Iran demands 'guarantee' US will lift sanctions in nuclear talks
Iran demands 'guarantee' US will lift sanctions in nuclear talks
TEHRAN - Iran urged the US on June 2 to provide a formal guarantee that it will lift sanctions in ongoing talks on the Islamic republic's nuclear programme.
'We want to guarantee that the sanctions are effectively lifted,' foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei told a news conference in Tehran.
'So far, the American side has not wanted to clarify this issue,' he added.
His remarks come a day after a report by a United Nations agency showed Iran has stepped up production of uranium enriched up to 60 per cent – close to the roughly 90 per cent 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,' Mr Steve Witkoff told Breitbart News.
Iran has vowed to keep enriching uranium 'with or without a deal' on its nuclear programme.
The US 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 May 31.
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 US in search of a new agreement to replace the deal with major powers that Trump abandoned during his first term in 2018. AFP
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AsiaOne
15 minutes ago
- AsiaOne
Israel to decide next steps in Gaza after ceasefire talks collapse, World News
JERUSALEM — Benjamin Netanyahu will convene his security cabinet this week to decide on Israel's next steps in Gaza following the collapse of indirect ceasefire talks with Hamas, with one senior Israeli source suggesting more force could be an option. Last Saturday, during a visit to the country, US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff had said he was working with the Israeli government on a plan that would effectively end the war in Gaza. But Israeli officials have also floated ideas including expanding the military offencive in Gaza and annexing parts of the shattered enclave. The failed ceasefire talks in Doha had aimed to clinch agreements on a US-backed proposal for a 60-day truce, during which aid would be flown into Gaza and half of the hostages Hamas is holding would be freed in exchange for Palestinian prisoners jailed in Israel. After Netanyahu met Witkoff last Thursday, a senior Israeli official said that "an understanding was emerging between Washington and Israel," of a need to shift from a truce to a comprehensive deal that would "release all the hostages, disarm Hamas, and demilitarise the Gaza Strip," — Israel's key conditions for ending the war. A source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Sunday that the envoy's visit was seen in Israel as "very significant." But later on Sunday, the Israeli official signalled that pursuit of a deal would be pointless, threatening more force: "An understanding is emerging that Hamas is not interested in a deal and therefore the prime minister is pushing to release the hostages while pressing for military defeat. Israel's Channel 12 on Monday cited an official from his office as saying that Netanyahu was inclining towards expanding the offencive and seizing the entire Palestinian enclave. "Strategic clarity" What a "military defeat" might mean, however, is up for debate within the Israeli leadership. Some Israeli officials have suggested that Israel might declare it was annexing parts of Gaza as a means to pressure the militant group. Others, like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir want to see Israel impose military rule in Gaza before annexing it and re-establishing the Jewish settlements Israel evicted 20 years ago. The Israeli military, which has pushed back at such ideas throughout the war, was expected on Tuesday to present alternatives that include extending into areas of Gaza where it has not yet operated, according to two defence officials. While some in the political leadership are pushing for expanding the offencive, the military is concerned that doing so will endanger the 20 hostages who are still alive, the officials said. Israeli Army Radio reported on Monday that military chief Eyal Zamir has become increasingly frustrated with what he describes as a lack of strategic clarity by the political leadership, concerned about being dragged into a war of attrition with Hamas militants. A spokesperson for the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) declined to comment on the report but said that the military has plans in store. "We have different ways to fight the terror organisation, and that's what the army does," Lieutenant Colonel Nadav Shoshani said. On Tuesday, Qatar and Egypt endorsed a declaration by France and Saudi Arabia outlining steps toward a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which included a call on Hamas to hand over its arms to the Western-backed Palestinian Authority. Hamas has repeatedly said it won't lay down arms. But it has told mediators it was willing to quit governance in Gaza for a non-partisan ruling body, according to three Hamas officials. It insists that the post-war Gaza arrangement must be agreed upon among the Palestinians themselves and not dictated by foreign powers. Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar suggested on Monday that the gaps were still too wide to bridge. "We would like to have all our hostages back. We would like to see the end of this war. We always prefer to get there by diplomatic means, if possible. But of course, the big question is, what will be the conditions for the end of the war?" he told journalists in Jerusalem. [[nid:720969]]
CNA
32 minutes ago
- CNA
Philippine inflation at near 6-year low, paves way for rate cuts
MANILA :Philippine consumer prices rose at their slowest pace in nearly six years in July as utility costs moderated and food prices declined, the statistics agency said on Tuesday, potentially allowing the central bank to cut interest rates later this year. The consumer price index rose 0.9 per cent year on year, the lowest rate since October 2019, and below the 1.1 per cent median forecast in a Reuters poll. The July figure was also less than June's 1.4 per cent. That brought the average rate in the seven-month period to 1.7 per cent, below the central bank's 2.0 per cent to 4.0 per cent target for the year. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Governor Eli Remolona told Reuters last week the central bank was on track to slash its key interest rate, currently at a two-and-a-half-year low of 5.25 per cent, two more times this year, but the timing will depend on the outlook for growth and inflation. "On balance, a more accommodative monetary policy stance remains warranted," the central bank said in a statement following the data. "Emerging risks to inflation from rising geopolitical tensions and external policy uncertainty will require closer monitoring, alongside the continued assessment of the impact of prior monetary policy adjustments," it added. The July inflation slowdown was partly driven by a faster annual decline in rice prices, which fell 15.9 per cent, compared with June's 14.3 per cent drop. The statistics agency said the downward trend in rice inflation was likely to persist in the next few months. However, core inflation - which excludes volatile food and energy prices - slightly quickened to 2.3 per cent in July from 2.2 per cent the prior month. The Philippines, which has lowered its growth forecast for 2025 to 5.5 per cent-6.5 per cent from an earlier forecast of 6 per cent-8 per cent, will announce second quarter GDP data on August 7.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Trump's deal-making with other elite US schools scrambles Harvard negotiations
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox WASHINGTON – By the start of last week, Harvard University had signalled its readiness to meet President Donald Trump's demand that it spend US$500 million (S$643 million) to settle its damaging, monthslong battle with the administration and restore its crucial research funding. Then, two days after The New York Times reported that Harvard was open to such a financial commitment, the White House announced a far cheaper deal with Brown University: US$50 million, doled out over a decade, to bolster state workforce development programs. The terms stunned officials at Harvard, who marvelled that another Ivy League school got away with paying so little, according to three people familiar with the deliberations. But Harvard officials also bristled over how their university, after months of work to address antisemitism on campus and with a seeming advantage in its court fight against the government, was facing a demand from Mr Trump to pay 10 times more. The people who discussed the deliberations spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing talks that are supposed to remain confidential. White House officials are dismissive of the comparison between Brown and Harvard, arguing that their grievances against Harvard are more far-reaching, including assertions that the school has yet to do enough to ensure the safety of Jewish students and their claim that the school is flouting the Supreme Court's ruling on race-conscious admissions. 'If Harvard wants the Brown deal, then it has to be like Brown, and I just think it's not,' Ms May Mailman, the top White House official under Mr Stephen Miller who has served as the architect of the administration's crusade against top schools, said in an interview in the West Wing last week. Ms Mailman, who graduated from Harvard Law School, pointed out that Brown, unlike Harvard, did not sue the administration. She challenged Harvard to reach an agreement that included terms that would allow the government to more closely scrutinise its behaviour. 'If Harvard feels really good about what it's already doing, then great,' she said. 'Let's sign this deal tomorrow.' Harvard said on Aug 4 that it had no comment. But the White House's recent record of deal-making threatens to complicate the settlement talks, according to the people familiar with the talks. University officials were sensitive to the possibility that a deal with the government – after Harvard spent months waging a public fight against Mr Trump – would be seen as surrendering to the president and offering him a political gift. The terms of the Brown agreement, though, added new complexity to Harvard's internal debates about the size of a potential financial settlement. For many people close to those discussions, spending US$500 million is less of a concern than what forking that money over would signal on the Cambridge, Massachusetts, campus and beyond. For those close to the discussions, Mr Trump's demand is far too large and they argue that acquiescing to it would be seen as the university scrambling to buy its way out of Mr Trump's ire. They contend that Harvard has taken far more aggressive steps than Columbia University – which agreed to a US$200 million fine in July – to combat antisemitism. They also note that Harvard, unlike Brown, did not publicly agree to consider divesting from Israel as a condition of ending campus protests lin 2024. (Brown's board ultimately voted not to divest.) Others at Harvard regard Mr Trump's proposal as a bargain for the school to get back billions of dollars in funding that make much of its society-shaping research possible. Before the Brown deal, Harvard leaders and the school's team were studying settlement structures that could insulate the nation's oldest and wealthiest university from accusations that it caved to Mr Trump. In their stop-and-start talks with the White House, they are expected to maintain their insistence on steps to shield the university's academic freedom. To that end, they are also likely to remain equally resistant to a monitoring arrangement that some fear would invite intrusions and stifle the school's autonomy. But Harvard has been exploring a structure in which any money the university agrees to spend will go to vocational and workforce training programs instead of the federal government, Mr Trump, his presidential library or allies, according to the three people briefed on the matter. Harvard officials believe that such an arrangement would allow them to argue to their students, faculty, alumni and others in academia that the funds would not be used to fill Mr Trump's coffers. Harvard's consideration of putting money toward workforce programmes aligns with some of what Mr Trump has espoused. In a social media post in May, the president talked up the prospect of taking US$3 billion from Harvard and 'giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land. What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!' But no matter the structure, White House officials have made clear that an extraordinary sum will be required to reach a settlement. Last week, after the Times reported the US$500 million figure, a journalist asked Mr Trump whether that amount would be enough to reach a deal. 'Well, it's a lot of money,' he replied. 'We're negotiating with Harvard.' Although Brown and Harvard are among the nation's richest and most prominent universities, the schools have significant differences, especially around their finances. The Trump administration has repeatedly castigated Harvard for its US$53 billion endowment, which is loaded with restrictions that limit how it may be used, but it has made far less fuss about Brown's similarly tied-up US$7 billion fund. Harvard also has much more federal research money at stake. The Trump administration has warned that it could ultimately strip US$9 billion in funding for Harvard; it threatened US$510 million in funding for Brown. One reason the Brown deal has so miffed Harvard officials is that some terms look much like those they expected for themselves. The government agreed, for instance, that it could not use the deal 'to dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech.' Brown avoided a monitoring arrangement, and the university won the right to direct its US$50 million settlement payment toward workforce programmes of its choosing. But Harvard has a more antagonistic relationship with the Trump administration, as the university has sued the administration to stop its retribution campaign against the school. That dynamic has fuelled worries at Harvard that the White House is seeking a far higher financial penalty as a punishment for fighting, not because the school's troubles alone warrant US$500 million. After Harvard refused a list of Trump administration demands in April, the university sued. In July, a federal judge in Boston appeared skeptical of the government's tactics when it blocked billions in research funding from Harvard. Before and after the July 21 hearing, the administration pursued a wide-ranging campaign against the university. In addition to its attack on Harvard's research money, the government has opened investigations, sought to block the school from enrolling international students, demanded thousands of documents and tried to challenge the university's accreditation, which is essential for students to be eligible for federal student aid programmes, such as Pell Grants. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services told Harvard that it had referred the university to the Justice Department 'to initiate appropriate proceedings to address Harvard's antisemitic discrimination.' 'Rather than voluntarily comply with its obligations under Title VI, Harvard has chosen scorched-earth litigation against the federal government,' Ms Paula Stannard, the director of the health department's Office for Civil Rights, wrote on July 31, referring to the section of federal civil rights law that bars discrimination on the basis of race, colour or national origin. 'The parties' several months' engagement has been fruitless.' As Harvard President Alan Garber and other university leaders face the White House's fury, they are also confronting campus-level misgivings about a potential deal with a president many at the school see as bent on authoritarianism. At best, many at Harvard view him as duplicitous and believe it would be risky for the university to enter a long-term arrangement. 'I think even the simplest deals with untrustworthy people can be challenging,' said Professor Oliver Hart, an economics professor at Harvard who won a Nobel Prize for his work on contract theory. 'But a continuing relationship is much, much worse, much harder.' Prof Hart warned that, no matter the written terms of a settlement, the federal government would retain enormous power with effectively limitless financial resources to take on Harvard. Ms Mailman, who recently left the full-time White House staff but remains involved in the administration's higher-education strategy, all but dared Harvard to stay defiant. 'I think there's still a deal to be had, but from our perspective, at the end of the day, Harvard has a US$53 billion endowment,' she said. 'They don't need federal funds. And even if they win a lawsuit, great. But what happens next year? What happens the year after?' NYTIMES
