Iran won't accept a nuclear agreement that deprives it of nuclear enrichment
Nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington appear to have stalled as Donald Trump moved to undercut a proposal offered by his special envoy to Iran, saying he would insist Tehran fully dismantle its nuclear enrichment program as part of any deal to ease crushing sanctions.
Mr Trump and Steve Witkoff, who is leading the negotiations for the US, have repeatedly offered inconsistent public messages about whether Iran would be allowed to retain the capacity to enrich uranium to lower levels for civilian purposes. The Trump administration maintains that it will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.
Amid reports that Washington was prepared to allow Iran to enrich some nuclear fuel and as
Iran said it would not accept an agreement without uranium enrichment, Mr Trump said on his Truth Social platform: 'Under our potential Agreement – WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM!'
Addressing the seeming contradiction, a White House official said Mr Trump was speaking the 'cold, hard truth.'
The official said the terms the U.S. gave the Iranians were 'very tough' and would make it impossible for them to obtain a nuclear bomb.
At the weekend, the Axios website reported that Mr Witkoff's latest proposal to Tehran would allow Iran to retain low levels of enrichment for civilian uses like nuclear medicine and commercial power if it agreed to shut down its heavily protected underground sites for a period of time. The U.S. and Iran have engaged in several rounds of direct nuclear talks for the first time in years.
Senior officials — including Witkoff and Trump himself — have said within the last few weeks that Iran would not be able to keep enriching uranium at any level.
However even before Mr Trump's post on Truth Social, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement: 'President Trump has made it clear that Iran can never obtain a nuclear bomb.
'Special Envoy Witkoff has sent a detailed and acceptable proposal to the Iranian regime, and it's in their best interest to accept it.'
The proposal that Trump appeared to undercut included significant concessions by the administration certain to anger Israel along with pro-Israel politicians in the United States.
The proposal called for the creation of a regional consortium to handle uranium enrichment for civilian uses — a plan first studied more than a decade ago in negotiations that led to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.
Mr Trump's latest remarks come amid reports Iran is poised to walk away from the talks, with Reuters and The Times of Israel reporting Tehran has dismissed the negotiations as a 'non-starter' that fails to address Tehran's interests.
'Iran is drafting a negative response to the US proposal, which could be interpreted as a rejection of the US offer,' a senior diplomat, who is close to Iran's negotiating team, told Reuters.
Speaking in Cairo where he met International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi on Monday (local time), Iran Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said: 'If the goal is to deprive Iran of its peaceful activities, then certainly no agreement will be reached.'
Mr Araghchi insisted that Iran has 'nothing to hide' on its nuclear program. 'Iran has a peaceful nuclear program … we are prepared to provide this assurance to any party or entity,' he said.
At the weekend, the confidential report released by the IAEA found that Iran had further increased its stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels since its last update in February.
The IAEA report showed that Iran has ramped up production of uranium enriched up to 60 per cent – close to the roughly 90 per cent level needed for atomic weapons.
'There is a need for more transparency – this is very, very clear – in Iran, and nothing will bring us to this confidence (besides) full explanations of a number of activities,' Mr Grossi said ahead of meeting Mr Araghchi.
Mr Grossi added that some of the report's findings 'may be uncomfortable for some, and we are … used to being criticised'.
Iran has rejected the report, warning it would retaliate if European powers that have threatened to reimpose nuclear sanctions 'exploit' it.
'Some countries are trying to abuse this agency to pave the way for escalation with Iran. I hope that this agency does not fall into this trap,' Mr Araghchi said of the IAEA.
Iran meanwhile pushed for the United States to drop sanctions that have crippled its economy as a condition for a nuclear agreement with President Donald Trump's administration.
Mr Araghchi said on Saturday that he had received 'elements' of a US proposal for a nuclear deal following five rounds of talks mediated by Oman.
Both Mr Araghchi and Mr Grossi met Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who praised the US-Iran talks and called for 'de-escalation in order to prevent a slide into a full-fledged regional war'.
On Monday, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei told a news conference: 'We want to guarantee that the sanctions are effectively lifted.'
'So far, the American side has not wanted to clarify this issue,' he said.
AFP, AP
Read related topics: Donald Trump
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
37 minutes ago
- ABC News
A Premier ousted, life in Gaza right now + banning e-scooters
Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff has been forced out of the top job and will request a snap election. And as pressure mounts on Israel to allow more aid to reach those at risk of starvation in Gaza, we hear a first-hand account of what life's like in the war zone. Plus, a fatal collision has prompted Perth to suspend e-scooter hires. Should they be banned everywhere? Listen now: 01:03 - Tasmania's political upheaval 04:35 - Inside Gaza 17:08 - Are e-scooters worth the dangers? Guests: Josh Duggan, reporter, ABC Hobart Josh Duggan, reporter, ABC Hobart Abeer Abou Mutlak, aid worker in Gaza Abeer Abou Mutlak, aid worker in Gaza Anna Lindstedt, injured by e-bike Anna Lindstedt, injured by e-bike Madison Bland, PhD candidate, Griffith University's Cities Research Institute Get the whole story from Hack:
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
Elon Musk lashes out as he digests his ‘betrayal' at the hands of Donald Trump's circle
Amid a flurry of furious tweets from Elon Musk, denouncing the current centrepiece of Donald Trump's agenda, came one with particularly telling language. 'In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people,' Mr Musk posted, referring to the congressional elections of 2026. Betrayed. There's a loaded word. One that says more about Mr Musk's sorely bruised ego, I suspect, than the American government's long-complacent tax and spending policies. The man is neither talking nor acting like someone offended, on an intellectual level, by the betrayal of faceless voters he doesn't know. Rather he sounds like someone who feels he has been betrayed on a personal level. And you know what? For good reason. As perverse as it feels to offer sympathy for a guy who's never had a jot of it to spare for anyone else, you must concede that Elon's sense of grievance here is understandable. Trump gladly took hundreds of millions of dollars from Elon last year. Gave him a few shoutouts on stage. Threw him a token job in the government. Shoved him out the door after less than five months. And is now spitting on everything he was trying, however clumsily, to achieve in that job. You don't need to be a ten-year-old trapped in the ketamine-addled body of a 53-year-old tech billionaire to empathise with his frustration. At issue here is a piece of legislation called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Yes, that is its real, formal name. And yes, adults with long and, in some cases, even quite serious careers in politics signed off on it. The Trump family's branding instincts remain as subtle as ever. The moniker is at least two-thirds fitting though, because this thing is huge and near all-encompassing. The third element, beauty, remains in the eye of the beholder. It runs to more than a thousand pages, some of which some members of Congress did actually bother to read before passing it through the House of Representatives. It still needs to survive the Republican-controlled Senate before it can be sent to Mr Trump's desk for a final signature which, presumably, shall not be affixed via autopen. What of the contents? There are many. At the topline level: an extension of the sweeping tax cuts from Mr Trump's first term; big cuts to initiatives like Medicaid, the government program that funds health insurance for low-income Americans; and a humungous chunk of funding for immigration enforcement initiatives, like the border wall Mr Trump has been promising to build, quickly, since 2015. Some of us are old enough to remember when Mexico was going to pay for the thing, which would negate the need for any US government funding. Ah well. Empty promises. Elon is not the only person becoming acquainted with them. I digress. The problem with Mr Trump's Big Beautiful Bill, Mr Musk argues, is the effect on America's already drowning federal budget. According to newly released costings from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office – the equivalent of our Parliamentary Budget Office in Australia – the legislation as written will add nearly $US2.5 trillion to the country's debt over the next decade. Not million. Not billion. Trillion. It blows a gaping hole in the nation's budget, which already looked a bit like off Swiss cheese. Another cost, which admittedly concerns Mr Musk far less, is an estimated 10.9 million people being left without health insurance. Not exactly something to celebrate in a country where common injuries and ailments often bankrupt entire families. Now, as you would expect of a mature government, the White House and senior Republicans have offered a thoughtful response to the CBO's analysis: 'Nuh-uh.' They claim the CBO is biased against them, you see, like every other institution in the country. Hence, the assertions we are hearing, from those Republicans that this bill actually won't add a single dollar to America's deficit. Not one! Not a dime. The argument is that Mr Trump's extended tax cuts will spur a sudden, miraculous explosion of economic growth that wipes out any lost revenue. And that, when said growth is combined with the money raised by Mr Trump's on again, off again, on again, off again, on again (but at a lower rate), off again, on again tariffs, the budget will be fine. In politispeak, we might call this position tenuous. In real world speak, we call it obvious, utter crap. The Trump administration is building its tax and spending plans atop a house of cards, atop another house of cards, atop a house of tissue paper, all of it underpinned by assumptions that insult the Trump officials' own intelligence, never mind ours. Which means the Trump administration is, essentially, just continuing business as usual in Washington. Talk a humungous game about the importance of fiscal rectitude while out of office. Wag a finger at the profligate left. Then, once you've gained power yourself, run the nation's finances even more recklessly. It's a proud Republican tradition at this point. Deficit spending on a social safety net? Grossly irresponsible. Ballooning the deficit to provide lower taxes for the wealthy? Something something good economic management. No wonder someone like Elon Musk, the living embodiment of 'move fast and break things', is so frustrated. The poor guy believed he was part of something revolutionary. When Mr Trump tapped him to head the Department of Government Efficiency, he thought he was there to actually achieve something. Putting aside the chaos and stupidity of DOGE's methods – firing people only to rehire them in a scramble, repeatedly revising its savings down after being caught using false numbers, etc – Mr Musk's commitment to the vision, the ultimate end goal of a more fiscally balanced federal government, was at least genuine. Then he showed up for work in the White House, and swiftly learned none of the other acolytes hanging around the place cared about it. On one level, he was preposterously naive. Donald Trump ranted about the federal deficit during his first run for president almost a decade ago, and repeatedly claimed he would fix it easily. He went on to run massive deficits throughout his first term. How on earth did Mr Musk come to believe that guy would actually commit to balancing the budget? His own social media platform's juiced algorithm may have been a contributor. But the rest of Washington must have shocked Mr Musk as well. Consider: even the more principled members of the Republican caucus, the fiscal hawks, the libertarian small government types, are hardly standing athwart history shouting 'no' here. 'While I oppose increasing the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, I enthusiastically support making the tax cuts permanent and could vote for the Big not-yet-Beautiful Bill if the debt ceiling were voted on separately,' Senator Rand Paul, a quasi-libertarian, said today. A position as substantive as one's stool after a night of booze and curry. He's opposed to swelling the debt too much at some point in the future. Think of the carte blanche you might give the Democrats, if the ceiling of potential debt is raised! But at the same time, he's just fine with the tax cuts that are forecast to supersize said debt by trillions right now. Mr Paul probably would have been part of a Senate majority without any intervention, in last year's campaign, from Mr Musk. But you can mount a plausible argument that none of the jokers currently running America's executive branch would have attained this level of power without Elon Musk's money, or his cultural influence, or his platform. And what did he get for it? Barely four months inside the administration, running an ineffective quasi-department, whose work has been undone by a single bill. The implicit mockery of people who pretended to think he was a genius when it suited them, only to consciously uncouple at the first opportunity. So much time was spent, in these early months of the Trump administration, worrying about Mr Musk using the White House to further his own business interests. Not without reason. It turns out the Trump team was using him all along.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Donald Trump unveils explosive travel ban for high risk countries
US President Donald Trump signed executive orders blocking travel to America for nearly 20 high-risk countries. The president announced new travel restrictions for countries that have been labelled as high risk for terrorism, visa abuse and failure to share security information. Trump's executive order comes straight after Egyptian national Mohamed Soliman committed a terror attack in Boulder, Colorado. Travel bans apply to citizens from 12 countries, including Afghanistan, Chad, Iran, Haiti, Equatorial Guinea, Libya, Congo, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Foreign nationals who are from the countries of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela face US travel restrictions.
