Iran demands US 'guarantee' it will lift sanctions in nuclear talks
Iran pressed the United States on Monday for guarantees that it will drop sanctions as a condition for a nuclear deal, after the White House reportedly sent a proposal it deemed "acceptable".
With Iran and the United States engaged in talks over Tehran's nuclear programme since April, Washington's proposal for a deal came after a leaked UN report said Iran had stepped up production of highly enriched uranium.
Iran's top diplomat and lead nuclear negotiator was due to meet the head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo on Monday, a day after the report was leaked.
Iran has rejected the report, warning it would retaliate if European powers that have threatened to reimpose nuclear sanctions "exploit" the report.
The United States and Western countries have accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran has repeatedly denied, insisting it needs uranium for civilian power production.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas 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.
On Monday, foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei told a news conference in Tehran: "We want to guarantee that the sanctions are effectively lifted...
"So far, the American side has not wanted to clarify this issue," he added.
His remarks come a day after a report by the UN agency showed Iran has stepped up production of uranium enriched up to 60 percent close to the roughly 90 percent level needed for atomic weapons.
The US envoy in the nuclear talks said last month that the administration of President Donald Trump would oppose any enrichment.
"An enrichment programme can never exist in the state of Iran ever again. That's our red line. No enrichment," Steve Witkoff told Breitbart News.
Iran has vowed to keep enriching uranium "with or without a deal" on its nuclear programme.
The United States has sent Iran a proposal for a nuclear deal that the White House called "acceptable" and in its "best interest" to accept, US media reported on Saturday.
The New York Times, citing officials familiar with the diplomatic exchanges, said the proposal calls on Iran to stop all enrichment and suggests creating a regional grouping to produce nuclear power.
Iran has held five rounds of talks with the United States in search of a new agreement to replace the deal with major powers that Trump abandoned during his first term in 2018.
ap/sbr/ser/dv
THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
23 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The Indian common man and the road the happiness
On April 28, Hariman Sharma, a farmer from the hills of Himachal Pradesh, walked up barefoot to Rashtrapati Bhavan's Durbar Hall to receive the Padma Shri from the President of India. He had developed a new variety of apple that could be cultivated in tropical or sub-tropical climate regions, potentially enabling it to be grown almost anywhere in our country. Sharma is not a government scientist or a researcher in a multinational biotech company. He is a common man. What does it mean to be a common man in India? A battle to make ends meet? Stealing moments of happiness before harsh reality creeps up? The World Happiness Index 2025, an initiative of Gallup, the University of Oxford and the UN's Sustainable Development Solutions Network, ranked India 118th among 147 countries. The ranking is based on people's self-evaluation of their lives. So, we have ranked ourselves lower than most of the world. A large portion of our economy thrives on our perceived unhappiness. From Bollywood to the health-supplement industry, everyone wants us to believe that they can bring joy into our lives. This pursuit of happiness is fuelled not by an inner striving for emancipation but by a confluence of images which seem to suggest a lack of meaning in our lives. With the information revolution, a new and powerful driver of unhappiness has emerged: FOMO. Our addiction to social media keeps us always wanting to not just keep up with our peers, but do better than them. In One-Dimensional Man (1964), Herbert Marcuse prophesied a world in which consumerism and mass media stifle originality. They create a 'blissful slave' , who is kept preoccupied due to the creation and pursuit of 'false needs'. He wasn't completely correct. We are far from being blissful. The pursuit of false needs hasn't been an entirely fulfilling affair. What we need in our lives determines our happiness, and unfortunately, we haven't really been good at identifying these needs, let alone planning a path towards achieving satisfaction. Union Minister of Commerce and Industry Piyush Goyal ruffled a few sentiments when he chided Indian start-ups for concentrating on food delivery apps when their Chinese counterparts were developing deep tech. What exactly is the need10-minute delivery apps are fulfilling? The need for instant gratification? In contrast, people like Sharma are quietly working towards fulfilling real needs. Hailing from Paniala village in Bilaspur (HP), Sharma observed apple seeds discarded in his backyard take root and grow into a fruit-bearing tree despite the warm, unfriendly climate. This set him off on a journey of experimentation that led to the development of the HRMN-99 apple. Similarly, Arunachalam Muruganantham designed and produced machines that produce low-cost sanitary napkins — these have benefitted 13 million women. He has created over 25,000 jobs with his invention. The movie, Pad Man (2018), winner of a National Award in 2019, was based on his story. Muruganantham was conferred the Padma Shri in 2016. Yanung Jamoh Lego from Arunachal Pradesh has popularised nature's herbal remedies. Her methods offer affordable and culturally rooted healthcare. She has helped revive traditional healing, empowered local women, and promoted sustainable health practices. Over 300,000 patients have been reported cured using her medicines. Yanung was conferred the Padma Shri last year. These stories have another thing in common. The National Innovation Foundation, an autonomous organisation under the Department of Science and Technology, nurtured their innovations. It has funded and supported 13 such common men and women who have later won the Padma Shri. Our society needs more such organisations. The theme of the World Happiness Report for 2025 is caring and sharing. We need to find more ways as a society to start caring for others around us. The writer is an Indian Revenue Service officer Views are personal
Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Why Trump has changed his tune on Iran
After less than two months in office, US President Donald Trump made a 'sudden' offer to Iran's Supreme Leader for direct US-Iran talks on the Iranian nuclear weapons programme and easing of US sanctions. So far, five rounds of US-Iran talks have been led by the US Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Though the talks remained on track up to the third round, both sides started hardening their stances before the fourth round, held just a day before Trump's three-nation Gulf tour. However, it was before the fifth round that both drew irreconcilable red lines about Iranian enrichment capability. While Witkoff stressed that Iran can't have any enrichment capability, Araghchi tweeted 'no enrichment, no deal'. Despite serious doubts, the fifth round took place on May 23. It appears that the talks did not collapse and both sides have taken back proposals to ponder over. Will the talks continue and could they succeed? In 2015, the US and other global powers had stitched together a Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) deal with Iran to bring its nuclear programme under stricter international inspections. This was to ensure that Iran pursued only a peaceful civil nuclear programme. In return, Iran got relief from the sanctions. However, in 2018, based on 'consultation with Middle Eastern allies' — a reference to Saudi Arabia and Israel — Trump had walked out of the deal unilaterally, calling it 'defective'. Other parties to the deal could not salvage it and, faced with US sanctions, Iran reduced its openness to international scrutiny. The geopolitics of the Middle East has undergone a sea change since Trump's first term and so has his approach to solving conflicts. The genocide in Gaza has united the Sunni Arab states behind a two-state solution. China has successfully brokered a Saudi-Iran rapprochement. Iran has gone on a diplomatic overdrive to build a better understanding with Sunni Arab states, including on its nuclear programme. These factors created favourable conditions for US-Iran talks. Just before his Gulf tour, Trump had hinted at potential consultations with Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar on the issue. During his tour, Saudi foreign minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan al Saud publicly supported the US-Iran talks. In Doha, applauding the Emir of Qatar's strong push for diplomacy with Iran, Trump assured protection of Qatar's interests. In early March, Qatar PM Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani had warned against targeting Iranian nuclear facilities as that could contaminate the waters of the Gulf and threaten the lives of people in Qatar, the UAE and Kuwait. The three states with minimal natural water reserves depend on desalinated water drawn from the Gulf. Apart from other factors, Trump has also done favours for the Gulf states to try and secure their backing for the US-Iran nuclear deal. This includes ongoing talks for a Saudi nuclear deal, a six-month waiver on sanctions for Syria and a personal meeting between Trump and Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa (once a designated person) along with the Saudi crown prince. More importantly, the US has its own security interests riding on a good deal with Iran. A detailed assessment made by the US Intelligence Community (IC) put out in March portrayed Iran as part of a pack of 'adversaries' — along with Russia, China and North Korea — 'who were individually and collectively challenging US interests'. The assessment observed that growing cooperation between and among these adversaries was increasing their 'fortitude against the United States (and so was)… the potential for hostilities with any one of them drawing in another', and pressuring other global actors to choose sides. Engaging Iran as a part of a broader axis that includes Russia may be an important factor guiding Trump's aggressive diplomacy while upping trade and non-trade wars with China. The assessment also concluded that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, wants to avoid embroiling Iran in an 'expanded, direct conflict' with the US and its allies and has not yet authorised a nuclear weapons programme that he had suspended in 2003. Iran, as per the assessment, was not building a nuclear weapon and can't do it without a decision by the Supreme Leader. However, Iran was likely to continue research and development of chemical and biological agents for offensive purposes. At the start of the talks, Witkoff had publicly stated that Iran did not need more than 3.67 per cent enriched uranium for civil nuclear purposes and that verification was required for 'reported' enriched uranium up to 20 per cent and 60 per cent. He also outlined the need for verification on weaponisation, delivery systems and nuclear triggers that Iran might possess. Iran's establishment has a lot riding on maintaining enrichment capability for peaceful uses as well as asserting its sovereignty to its people. In addition to 3.67 per cent enriched uranium, Iran, like other nations, would also like to make or be able to import around 20 per cent enriched uranium for medical use. The discussions appear to be now focussed on 'specificities' and hence, will require tough negotiations by both parties. By taking maximalist positions, both sides seem to be insulating this sensitive phase of negotiations from potential sabotage. Trump, too, has said he 'warned' Israel against any pre-emptive strikes on Iranian nuclear sites to give US diplomacy a chance to succeed. (The writer is a security analyst and former director general of police)
Mint
28 minutes ago
- Mint
MAGA policies would make America mediocre
'MAGA" was always an insult to the United States. Make America great again? Wasn't this country great when Donald Trump rode down that escalator in 2015? Now, as Trump 2.0 unfolds, the president seems intent on turning this insult into a reality by damaging or destroying much of what has made America great over 2½ centuries—including the rule of law. The survival of our republic is at stake. But since I'm an economist, I'll stick to how MAGA policies are undermining America's economic greatness. Topping the list of what made our economy great is relatively free-market capitalism, supported by the rule of law. The U.S. has no monopoly on capitalism, but our version has traditionally been freer from regulation and taxed more lightly than, say, Europe's. Our sturdy rule of law has been a huge strength, attracting capital and brain power. The word 'relatively" does a lot of work, however. Every economy needs some regulation for health, safety, and other reasons. Every country needs to levy taxes to pay its bills. Democrats and Republicans have argued for decades over how much (and how) to regulate and tax, and those battles will continue long after MAGA is a bad memory. But when the White House begins telling companies like Walmart when it may raise prices, or Apple where it should make phones, that's not normal capitalism. America's economic greatness has also relied, among other things, on what might be called the federal-industrial-university complex in science and engineering. This engine of growth has been central to American economic exceptionalism. No other nation comes close. Yet each piece is now being undermined by MAGA. The U.S. government has been promoting scientific advances at least since Vannevar Bush, the engineer whose scientific leadership helped win World War II. He convinced President Harry S. Truman and Congress that such advances were crucial to national security and economic growth. Some of the research is done directly by the government in national laboratories such as Brookhaven and Los Alamos. Some is done at the National Institutes of Health. Some is done cooperatively between government and private companies, such as the life-saving mRNA vaccines for Covid-19. And a great deal is done at research universities, typically with federal grants. Importantly, the funding hasn't been politically based. Until now. Elon Musk's chainsaw approach has decimated or eliminated entire scientific units within the federal government. Green technology and anything that smacks of DEI are particular targets. But when you cut with a chainsaw rather than scissors, accidents happen. Remember those nuclear-safety employees? The national labs, the National Science Foundation and even the NIH are all looking at serious budget cuts nowadays. Will these make our nation greater? America's universities, the best in the world, merit special discussion because Mr. Trump has declared war on them, starting with Columbia and Harvard. First a small point: University education is an export industry for the U.S. In the president's distorted view of international trade, we are supposed to export more than we import. Well, the higher education industry does exactly that. Vastly more (paying) foreign students come here than American students go abroad. And it's not because our universities are cheaper. It's because they are better. But the main point is about science, and the extensive cooperation among research universities, government and private industry. America's universities employ many thousands of scientists, including some of the best. Will taking their grants away, sometimes in midproject, make our country greater? Our universities also teach many other subjects, some of which Mr. Trump doesn't like. Classroom discussions in these 'other" subjects may sometimes veer in anti-MAGA directions. That seems to upset the president. But should the federal government try to stop that by, for example, threatening to ruin the universities financially? The First Amendment has a clear answer: No. And so does any effort to keep America great. Universities are unusual 'businesses." While most aren't run for profit, they do need to pay their bills, including for research support. A few, like Harvard, are very wealthy. Most aren't. But even the richest universities are poorly positioned to withstand a major withdrawal of federal funds. Research and much else will suffer. Too few Americans, I fear, see the attack on universities as an attack on scientific and therefore economic progress. Maybe it's hard to generate sympathy for Harvard. But do we really want to make America mediocre again? Mr. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton. He served as vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, 1994-96.
