africa's agriculture, accounting for 4% of the $13.7 billion (R247bn) exports in 2024. When Ramaphosa highlighted the fact that crime, and rural crime in particular, has an impact on all South Africans and that more black people than white people are being killed, Trump's response was disturbing, to say the least: 'But Blacks are not farmers'. This requires an immediate fact check. We returned to the text from our chapter in the Handbook on the South African Economy we jointly prepared in 2021. In the extract below, we discuss the real numbers of farmers in South Africa and try to provide a sensible racial classification of farmers to denounce Trump's silly statement. As highlighted earlier, the two latest agricultural censuses (2007 and 2017) are incomplete as they restricted the sample frame to farm businesses registered to pay value added tax. Only firms with a turnover of R1 million qualify for VAT registration. We were able to expand the findings from the censuses with numbers from the 2011 population census and the 2016 community survey to better understand the total number of commercial farming units in South Africa. The Community Survey 2016 is a large-scale survey that happened between Censuses 2011 and 2021. The main objective was to provide population and household statistics at municipal level to government and the private sector, to support planning and decision-making. Data from the 2011 population census (extracted from three agricultural questions included in the census) shows that 2 879 638 households out of South Africa's total population, or 19.9% of all households, were active in agriculture for subsistence or commercial purposes. Only 2% of these active households reported an annual income derived from agriculture above R307 000. This translates into 57 592 households that can be considered commercial farmers, with agriculture as the main or only source of household income. This corresponds in some way with the 40 122 farming businesses that are registered for VAT as noted in the 2017 agricultural census report. If we use the numbers from the agricultural census it is evident almost 90% of all VAT-registered commercial farming businesses could be classified as micro or small-scale enterprises. If the farm businesses excluded from the census are accounted for under the assumption that they are too small for VAT registration, then the fact still stands that the vast majority of all farm enterprises in South Africa are small family farms. Graphic Image: Source: StatsSA There are, however, 2 610 large farms (with turnover exceeding R22.5 million, which are responsible for 67% of farm income and employed more than half the agricultural labour force of 757 000 farm workers in 2017. Graphic Image: Source: StatsSA (2020b) – based on additional analysis of the 2016 Community Survey Another way to get to farm numbers is to use the 2016 Community Survey. Using the shares as shown in Table 2, we estimate there are 242 221 commercial farming households in South Africa, of which only 43 891 (18%) are white commercial farmers. (This is very much in line with the VAT registered farmers but also acknowledging the fact that many white farm businesses are not necessarily registered for VAT.) Let's consider only the agricultural households with agriculture as their main source of income, surveyed in the 2016 community survey. We end up with a total of 132 700 households, of whom 93 000 (70%) are black farmers. This reality is something that policy makers and farm organisations find very difficult to deal with and it seems that Trump also found this too good to be true. We have tried here in a long winded way to deal with farm numbers and how to get to a race classification of farmers in South Africa. In the end we trust that we have managed to show that there are more black farmers in South Africa than white farmers. Their share in total output is smaller than that of their white counterparts. The National Agricultural Marketing Council puts black farmers' share of agricultural production as roughly 10%. But these numbers are also incomplete and largely an undercount. It will always be challenging to get to the real number of black farmers' share of agricultural output as nobody would ever know whether the potato or the cabbage on the shelf came from a farm owned by a black farmer or a white person but operated by a black farmer, for example. As South Africans know, the labour on farms, in pack houses, distribution systems and retail are all black. So, the sweat and hard work of black South African workers are integral to the food supply chain in South Africa. Let's get these facts straight and promote them honestly. The Conversation Image: Supplied
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
Asia shares, dollar slip as tariff tensions darken mood
Nikkei slips, S&P futures weighed by risk-off mood Dollar down before jobs data, steel levies deadline ECB seen cutting rates, BoC on hold Oil bounces on relief OPEC did not raise output even further By Wayne Cole SYDNEY, June 2 (Reuters) – Asian share markets and the dollar made a soft start on Monday as US-China trade tensions continued to simmer, while investors turned defensive ahead of key US jobs data and a widely expected cut in European interest rates. There was little obvious reaction to President Donald Trump's threat late Friday to double tariffs on imported steel and aluminium to 50%, beginning on June 4, a sudden twist that drew the ire of European Union negotiators. Speaking on Sunday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Trump would soon speak with Chinese President Xi Jinping to iron out a dispute over critical minerals. Beijing then forcefully rejected Trump's trade criticism, suggesting a call might be some time coming. White House officials also continued to play down a court ruling that Trump had overstepped his authority by imposing across-the-board duties on imports from U.S. trading partners. 'The court ruling will complicate the path ahead on trade policy, but there remains an ample set of provisions available to the administration to deliver its desired results,' said Bruce Kasman, chief economist at JPMorgan. 'There is a commitment to maintaining a minimum US tariff rate of at least 10% and imposing further sector tariff increases,' he added. 'An increase in ASEAN to discourage transhipment looks likely, and the bias for higher tariffs on US-EU trade persists.' Markets will be particularly interested to see if Trump goes ahead with the 50% tariff on Wednesday, or backs off as he has done so often before. In the meantime, caution reigned and MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan went flat. Japan's Nikkei fell 1.4%, while Hong Kong dropped 2.5%. South Korean stocks edged up 0.2% on hopes a snap presidential election on Tuesday would deliver a clear winner. EUROSTOXX 50 futures dipped 0.2%, while FTSE futures and DAX futures were little changed. S&P 500 futures eased 0.4% and Nasdaq futures lost 0.5%. The S&P had climbed 6.2% in May, while the Nasdaq rallied 9.6% on hopes final import levies will be far lower than the initial sky-high levels. Front-running the tariffs has already caused wild swings in the economy, with a contraction in the first quarter likely turning into a jump this quarter as imports fall back. The Atlanta Fed GDPNow estimate is running at an annualised 3.8% for April-June, though analysts assume this will slow sharply in the second half of the year. Data this week on US manufacturing and jobs will offer a timely reading on the pulse of activity, with payrolls seen rising 130,000 in May while unemployment stays at 4.2%. EYEING UNEMPLOYMENT A rise in unemployment is one of the few developments that could get the Federal Reserve to start thinking of easing policy again, with investors having largely given up on a cut this month or next. A move in September is seen at around a 75% chance, though Fed officials have stopped well short of endorsing such pricing. There are at least 11 Fed speakers on the diary for this week, led by Fed Chair Jerome Powell later on Monday. Fed Governor Christopher Waller did say on Monday that cuts remain possible later this year as he saw downside risks to economic activity and employment and upside risks to inflation from the tariffs. A softer jobs report would be a relief for the Treasury market, where 30-year yields continue to flirt with the 5% barrier as investors demand a higher premium to offset the ever-expanding supply of debt. The Senate this week will start considering a tax-and-spending bill that will add an estimated $3.8 trillion to the federal government's $36.2 trillion in debt. Across the Atlantic, the European Central Bank is considered almost certain to cut its rates by a quarter point to 2.0% on Thursday, while markets will be sensitive to guidance on the chance of another move as early as July. The Bank of Canada meets Wednesday and markets imply a 76% chance it will hold rates at 2.75%, while sounding dovish on the future given the tariff-fuelled risk of recession there. Widening rate spreads have so far offered only limited support to the US dollar. 'The greenback remains near the lower end of its post-2022 range and considerably weaker than interest rate differentials would imply,' noted Jonas Goltermann, deputy chief markets economist at Capital Economics. 'Sentiment around the greenback remains negative and it continues to look vulnerable to further bad news on the fiscal and trade policy fronts.' On Monday, the dollar slipped 0.3% on the yen to 143.55, while the euro edged up 0.2% to $1.1370. The greenback even fell 0.2% on the Canadian dollar to 1.3727, getting no tailwind from Trump's threat of 50% tariffs on Canadian steel exports. In commodity markets, gold firmed 0.6% to $3,310 an ounce, having lost 1.9% last week. Oil prices bounced after OPEC+ decided to increase output in July by the same amount as it did in each of the prior two months, a relief to some who had feared an even bigger increase. Brent rose $1.60 to $64.38 a barrel, while US crude gained $1.74 to $62.53 per barrel.
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
We are an evil and irresponsible nation, write our readers
As an evil nation, we got what we deserved The US President went out to humiliate the South African President. The issue of farmers and the 'genocide' of which they are victims as white people was clearly not on the agenda. The agenda focused on 'resetting relations and bilateral matters', according to the presidency. However, it is surprising that Ramaphosa invited white golfers and the minister of agriculture. That can only mean that South Africans were always wary of giving Trump an excuse to bring up the white farmer genocide. Nonetheless, the South African government received what it deserved. Also, the media, which has long protected Ramaphosa, received what it deserved. Trump humiliated all South Africans, so there was no chance to play great public relations. Indeed, the entire concept of a democratic South Africa that is 'non-sexist', 'non-racial', and has the 'sweetest Constitution and free media' facade has been exposed as the satanic lie it has always been. And the 'self-proclaimed' guardians of democracy known as the South African media were caught off guard, and Trump accused them of concealing the alleged genocide. The democratic government has done an excellent job of concealing the fact that the majority of people are Christians, the majority of violence victims are Black men, and the majority of marginalised people are Black. It hid God's role in South Africans' resolve to end apartheid. The government and biased media highlighted a few examples of Black and foreign pastors as the face of a 'rotten Christianity' and a God unneeded in our constitutional democracy, while ignoring the positive work of churches and pastors. This nation has hidden God from its children's education and attempted to justify xenophobia by citing frustration among the people. Many evil things have occurred in this country, but all have one common theme: to humiliate the God of Christians and demonstrate that we can do so through our secular Constitution! South Africa was becoming so arrogant in its devil-may-care attitude and 'Madiba magic' nonsense that it thought it could take it to the ICJ and get its way, just as it had done with Christianity and people like Bushiri. However, it has been exposed for the emptiness and hypocrisy that define it, as no one can be above their spirituality. As a Christian nation, South Africa's ethos and political stance should be based solely on Christianity, including championing human rights at the International Court of Justice. | Khotso Moleko Bloemfontein Let's sacrifice in solidarity with others Across the globe, countless countries have borne the brunt of war, devastating conflicts leaving behind a trail of destruction and despair. As we Muslims approach Eidul Adha, consider prioritising helping war victims, like in Gaza, by reducing personal extravagance, desire, overconsumption, and donate to bona fide humanitarian aid organisations. People in Gaza are facing enormous suffering and lack basic necessities like food, water, medical supplies and other human necessities. Currently, easing the suffering, pain and poverty in Gaza is the need of the hour and it is the time when help is most needed. Moreover, not only during Eid but also beyond Eid, as Muslims and human beings, we must lower the voice of our luxuriousness as around us are people in great agony and sorrow. The situation in Gaza has assumed apocalyptic proportions with hundreds of civilians being butchered on a daily basis. Those who are not killed by the Zionists regime face the grim and painful prospect of death through starvation. With humanitarian aid and commercial supplies blocked, nearly half a million people are facing imminent starvation. Let us do our best to assist. Besides prayers and aid we need to request the UN Security Council, EU and other nations to send in military support to stop apartheid Israel's egregious military offensive in Gaza and occupied Palestine. | MOHAMED SAEED Pietermaritzburg Investment in ESG is irresponsible It is saddening to note that the Coronation Fund Managers Stewardship Activities Report uncritically embraces the false globalist ideology of ESG (environmental social governance). Proudly the Coronation Fund Managers declare that they 'assess and advocate for improvements in their climate change strategies.' Clearly, despite Coronation's research capacity, they have wittingly or unwittingly allowed themselves to be shepherded by the controlled sirens of pliant science and the mass media in believing that human activity can influence climate change. Uncorrupted science and history have proved that warming periods occurred in millennia before fossil fuels were being widely used as they are today. Uncorrupted science has also shown that temperature changes occur as a result of the inconsistency of the earth's elliptical path around the sun and the slight variations that occur in the earth's tilt. So ignoring true science and history is really inexcusable. But what is worse is the agenda of the climate change globalists. It requires investing in the hugely expensive green deal – lithium powered vehicles, wind turbines and solar panels. It ignores the vast environmental damage the extraction of lithium causes and the unreliability of wind turbines with their terrible toll on bird life. By taking punitive action against what they condemn as carbon polluters like Sasol, the ESG disciples push up the cost of living and exacerbate impoverishment. Of course if they studied the science and history of carbon dioxide they would note that although it comprises less than one percent of the atmosphere, it is vitally important for plant and vegetation growth. The part of the Stewardship Report that shows double standards is Coronation's eye on the possible oil and gas bonanza off the Namibian coast. For all their green commitment, the allure of profitable investment in fossil fuel exploitation beckons. Although the Stewardship Report is silent on the social aspect of ESG, it needs to be pointed out that it concerns DEI – diversity, equity, inclusion. One wonders how that squares with Coronation's commitment to 'responsible investment' when it is a fact that the criterion of merit is excluded in the application of DEI policy. Given US President Donald Trump's administration's recognition of the globalists' green deal for the scam it is, in keeping with their commitment to responsible investment, Coronation's Fund Managers ought to be ditching ESG and focusing on the massive fossil fuel exploitation that is about to take off in the US. | DUNCAN DU BOIS Bluff DAILY NEWS
