Iran rejects U.S. nuclear proposal to abandon uranium enrichment
Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Wednesday dismissed a U.S. proposal to halt Iranian uranium enrichment, appearing to reject a central U.S. demand in the nuclear program talks. Khamenei said the proposal was "100% against" Iran's interests. File Photo by Iran's Supreme Leader Press Office/UPI | License Photo
June 4 (UPI) -- Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Wednesday dismissed a U.S. proposal to halt Iranian uranium enrichment, appearing to reject a central U.S. demand in the nuclear program talks.
Khamenei said the proposal was "100% against" Iran's interests.
"The rude and arrogant leaders of America repeatedly demand that we should not have a nuclear program," Khamenei said. "They cannot do anything about this."
Axios reported Monday that the U.S. proposal would bar Iran from building new enrichment facilities while establishing a strong system of monitoring and verification.
The New York Times, citing unnamed Iranian and European officials, said the U.S. proposal would let Iran keep enriching uranium at low levels while details were worked out by the U.S. and other countries to block Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon.
Khamenei said Iran won't agree to a nuclear deal that leaves it dependent on other nations.
"There is one point that is a key element in the nuclear industry, and that is uranium enrichment," Khamenei said. "A nuclear industry without enrichment capabilities is useless because we would then be dependent on others to obtain fuel for our power plants."
He added, "To the American side and others we say: Why are you interfering and trying to say whether Iran should have uranium enrichment or not? That's none of your business."
Iran Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said earlier this week that there won't be a nuclear agreement with the U.S. unless Iran's right to enrich uranium is respected.
Araghchi wrote on X Wednesday, "Iran has paid dearly for these capabilities, and there is no scenario in which we will give up on the patriots who made our dream come true.To reiterate: No enrichment, no deal. No nuclear weapons, we have a deal."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
Trump vows to 'HIT' any protester who spits on police. He pardoned those who did far worse on Jan. 6
In one of his first acts of his second term as president, Donald Trump pardoned hundreds of people who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to try to keep him in office, including those who beat police officers. On Monday, Trump posted a warning on social media to those demonstrating in Los Angeles against his immigration crackdown and confronting police and members of the National Guard he had deployed: 'IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before. Such disrespect will not be tolerated!' The discrepancy of Trump's response to the two disturbances — pardoning rioters who beat police on Jan. 6, which he called 'a beautiful day,' while condemning violence against law enforcement in Los Angeles — illustrates how the president expects his enemies to be held to different standards than his supporters. 'Trump's behavior makes clear that he only values the rule of law and the people who enforce it when it's to his political advantage,' said Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College. Trump pardoned more than 1,000 people who tried to halt the transfer of power on that day in 2021, when about 140 officers were injured. The former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Matthew Graves, called it 'likely the largest single day mass assault of law enforcement ' in American history. Trump's pardon covered people convicted of attacking police with flagpoles, a hockey stick and a crutch. Many of the assaults were captured on surveillance or body camera footage that showed rioters engaging in hand-to-hand combat with police as officers desperately fought to beat back the angry crowd. While some who were pardoned were convicted of nonviolent crimes, Trump pardoned at least 276 defendants who were convicted of assault charges, according to an Associated Press review of court records. Nearly 300 others had their pending charges dismissed as a result of Trump's sweeping act of clemency. Roughly 180 of the defendants were charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding law enforcement or obstructing officers during a civil disorder. 'They were extremely violent, and they have been treated as if their crimes were nothing, and now the president is trying to use the perception of violence by some protesters as an excuse to crack some heads,' said Mike Romano, who was a deputy chief of the section of the U.S. Attorney's office that prosecuted those involved in the Capitol siege. A White House spokesman, Harrison Fields, defended the president's response: 'President Trump was elected to secure the border, equip federal officials with the tools to execute this plan, and restore law and order.' Trump has long planned to use civil unrest as an opportunity to invoke broad presidential powers, and he seemed poised to do just that on Monday as he activated a battalion of U.S. Marines to support the presence of the National Guard. He mobilized the Guard on Saturday over the opposition of California's governor, Gavin Newsom, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats. The Guard was last sent to Los Angeles by a president during the Rodney King riots in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act. Those riots were significantly more violent and widespread than the current protests in Los Angeles, which were largely confined to a stretch of downtown, a relatively small patch in a city of 469 square miles and nearly 4 million people. The current demonstrations were sparked by a confrontation Saturday in the city of Paramount, southeast of downtown Los Angeles, where federal agents were staging at a Department of Homeland Security office. California officials, who are largely Democrats, argued that Trump is trying to create more chaos to expand his power. Newsom, whom Trump suggested should be arrested, called the president's acts 'authoritarian.' But even Rick Caruso, a prominent Los Angeles Republican and former mayoral candidate, posted on the social media site X that the president should not have called in the National Guard. Protests escalated after the Guard arrived, with demonstrators blockading a downtown freeway. Some some set multiple self-driving cars on fire and pelted Los Angeles police with debris and fireworks. Romano said he worried that Trump's double standard on how demonstrators should treat law enforcement will weaken the position of police in American society. He recalled that, during the Capitol attack, many rioters thought police should let them into the building because they had supported law enforcement's crackdown on anti-police demonstrations after George Floyd was murdered in 2020. That sort of 'transactional' approach Trump advocates is toxic, Romano said. 'We need to expect law enforcement are doing their jobs properly,' he said. Believing they just cater to the president 'is going to undermine public trust in law enforcement.'
an hour ago
Hegseth faces Congress for first time since Signal leaks and Marine deployment to Los Angeles
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is expected to field sharp questions from members of Congress about his tumultuous start as Pentagon chief, including his sharing of sensitive military details over a Signal chat, in three separate Capitol Hill hearings beginning Tuesday. Lawmakers also have made it clear they are unhappy that Hegseth has not provided details on the administration's first proposed defense budget, which President Donald Trump has said would total $1 trillion, a significant increase over the current spending level of more than $800 billion. It will be lawmakers' first chance to ask Hegseth about a myriad of other controversial spending by the Pentagon, including plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on security upgrades to turn a Qatari jet into Air Force One and to pour as much as $45 million into a parade recently added to the Army's 250th birthday bash, which happens to coincide with Trump's birthday on Saturday. Lawmakers may quiz Hegseth on the latest searing images coming out of the immigration raid protests in Los Angeles. Hegseth has deployed about 700 active-duty Marines to assist more than 4,100 National Guard troops in protecting federal buildings and personnel. But there are questions about what the troops will have to do and how much it will all cost. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, troops are prohibited from policing U.S. citizens on American soil. Invoking the Insurrection Act, which allows troops to do that, is incredibly rare, and it's not clear if Trump plans to do it. The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Eric Smith, will be on Capitol Hill testifying at a separate budget hearing at the same time as Hegseth and is likely to face similar questions. Hegseth has spent vast amounts of time during his first five months in office promoting the social changes he's making at the Pentagon. He's been far less visible in the administration's more critical international security crises and negotiations involving Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Gaza and Iran. Most recently, Hegseth directed the renaming of a Navy ship that had honored Harvey Milk, a slain gay rights activist who served as a sailor during the Korean War. His spokesman, Sean Parnell, said the renaming was needed to ensure "the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the commander-in-chief's priorities, our nation's history, and the warrior ethos.' Hegseth has posted numerous videos of his morning workouts with troops or of himself signing directives to purge diversity and equity programs and online content from the military. He has boasted of removing transgender service members from the force and firing so-called woke generals, many of whom were women. He was on the international stage about a week ago, addressing an annual national security conference in Asia about threats from China. But a trip to NATO headquarters last week was quick and quiet, and he deliberately skipped a gathering of about 50 allies and partners where they discussed ongoing support for Ukraine. Hegseth's hearing Tuesday before the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee will be his first public appearance on Capitol Hill since he squeaked through his Senate confirmation with a tie-breaking vote. It was the closest vote of any Cabinet member. While he has talked a lot about making the military more lethal, it was his use of the unclassified, unsecured Signal messaging app that quickly caught public attention. Set up by then-national security adviser Mike Waltz, a group chat included Hegseth and other senior administration leaders and was used to share information about upcoming military strikes in Yemen. The chat became a public embarrassment because the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, was inadvertently added to it. Waltz took responsibility for the gaffe, but Hegseth was roundly criticized for sharing details about the military strikes in this chat and in another one that included his wife and brother. Multiple investigations are looking into his use of Signal. The Defense Department's acting inspector general has been looking into the initial chat at the request of the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Pentagon's watchdog also is reviewing whether any of Hegseth's aides were asked to delete any Signal messages. While any number of those issues could come up at the House Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday, money issues are more likely to be the focus of the hearings Tuesday in the House and Wednesday before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. Already defense leaders have been grilled in other hearings on the plans to retrofit the Qatari jet and the costs of the military parade. Trump has long wanted a parade, and Army leaders defended it as a good way to attract new recruits. Other questions may involve the costs of expanding the use of military forces to secure the southern border, the plans for the Golden Dome missile defense program, and how the department intends to fund modernization programs for drones and other critical weapons systems.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
What would the world be like with three superpowers?
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up It's an idea that could lead to greater stability. Three stern bosses would govern their own regions, slapping down challengers and troublemakers. They would make major decisions together, or at least with respect for one another's security. Advertisement Their rule would also sharply limit the sovereignty of lesser powers that are near one of the three big ones. Canada, Ukraine, and Taiwan would have to follow orders from Washington, Moscow, and Beijing. Advertisement Orwell did not invent the idea of dividing vast regions into 'spheres of influence' for great powers. It emerged from the Berlin Conference of 1884, at which European powers divided Africa among themselves. Underlying it is the age-old principle that the strong do what they can while the weak suffer what they must. Trump might relish the vision of sitting down to divide the world with two other autocrats, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. It would be a global version of the 1945 Yalta Conference, at which World War II victors decided the fate of European nations. In the modern age, though, it may not be practical. Nationalism and decolonization have shaped the current generation of leaders in much of the world. That makes it unlikely that smaller countries would now accept guidance from larger ones. Upstarts like Eritrea and Burkina Faso, not to mention middle powers like South Africa and Saudi Arabia, have already shown their willingness to challenge the global titans. Attempts to control them more tightly could lead them to rebel even more forcefully. Then there is the question of which countries would be the Big Three. In the 1980s, when Russia was tottering and China had not yet reached great-power status, the three forces that came closest to ruling the world were the United States, Japan, and Europe. Today it is clear that the United States and China belong in the top tier. Russia would be the most likely third member. All three of these countries, however, face serious domestic and foreign challenges. They may be top dogs today, but their positions are hardly unassailable. Upheaval in today's world is in part a result of their inability to control unruly disruptors. Advertisement An Asia ruled by India might someday be an alternative to the ruthlessness of the Russian and Chinese regimes. North and South America under Brazilian oversight might be more peaceful and socially just than they are under the wing of the United States. As for Europe, it is in the throes of an epochal identity crisis and no longer projects power as it did in past centuries. The greatest benefit of a tripartite division of the world is that it might lessen the threat of global destruction through nuclear war. Agreement among powerful nations could calm fears that might propel them toward apocalyptic decisions. Given the urgent reality of this threat, anything that lessens it is instantly appealing. Obstacles to the three-great-powers vision, though, are easy to identify. Today the United States considers most of the world to be its 'sphere of influence.' Drawing new lines would inevitably mean a shrinking of the American domain, something Washington is unlikely to accept. Then there is the question of where those lines would be. Imagining a new world map may be an amusing fantasy project. In real life establishing one would be all but impossible. Perhaps the greatest obstacle to a new division of the world is the highly developed sensitivity of countries that have been victims of imperialism. The United States, Russia, and China were created by seizing land from others. All three have expanded their power at the expense of weaker countries. Those countries, some of them gathered in the BRICS bloc, sense a common threat. Persuading them to accept a return to obedient servitude would require a far better deal than the United States, Russia, or China is prepared to offer. Advertisement Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University.
