Trump, Iran's president talk of possible meeting to solve nuclear impasse

[webfact]

Trump, Iran's president talk of possible meeting to solve nuclear impasse

By John Irish and Michel Rose

 

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks as he meets Egypt's President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi (not pictured) for bilateral talks during the G7 summit in Biarritz, France, August 26, 2019. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

 

BIARRITZ, France (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday he would meet Iran's president under the right circumstances to end a confrontation over a 2015 nuclear deal and that talks were underway to see how countries could open credit lines to keep Iran's economy afloat.

 

But Trump, speaking at a G7 summit in the French resort of Biarritz, ruled out lifting economic sanctions to compensate for losses suffered by Iran.

 

Trump told reporters it was realistic to envisage a meeting between him and President Hassan Rouhani in coming weeks, describing Iran as a country of "tremendous potential".

 

"I have a good feeling. I think he (Rouhani) is going to want to meet and get their situation straightened out. They are hurting badly," Trump said.

 

French President Emmanuel Macron, host of the G7 summit, told the same news conference that Rouhani told him he would be open to meeting Trump.

 

Macron said he hoped a summit between the two could happen in coming weeks. Trump and Rouhani head to the United Nations General Assembly in September.

 

Anything agreed at a Trump-Rouhani encounter would be subject to approval by Iran's top decision maker, the fiercely anti-American Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

 

European leaders have struggled to calm the deepening confrontation between Tehran and Washington since Trump pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions on Iran. Macron has spent the summer trying to create conditions that would bring the sides back to the negotiating table.

 

"What I hope is that in coming weeks, based on these talks, we can manage to see a summit between President Rouhani and President Trump," Macron said, adding he believed if they met a deal could be struck.

 

Macron's efforts took a surprise turn on Sunday when Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who is under U.S. sanctions, flew to Biarritz.

 

Some experts expressed scepticism that Rouhani would meet Trump without at least a suspension in U.S. sanctions aimed at slashing Iran’s oil exports – Tehran’s main source of revenue – to zero. But one said Macron's plan appeared to include financial relief for Tehran that does not involve relaxing U.S. sanctions.

 

"VERY VIOLENT FORCE"

Iran has recently engaged in combative rhetoric about its ability to attack U.S. interests. Trump said: "They can’t do what they were saying they were going to do because if they do that, they will be met with really very violent force. So I think they are going to be good."

 

Trump said he was not open to giving Iran compensation for sanctions. However he said the idea under discussion would be for numerous countries to give Iran a credit line.

 

"No we are not paying, we don't pay," Trump said.

 

"But they may need some money to get them over a very rough patch and if they do need money, and it would be secured by oil, which to me is great security, and they have a lot of oil... so we are really talking about a letter of credit. It would be from numerous countries, numerous countries."

 

The 2015 deal between Iran and six world powers, reached under former U.S. President Barack Obama, aimed to curb Iran's disputed uranium enrichment programme in exchange for the lifting of many international sanctions on Tehran.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday (August 26) he wanted to see a strong Iran and was not seeking a change of leadership in Tehran, adding that the standard of living for ordinary Iranians was unacceptable. Rough cut (no reporter narration)..

Trump was speaking to reporters during the G7 summit of wealthy nation leaders.

He said he had not been surprised that France had invited Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif for talks on Sunday (August 26) on the sidelines of the G7 gathering, but that he had not wanted to see Zarif himself, adding that it was too soon for such an encounter.

Tensions between Tehran and Washington that have risen sharply since Trump pulled out of Iran's internationally-brokered 2015 nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions on the Iranian economy

 

Since ditching the deal last year, Trump has pursued a policy of "maximum pressure" to try to force Iran into broader talks to restrict its ballistic missile programme and end its support for proxy forces around the Middle East.

 

During his brief visit on Sunday, Zarif held talks with Macron and British and German officials before returning home.

 

Though potentially a diplomatic minefield, Macron's gamble with Zarif appears to have worked out for now, as Trump endorsed the initiative and toned down his rhetoric on Tehran.

 

Richard Nephew, who served on the Obama administration team that negotiated the nuclear deal, said it was unlikely Rouhani would meet Trump unless U.S. sanctions were eased.

 

“I think even a photo and a handshake would be too hard for Rouhani unless immediately after there was a suspension in sanctions,” said Nephew, a scholar at Columbia University and the Brookings Institution think tank .

 

Pointing to Trump’s reference to Iran receiving a line of credit, Jon Alterman, a former State Department official, said it appeared that Macron's plan involved financial help for Tehran.

 

But whether a Trump-Rouhani meeting goes forward could depend on whether Iran, which slowly has been breaching the nuclear deal, proceeds with a threat of further violations in early September unless it receives sanctions relief, said Alterman, director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Security think tank.

 

"MAKE IRAN RICH AGAIN"

While Trump reaffirmed Washington's goal of extracting further-reaching security concessions from Iran, he said he wanted to see "a really good Iran, really strong", adding that Washington was not looking for regime change.

 

"I knew (Zarif) was coming in and I respected the fact that he was coming in. We're looking to make Iran rich again, let them be rich, let them do well, if they want," Trump said.

 

While Trump's European allies also want fresh negotiations, they believe the nuclear deal must be upheld to help ward off the risk of wider war in the Middle East. Macron had already met Zarif in Paris on Friday ahead of the G7 summit.

 

"What we want is very simple. It's got to be non-nuclear (as well)," Trump said. "We're going to talk about ballistic missiles..., about the timing. But they (Iran) have to stop terrorism. I think they are going to change, I really do."

 

Trump said it was too early for him to meet Zarif himself.

 

Rouhani signalled a readiness to meet Trump if that helped Iran, according to the official presidency website.

 

"If I know that in meeting with somebody the problem of my country would be solved, I wouldn’t hesitate because the central issue is the national interests of the country," Rouhani said.

 

(Additional reporting by Jeff Mason, Marine Pennetier, and Babak Dehghanpisheh in Geneva, and Jonathan Landay in Washington; Writing by John Irish; Editing by William Maclean and Gareth Jones)

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-08-27

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Tug]

Make peace not war not holding much hope for it though 

[OneMoreFarang]

They could make an agreement, maybe involving a couple of other countries.

And then stick to that agreement.

Wouldn't that be a great idea?

[harada]

He'll have to ask Netanyahu's permission first.

[alanrchase]

Trump trying to fix yet another problem he created. 

[Boon Mee]

In the end, Iran absolutely cannot be allowed to have the Bomb ???? 

[Sujo]

10 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

In the end, Iran absolutely cannot be allowed to have the Bomb ???? 

So what is stopping them from having it now.

 

What was stopping them from having it before.

 

Hint, agreement.

 

Though my opinion is that if Israel can have nuclear with no inspections allowed then Iran can have it.

[Tug]

11 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

In the end, Iran absolutely cannot be allowed to have the Bomb ???? 

How do you feel about n Korea?they have lots of nukes 

[Stargeezr]

Big meeting if the real leader of Iran is the religious guy.

Sort of like talking with Obama and hoping that Trump will take all the

discussions and agree on the results.  555

Geezer

[stevenl]

17 minutes ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

Big meeting if the real leader of Iran is the religious guy.

Sort of like talking with Obama and hoping that Trump will take all the

discussions and agree on the results.  555

Geezer

That would be easy: make sure Obama doesn't agree, and you can be sure Trump will agree.

[zydeco]

Learn, people, learn!  The stock market had an enormous down day on Friday. On Saturday, Trump began to walk back his tariff threats. Before the markets opened yesterday, he lied about a telephone call from China to restart trade negotiations. The markets still were still about to turn down. Then, Trump trots out this Iranian "news."  He also said that the US was "close to" a free trade "proposal" with the EU. All this is to get the stock markets up. Look the guy's "blind trust" is an ETF that tracks the S&P. That is why this news and all the other is about manipulating stock prices higher. Where is the SEC?

[sammieuk1]

Give it a couple of weeks and Melania will know Rouhani well enough to give the nod on this great great leader????

[White Christmas13]

5 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

In the end, Iran absolutely cannot be allowed to have the Bomb ???? 

But the US can?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, White Christmas13 said:

But the US can?

 

Yes.

[Morch]

8 hours ago, harada said:

He'll have to ask Netanyahu's permission first.

 

Got the power dynamics backwards.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Sujo said:

So what is stopping them from having it now.

 

What was stopping them from having it before.

 

Hint, agreement.

 

Though my opinion is that if Israel can have nuclear with no inspections allowed then Iran can have it.

 

Your opinion seems to be that tit-fort-tat is more important than limiting nuclear proliferation.

[billd766]

8 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

In the end, Iran absolutely cannot be allowed to have the Bomb ???? 

Why not?

 

Israel has an unknown quantity, as has North Korea, China, India, Pakistan, Russia, USA, UK, France.

 

Remember that there was an agreement with Iran which Trump unilaterally pulled out of, which really caused the latest problems in the Arab Gulf.

[Dumbastheycome]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Yes.

Why?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

Why not?

 

Israel has an unknown quantity, as has North Korea, China, India, Pakistan, Russia, USA, UK, France.

 

Remember that there was an agreement with Iran which Trump unilaterally pulled out of, which really caused the latest problems in the Arab Gulf.

 

That other countries got nuclear weapons is bad enough. What would be the benefit of further nuclear proliferation?

 

Remember that there was an treaty (NPT) which Iran was party to, and breached its terms. This led to the original (international) sanctions, and eventually to the JCPOA, which you mentioned. Holding the USA to a higher standard is fine, but no reason to ignore the backdrop.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Why?

 

Why would you expect only the USA to disarm of its nuclear arms? If the comment I replied to was about general nuclear disarmament, no issues.

 

What it comes down to is that this isn't about "fair". That some countries got nuclear weapons is not a good enough reason (from a global, survival of the human race position) to promote unchecked military nuclear proliferation.

 

Countries already having significant stocks of nuclear arms are not going to easily let go of them. There are no very good ways of making them do so. Under these conditions, a realistic goal would be to contain and limit further proliferation.

 

By the way, I think that if there was a possibility of pressing a button and deleting all nuclear arms (plus the option to produce them), the USA would go for it in a heartbeat. In a world without nuclear weapons, the USA's conventional military and power projection advantages would be highlighted.

[Dumbastheycome]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Why would you expect only the USA to disarm of its nuclear arms? If the comment I replied to was about general nuclear disarmament, no issues.

 

What it comes down to is that this isn't about "fair". That some countries got nuclear weapons is not a good enough reason (from a global, survival of the human race position) to promote unchecked military nuclear proliferation.

 

Countries already having significant stocks of nuclear arms are not going to easily let go of them. There are no very good ways of making them do so. Under these conditions, a realistic goal would be to contain and limit further proliferation.

 

By the way, I think that if there was a possibility of pressing a button and deleting all nuclear arms (plus the option to produce them), the USA would go for it in a heartbeat. In a world without nuclear weapons, the USA's conventional military and power projection advantages would be highlighted.

Ok, you have answered my  question "why"  quite reasonably  from a perspective that although maybe shared  by others is from my perspective quite naive.

From  my perspective the adamant  rejection of  any  rational right to  develop or acquire and  possess nuclear weapons by any  nation not submissive to  self  appointed individual nations or groups  of in same self appointed right to administer control are those which are already members states in possession of gross  global annihilation capacity on a  global scale. That has historically been  justified  on the  basis  of  a " deterrent" justification to  maintain world  peace. The anomalies  of that are  well  demonstrated  by the acquisition in defiance of by significant  nations which converse to the deterrent  argument has  simply exacerbated the "defense" claims  of  nations  to possess at least  some  retributional  capacity in the  event of invasion. To  my thinking  it is  only  those  small nations  who can or  could   continue to claim any "deterrent" factor in the  face of  major nominally superior  aggression and  capacity  for localized annihilation. Such a  nation is  Israel in  basic terms.

But  from  my perspective  your suggestion  the the usa  would  happily  see the deletion  of  nuclear  arms is laughable.

If it were to  become so  and accepting  your  rationale  that the  ongoing  conventional  military and power  projection advantages belong to the  usa  would   be most likely to  see the attempted  invasion and  domination  of  minor territories in an instant to  demonstrate  the "highlight" of military  superiority.

The current  ongoing  rejection  of   US policy which is incrementally having an adverse  effect on the  global economy  plus the militaristic adversity being  demonstrated in various venues by major nations is in many ways a signal that the us is likely  to  be  seriously  tested in ongoing claim to  right to dominance.

And it is  in that sense  that  the concept  of the  us  ever abandoning nuclear  capacity jointly or  otherwise is only as  ridiculous  as  denying the right  of other  nations. At the end of the day  the usa administration projects the  philosophical concept of  "all or  nothing" supported   by the imagery  of a militarized nation nuclear or not. But the horriblebtruth is that nuclear  arms  exist  in excess  and  it would  be  the  last surprise to know the  usa  would  "save" the  world   by   killing  it !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

38 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Ok, you have answered my  question "why"  quite reasonably  from a perspective that although maybe shared  by others is from my perspective quite naive.

From  my perspective the adamant  rejection of  any  rational right to  develop or acquire and  possess nuclear weapons by any  nation not submissive to  self  appointed individual nations or groups  of in same self appointed right to administer control are those which are already members states in possession of gross  global annihilation capacity on a  global scale. That has historically been  justified  on the  basis  of  a " deterrent" justification to  maintain world  peace. The anomalies  of that are  well  demonstrated  by the acquisition in defiance of by significant  nations which converse to the deterrent  argument has  simply exacerbated the "defense" claims  of  nations  to possess at least  some  retributional  capacity in the  event of invasion. To  my thinking  it is  only  those  small nations  who can or  could   continue to claim any "deterrent" factor in the  face of  major nominally superior  aggression and  capacity  for localized annihilation. Such a  nation is  Israel in  basic terms.

But  from  my perspective  your suggestion  the the usa  would  happily  see the deletion  of  nuclear  arms is laughable.

If it were to  become so  and accepting  your  rationale  that the  ongoing  conventional  military and power  projection advantages belong to the  usa  would   be most likely to  see the attempted  invasion and  domination  of  minor territories in an instant to  demonstrate  the "highlight" of military  superiority.

The current  ongoing  rejection  of   US policy which is incrementally having an adverse  effect on the  global economy  plus the militaristic adversity being  demonstrated in various venues by major nations is in many ways a signal that the us is likely  to  be  seriously  tested in ongoing claim to  right to dominance.

And it is  in that sense  that  the concept  of the  us  ever abandoning nuclear  capacity jointly or  otherwise is only as  ridiculous  as  denying the right  of other  nations. At the end of the day  the usa administration projects the  philosophical concept of  "all or  nothing" supported   by the imagery  of a militarized nation nuclear or not. But the horriblebtruth is that nuclear  arms  exist  in excess  and  it would  be  the  last surprise to know the  usa  would  "save" the  world   by   killing  it !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"submissive to  self  appointed individual nations or groups  of in same self appointed right to administer control are those which are already members states in possession of gross  global annihilation capacity on a  global scale."

 

Most countries in the World (including Iran) signed up for the NPT. I'm not sure how that fits with the "submission" bit above. Same goes for the "self appointed" part. It reads more like a cut out from an ideological manifesto, rather than a fact-based comment.

 

Countries possessing military nuclear capability may come up with whatever justification for retaining it. What it boils down to is that no party is willing to disarm given trust issues. While I do not like this state of things, I can appreciate that the lack of trust is well-grounded in reality.

 

As for countries not possessing such capabilities - I honestly don't care. Things are bad enough as it is. Allowing unchecked nuclear proliferation is not going to make the planet a safer place. It's not going to contribute much to world peace. It will however, raise the stakes for all over us, whenever regional or even lesser conflicts escalate.Is it "unfair" that some countries have nukes and others do not? I don't know that "fair" comes into it.

 

Your standing anti-USA position is dully noted. A whole lot of assertions not backed by anything much. Just the usual muddled tirade.