Iran considers nuclear weapons 'unacceptable', says Foreign Minister
Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Saturday that the country considers nuclear weapons 'unacceptable', reiterating its long-standing position amid delicate negotiations with the US.
Western governments have for decades suspected Iran of trying to develop a nuclear weapons capability to counter Israel's widely suspected but undeclared arsenal. Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful and insists it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons.
'If the issue is nuclear weapons, yes, we too consider this type of weapon unacceptable,' Mr Araghchi, Iran's lead negotiator in the talks, said in a televised speech. 'We agree with them on this issue.'
The US and Iran have held five rounds of talks in Oman and Rome over the past few weeks, aiming to revive or replace the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, which President Donald Trump withdrew the US from during his first term, in 2018.
These discussions, mediated by Oman, have centred on Iran's uranium enrichment levels, the lifting of US sanctions and the implementation of nuclear inspections.
While both sides have described the talks as constructive, significant disagreements remain, particularly regarding Iran's insistence on its right to enrich uranium and the US demand for a complete halt to this activity.
This week, President Trump said his administration was 'very close to a solution' on an Iran nuclear agreement. He also said he had warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against a military strike on Iran, which would set back Washington's efforts to broker a deal.
The New York Times, which said Mr Netanyahu had been threatening to sabotage the US-Iran talks by striking Tehran's nuclear enrichment sites.
'We're very close to a solution now,' Mr Trump added. 'Now, that could change at any moment – it could change with a phone call but, right now, I think [Iran] want to make a deal.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Khaleej Times
40 minutes ago
- Khaleej Times
Gaza war: Hamas ready to start talks on ceasefire deal
Hamas expressed its readiness to immediately start a round of indirect negotiations to reach an agreement on points of contention in the Gaza ceasefire deal proposed by US President Donald Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, the group said on Sunday in a statement. Earlier in the day, Egypt and Qatar said they had continued efforts to converge views and overcome disagreements to reach a truce between Hamas and Israel.
Gulf Today
2 hours ago
- Gulf Today
‘Fresh ideas' mooted to close gap in US-Iran N-deal talks
Donald Trump has said he warned Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu against attacking Iran because Washington and Tehran are close to reaching a deal on limiting that country's nuclear programme in exchange for lifting sanctions. He said this would be an unprecedented agreement as US as well as UN inspectors would be included on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) teams monitoring Iran's nuclear sites. His declared objective is to make certain Iran is not preparing to make nuclear bombs. Trump's statement suggests that that US is ready to accept Iran's "red line" — the right to enrich uranium — which Iran insists cannot be violated by any agreement. Iran demands domestic enrichment to 3.67 per cent for use in civilian power plants. The US previously flip-flopped on this issue. Washington demanded total shutdown of the nuclear programme, then agreed on low enrichment. The programme was launched in the 1950s when the US provided a nuclear reactor to Iran under the Atoms for Peace Programme long before the shah was toppled by anti-US clerics in 1979. To reassure the US and regional neighbours over its retention of a low level of enrichment, Tehran has suggested creating a consortium comprising the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia and Iran. Tehran would make partners shareholders in exchange for funding and give them access to its technologies and provide them a with stake in developing an independent capacity for nuclear power generation. The UAE has already established the first civil nuclear power plant in the Arab world with four operational reactors which should produce 25 per cent of Emirati electricity. The region's oil producing states have expressed eagerness to establish such facilities for a future when customers cut oil imports for environmental reasons or oil fields are no longer productive enough to generate large revenues. Since Omani-mediated indirect talks began this spring, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi threatened to pull out if the US called for Iran to shut down its enrichment programme. Araghchi said this would amount to a violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty to which Iran is a signatory. Trump stated on May 25th that the latest round of negotiations was 'very, very good.' He said there could be an announcement, presumably of a breakthrough, in coming days. "We've had some real progress, serious progress." Since he has threatened military action if no deal is reached, he added, "I would love to see no bombs dropped and a lot of people dead." Trump is eager for a foreign policy success while Tehran is under heavy domestic pressure for a deal as sanctions have crippled the economy and impoverished Iranians. Following the fifth round of talks round in Rome on May 23rd, the US State Department declared, "The talks continue to be constructive — we made further progress, but there is still work to do" when the sides "meet again in the near future." Araghchi contended the issues were complicated and needed further discussions. He said mediator Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi had suggested fresh ideas to close the gap between the sides. Busaidi posted on X, "We achieved some progress, although it was not conclusive" and expressed the wish that 'outstanding issues can be clarified in coming days that allows for meaningful progress toward a sustainable agreement." During his first term in office, Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 agreement limiting Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for lifting sanctions. After a year, Iran responded by breaching the 3.67 per cent enrichment limitation, produced a large stockpile of 20 and 60 per cent enriched uranium and cut inspections by the IAEA. Sixty per cent is near the 90 per cent for weaponization. Iran has dismissed Western allegations that it intends to make nuclear arms and could produce enough highly enriched uranium for several devices from the existing stocks of 60 per cent pure. Experts have said Iran could take up to 18 months to make bombs once the decision to do so was taken. While no date has been declared for a sixth round of talks, the experts from the sides are said to be holding discussions behind the scenes. To show willingness to compromise, Iran has proposed sending its stocks of highly enriched uranium to a third country, presumably Russia. Moscow had been assigned this role under the original agreement reached during the Obama administration. Al Monitor cited the International Crisis Group's Iran Project Director Ali Vaez who said negotiators are moving toward a framework agreement that would postpone the enrichment issue until a more permanent deal is reached. 'When they realized that the gaps are too wide to bridge, they decided to go for a framework agreement in order to prevent the process from collapsing. What is very likely in the next few weeks is a statement of principles — basically very broad strokes that would defer some of the most difficult issues." Unwise pressures could torpedo this tactic. Reuters reported that the US, UK, and Europe are preparing to urge the IAEA board at its meeting beginning on June 9th to declare Tehran in breach of its non-proliferation commitments, including the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which Tehran ratified in 1970. This prohibits the development, testing and transfer of nuclear weapons. Since Iran has not violated the NPT, this would mark the first time this step has been taken in almost 20 years and could "enrage Tehran." Such action could add further add complications to negotiations for a deal the US and Iran are striving to reach or, even, scupper the negotiations altogether. As he is prone to taking unconsidered, wrongheaded moves, this proposed move has Trump's fingerprints all over it and he could end up shooting himself in the foot. It must be recalled that when Trump pulled out of the earlier deal and slapped down 1,500 sanctions, Europe, Russia and China could not deliver on promised benefits by circumventing the US grip on international banking and multinational business. This did not happen. Tehran responded by advancing and expanding nuclear research and development far beyond the basic level and escaped tight IAEA monitoring.
Gulf Today
2 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Fundamental rights shouldn't depend on your ZIP code
Ronald Brownstein, Tribune News Service One of the most powerful trends in modern politics is the growing separation between red and blue states. Now, the Supreme Court looks poised to widen that chasm. Over roughly the past decade, virtually all Republican-controlled states have rolled back rights and liberties across a broad front: banning abortion; restricting voting rights; censoring how teachers can discuss race, gender and sexual orientation; and prohibiting transition care for transgender minors. No Democratic-leaning state has done any of those things. The result is the greatest gulf since the era of Jim Crow state-sponsored segregation between the rights guaranteed in some states and denied in others. The Republican-appointed Supreme Court majority has abetted this separation. Its decisions eviscerating federal oversight of state voting rules (in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder case) and rescinding the national right to abortion (in 2022's Dobbs decision) freed red states to lurch right on both fronts. In oral arguments this month, the GOP-appointed justices appeared ready to push the states apart in a new way: by restricting federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions. Concern about nationwide injunctions has been growing in both parties. Such injunctions remained relatively rare during the two-term presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, but Trump faced 64 of them in his first term and Joe Biden 14 in his first three years in office, according to a Harvard Law Review tabulation. Through the first 100 days of Trump's second term, federal courts have already imposed 25 nationwide injunctions against him. Trump has been uniquely vulnerable to this judicial pushback because he has moved so aggressively to challenge—and, in many instances, disregard — previously understood limits on presidential authority. But there's no question that each party now views nationwide injunctions as a critical weapon to stymie a president from the other party. Coalitions of red and blue state attorneys general have become especially reliant on the tactic. Each side has grown adept at challenging the incumbent president's actions primarily in district and circuit courts dominated by appointees from their own party, notes Paul Nolette, a Marquette University political scientist who tracks the state AG lawsuits. This aggressive forum shopping usually produces the desired result. Looking at the district court level, the Harvard analysis found that judges appointed by presidents of the other party imposed almost 95% of the nationwide injunctions directed against Biden or Trump in his first term. At the appellate court level, Adam Feldman, who founded the Empirical SCOTUS blog, calculated that the conservative 5th Circuit was much more likely to block presidential actions under Biden than Trump, while the liberal 9th circuit was, to an even greater extent, more likely to block Trump than Biden. These stark outcomes capture how the Supreme Court's verdict on injunctions could widen the distance between the states. If the Supreme Court hobbles their use, it will virtually guarantee that more federal courts simultaneously issue conflicting decisions to uphold or invalidate presidential actions. Trump's executive orders would be enforced in some places and not others. In the most extreme example—which plainly troubled the Court at its hearing—children born in the US to undocumented parents potentially would become citizens in some states, but not in others, depending on which courts allow Trump to overrule the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court would surely try to resolve more of these disputes, since conflicting appellate rulings are a big reason why it accepts cases. But the court would face practical limits on how many such disagreements it could referee. Across Trump's first term and Biden's four years combined, the Supreme Court considered only about 1 in 10 cases brought by attorneys general from the party out of power, Nolette calculates. Even if the court addressed more cases through its emergency docket, banning nationwide injunctions would likely result in more unresolved conflicts among the circuits on core questions of both presidential power and basic civil rights and liberties. That would harden the red-blue divide. Though the overlap isn't perfect, most Democratic-leaning states are covered by federal circuits in which Democratic presidents appointed most of the judges, and vice versa for Republican-leaning states. (The principal reason for this correlation is a Senate tradition that makes confirmation votes for federal district court nominees contingent on their home-state Senators' approval; the Senate applied that rule to federal appeals court nominees as well until 2018.) The protection of Democratic-leaning circuit courts could allow blue states to mostly fend off Trump's attempts to erase basic rights (like birthright citizenship) within their borders, or blunt his efforts to force them to adopt conservative social policies (as he is attempting by threatening their federal funding.) Conversely, the receptivity of Republican-leaning circuit courts would likely allow Trump to impose his agenda across red America, except in the (probably rare) cases when the Supreme Court intervenes to stop him. The nation's legal landscape would trend even more toward a patchwork. 'We've seen a huge divergence in red and blue states in policy and law ... and a potential ban on nationwide injunctions would just accelerate this trend,' said Jake Grumbach, a University of California at Berkeley political scientist who has studied the growing differences among the states. In a long arc spanning roughly from the Supreme Court decision banning segregated schools in 1954 to its ruling establishing nationwide access to same-sex marriage in 2015, the courts and Congress mostly nationalized civil rights and limited states' ability to curtail them. Now we are reverting toward a pre-1960s nation in which your rights largely depend on your zip code. Nationwide judicial injunctions are a flawed tool, and in a perfect world the two parties would collaborate on bipartisan reforms to limit them for future presidents. At some point, it would make sense to consider proposals that have emerged in both parties to require that a three-judge panel, rather than a single judge, approve any nationwide injunction. But to abruptly ban them now risks further unraveling the seams of an already fraying America.
