Iran denies new US nuclear talks, downplays strike impact
TEHRAN: Iran has firmly denied any plans to restart nuclear negotiations with the United States following a 12-day conflict with Israel, dismissing Washington's claims about the effectiveness of recent strikes on its atomic facilities. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated there was 'no agreement, arrangement or conversation' for fresh talks, calling such speculation baseless.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused US President Donald Trump of exaggerating the damage caused by American airstrikes, insisting Iran's nuclear infrastructure suffered 'nothing significant.' He declared the strikes had only strengthened Iran's resolve, framing the conflict as a victory over both Israel and the US.
Trump, however, maintained that key nuclear sites, including the underground Fordo enrichment facility, were 'obliterated' by US B-2 bombers. He dismissed suggestions that Iran had moved enriched uranium beforehand, stating satellite images showed only defensive measures, not material relocation.
In Washington, conflicting assessments emerged regarding the strikes' true impact. A leaked intelligence report suggested the damage might delay Iran's nuclear progress by mere months, contradicting claims by senior officials like CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who asserted reconstruction would take years.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed the operation as a success, claiming Iran's nuclear ambitions had been 'thwarted.' Tehran reported 627 civilian deaths from Israeli strikes, while Israel confirmed 28 fatalities from Iranian retaliatory attacks.
Despite the tensions, Iran reiterated its commitment to peaceful nuclear energy and openness to future negotiations—though only under conditions it deems fair.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
US Supreme Court's birthright ruling sparks confusion among immigrants
WASHINGTON: The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. 'There are not many specifics,' said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. 'I don't understand it well.' She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. 'I don't know if I can give her mine,' she said. 'I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality.' Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating 'an extremely confusing patchwork' across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. 'Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?' she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. 'Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason,' he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. WORRIED CALLS Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. 'He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution,' she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. 'It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights,' said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. 'That is really chaotic.' Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. 'I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born,' she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. 'She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen,' she said. 'If her child is born in Louisiana ... is the baby going to be a citizen?'
The Sun
3 hours ago
- The Sun
Qatar pushes Israel-Hamas truce talks amid Gaza ceasefire momentum
DOHA: Gaza mediators are engaging with Israel and Hamas to build on momentum from this week's ceasefire with Iran and work towards a truce in the Palestinian territory, Qatar foreign ministry spokesman Majed al-Ansari said. Israel and Iran on Tuesday agreed to a ceasefire brokered by the United States and Qatar just hours after the Islamic republic launched a salvo of missiles towards the wealthy Gulf state, targeting the American military base hosted there. The unprecedented attack on Qatari soil followed Washington's intervention into a days-long war between Israel and Iran which saw US warplanes strike Iranian nuclear facilities, prompting promises of retaliation from Tehran. In an interview with AFP on Friday, Ansari said Doha -- with fellow Gaza mediators in Washington and Cairo -- was now 'trying to use the momentum that was created by the ceasefire between Iran and Israel to restart the talks over Gaza'. 'If we don't utilise this window of opportunity and this momentum, it's an opportunity lost amongst many in the near past. We don't want to see that again,' the spokesman, who is also an adviser to Qatar's prime minister, said. US President Donald Trump voiced optimism on Friday about a new ceasefire in Gaza saying an agreement involving Israel and Hamas could come as early as next week. Mediators have been engaged in months of back-and-forth negotiations with the warring parties aimed at ending 20 months of war in Gaza, with Ansari explaining there were no current talks between the sides but that Qatar was 'heavily involved in talking to every side separately'. - 'The right pressure' - A two-month truce, which was agreed as Trump came into office in January, collapsed in March with Israel intensifying military operations in Gaza afterwards. 'We have seen US pressure and what it can accomplish,' Ansari said referring to the January truce which saw dozens of hostages held by Hamas released in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. The Qatari official said particularly in the context of US enforcement of the Israel-Iran truce, it was 'not a far-fetched idea' that pressure from Washington would achieve a fresh truce in Gaza. 'We are working with them very, very closely to make sure that the right pressure is applied from the international community as a whole, especially from the US, to see both parties at the negotiating table,' Ansari said. There were no casualties on Monday when Iran targeted Al Udeid, the Middle East's biggest US base and headquarters of its regional command. Ansari said that as leaders were weighing their response to the attack, a call came from the US president to Qatar's emir, saying 'there is a possibility for regional stability... and that Israel has agreed to a ceasefire'. 'Qatar could have taken the decision to escalate,' Ansari said. 'But because there was a chance for peace... we opted for that,' he said.
The Sun
3 hours ago
- The Sun
US Supreme Court backs Trump in key ruling on injunctions
WASHINGTON: The U.S. Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its current term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that may make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power. With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called 'universal' injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The court's decision has 'systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion,' said Paul Rosenzweig, an attorney who served in Republican President George W. Bush's administration. Friday's ruling said that judges generally can grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions. The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017-2021. Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. The court also permitted implementation of Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, let his administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labor boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes. 'A BULLY PULPIT' 'President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases,' George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said. 'Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency,' Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. 'It recognizes that the executive branch is a bully pulpit with a wide range of authorities to implement the promises of a campaign platform.' Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward. The rulings in favor of Trump illustrate that 'the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts Court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence,' Luther said. The cases involving Trump administration policies this year came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found that it was likely unconstitutional. 'One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers,' Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said. In other cases during the nine-month term, the court sided with a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, endorsed South Carolina's plan to cut off public funding to reproductive healthcare and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and made it easier to pursue claims alleging workplace 'reverse' discrimination. The court also spared two American gun companies from the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, and allowed parents to opt elementary school children out of classes when storybooks with LGBT characters are read. 'NOT THE COURT'S ROLE' In several cases involving federal statutes, the message from the justices is that people unhappy with the outcome need to take that up with Congress, according to Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. 'The court is implicitly saying, 'That's Congress' problem to fix, and it's not the court's role to solve those issues,'' Levinson said. This is the second straight year that the court ended its term with a decision handing Trump a major victory. On July 1, 2024, it ruled in favor of Trump in deciding that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken in office. It marked the first time that the court recognized any form of presidential immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court's next term begins in October but Trump's administration still has some emergency requests pending that the justices could act upon at any time. It has asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. It also has asked the justices to rein in the judge handling a case involving deportations to so-called 'third countries.' Recent rulings 'have really shown the court for what it is, which is a deeply conservative court,' Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis said. The court's jurisprudence reflects a larger shift in the national discourse, with Republicans feeling they have the political capital to achieve long-sought aims, Kreis said. The court's conservative majority, Kreis said, 'is probably feeling more emboldened to act.'
