Iran sets terms for resuming nuclear talks
The sixth round of indirect talks, scheduled for June 15 in Oman, was canceled two days earlier after Israel launched airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites and senior military figures – an escalation Tehran called a declaration of war.
The dialogue, revived earlier this year by US President Donald Trump, collapsed in the wake of the attacks. Washington joined the hostilities on June 22, deploying heavy bombers against key nuclear facilities. Trump later argued the sites had been 'completely obliterated,' a claim disputed by multiple media reports.
In a written interview with Le Monde published on Thursday, Araghchi condemned the attacks as a violation of international law and said it was the US that 'broke off' negotiations and turned to military action. He added that Tehran remains committed to diplomacy but stressed that any renewed engagement must be based on accountability, mutual respect, and, most importantly, 'guarantees against any attack.'
Araghchi said that despite the tensions, diplomatic exchanges are still underway via mediators.
The US State Department claimed this week that Trump is committed to peace with Iran. 'Our commitment has been steadfast through all of these conflicts and now is a time for Iran to take advantage of that,' spokesperson Tammy Bruce told reporters.
Asked about Trump's statements, Iranian foreign minister replied: 'To claim that a program has been annihilated... is a miscalculation,' adding that Tehran is 'assessing the damage' and may seek compensation.
Washington has long demanded that Tehran halt all uranium enrichment – a position Iran considers a deal-breaker. Araghchi reaffirmed that the country's nuclear program remains peaceful, lawful, and under constant IAEA supervision.
Iran currently enriches uranium to 60% purity, well above the 3.67% cap set under the now-defunct 2015 nuclear deal, which was rendered null and void after Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from it during his first term.
'The level of enrichment is determined by Iran's needs,' Araghchi said, adding that the current level was meant 'to demonstrate that threat and pressure are not solutions.'
He also ruled out any discussion of Iran's ballistic missile program, calling it 'purely defensive and deterrent,' and said it was 'unreasonable to expect Iran to abandon its defensive capabilities' under current conditions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Germany seeking 2,000km-range US missile launchers
Germany has asked to purchase Typhon medium-range missile launchers from the US amid tensions with Russia over Ukraine, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has said. Typhon deployments would have been banned under the now-defunct 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). Pistorius confirmed on Monday that Berlin had sent Washington a formal request to buy the Typhon system, which can fire Tomahawk cruise missiles and SM-6 multi-role missiles. The Typhon has an operational range of around 2,000km and could reach targets far beyond Moscow if fired from German territory. The system would fill a capability gap until European countries produce their own long-range missiles, which could take between seven to ten years, Pistorius said. However, he acknowledged uncertainty over whether the US remains committed to deploying long-range missiles to Germany from 2026, under a plan first announced in 2024 by the administration of former President Joe Biden. 'I am very confident that last year's agreement is still valid, but we are still waiting for a final decision,' the minister said. The announcement of the long-range missile deployment drew a sharp rebuke from Moscow, which warned that it would consider itself 'free' from a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of similar missiles. Potential deployment of Typhon launchers and other long-range assets bears certain parallels to the highly contentious decision by NATO to deploy Pershing II nuclear-capable missiles with a range of more than 2,000km in West Germany in the 1980s. The move sparked massive protests across Europe and a new spiral of tensions between the Soviet Union and the US, ultimately leading to a détente and the signing of the INF Treaty. Typhon launcher deployments would have been banned under the INF Treaty, in which the Soviet Union and the US agreed to eliminate all ground-based missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500km. The pact collapsed in 2019 when Washington withdrew, citing Russian violations. Russia has denied the claims, accusing the US of developing the banned missiles. President Vladimir Putin has warned that the collapse of the INF will significantly erode the global security framework.
Russia Today
13 hours ago
- Russia Today
US-Japan relations undergoing era-defining crisis
Relations between the US and Japan, America's key ally in the Asia-Pacific region, are experiencing one of the worst crises in decades, with potentially far-reaching ramifications, the Financial Times reported on Monday. Aside from deep economic ties, Japan hosts dozens of US military bases, which account for much of Washington's presence in the vicinity of its key rival, China. The newspaper cited several unnamed senior officials on both sides of the Pacific as warning of a 'fundamental fragility,' highlighted by US President Donald Trump's treatment of Japan with regard to tariffs earlier this month. The media outlet's sources reportedly predicted that an 'era-defining reset is now inevitable.' The publication quoted Christopher Johnstone, a former White House official who currently works for The Asia Group consultancy, as suggesting that the 'challenges go deeper than any single figure in the administration.' He claimed that there is a growing impression among Japan's leadership that 'for the Trump team, nothing is sacred and everything is transactional.' Rahm Emanuel, who served as US ambassador to Japan under President Joe Biden, told the FT that the ongoing rift over trade could also have implications for the Asia-Pacific region's security architecture. The media outlet noted that President Trump's latest remarks concerning Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba were far chillier than statements he made just a few months earlier. The FT pointed out that, in issuing blanket trade terms without differentiating between Japan and countries generally considered to be lesser partners for Washington, Trump essentially snubbed a major ally. According to the report, while the US president had expected the Japanese prime minister to 'be a relatively easy partner' in trade talks, Ishiba had sought a total tariff exemption – a mutual misjudgment that has supposedly left both dissatisfied. In a series of posts on his Truth Social platform last Monday, the US president announced the imposition of new 25% tariffs on Japan, along with several other nations. Trump claimed that economic ties with Tokyo had 'been, unfortunately, far from Reciprocal.'
Russia Today
14 hours ago
- Russia Today
Dmitry Trenin: World War III has already begun
Many now speak of humanity's drift towards World War III, imagining events similar to those of the 20th century. But war evolves. It will not begin with a June 1941 Barbarossa-style invasion or a Cuban Missile Crisis-style nuclear standoff. In fact, the new world war is already underway – it's just that not everyone has recognized it yet. For Russia, the pre-war period ended in 2014. For China, it was 2017. For Iran, 2023. Since then, war – in its modern, diffuse form – has intensified. This is not a new Cold War. Since 2022, the West's campaign against Russia has grown more decisive. The risk of direct nuclear confrontation with NATO over the Ukraine conflict is rising. Donald Trump's return to the White House created a temporary window in which such a clash could be avoided, but by mid-2025, hawks in the US and Western Europe had pushed us dangerously close again. This war involves the world's leading powers: the United States and its allies on one side, China and Russia on the other. It is global, not because of its scale, but because of the stakes: the future balance of power. The West sees the rise of China and the resurgence of Russia as existential threats. Its counteroffensive, economic and ideological, is meant to put a halt to that shift. It is a war of survival for the West, not just geopolitically but ideologically. Western globalism – whether economic, political, or cultural – cannot tolerate alternative civilizational models. Post-national elites in the US and Western Europe are committed to preserving their dominance. A diversity of worldviews, civilizational autonomy, and national sovereignty are seen not as options, but as threats. This explains the severity of the West's response. When Joe Biden told Brazil's President Lula that he wanted to 'destroy' Russia, he revealed the truth behind euphemisms like 'strategic defeat.' Western-backed Israel has shown how total this doctrine is – first in Gaza, then Lebanon, and finally Iran. In early June, a similar strategy was used in attacks on Russian airfields. Reports suggest US and British involvement in both cases. To Western planners, Russia, Iran, China and North Korea are part of a single axis. That belief shapes military planning. Compromise is no longer part of the game. What we're seeing are not temporary crises but rolling conflicts. Eastern Europe and the Middle East are the two current flashpoints. A third has long been identified: East Asia, particularly Taiwan. Russia is directly engaged in Ukraine, holds stakes in the Middle East, and may become involved in the Pacific. The war is no longer about occupation, but destabilization. The new strategy focuses on sowing internal disorder: economic sabotage, social unrest, and psychological attrition. The West's plan for Russia is not defeat on the battlefield, but gradual internal collapse. Its tactics are all-encompassing. Drone strikes target infrastructure and nuclear facilities. Political assassinations are no longer off-limits. Journalists, negotiators, scientists, and even their families are being hunted. Residential neighborhoods, schools, and hospitals are not collateral damage – they are targets. This is total war. This is underpinned by dehumanization. Russians are portrayed not just as enemies but as subhuman. Western societies are manipulated to accept this. Information control, censorship, and historical revisionism are used to justify the war. Those who question the dominant narrative are labelled traitors. Meanwhile, the West exploits the more open systems of its adversaries. After refusing to interfere in foreign politics for decades, Russia now finds itself on the defensive. But those days must end. As our enemies coordinate their attacks, we must disrupt their unity. The European Union is not a monolith. Hungary, Slovakia, and much of southern Europe are not eager for escalation. These internal fractures must be widened. Western strength lies in unity among its elites and their ideological control over their populations. But this unity is not invulnerable. The Trump administration presents tactical opportunities. His return has already reduced US involvement in Ukraine. Yet Trumpism should not be romanticized. The American elite remains largely hostile to Russia. There will be no new détente. The war in Ukraine is becoming a war between Western Europe and Russia. British and French missiles already strike Russian targets. NATO intelligence is embedded in Ukrainian operations. EU countries are training Ukrainian forces and planning attacks together. Ukraine is just a tool. Brussels is preparing for a wider war. What we must ask is: Is Western Europe preparing to defend or attack? Many of its leaders have lost their strategic judgment. But the hostility is real. The goal is no longer containment, but to 'solve the Russian question' once and for all. Any illusion that business as usual will return must be discarded. We are in for a long war. It will not end like in 1945, nor settle into Cold War coexistence. The decades ahead will be turbulent. Russia must fight for its rightful place in a new world order. So, what must we do? First of all, we must strengthen our home front. We need mobilization, but not the rigid models of the Soviet past. We need smart, adaptive mobilization across all sectors – economic, technological, and demographic. Russia's political leadership is a strategic asset. It must remain steady and visionary. We must promote internal unity, social justice, and patriotism. Every citizen must feel the stakes. We must align our fiscal, industrial, and technological policy with the realities of a long-term war. Fertility policy and migration control must reverse our demographic decline. Secondly, we must consolidate our external alliances. Belarus is a strong ally in the west. North Korea has shown reliability in the east. But we lack a similar partner in the south. This gap must be addressed. The Israel-Iran war offers important lessons. Our adversaries coordinate tightly. We must do the same. Not by copying NATO, but by forging our own model of strategic cooperation. We should also pursue tactical engagement with the Trump administration. If it allows us to weaken the US war effort in Europe, we should exploit it. But we must not confuse tactics with strategy. American foreign policy remains fundamentally adversarial. Fellow European powers like Britain, France, and Germany must be made to understand they are vulnerable. Their capitals are not immune. The same message should reach Finland, Poland, and the Baltics. Provocations must be met swiftly and decisively. If escalation is inevitable, we must consider pre-emptive action – firstly with conventional arms. And if necessary, we must be ready to use 'special means', including nuclear weapons, with full awareness of the consequences. Deterrence must be both passive and active. Our mistake in Ukraine was waiting too long. Delay created the illusion of weakness. That must not be repeated. Victory means breaking the enemy's plans, not occupying territory. Finally, we must penetrate the West's information shield. The battlefield now includes narratives, alliances, and public opinion. Russia must once again learn to engage in others' domestic politics, not as an aggressor, but as a defender of truth. The time for illusions is over. We are in a world war. The only path forward is through bold, strategic article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.
