Trump administration exploring $30 billion civilian nuclear deal for Iran
The Trump administration in recent days has explored possible economic incentives for Iran in return for the regime halting uranium enrichment, including releasing billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets, according to three sources familiar with the discussions.
The tentative proposal would also allow Iran to receive assistance from regional countries to enable Tehran to build a civilian nuclear program, granting Tehran access to as much as $30 billion.
The proposal is one of many ideas under consideration by the administration, the sources said. The details of the administration's discussions were first reported by CNN.
The potential deal would mark a major reversal in policy for President Trump, who pulled the U.S. out of the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran in 2018 arguing in part that the sanctions relief and unfreezing of Iranian assets had provided a ' lifeline of cash ' to the Iranian regime to continue its malign activities.
Still, it is not immediately clear if the financial proposal or any negotiations between the U.S. and Iran will move forward.
Earlier Friday, President Trump threatened to drop any possible sanctions relief for Iran after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared victory in the war against Israel and downplayed the significance of U.S. attacks on their nuclear sites.
'Why would the so-called 'Supreme Leader,' Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, of the war torn Country of Iran, say so blatantly and foolishly that he won the War with Israel, when he knows his statement is a lie?' Trump wrote in a lengthy post on Truth Social, adding. 'During the last few days, I was working on the possible removal of sanctions, and other things, which would have given a much better chance to Iran at a full, fast, and complete recovery — The sanctions are BITING! But no, instead I get hit with a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust.'
In a pre-recorded speech on Iranian state TV on Thursday, Khamenei said: 'The Islamic Republic was victorious and, in retaliation, delivered a hand slap to America's face.'
He added: 'This action can be repeated in the future.'
But later on Friday, Trump insisted the Iranians still wanted to meet with him to discuss possible sanctions relief.
'They do want to meet me, and we'll do that quickly. We're going to do it quickly,' Trump told reporters during a White House meeting with the foreign ministers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Rwanda.
'Don't you think we have sanctions on there that they can't do anything? Wouldn't you think that they want to meet me? I mean, they're not stupid people.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
38 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Details of Iran attack still remain fuzzy from Trump and his team
President Donald Trump walks on the South Lawn upon arriving at the White House, Saturday, June 21 (PIcture: AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana) Next Friday marks the first anniversary of Labour's landslide win in the 2024 General Election – what a difference a year makes. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Much has changed in the 51 weeks since Keir Starmer was swept to power on the back of a thumping majority. Many loyal voters have been disappointed by him in government, including 120 of his own MPs, and he faces rebellion from within the ranks on the Treasury's proposed benefit cuts. Yet there is still enough spare change down the back of the sofa to buy 12 fighter jets from the USA which will be capable of launching nuclear missiles. I'm sure that is a huge consolation to disabled people already struggling to make ends meet. At least Starmer stopped short of going into full Tony Blair mode, and the UK did not get involved in the US bombing mission to Iran, which may have broken international law. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad While a year seems a long time in politics, much can change within the course of a week. Last weekend, many feared we were on the brink of World War Three, as Trump launched his raid on Iran's nuclear facilities and the Iranians responded with attacks on Qatar. By Thursday, the entire episode had descended into farce. The exact details still remain fuzzy at best. Trump claims Iran's entire nuclear capability had been obliterated and tweeted 'Bullseye!' Who knew he was such a fan of 1980s British TV game shows? By the start of this week, a leaked intelligence document suggested the impact had been limited, while the International Atomic Energy Agency said there was no leakage of radiation. To a lay person like myself, that suggests two possible scenarios. Either the mission was a failure or the underground nuclear facilities never existed in the first place. By midweek, the CIA had changed the official narrative. The nuclear site had received 'severe damage', which is a few steps down from obliteration. This was backed up by some grainy aerial photos which claimed to show what had happened, but actually proved nothing at all. This is all eerily reminiscent of 2003, with the false evidence trotted out to prove Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Kameini said the US failed to achieve anything significant and was claiming the incident to be a victory for Iran. The whole thing may have to referred to VAR for a final decision. On Thursday US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has faced allegations of alcohol abuse and anger management issues, weighed into the debate. The former Fox News presenter lambasted the press for their lack of patriotism in not believing the president. He called the mission a 'historic success' and repeated the claim that the facility had been 'obliterated' at the weekend. Or maybe he was referring to himself being 'obliterated' at the weekend. It's all very unclear. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The only thing we know with any certainty is that if Trump says he devastated Iran's nuclear capability then he definitely didn't. Judging by form, he's either rambling nonsense or deliberately lying. Although he did come up with an uncharacteristic gem of wisdom on Tuesday. He claimed neither Israel nor Iran 'knows what the f**k they are doing'. They're not the only ones, Mr President.
The Guardian
40 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘We are privileged': liberal Afrikaners reject Trump's ‘white genocide' claims
For some white Afrikaner South Africans, Donald Trump's offer of refugee status in the US has been seen as a godsend. For others, it has provoked anger and frustration that they are being falsely portrayed as victims of a 'white genocide', 31 years after their community's own oppressive minority rule ended. In February, Trump signed an executive order claiming Afrikaners, who make up about 4% of South Africa's population, or about 2.5 million people, were victims of 'unjust racial discrimination'. The order cut aid to the country and established a refugee programme for white South Africans. The first group arrived in May. Afrikaners, descendants of Dutch colonisers and French Huguenot refugees who came to South Africa in the late 17th century, implemented apartheid from 1948. The regime violently repressed the black majority, while keeping white people safe and wealthy. South Africa remains deeply unequal. White South Africans typically have 20 times the wealth of Black people, according to an article in the Review of Political Economy. The spectacle of white people being flown to the US while Trump blocked refugees from war zones bemused and angered South Africans of all races. For some liberal Afrikaners, it felt personal. 'In terms of being singled out, for progressives it's extremely painful,' said Lindie Koorts, a history lecturer at the University of Pretoria. Koorts mentioned the phrase 'ons is nie almal so nie' ('we are not all like that'). She said the phrase is used by progressives to reach out across South Africa's divides without disavowing their Afrikaner or South African identities – despite it having become a cliche that conservative Afrikaners use to mock them. The rightwing Solidarity Movement, which includes a trade union and the campaigning group AfriForum, has lobbied Trump since his first presidential term for support in helping Afrikaners stay in South Africa, to preserve what Solidarity Movement says is a culture under threat. The group argues, for instance, that a recently implemented education law will limit Afrikaans schooling, something the ruling African National Congress disputes. There is not comprehensive polling data on Afrikaners' political views. However, the Freedom Front Plus party, which is seen as representing conservative Afrikaners, received about 456,000 votes in the 2024 national elections. Emile Myburgh, a lawyer who grew up during apartheid believing that Afrikaners were God's chosen people, said: 'I remember when I was a child often hearing Afrikaners say that: 'The one who rules the tip of Africa rules the world.' So we'd feel very special.' Sign up to Headlines US Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion As an atheist, Myburgh, 52, said he now felt excluded from the deeply religious community he grew up in. However, he disputed the claim that his culture was under threat, noting that he regularly attended Afrikaans book launches. 'In the circles that I move in, we do celebrate Afrikaans culture,' he said. Zahria van Niekerk, a 22-year-old fashion student, who was raised bilingually to help her get into university, disagreed that the Afrikaans language, of whom the majority of speakers are now non-white, was threatened. 'My whole family speaks Afrikaans … As long as I can speak it with my family, I'm not really concerned.' In May, Trump ambushed South Africa's president, Cyril Ramaphosa, in the Oval Office with claims that white farmers were being murdered for their race. However, Emil van Maltitz, an economics graduate and farmer's son, disagreed. The 21-year-old, who speaks Sesotho, Afrikaans and English, said: 'Most farmers are white Afrikaners, so it can easily be interpreted as racial targeting. I just think, personally, people are very vulnerable in those areas and they don't have a lot of help from the police.' In the last quarter of 2024, South African police recorded 12 murders on farms, including Black-owned smallholder plots, out of almost 7,000 murders across the country. Van Maltitz recalled young black farmers coming to his father to seek agricultural advice, saying it showed the value of South Africans working together. 'I love diversity, I love being around different people,' he said. Schalk van Heerden is a minister in the Dutch Reformed Church, the largest Afrikaans church. He joked that he was a 'missionary' within the DRC, which supported the apartheid regime. Van Heerden co-founded Betereinders in 2017 to bring about 50 to 100 Afrikaners to monthly brais (barbecues) with up to 200 black people in townships, where most black South Africans still live. Betereinders means 'better-enders' and is a pun on 'bittereinders' ('bitter-enders'), Afrikaners who refused to surrender to the British when their side lost the Boer war. When Trump introduced the refugee scheme for Afrikaners, Beterenders put up 10 billboards around Johannesburg and Pretoria saying, 'Not USA. You, SA.' Van Heerden said: 'We want to be proud about who we are … [But] we are not the big victims in this story. We are privileged, we are very grateful and we are thankful for everything we have.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
US attacks on Iran redraw calculus of use of force for allies and rivals around globe
For US allies and rivals around the world, Donald Trump's strikes on Iran have redrawn the calculus of the White House's readiness to use force in the kind of direct interventions that the president said he would make a thing of the past under his isolationist 'America First' foreign policy. From Russia and China to Europe and across the global south, the president's decision to launch the largest strategic bombing strike in US history indicates a White House that is ready to employ force abroad – but reluctantly and under the extremely temperamental and unpredictable leadership of the president. 'Trump being able to act and being willing to act when he saw an opportunity will definitely give [Vladimir] Putin pause,' said Fiona Hill, a former Trump national security adviser and one of the principal authors of the UK's strategic defence review. While Trump has pulled back from his earlier warnings about potential regime change in Iran, going from tweeting 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' to 'NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' within 72 hours, he has nonetheless reinforced Russian perceptions of the United States as an unpredictable and aggressive rival that will not unilaterally abandon its ability to use force abroad. 'It has some pretty dire warnings for Putin himself about what could happen at a time of weakness,' Hill said. 'It will just convince Putin even more that no matter what the intent of a US president, the capability to destroy is something that has to be taken seriously.' It also shows a shift in the calculus in Washington DC, where hawks – along with Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu – were able to convince Trump that launching a strike on Iran was preferable to pursuing negotiations that had not yet failed. That could have knock-on effects for the war in Ukraine, where Republicans and foreign policy hardliners have grown more vocal about Putin's attacks on cities and the need for a tougher sanctions strategy. Although he hasn't changed his policy on resuming military support to Ukraine, Trump is publicly more exasperated with Putin. When Putin offered Trump to mediate between Israel and Iran, Trump said he responded: 'No, I don't need help with Iran. I need help with you.' In the immediate term, however, the strikes on Iran are unlikely to have an impact on Russia's war in Ukraine. 'I don't see it as having a big impact on the Ukraine war, because although Iran was very helpful at the beginning stages in providing Russia with [Shahed] drones, Russia has now started manufacturing their own version and have actually souped them up,' said Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, during a roundtable discussion. More broadly, Trump's attacks could undermine a growing 'axis of resistance' including Russia and China, given the pair's reluctance to come to Iran's aid beyond issuing strong condemnations of the attacks during security discussions under the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) being held in China this week. 'It also shows that Russia is not a very valuable friend, because they're not really lifting a finger to help their allies in Iran and returning all the help that they've received,' Boot added. The strike could also have implications for China, which has escalated military pressure around Taiwan in recent months and has been holding 'dress rehearsals' for a forced reunification despite US support for the island, according to testimony from Adm Samuel Paparo, the commander of US Indo-Pacific Command. Trump had promised a tough line on China, and many of his top advisers are either China hawks or believe that the US military should reposition its forces and focus from Europe and the Middle East to Asia in order to manage China as a 'pacing threat'. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Yet his previous hesitancy to use US force abroad could have emboldened Beijing to believe that the US would not come to the direct aid of Taiwan if a military conflict would break out – the one wild card in what would otherwise probably be a lopsided conflict between China and Taiwan. Experts cautioned that the stakes were far different, and the conflicts too far removed, to draw direct conclusions about Trump's readiness to intervene if a conflict broke out between China and Taiwan. Trump's administration appears further embroiled in Middle East diplomacy than it wanted and its pivot to focus on China has been delayed as well. And while some close to the military say the strikes have regained credibility lost after some recent setbacks, including the withdrawal from Afghanistan, others have said that it won't send the same message for military planners in Moscow or Beijing. 'We shouldn't conflate willingness to use force in a very low risk situation with deterring other types of conflicts or using force when it's going to be incredibly costly – which is what it would be if we were to come to the defence of Taiwan,' said Dr Stacie Pettyjohn of the Center for a New American Security during an episode of the Defense & Aerospace Air Power podcast. Around the world, US rivals may use the strikes to reinforce the image of the US as an aggressive power that prefers to use force rather than negotiate – a message that may break through with countries already exhausted with a temperamental White House. 'The fact that it all happened so fast, there wasn't much multilateral involvement or chance for diplomacy, I think, is something Russians can point to as an indication of, you know, imperialism to the global south,' said Aslı Aydıntaşbaş, a fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings during a conference call. 'But also in their talking points to United States and western allies, they will definitely make a point of highlighting this as something great powers do, and in a way that normalizes Russia's language on its own [conflicts].
