Iran’s top diplomat questioned the seriousness of Western atomic negotiators after extensive talks with a chief multilateral envoy, the Wall Street Journal reports.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif voiced skepticism about the determination of Western powers to peacefully defuse a longstanding nuclear dispute after he met with European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who traveled to Tehran on behalf of the five permanent U.N. Security Council member nations and Germany. In addition to speaking with Zarif, Ashton on Sunday met in the Iranian capital with President Hassan Rouhani, parliament speaker Ali Larijani and Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior counselor to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The “P-5+1” powers are seeking a long-term deal to alleviate global suspicions that Iran is pursuing a nuclear-arms capability through its atomic program, which Tehran insists is entirely peaceful. The Middle Eastern nation, for its part, is seeking relief from international sanctions.
Zarif said “it is up to the other side [to] come to the negotiating table with a desire, decision and commitment to reach a mutually acceptable agreement.”
The foreign minister also voiced concerns over other countries’ compliance with a six-month atomic pact reached in November as an initial step toward a broader compromise. Tehran has taken issue with how the United States is following through on pledges to grant Iran access to petroleum proceeds held overseas, and with U.S. steps to tighten existing sanctions.
“It is up to the other party to show the same goodwill and determination [as Iran],” Reuters quoted Zarif as saying. “With desire, commitment and willingness a comprehensive deal can be reached … in four or five months.”
Ashton, though, said “there’s no guarantee we’ll succeed,” the Journal reported.
Her side has aired worries about some conditions Tehran has placed on the negotiations, including its refusal to address Iranian missile operations.
Ashton spokesman Michael Mann said Western governments hope “to negotiate quickly, but the most important thing is that it’s a good agreement that everyone can live with,” the Washington Post reported.
“It’s important to come [to Tehran] and see what scope there is for working with Iran,” Mann added.
Iranian diplomats are scheduled to meet next week with counterparts from China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."