In a subhead the article also called Blinken a “Francophone and –phile.” Now, we want to study how this man, stabbed not just France, but an entire continent in the back.

In 2016, France and Australia signed a deal worth of $40, which required France to provide Canberra with submarines, according to Reuters.

On Wednesday, September 15, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States signed a trilateral partnership titled AUKUS. It was meant to provide Canberra with nuclear-propulsion technology for submarines. So easy, so simple, so elegant. Or so it seemed.

The pact created a huge controversy all around the world, from China to the EU and the United Arab Emirates. The UAE foreign minister traveled to France on September 15 and the UK on September 16.

According to the joint statement released by the French and Emirati leaders, the visit took place upon invitation by the French side. Yet, the move is considered by many political analysts as an attempt to form an alliance, and respond to the U.S. “stab in the back.”

“The French President and His Highness expressed their shared ambition to make the bilateral partnership deeper, broader, more multilateral, and with increased people-to-people exchanges.

They thus reaffirmed their enduring commitment to Louvre Abu Dhabi museum. In the field of economy, they welcomed the increasing co-operation between France and the UAE.

They also called for broadening the partnership to new areas. They welcomed the agreement between Institut du Monde Arabe and the Abu Dhabi Arabic Language Centre – Department of Culture and Tourism to co-operate on an Arabic Language certificate,” according to the statement released by the French foreign ministry.

As for the UK visit, much of the focus was on the UAE-UK Sovereign Investment Partnership, in which the UAE will funnel £10 billion ($13.8bn) over five years into promising companies that operate in the clean energy, technology and infrastructure industries.

The Times said the deal builds on the UAE’s previous decision to invest £800 million in the UK’s life sciences industry made in March.

The Financial Times said UAE investment under the framework had already reached £1.1bn in UK companies and funds, including £500m in CityFibre, a telecoms infrastructure group.

Can you really blame the UAE? Well, if the U.S. can ditch their longtime friend, the European Union, the UAE can be thrown in the trash can in no time.

The friends and allies’ mistrust of the U.S. is growing into a big tumor. In our Saturday report, titled “U.S. couldn’t care less about EU: Will Europe learn the lesson?”, the Tehran Times advised the EU to act independently.

Blinken, a guy highly admired by the American and European think tanks, who was renowned for his reputation of multilateralism and being a “Europeanist,” ducked the country he had been studying in, and had an emotional connection to. France had hosted Blinken and his half-sister in the past, and now the French feel betrayed.

On September 17, France recalled its ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia for “further consultations”.

A spokesperson for Australia’s foreign affairs minister, Marise Payne, said, “Australia understands France’s deep disappointment with our decision, which was taken in accordance with our clear and communicated national security interests.”

She also said that Australia values its relationship with France, “which is an important partner and a vital contributor to stability, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. This will not change.”

The spokesperson said Australia and France share many issues of interest and “we look forward to engaging with France again.”

The AUKUS pact turned the attention of political commentators and analysts to a theory first put forward in 2013, and renewed by EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell in December 2020.

“Because the world has changed. It is difficult to claim to be a ‘political union’ able to act as a ‘global player’ and as a ‘geopolitical Commission’ without being ‘autonomous.’  What are then the factors that make this concept more relevant than ever?” Borrell asked in his article titled “Why European strategic autonomy matters”.

In the article published on the EU website, he added, “The first is that the weight of Europe in the world is shrinking. Thirty years ago, we represented a quarter of the world’s wealth. It is foreseen that in 20 years, we will not represent more than 11% of world GNP, far behind China, which will represent double it, below 14% for the United States and at par with India.”

Borrell also discusses “the transformation of economic interdependence,” as the Europeans have greatly invested on, particularly through “the defense of multilateralism”.

“Today we are in a situation where economic interdependence is becoming politically very conflictual. And what was traditionally called soft power is becoming an instrument of hard power,” he cautioned.

The theory of European strategic autonomy seems to be pursued more strictly than before, in view of Washington’s betrayal of the European bloc by forming an Angelo-Saxon alliance. Washington did it without informing the EU. In the words of French Foreign Minister Le Drian it is a “breach of trust”.

The AUKUS pact came as a blow to France’s economy. They lost a major economic deal. Some say they lost over $56 billion, some say $66 billion, and the Guardian even went on to say that France lost a $90 billion deal.

France had signed a deal with Australia to provide submarines for them in 2016, but with the AUKUS pact, Australia cancelled the deal with France. Some anonymous users on Twitter started defending the Australian decision, saying that it was best to cancel the deal, as France was going to provide Australia with diesel-powered submarines. A user mentioned Gerard Araud, the former French ambassador to the United States, as saying, “Well you should look on the reasons why the Sub have been replaced. Hardly a diesel is good especially based on a french engine. Also you talk about borders and Brexit. Happy to block the Italian border but yet you do not stop boats leaving bound for the UK.”

Araud, who has been famous for his upfront answers on Twitter, said, “The diesel was a Australian demand. Our submarines are nuclear powered! We could have easily provided nuclear powered submarines if we had been asked. We weren’t.”

He even went so far to say that France has to reassess its foreign policy in the Indo-Pacific region, considering “the seriousness of the blow which has been delivered to our industrial and strategic interests.” Araud suggested these changes to be made in relations with the United States and NATO as well. Another sign of the existing tumor of mistrust among the U.S., and UK allies and friends. They all seem to be going into other directions.

Another important factor in the AUKUS deal, which shall not be forgotten, is Liz Truss, former international trade secretary, and current Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs of the United Kingdom. According to Politico website, Truss shook on the AUKUS deal. The website also says that Truss “rolled over EU deals with 63 nations.”

Her appointment as UK foreign minister suggests that the backstabbing could be continued. With her architecting such deals, the EU must be vigilant towards the U.S. and UK, and not put all their eggs in their baskets.

The post The “Francophone”, “Francophile” who stabbed France in the back appeared first on Iran News Daily.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who had prioritized building ties with Europe, said he considered France “a vital partner” and saw no “regional divide” between Atlantic and Pacific allies.

Blinken told reporters “we want to find every opportunity now to deepen transatlantic cooperation in the Indo-Pacific and around the world”

But the French hit back accusing U.S. President Joe Biden, in whom Paris placed high hopes, of being no different than his “America First” predecessor Donald Trump.

French Foreign Minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, says he is “very angry” over the loss of what he once called “the contract of the century,” which was worth 31 billion Euros, ($36.5 billion) when signed in 2016.

Le Drian told French media “this unilateral, sudden and unforeseeable decision very much recalls what Trump would do”. And on Australia, Le Drian says “It’s really a stab in the back. We had established a relationship of trust with Australia. This trust has been betrayed.”

He also called the U.S. move a “huge breach of trust” at a time when France was working with Washington on coordinating Asia policy.

French Defense Minister Florence Parly says that Australia’s about-face demonstrated the growing need for Europeans to bolster their own “strategic autonomy.”
“In terms of geopolitics and international relations, it’s serious”.

Biden has unveiled a new three-way alliance among the United States, Australia, and Britain that features the submarines, a key asset Washington supposedly views will challenge China in the decades to come.

It is a setback for the French president, Emmanuel Macron, not just in financial terms but also to French diplomacy, which had worked for years to secure the partnership with Australia and strengthen its strategic presence in the Indo-Pacific region.

During a meeting in Washington with his Australian counterpart, Biden says that the U.S. has been in contact with France over “the last 24-48 hours” to discuss the row.

However, a French embassy spokesman, says the contact came only after news had begun to leak in the media.

The French embassy in Washington also says it was scaling back commemorations of France’s role in a decisive American Revolution naval battle, with a ceremony at the ambassador’s residence canceled.

The move by the U.S., UK and Australia in the Indo-Pacific underscores increasing concerns in France where Paris is also looking to protect its interests. These include the overseas territories of New Caledonia and French Polynesia. France is the only European country with a presence in the region, with nearly 2 million French citizens and more than 7,000 troops.

Despite the French anger, the submarine contract has been proving increasingly contentious in Australia in part due to cost overruns. Australian Defense Minister Peter Dutton says the country’s existing submarines would only provide an edge into the 2040s and that military chiefs recommended switching to nuclear-powered versions.

Dutton says “in the end the decision that we have made is based on what is in the best interest of our national security”, calling France’s offer “not superior” to the nuclear submarines operated by the United States and Britain.

Australia will become only the second nation after Britain to access U.S. nuclear technology for the submarines. Prime Minister Scott Morrison earlier said that Australia would acquire long-range U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles.

The Australian PM says the new alliance, announced after more than 18 months of discussions with the United States and Britain, will be permanent.

Australia has also come under intense diplomatic and commercial pressure from China, the key market for its agricultural and mineral exports, over its close alliance with the United States.

Morrison will travel next week to Washington for the first in-person four-way “Quad” summit with U.S., Japanese and Indian leaders.

Biden has identified the rise of China as the top U.S. challenge of the 21st century and reoriented U.S. foreign policy around it.

He unveiled the new Australia-U.S.-Britain defense alliance this week, as not just extending nuclear submarine technology to Australia, but also cooperation in cyber defense, applied artificial intelligence, and undersea capabilities.

Last month the American President withdrew the remaining troops from Afghanistan after 20 years, calling the war a distraction from the “bigger picture”.

China’s government described the U.S.-UK, Australian alliance as an “extremely irresponsible” threat to regional stability, questioning Australia’s commitment to nuclear non-proliferation and warning the Western allies that they risked “shooting themselves in the foot”.

China accused the U.S. of setting off an arms race. At the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, China’s envoy Wang Qun called the three-way to move a “sheer act of nuclear proliferation”.

The Chinese embassy in Australia has also rejected “unfounded accusations” against Beijing made by the Defense and Foreign ministers of Australia and their U.S. counterparts after annual talks in Washington.

The embassy dismissed allegations by the U.S. and Australia about China’s internal affairs as a futile pressure tactic saying “this petty move to put pressure on China will be of no avail but a staged farce”. The embassy added “we firmly oppose and reject the unfounded accusations and erroneous remarks against China on issues related to the South China Sea, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and other China-related issues.”

Critics accuse the White House of spreading disinformation about China’s internal affairs. For example, Washington claims Beijing is mistreating Muslims in China’s Xinjiang eastern province. Whereas China has actually taken security measures to protect itself from any terrorist threats as many Chinese Uighurs had returned to Xinjiang from Iraq and Syria after the collapse of Daesh.

Critics say it is a classic example of double standards as Washington consistently focuses on Chinese Muslims, but stays silent on Muslims being terrorized elsewhere like in Palestine, Yemen, Kashmir, Nigeria, or even Muslim human rights violations among America’s ruling allies in West Asia.

Analysts say the issue revolves around China’s growing economic power, which is expected to overtake that of the United States and there are believed to be more Mosques in China’s Xinjiang province than the entire United States.

The reality is, Washington’s public concerns has nothing to do with Muslims.

The post U.S. struggles to contain French anger appeared first on Iran News Daily.

Biden’s testimonies to Congress this week kicked off at the House then the Senate, in what could be a long series of high-intensity hearings about the chaotic end to America’s longest war.

With plenty of finger-pointing going around, over how the two-decade-long war ended, lots of fireworks are expected at the hearings. Some Republicans already called on Present Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and Blinken all to resign.

Blinked defended Biden’s withdrawal during five hours of heated exchanges at the first congressional hearing where at least two Republicans have called on him to resign from office. Instead the U.S. Secretary of State blamed the Trump administration for lacking a real plan over America disastrous military withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Many Republicans, particularly those closely allied to former President Donald Trump, interrupted or even shouted over Blinken during the House hearing, a sharp shift from the committee’s usually bipartisan cooperation.

Blinken dismissed accusations that the State Department should have done more to help Americans and at-risk Afghans to be evacuated. He repeatedly noted that former Republican President Trump had negotiated the withdrawal agreement with the Taliban, and said Biden’s administration could not renegotiate because of threats from the group to resume attacking Americans.

The top American diplomat said “there’s no evidence that staying longer would have made the Afghan security forces or the Afghan government any more resilient or self-sustaining”

“We inherited a deadline. We did not inherit a plan,” Blinken said, referring to the Trump administration’s agreement to remove all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by May 1.

Members of Congress, both Democrats and opposition Republicans, have pledged to investigate the withdrawal since the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan last month after a rapid advance.

The panel’s top Republican, Representative Michael McCaul, was among those that offered harsh criticism saying “the American people don’t like to lose, especially not to the terrorists. But this is exactly what has happened”.

McCaul questioned why assets like the Bagram Air Base were not maintained and why the administration had not reached counterterrorism agreements with neighboring countries.

McCaul warmed the hearing “this is a national security threat as China moves in. For all I know they make take over Bagram”

Blinken said his department was actively working to identify any potential threats.

The Congress Members asked a long list of questions regarding the sudden collapse of the former Afghan government and the hectic evacuation of some 124,000 people.

Democrats expressed concern about Americans and at-risk Afghans who still wish to leave.

However, they backed the withdrawal as necessary, even if it was painful. The committee’s chairman Representative Gregory Meeks pointed out that he “would welcome hearing [from republicans] what exactly a smooth withdrawal from a messy chaotic 20-year war looks like”.

Blinken praised the evacuation claiming it was “a heroic effort.” He pledged that the United States will continue to support humanitarian aid to Afghanistan but not through the Taliban, only through non-governmental organizations and UN agencies.

Afghanistan was already at risk of running out of food as it faced a devastating drought before the political upheaval even began.

“We need to do everything we can to make sure the people of Afghanistan don’t suffer any more than is already the case,” Blinken said.

In a pre-prepared statement made public to the media, Biden admitted “consistent with sanctions, this aid will not flow through the government, but rather through independent organizations like NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and U.N. agencies”.

He also rejected speaking personally to any members of the Taliban leadership for the time being saying “any legitimacy that they may seek from the international community… is going to be contingent on their actions”.

Before the questioning began a Senate aide said “we expect a confrontational hearing”. Members of Congress promised a long list of questions about the rapid collapse of the U.S.-backed Afghan government.

In a written reply to a request for comment on the hearing McCaul said “I imagine there will be a lot of questions on what decisions were being made leading up to the withdrawal, including why the White House pressed DOD (the Defense Department) to withdraw troops before we evacuated American civilians and our Afghan partners”.

Democrats had always maintained they wanted the hearing to address not just the seven months Biden was president before Kabul was captured by the Taliban but all 20 years of U.S. involvement in the country, under presidents from both parties.

Senator Chris Murphy says he fears “that Republicans are going to turn this into a circus and try to put the blame on Joe Biden for 20 years’ worth of mistakes in Afghanistan”.

Murphy, a Democratic member of the foreign relations panel, also told reporters “the real question is why did we stay in Afghanistan for another 10 years after we knew that there was going to be no way we could build an Afghan military, an Afghan government that was capable of holding the country against the Taliban once we left”.

Another committee Democrat, Senator Chris Van Hollen, noted that Trump had pushed to get out of Afghanistan even more quickly and criticized Biden for remaining as long as he did.

“It’s a little hard to take and listen to Republican colleagues who strongly supported the Trump decisions to now be attacking President Biden for decisions that they had previously supported” he said.

A U.S.-led invasion toppled the Taliban in 2001 after the September 11 attacks. Washington accused the Taliban of providing a safe haven for al-Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan and used the pretext to invade the country and topple the Taliban.

20 years later, the Taliban returned to power with many Americans asking who exactly benefited from the trillions of dollars spent on the war?

The post Angry Dems, GOP clash over Afghanistan appeared first on Iran News Daily.

As the senior Iranian officials had repeatedly reiterated, the U.S. and its allies seek come unacceptable demands from the Islamic Republic of Iran that the latter will not give in because once in 2015 trusted the West and saw its result.

Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s permanent ambassador to Vienna-based international organizations, reflected on a warning recently issued by Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei about the West’s intention to use the 2015 nuclear deal to enable interference in the country’s affairs.

He referred to the warning issued by Ayatollah Khamenei on Wednesday, during the Leader’s last meeting with the outgoing Iranian administration’s officials.

During the meeting, the Leader cited the administration’s experience of dealing with the West on the issue of the nuclear agreement as an important case in point that had clearly shown “trust in the West does not work and will not work [in the future either].”

Ayatollah Khamenei noted to the outgoing officials how the Western side had been trying — during the recent talks concerning the nuclear deal — to set up a condition in the deal that would turn into an excuse for the West’s subsequent interference in Iran’s affairs.

The Leader reiterated that “trust on the West does not work” and he really is right.

On Thursday U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken rudely said that nuclear talks with Iran “cannot go on indefinitely” but that Washington was “fully prepared” to continue negotiations.

The deal was torpedoed in 2018 by then US president Donald Trump, who unilaterally withdrew from the agreement and imposed punishing sanctions.

“We’re committed to diplomacy, but this process cannot go on indefinitely… we look to see what Iran is ready to do or not ready to do and remain fully prepared to return to Vienna to continue negotiations,” Blinken said during a visit to Kuwait. “The ball remains in Iran’s court,” he noted.

Blinken’s remarks came while it was the U.S. which violated the deal and pulled out of it and the other Western signatories followed the path of their ally the U.S. While the Islamic Republic of Iran should set condition for the U.S. for its rejoin to the JCPOA, it is the U.S. which rudely seeks its excessive demands.

As the Supreme Leader has reiterated the Western countries have even been trying to advance a provision that could pave the way for their meddling in the Islamic Republic’s affairs.

The nuclear deal has its own timetables that ensure implementation of its purposes and the other demand runs strictly counter to the talks’ agenda too.

Therefore, the Iranian side roundly rejected the proposal since this insistence “showed that they still consider the nuclear agreement to be a bridge enabling their interference in irrelevant issues such as Iran’s missile work and its regional affairs.”

Gharibabadi echoed the Leader’s remarks during the Wednesday meeting that such insistence on the part of the Americans had come while they, themselves, had “refused to retrace even one step towards reversing their adversarial stance concerning Iran.”

Tehran would resolutely stand by its assertion that neither the talks nor the nuclear deal are allowed to feature any irrelevant subject matters such as Iran’s defensive missile program or its regional influence.

Now the American paper The Wall Street Journal in a report has claimed that the United States is planning a sanctions campaign against Iran’s defensive drones and guided missiles program, six months after the administration of Joe Biden, who had promised to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal and remove anti-Iran sanctions, assumed office. So the U.S. is to show its true arrogance nature but this time under Biden through increasing pressure on Iran.

The past experience shows that Iran should not trust on the West and it should take a very cautious and wise action against the West’s move and one cannot expect a bright future for the JCPOA because the U.S. excessive demands and its hostile attitude against the Islamic Republic of Iran is the major hurdle in front of any fair deal.

As the Leader repeatedly reiterated domestic programs should in no way be tied to Western states under any circumstances due to the proven failure of such an approach because the U.S. and its allies will not leave their hostile stance against Iran and will not move even one step forward during the talks and for this reason Iran should not retreat any inch from its rights otherwise it will make the West much rude ask for more irrelevant and excessive demands.

The post JCPOA Apparently a Dead Deal appeared first on Iran News Daily.

Khatibzadeh said Iran remains committed to saving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – the official name for the 2015 nuclear deal – which was ditched by the former U.S. administration in May 2018 and it has been the most active party in the Vienna nuclear talks aimed at salvaging the tattered deal.

“Out of a steadfast commitment to salvage a deal that the US tried to torpedo, Iran has been the most active party in Vienna, proposing most drafts. Still believe a deal is possible, if the US decides to abandon Trump’s failed legacy. Iran will not negotiate forever,” Khatibzadeh said on Twitter.

The spokesman’s tweet seems to be a response to recent remarks by the top U.S. nuclear negotiator in Vienna and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken who both, in a thinly-veiled threat, warned of the Vienna talks possibly hitting a deadlock if Iran continued to insist on its positions.

“What they’ve asked for – in principle, they’ve said they want all of the sanctions that President Trump’s administration reimposed or imposed since 2018 to be lifted. And that’s a lot. And we’ve said we’re prepared to remove those that we think we need to remove to be back in compliance with the JCPOA. But we’re not going to lift all of the sanctions that the Trump administration imposed,” U.S. envoy to the Vienna talks Rob Malley told NPR.

Malley appeared to go so far as to threaten to walk out of the Vienna talks if they ceased to make progress. “We wouldn’t be going back to Vienna if we thought that it’s not possible to reach a deal. I don’t think that this window is going to be open forever. At some point, we’ll have to conclude that this is not succeeding. But we’re not there yet,” he said.

In an echo of Malley’s warning, Blinken also warned that the U.S. could eventually decide not to rejoin the agreement if negotiations in Vienna continue without progress.

“There will come a point, yes, where it will be very hard to return back to the standards set by the JCPOA,” the chief U.S. diplomat said at a briefing in Paris after meeting with French Foreign Minister Jean Yves Le Drian. He also called on Iran to make “difficult” decisions to advance talks that could revive the JCPOA.

Le Drian reiterated the same call. “It’s been six weeks since the negotiations started again. Some progress was achieved, and we will now be entering the most difficult times. It will require some strong and courageous decisions on behalf of the new Iranian authorities, but now is the time,” he said.

On Friday, Khatibzadeh reacted to Blinken’s and Le Drian’s remarks in which they had said they were waiting for Tehran to rejoin the JCPOA.

“Iran has never left the JCPOA, so there is no point saying it should return to the deal,” said Khatibzadeh, according to a statement issued by the Iranian Foreign Ministry.

“Rather, it is the United States that should make up its mind and return to the JCPOA by lifting its illegal sanctions and effectively fulfilling its commitments,” said the spokesman.

“The Americans and Europeans know better than anyone else that Iran decided to remain in the JCPOA and keep it alive despite the fact that, and at a time when the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the agreement and imposed illegal and cruel sanctions on Iranian people and despite the Europeans’ inaction,” he added.

“During the negotiations in Vienna, it was announced time and again that it is the U.S. that has disrupted the balance of the JCPOA and has practically impeded the implementation of the JCPOA through its full non-compliance,” said Khatibzadeh.

“Moreover, it was stressed that the Islamic Republic of Iran is fully prepared to stop its remedial measures (i.e., the scaling down of its obligations under the JCPOA) and resume the implementation of its commitments under the JCPOA provided the U.S. fully implements the agreement, and that the other parties are fully aware of Iran’s position,” he noted.

“It is clear that if the U.S. makes up its mind, becomes ready to fully deliver on its commitments and stop using sanctions as a bargaining chip, it will be possible to reach a deal,” the spokesman said.

The post Iran says ‘will not negotiate forever’ appeared first on Iran News Daily.

Mahmoud Abbaszadeh Meshkini stated that the United States cannot impose conditions on the Islamic Republic as the U.S. is the party that has left the 2015 nuclear deal, officially called the JCPOA.

“Blinken’s remarks are issued in order to start a psychological war and get more concessions (from Iran),” Meshkini told Al Masirah news network aired on Sunday.

In a press conference with his French counterpart in Paris on Friday, Blinken said the U.S. could eventually decide not to rejoin the agreement if negotiations in Vienna continue without progress.

“There will come a point, yes, where it will be very hard to return back to the standards set by the JCPOA,” Blinken said.

Meshkini also said it is seeking a verifiable lifting of sanctions and this is a “red line”, adding that the Americans are not trustworthy.

Iran and the remaining members to the JCPOA Joint Commission (Russia, China, Germany, France and Britain) have started talks in Vienna since April to revive the 2015 nuclear deal. The U.S. is involved in the talks indirectly. Iran is seeking guarantees that the U.S. will not quit the nuclear deal as happened during the Donald Trump administration.

“The Americans are not trustworthy, and we have the right to ask for a guarantee that the agreement will not be violated again,” the MP said.

Regarding the issue of Iran’s monitoring agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Meshkini stated, “If the sanctions are not lifted, not only will we not give any files to the Agency but we will also turn off the cameras.”

The post MP says U.S. cannot impose conditions on Iran appeared first on Iran News Daily.

Talking to CBS News on “Face the Nation” program on Sunday, Blinken said after the U.S. pulled out of the nuclear deal Iran began to “ignore the constraints that the deal had imposed on” its nuclear program.

Iran began to gradually remove bans on its nuclear work exactly one year after Trump withdrew the U.S. from the JCPOA and introduced the harshest sanctions on Iran. Even at the time Iran announced if the European parties to the pact compensate Iran for the sanctions, the Islamic Republic will reverse its decision.

Blinken said Iran “has been galloping forward and it’s enriching more material. It’s enriching at- at higher levels- degrees than were allowed under the agreement… it is gaining knowledge. And if this goes on a lot longer, if they continue to gallop ahead… they’re going to have knowledge that’s going to be very hard to reverse, which I think puts some urgency in seeing if we can put the nuclear problem back in the box that the agreement had put it in and, unfortunately, Iran is now out of as a result of us pulling out of the agreement.”

Late last year the Iranian parliament approved a legislation that obligated the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) to limit the International Atomic Energy Agency’s access to the Iranian nuclear sites, install advanced centrifuges and enrich uranium to 20 percent if the U.S. doesn’t lift illegal sanctions against Iran.

The JCPOA has limited Iran’s nuclear enrichment to 3.67 percent.

However, Iran has announced that it will reverse its nuclear decision if the U.S. fully lifts the sanctions in a verifiable way.

The post Blinken admits Iran has made major nuclear progress since U.S. quit JCPOA appeared first on Iran News Daily.

The head of the IAEA on Monday said it is getting increasingly harder to further extend a deal that the agency originally clinched with Iran in February to monitor the country’s peaceful nuclear activities, which expires on June 24 after its first extension.

Rafael Grossi made the remarks in a press conference at the agency’s headquarters in Vienna on Monday.

On May 24, Iran and the IAEA agreed to extend by one month the agreement they had clinched for the UN nuclear agency to continue inspection of the country’s nuclear sites while the ongoing talks in Vienna on the revival of the landmark nuclear deal between Tehran and world powers continue.

This came after Iran halted its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that allowed the IAEA to carry short-notice inspections at its nuclear sites.

In addition to the deal’s extension, Iran also agreed not to erase information collected so far by agency equipment in the country.

“I think it’s becoming increasingly difficult,” Grossi said in his Monday interview when asked how likely it is that the two sides will again extend the agreement later this month.

Grossi confirmed that there have been meetings, and that the Iranian side “has reiterated its will to engage and to cooperate and to provide answers.”

“But so far they haven’t done that,” Grossi claimed, hoping that this might change, adding, “But as we speak, we haven’t had any concrete progress on any of the issues.”

This Argentinian gentleman seems playing in on the Western court against Iran or any other country that it resists against the world arrogance’s demands. The IAEA expects Iran to fully observe its JCPOA commitments but it remains indifferent against the Western countries’ commitments regarding the deal.

The IAEA and the West should realize this fact that this time Iran does not intend to retreat from its rightful nuclear programs as enough is enough for the country for observing its JCPOA commitments unilaterally.

Although the nuclear talks continue and different remarks are made about the outcome of the Vienna talks, so far no deal has been stricken and the West likely intends to prolong the talks in order to keep Iran’s economy in limbo.

On Monday, the United States, which has for two months been holding indirect talks with Iran on the future of the tattered nuclear deal, said it was not even sure if Tehran really wanted to come back into compliance.

“We’ve been engaged in indirect conversations, as you know, for the last couple of months, and it remains unclear whether Iran is willing and prepared to do what it needs to do to come back into compliance,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken told the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

“We’re still testing that proposition,” Blinken said.

Blinken remarks came while Iran has repeatedly said that it is ready to return to its JCPOA obligations if all sanctions are removed. When it is said all sanctions it means all sanctions and not partial ones.

The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution has said there is no problem with the talks but they should not be prolonged as he has set the red lines and the negotiation team is obliged to follow it this time and they should not retreat even an inch from Iran’s rightful demands.

Blinken’s remarks show that the U.S. despite the remarks of its officials is not so serious in removing all sanctions and it wants to make Iran tired for giving concessions by dragging the talks.

But they should consider this point that there will be no concessions even if the talks prolong for months and Iranian negotiation team should be fully on alert in order not to be deceived by the U.S. And the IAEA is better to stop such anti-Iran claims because Iran has done more than its obligations to the IAEA and the JCPOA.

The post No More Concessions appeared first on Iran News Daily.