Iran says no plan for new US nuclear talks, plays down impact of strikes
Iran on Thursday denied it is set to resume nuclear talks with the United States after the end of a 12-day war with Israel, and accused Washington of exaggerating the impact of US strikes. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stands waiting to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin for the talks at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, Monday, June 23, 2025. (Alexander Kazakov, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP)(AP)
The most serious conflict yet between Israel and Iran derailed nuclear talks between Iran and the United States, yet President Donald Trump said Washington would hold discussions with Tehran next week, with his special envoy Steve Witkoff expressing hope "for a comprehensive peace agreement".
But Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi shut down what he said was "speculation" that Tehran would come to the table and said it "should not be taken seriously".
"I would like to state clearly that no agreement, arrangement or conversation has been made to start new negotiations," he said on state television. "No plan has been set yet to start negotiations."
Araghchi's denial came as Iranian lawmakers passed a "binding" bill suspending cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog and after supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused Trump of exaggerating the impact of US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.
In a televised speech -- his first appearance since a ceasefire in the war with Israel -- Khamenei hailed what he described as Iran's "victory" over Israel, vowed never to yield to US pressure and insisted Washington had been dealt a humiliating "slap".
"The American president exaggerated events in unusual ways, and it turned out that he needed this exaggeration," Khamenei said, rejecting US claims Iran's nuclear programme had been set back by decades.
The strikes, he insisted, had done "nothing significant" to Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Araghchi, for his part, called the damage "serious" and said a detailed assessment was under way.
Trump said key facilities, including the underground Fordo uranium enrichment site, had been "obliterated" by American B-2 bombers.
Posting on his Truth Social platform, he dismissed speculation Iran might have removed enriched uranium prior to the raid, saying: "Nothing was taken out... too dangerous, and very heavy and hard to move!"
He added that satellite images showed trucks at the site only because Iranian crews were attempting to shield the facility with concrete.
Khamenei dismissed such claims, saying "the Islamic republic won, and in retaliation dealt a severe slap to the face of America".
Both sides have claimed victory: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it a "historic win", while Khamenei said Iran's missile retaliation had brought Israel to the brink of collapse. US defence
In Washington, the true impact of the strikes has sparked sharp political and intelligence debates.
A leaked classified assessment suggested the damage to Iran's nuclear programme may be less severe than initially claimed -- possibly delaying progress by only a few months.
That contrasts with statements from senior US officials.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe said several facilities would need to be "rebuilt over the course of years".
Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth accused the media of misrepresenting the operation.
He said the United States used massive GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs on Fordo and another underground site, while submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles targeted a third facility.
"President Trump created the conditions to end the war, decimating -- choose your word -- obliterating, destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities," Hegseth said.
Doubts remain about whether Iran quietly removed some 400 kilogrammes (880 pounds) of enriched uranium from its most sensitive sites before the strikes -- potentially hiding nuclear material elsewhere in the country. Netanyahu says Iran 'thwarted'
Following waves of Israeli attacks on nuclear and military sites and retaliatory missile fire from Iran since mid-June -- the deadliest between the two countries to date -- the US bombed three key Iranian atomic facilities.
Initial intelligence reports, first revealed by CNN, suggested the strikes did not destroy critical components and delayed Iran's nuclear programme only by months.
Experts questioned if Iran had pre-emptively moved enriched uranium to protect it. The US administration has forcefully rejected such suggestions.
The Israeli military said Iran's nuclear sites had taken a "significant" blow, but cautioned it was "still early" to fully assess the damage.
Netanyahu said Israel had "thwarted Iran's nuclear project", warning any attempt by Iran to rebuild it would be met with the same determination and intensity.
Iran has consistently denied seeking a nuclear weapon while defending its "legitimate rights" to the peaceful use of atomic energy.
It has also said it is willing to return to nuclear negotiations with Washington.
The Israeli strikes on Iran killed at least 627 civilians, Tehran's health ministry said.
Iran's attacks on Israel killed 28 people, according to Israeli figures.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Wild, wild West Asia
Is the region safer after the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities? No. Because Palestine, Shia-Sunni tension on streets and distrust between Gulf Sheikhs & Ayatollahs won't go away anytime soon In a matter of 12 days, several long-held red lines in West Asia were crossed – direct and intense military exchanges between Iran and Israel; the biggest US military assault on Iran since the foundation of the Islamic Republic; and massive strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. However, just as things were looking hairy, Trump announced a ceasefire. But the big question is: Will the truce hold? Is West Asia any safer after the latest burst of conflict? Here's the breakdown of the current regional dynamics. Read the full story on TOI+. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Trump administration asks McKinsey, BCG to justify consulting contracts
The Trump administration's monthslong effort to cut the cost of government consulting contracts is widening to include McKinsey, BCG and other firms representing billions of dollars in federal contracts. The General Services Administration on Thursday sent a letter to leaders of about a half dozen consulting companies, asking them to justify their work with the federal government and to propose cost savings, according to a person familiar with the matter and a copy of the letter reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. 'Our objective is to critically evaluate which engagements deliver genuine value," the GSA's Josh Gruenbaum, who serves as commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service, wrote to the firms Thursday. 'In keeping with this Administration's laser focus on fiscal responsibility, our baseline presumption is that most, if not all, of these contracted services are not core to agency missions." The latest round of letters is part of a broad review of government spending on consultants, tech providers and other contractors working with federal agencies. The GSA helps oversee procurement across the government and is coordinating the administration-wide review to determine which tasks can be done internally by federal employees, and which must be done by outside consultants. In addition to McKinsey and BCG, the GSA on Thursday also sent letters to EY, AlixPartners, FTI Consulting and Alvarez & Marsal, the person familiar with the effort said. A McKinsey spokesman said the firm welcomes 'the opportunity to engage with GSA to demonstrate the value we provide to our federal clients and the American taxpayer." BCG and AlixPartners declined to comment. Representatives for EY, FTI Consulting and A&M didn't immediately comment. Gruenbaum is a former director at private-equity firm KKR. For months, he and his colleagues have been reviewing federal contracts and asking executives at large companies including Accenture and Deloitte to identify potential savings opportunities and work that could be terminated. The Journal in April reported that seven of the 10 largest consulting firms to the government had offered up to $20 billion in savings by proposing to either terminate existing contracts or reduce the scope of their work within federal agencies. GSA's review of consulting contracts so far has resulted in savings of $23.3 billion in multiyear awards, Gruenbaum wrote in his letter Thursday. He asked the consulting firms to respond by July 11 by detailing their existing federal contracts in plain language ('no consultant gobbledygook") and explaining the pricing structure of projects. The GSA is also asking firms to move to so-called outcomes-based contracts in which federal contractors are paid based on achieving certain results. 'Submissions that fail to identify meaningful waste and spending reductions will not be considered credible," the letter said. McKinsey appreciates 'the government's emphasis on outcome-based pricing, which is a model we often follow," the firm's spokesman said. 'As we have highlighted in our research, there is significant opportunity to improve productivity in U.S. government services, and we are eager to contribute to these efforts." Write to Chip Cutter at
News18
an hour ago
- News18
US To Host QUAD Foreign Ministers Meeting On July 1, Confirms State Department
Last Updated: hruva Jaishankar from ORF Washington DC. shared insights on the expectations from the summit, highlighting challenges in current US relations with Quad partners. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will host the Foreign Ministers from the QUAD nations—Australia, India, and Japan—on July 1 in Washington, DC, for the 2025 QUAD Foreign Ministers Meeting, announced US State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Tommy Pigott on Thursday (US local time). Addressing the media, Pigott said, 'Next week, Secretary Rubio will host foreign ministers from Australia, India, and Japan for the 2025 Quad Foreign Ministers Meeting on July 1 in Washington, D.C. The secretary's first diplomatic engagement was with the Quad, and next week's summit builds on that momentum to advance a free, open, and secure Indo-Pacific. This is what American leadership looks like: strength, peace, and prosperity." Speaking to ANI, Dhruva Jaishankar from ORF Washington DC. shared insights on the expectations from the summit, highlighting challenges in current US relations with Quad partners. 'US relations with its Quad partners have been complicated of late, given differences with Japan over defence spending, Australia over AUKUS, and India over Pakistan. For these reasons, even maintaining the Quad agenda going forward is difficult, despite the US concentrating the group's focus on security, prosperity, tech, and homeland security," he noted. This meeting also follows a recent development from June 18, where US President Donald Trump accepted Prime Minister Narendra Modi's invitation to attend the QUAD Leaders' Summit in New Delhi later this year, as confirmed by Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri. 'For the next meeting of the Quad, PM Modi invited President Trump to India. While accepting the invitation, President Trump said that he is excited to come to India," Misri said in a video statement after a telephonic conversation on the sidelines of the G7 Summit in Canada. The Quad alliance, comprising Australia, India, Japan, and the United States, is a strategic partnership focused on ensuring an open, stable, and prosperous Indo-Pacific. Its origins trace back to the collaborative response to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Earlier in January, Rubio, on his first day as Secretary of State, had hosted Quad foreign ministers, emphasizing the US commitment to strengthening economic opportunity and ensuring peace and security in the region. 'On day one as Secretary of State, I hosted the Foreign Ministers of Australia, India, and Japan for an important meeting of the Quad. We are committed to strengthening economic opportunity and peace and security in the Indo-Pacific region," Rubio posted on X. In a joint statement issued after that meeting, the Quad foreign ministers reaffirmed their commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific, where 'sovereignty and territorial integrity are upheld and defended." They also strongly opposed 'any unilateral actions aimed at changing the status quo through force or coercion." First Published: June 27, 2025, 07:03 IST
