Iran says to submit own nuclear proposal to US soon
Iran said Monday it will soon present a counter-proposal on a nuclear deal with the United States, after it had described Washington's offer as containing "ambiguities".
Tehran and Washington have held five rounds of talks since April to thrash out a new nuclear accord to replace the deal with major powers that US President Donald Trump abandoned during his first term in 2018.
The longtime foes have been locked in a diplomatic standoff over Iran's uranium enrichment, with Tehran defending it as a "non-negotiable" right and Washington describing it as a "red line".
On May 31, after the fifth round talks, Iran said it had received "elements" of a US proposal, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi saying later the text contained "ambiguities".
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei criticised the US proposal as "lacking elements" reflective of the previous rounds of negotiations, without providing further details.
"We will soon submit our own proposed plan to the other side through (mediator) Oman once it is finalised," Baqaei told a weekly press briefing.
"It is a proposal that is reasonable, logical, and balanced, and we strongly recommend that the American side value this opportunity."
Iran's parliament speaker has said the US proposal failed to include the lifting of sanctions -- a key demand for Tehran, which has been reeling under their weight for years.
- 'Strategic mistake' -
Trump, who has revived his "maximum pressure" campaign of sanctions on Iran since taking office in January, has repeatedly said it will not be allowed any uranium enrichment under a potential deal.
On Wednesday, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the US offer was "100 percent against" notions of independence and self-reliance.
He insisted that uranium enrichment was "key" to Iran's nuclear programme and that the US "cannot have a say" on the issue.
Iran currently enriches uranium to 60 percent, far above the 3.67-percent limit set in the 2015 deal and close though still short of the 90 percent needed for a nuclear warhead.
Western countries, including the United States, have long accused Iran of seeking to acquire atomic weapons, while Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes
The United Nations nuclear watchdog will convene a Board of Governors meeting from June 9-13 in Vienna to discuss Iran's nuclear activities.
The meeting comes after the International Atomic Energy Agency released a report criticising "less than satisfactory" cooperation from Tehran, particularly in explaining past cases of nuclear material found at undeclared sites.
Iran has criticised the IAEA report as unbalanced, saying it relied on "forged documents" provided by its arch foe Israel.
Britain, France and Germany, the three European countries who were party to the 2015 deal, are currently weighing whether to trigger the sanctions "snapback" mechanism in the accord.
The mechanism would reinstate UN sanctions in response to Iranian non-compliance -- an option that expires in October.
On Friday, Araghchi warned European powers against backing a draft resolution at the IAEA accusing Tehran of non-compliance, calling it a "strategic mistake".
On Monday, Baqaei said Iran has "prepared and formulated a series of steps and measures" if the resolution passed.
"Without a doubt, the response to confrontation will not be more cooperation," he added.
rkh-mz/ysm
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Amid LA deployment, Hegseth falsely attacks Tim Walz over 2020 George Floyd riots
WASHINGTON – Amid an increasingly militarized response to immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attacked Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz for his handling of the riots prompted by George Floyd's killing in 2020. Hegseth implied that federal intervention in Los Angeles is vital to preventing scenes, such as those seen in 2020 in Minneapolis. In June 2020, President Donald Trump praised Walz for his state-controlled use of the National Guard, telling a conference call of governors, "What they did in Minneapolis was incredible. They went in and dominated, and it happened immediately." More: Marines in LA, response to Ukraine: details from Hegseth hearings Hegseth's comments came in response to a Minnesota lawmaker at a June 10 hearing before the House Armed Services Committee. He argued the former Democratic vice presidential candidate "abandoned a police precinct and allowed it to be burned to the ground' during the Black Lives Matter protests in Minneapolis. Hegseth falsely claimed that Walz waited until after the burning of Minneapolis' third police precinct building to call up the Minnesota National Guard. Walz, in fact, ordered a mass mobilization of his Guardsmen on the afternoon of May 28, 2020, several hours before the police building burned. The defense secretary, defending his decision to deploy 700 Marines and around 4,000 federalized National Guard troops to Los Angeles without the consent of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, tried to compare Walz and Newsom's respective handling of the protests. "President Trump recognizes a situation like that, improperly handled by a governor, like it was by Governor Waltz... If it gets out of control, it's a bad situation for the citizens of any location,' said Hegseth. National Guard units, most of whose troops serve part-time and maintain civilian careers, can take days to fully mobilize and deploy. Newsom has strongly condemned President Donald Trump and his administration's actions in response to the ongoing protests, and the California attorney general filed a lawsuit against the administration over the National Guard federalization on June 9. Trump has openly mused about having the governor arrested for impeding immigration enforcement. "[Marines] shouldn't be deployed on American soil facing their own countrymen to fulfill the deranged fantasy of a dictatorial President," Newsom said. More: Marine infantry unit deploying to Los Angeles amid immigration enforcement unrest The anti-ICE protests are poised to roll into their fifth day on June 10. Los Angeles officials blamed fringe groups for the violence and said more than 100 people were arrested Monday evening. Several driverless Waymo cars were set ablaze over the weekend, leading the company to suspend its autonomous taxi service in the city. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Amid Marine LA deployment, Hegseth falsely attacks Tim Walz
WIRED
19 minutes ago
- WIRED
The ‘Long-Term Danger' of Trump Sending Troops to the LA Protests
Jun 10, 2025 12:24 PM President Trump's deployment of more than 700 Marines to Los Angeles—following ICE raids and mass protests—has ignited a fierce national debate over state sovereignty and civil-military boundaries. LAPD officers and National Guard soldiers stand on patrol as demonstrators protest outside a jail in downtown Los Angeles following two days of clashes with police during a series of immigration raids on June 8, 2025. Photograph:As hundreds of United States Marines deploy in Los Angeles under presidential orders to protect federal property amid growing protests over immigration enforcement, constitutional scholars and civil rights attorneys warn of long-term implications for American democracy and civil-military relations. President Donald Trump revealed Monday that he had ordered the deployment of more than 700 activity-duty Marines out of Camp Pendleton—an extraordinary use of military force in response to civil unrest. The move, widely condemned by his critics, follows Trump's federalization of the National Guard. Some 3,800 guardsmen have since been deployed in California against the objections of its government, spurring debate among legal observers over the limits of the president's power to send troops into American streets. Trump ordered the deployments in response to thousands of Angelenos who took to the streets on Friday in protests. LA residents responded after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents carried out sweeping raids of local businesses, arresting, among others, dozens of day laborers who were vying for work outside a local Home Depot. Larger demonstrations soon formed and remained largely peaceful until residents were engaged by police with riot shields and crowd control weapons. Over the weekend, the clashes between police and protesters escalated across many neighborhoods with large immigrant populations. Numerous buildings were vandalized with anti-ICE messages, and several Waymo autonomous vehicles were set ablaze. Videos captured by protest attendees show police firing upon demonstrators with rubber bullets and other crowd control agents, including waves of asphyxiating CS gas. Members of the press shared images online showing injuries they incurred from the police assault. In widely shared footage, a Los Angeles police officer appears to intentionally target an Australian reporter, Lauren Tomasi, shooting her from feet away with a rubber bullet as she delivers a monologue into a camera. On Monday, CNN correspondent Jason Carroll was arrested live on air. California governor Gavin Newsom condemned Trump's troop deployment in posts on social media, calling the president's actions an 'unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' His attorney general, Rob Bonata, has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming the order violated the state's sovereignty, infringing on Newsom's authority as the California National Guard's commander in chief. In response to a request for comment, the Department of Defense referred WIRED to a US Northern Command press release detailing the deployment of Marines and National Guardsmen. Federal troops in the United States are ordinarily barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. This rule, known as 'posse comitatus,' may be suspended, however, by a sitting president in cases of civil unrest or outright rebellion. This exception—permitted under the Insurrection Act—allows the president to deploy troops when circumstances make it 'impracticable' for state authorities to enforce federal law by 'ordinary' means. While these powers are most often invoked at the request of a state government, the president may also invoke the act when a state chooses to ignore the constitutional rights of its inhabitants—as happened multiple times in the mid-20th century, when southern states refused to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. President Trump, however, has so far not invoked the Insurrection Act, relying instead on a theory of 'inherent authority' advanced by the US Justice Department in 1971 during the height of the anti–Vietnam War protests. This interpretation of presidential power finds that troops may be deployed in an effort to 'protect federal property and functions.' Notably—unlike the Insurrection Act—this does not permit troops to engage in activities that are generally the purview of civilian law enforcement agencies. Trump also invoked statutory power granted to him by Congress under Title 10 of the US Code, which enabled him to federalize elements of California's National Guard. These activations typically occur when guardsmen are needed to support overseas military operations, as happened routinely this century during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Domestically, however, guardsmen are not usually federalized without the agreement of a state's governor—unless the Insurrection Act has been invoked. Legal experts interviewed by WIRED offered a range of opinions on the president's authority to deploy active-duty military troops or federalize the National Guard. While most believe it is likely within Trump's power to ignore Newsom's express objections, doing so without an invocation of the Insurrection Act, they say, is a decision fraught with legal complexities that carries serious implications, from altering—perhaps permanently—the fundamental relationship between Americans, states, and the federal government, to disturbing the delicate balance between civilian governance and military power. Liza Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, underscores the 'unprecedented' nature of Trump's approach. 'He's trying to basically exercise the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it,' she says. A key issue for Goitein is that the memorandum signed by Trump last week federalizing the National Guard makes no mention of Los Angeles or California. Rather, it states that the guardsmen are being mobilized to address protests that are both 'occurring' and 'likely to occur.' In essence, the memo 'authorizes the deployment of federal troops anywhere in the country,' Goitein says, 'including places where there are no protests yet. We're talking about preemptive deployment.' Goitein argues that the administration's justifications could undermine both judicial accountability and civil‑military boundaries. Under the Insurrection Act, federal troops can take on the responsibilities of local and state police. But without it, their authority should be quite limited. Neither the guardsmen nor the Marines, for instance, should engage with protesters acting peacefully, according to Goitein. 'He says they're there to protect federal property,' she says. 'But it looks a lot like quelling civil unrest.' Anthony Kuhn, a 28-year US Army veteran and managing partner at Tully Rinckey, believes, meanwhile, that there is really 'no question' that Trump would be justified in declaring a 'violent rebellion' underway in California, empowering him to ignore Newsom's objections. The images and video of protesters hurling rocks and other items at police and lighting cars on fire all serve as evidence toward that conclusion. 'I know people in California, the governor, the mayor, are trying to frame it as a protest. But at this point,' says Kuhn, 'it's a violent rebellion. You can draw your own conclusions from the pictures and videos floating around.' Kuhn argues that the intentions of the protesters, the politics fueling the demonstrations, don't matter. 'They're attacking federal facilities. They're destroying federal property. So in an attempt to restore the peace, the president has the authority under Title 10 to deploy troops. It's pretty straightforward.' In contrast, Rutgers University professor Bruce Afran says deploying military forces against Americans is 'completely unconstitutional' in the absence of a true state of domestic insurrection. 'There was an attack on ICE's offices, the doorways, there was some graffiti, there were images of protesters breaking into a guardhouse, which was empty,' he says. 'But even if it went to the point of setting a car on fire, that's not a domestic insurrection. That's a protest that is engaged in some illegality. And we have civil means to punish it without the armed forces.' Afran argues that meddling with the expectations of civilians, who naturally anticipate interacting with police but not armed soldiers, can fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens and their government, even blurring the line between democracy and authoritarianism. 'The long-term danger is that we come to accept the role of the army in regulating civilian protest instead of allowing local law enforcement to do the job,' he says. 'And once we accept that new paradigm—to use a kind of BS word—the relationship between the citizen and the government is altered forever.' 'Violent rioters in Los Angeles, enabled by Democrat governor Gavin Newsom, have attacked American law enforcement, set cars on fire, and fueled lawless chaos," Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, tells WIRED. "President Trump rightfully stepped in to protect federal law enforcement officers. When Democrat leaders refuse to protect American citizens, President Trump will always step in.' As the orders to mobilize federal troops have come down, some users on social media have urged service members to consider the orders unlawful and refuse to obey—a move that legal experts say would be very difficult to pull off. David Coombs, a lecturer in criminal procedure and military law at the University of Buffalo and a veteran of the US Army's Judge Advocate General's Corps, says it's hypothetically possible that troops could question whether Trump has the authority to mobilize state guardsmen over the objection of a state governor. 'I think ultimately the answer to that will be yes,' he says. 'But it is a gray area. When you look at the chain of command, it envisions the governor controlling all of these individuals.' Separately, says Coombs, when troops are ordered to mobilize, they could—again, hypothetically—refuse to engage in activities that are beyond the scope of the president's orders, such as carrying out immigration raids or making arrests. 'All they can do in this case, under Title 10 status, is protect the safety of federal personnel and property. If you go beyond that, then it violates the Posse Comitatus Act.' Federal troops, for instance, would need civilian police to step in. At the point, authorities want peaceful protesters to disperse. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that, in a letter on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem requested that military troops be directed to detain alleged 'lawbreakers' during protests 'or arrest them,' which legal experts almost universally agree would be illegal under ordinary circumstances. The letter was addressed to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and accused the anti-ICE protesters of being 'violent, insurrectionist mobs' aiming to 'protect invaders and military aged males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations.' Khun, who warns there's a big difference between philosophizing over what constitutes an unlawful order and disobeying commands, dismisses the idea that troops, in the heat of the moment, will have an option. 'It's not going to be litigated in the middle of an actual deployment,' he says. 'There's no immediate relief, no immediate way to prove that an order is unlawful.' Khun says that were he deployed into a similar situation, 'me and my junior soldiers would not respond to a nonviolent or peaceful protest.' Asked what protesters should expect, should they engage with federal troops trained for combat overseas, Kuhn says the Marines will hold their ground more firmly than police, who are often forced to retreat as mobs approach. In addition to being armed with the same crowd control weapons, Marines are extensively trained in close-quarters combat. 'I would expect a defensive response,' he says, 'but not lethal force.' Additional reporting by Alexa O'Brien.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russian billionaire and Putin critic launches AI data centres in the UK
A Russian billionaire and critic of Vladimir Putin is preparing to invest hundreds of millions of pounds in artificial intelligence (AI) data centres in the UK. Nebius, a technology company headquartered in the Netherlands, will invest £200m to establish an 'AI factory' in Britain, deploying 4,000 graphics-processing chips designed to power the latest generation of machine-learning technology. The $12bn (£9bn) business is assessing potential data centre sites in the South East. Nebius was formed as part of a carve-up of Yandex, a company known as 'Russia's Google'. Arkady Volozh, a Russian entrepreneur worth a reported $2bn, founded Yandex in 1997 as a Russian rival to the US search engine. The business later listed in New York and in 2021 was valued at more than $30bn. However, its shares were suspended in 2022 after Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Mr Volozh was sanctioned by the European Union. Over the years Yandex faced growing pressure from the Kremlin to censor online news and search results, and the company was accused by Brussels of helping to spread Kremlin propaganda. In 2023, Mr Volozh labelled Putin's invasion 'barbaric' and said he was 'horrified' by the war. He said: 'I am categorically against it. Although I moved to Israel in 2014, I have to take my share of responsibility for the country's actions. 'There were reasons to stay silent during this long process. While there will anyway be questions about the timing of my statement today, there should be no questions about its essence. I am against the war.' The European Union removed its sanctions of Mr Volozh last year. Nebius was formed as part of a carve-up of Yandex, which spun off its Russian search division in a $5bn deal to Russian investors. Nebius, which is listed in the US, is made up of the remaining European, US and Israeli assets, including several data centres powered by Nvidia microchips and its self-driving car technology. Mr Volozh, Nebius's chief executive, said: 'The UK is where AI is being built, tested, and deployed at scale across industries from fintech to life sciences. Being here puts us closer to the start-ups, researchers, and enterprise leaders shaping what's next.' Nebius's UK investment comes after Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, announced plans to spend more than £1bn to boost the UK's computing power in a speech at London Tech Week alongside Jensen Huang, the Nvidia chief executive. On Monday, the Government announced a series of AI investments ahead of this week's Treasury spending review. These included £1bn for an AI research resource, made up of powerful AI data centres and supercomputers, as well as £187m to boost the technological skills of the UK workforce. On Tuesday, Peter Kyle, the Technology Secretary, also announced plans for a new Turing AI fellowship in a speech at London Tech Week. Backed by £25m, the programme will seek five AI experts who will be offered a substantial package to relocate to the UK and hire a team to conduct AI research. Mr Kyle said: 'We will harness the vast potential of our trillion-pound tech sector to help remake our country for the better.'
