nuclear

The UN nuclear watchdog warns Tehran could be close to weapons-grade enriched uranium, as negotiations with the US continue.

The United Nations nuclear watchdog says Iran has increased its stockpile of highly enriched, near weapons-grade uranium by 50 percent in the last three months.

The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Saturday comes as nuclear deal negotiations are under way between the United States and Iran, with Tehran insisting its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only.

The IAEA said as of May 17, Iran had amassed 408.6kg (900.8 pounds) of uranium enriched up to 60 percent – the only non-nuclear weapon state to do so, according to the UN agency – and had increased its stockpile by almost 50 percent to 133.8kg since its last report in February.

The wide-ranging, confidential report seen by several news agencies said Iran carried out secret nuclear activities with material not declared to the IAEA at three locations that have long been under investigation, calling it a “serious concern” and warning Tehran to change its course.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, however, reaffirmed the country’s longstanding position, saying Tehran deems nuclear weapons “unacceptable”.

“If the issue is nuclear weapons, yes, we too consider this type of weapon unacceptable,” Araghchi, Iran’s lead negotiator in the nuclear talks with the US, said in a televised speech. “We agree with them on this issue.”

‘Both sides building leverage’

But the report, which was requested by the IAEA’s 35-nation board of governors in November, will allow for a push by the US, Britain, France and Germany to declare Iran in violation of its non-proliferation obligations.

On Friday, US President Donald Trump said Iran “cannot have a nuclear weapon”.

“They don’t want to be blown up. They would rather make a deal,” Trump said, adding: “That would be a great thing that we could have a deal without bombs being dropped all over the Middle East.”

In 2015, Iran reached a deal with the United Kingdom, US, Germany, France, Russia, China and the European Union, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. It involved the lifting of some sanctions on Tehran in return for limits on its nuclear development programme.

But in 2018, then US President Trump unilaterally quit the agreement and reimposed harsh sanctions. Tehran then rebuilt its stockpiles of enriched uranium.

In December last year, the IAEA said Iran was rapidly enriching uranium to 60 percent purity, moving closer to the 90 percent threshold needed for weapons-grade material.

Western nations say such intensive enrichment should not be part of a civilian nuclear programme, but Iran insists it is not developing weapons.

Hamed Mousavi, professor of political science at Tehran University, told Al Jazeera the IAEA findings could indicate a possible negotiation tool for Iran during its ongoing nuclear talks with the US.

“I think both sides are trying to build leverage against the other side. From the Iranian perspective, an advancement in the nuclear programme is going to bring them leverage at the negotiation table with the Americans,” he said.

On the other side, he said, the US could threaten more sanctions and may also refer the Iranian case to the UN Security Council for its breach of the 2006 non-proliferation agreement. However, he added that Iran has not made the “political decision” to build a possible bomb.

“Enriching up to 60 percent [of uranium] – from the Iranian perspective – is a sort of leverage against the Americans to lift sanctions,” Mousavi said.

When India launched Operation Sindoor and Pakistan replied with Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos, the world braced for escalation. Analysts held their breath. Twitter exploded. The Line of Control – that jagged scar between two unfinished imaginations of nationhood – lit up again.

But if you think what happened earlier this month was merely a military exchange, you’ve missed the real story.

This was a war, yes, but not just of missiles. It was a war of narratives, orchestrated in headlines, hashtags, and nightly newsrooms. The battlefield was the media. The ammunition was discourse. And the casualties were nuance, complexity, and truth.

What we witnessed was the culmination of what scholars call discursive warfare — the deliberate construction of identity, legitimacy, and power through language. In the hands of Indian and Pakistani media, every act of violence was scripted, every image curated, every casualty politicised. This wasn’t coverage. It was choreography.

Scene one: The righteous strike

On May 6, India struck first. Or, as Indian media framed it, India defended first.

Operation Sindoor was announced with theatrical pomp. Twenty-four strikes in twenty-five minutes. Nine “terror hubs” destroyed. Zero civilian casualties. The villains — Jaish-e-Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba, “terror factories” across Bahawalpur and Muzaffarabad in Pakistan – were said to be reduced to dust.

The headlines were triumphalist: “Surgical Strikes 2.0”, “The Roar of Indian Forces Reaches Rawalpindi”, “Justice Delivered”. Government spokespeople called it a “proportionate response” to the Pahalgam massacre that had left 26 Indian tourists dead. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh declared: “They attacked India’s forehead, we wounded their chest”. Cinematic? Absolutely. Deliberate? Even more so.

Indian media constructed a national identity of moral power: a state forced into action, responding not with rage but with restraint, armed not just with BrahMos missiles but with dharma – righteous duty and moral order. The enemy wasn’t Pakistan, the narrative insisted — it was terror. And who could object to that?

This is the genius of framing. Constructivist theory tells us that states act based on identities, not just interests. And identity is forged through language. In India’s case, the media crafted a story where military might was tethered to moral clarity. The strikes weren’t aggression — they were catharsis. They weren’t war — they were therapy.

But here’s the thing: therapy for whom?

Scene two: The sacred defence

Three days later, Pakistan struck back. Operation Bunyan Marsoos — Arabic for “iron wall” — was declared. The name alone tells you everything. This wasn’t just a retaliatory strike; it was a theological assertion, a national sermon. The enemy had dared to trespass. The response would be divine.

Pakistani missiles reportedly rained down on Indian military sites: brigade headquarters, an S-400 system, and military installations in Punjab and Jammu. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif proclaimed that Pakistan had “avenged the 1971 war”, in which it had capitulated and allowed Bangladesh to secede. That’s not battlefield strategy. That’s myth-making.

The media in Pakistan amplified this narrative with patriotic zeal. Indian strikes were framed as war crimes, mosques hit, civilians killed. Photographs of rubble and blood were paired with captions about martyrdom. The response, by contrast, was precise, moral, and inevitable.

Pakistan’s national identity, as constructed in this moment, was one of righteous victimhood: we are peaceful, but provoked; restrained, but resolute. We do not seek war, but we do not fear it either.

The symmetry is uncanny. Both states saw themselves as defenders, never aggressors. Both claimed moral superiority. Both insisted the enemy fired first. Both said they had no choice.

Constructing the enemy and the victim

The symmetry was also apparent in the constructed image of the enemy and the delcared victims.

India portrayed Pakistan as a terror factory: duplicitous, rogue, a nuclear-armed spoiler addicted to jihad. Pakistani identity was reduced to its worst stereotype, deceptive and dangerous. Peace, in this worldview, is impossible because the Other is irrational.

Pakistan, in turn, cast India as a fascist state: led by a majoritarian regime, obsessed with humiliation, eager to erase Muslims from history. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was the aggressor. India was the occupier. Their strikes were framed not as counterterrorism but as religious war.

In each case, the enemy wasn’t just a threat. The enemy was an idea — and an idea cannot be reasoned with.

This is the danger of media-driven identity construction. Once the Other becomes a caricature, dialogue dies. Diplomacy becomes weakness. Compromise becomes betrayal. And war becomes not just possible, but desirable.

The image of the Other also determined who was considered a victim and who was not.

While missiles flew, people died. Civilians in Kashmir, on both sides, were killed. Border villages were shelled. Religious sites damaged. Innocent people displaced. But these stories, the human stories, were buried beneath the rubble of rhetoric.

In both countries, the media didn’t mourn equally. Victims were grieved if they were ours. Theirs? Collateral. Or fabricated. Or forgotten.

This selective mourning is a moral indictment. Because when we only care about our dead, we become numb to justice. And in that numbness, violence becomes easier the next time.

The battle for legitimacy

What was at stake during the India-Pakistan confrontation wasn’t just territory or tactical advantage. It was legitimacy. Both states needed to convince their own citizens, and the world, that they were on the right side of history.

Indian media leaned on the global “war on terror” frame. By targeting Pakistan-based militants, India positioned itself as a partner in global security. Sound familiar? It should. It’s the same playbook used by the United States in Iraq and Israel in Gaza. Language like “surgical”, “precision”, and “pre-emptive” doesn’t just describe, it absolves.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s media leaned on the moral weight of sovereignty. India’s strikes were framed as an assault not just on land, but on izzat, honour. By invoking sacred spaces, by publicising civilian casualties, Pakistan constructed India not as a counterterrorist actor but as a bully and a blasphemer.

This discursive tug-of-war extended even to facts. When India claimed to have killed 80 militants, Pakistan called it fiction. When Pakistan claimed to have shot down Indian jets, India called it propaganda. Each accused the other of misinformation. Each media ecosystem became a hall of mirrors, reflecting only what it wanted to see.

Ceasefire, silence and a call to listen differently

The guns fell silent on May 13, thanks to a US-brokered ceasefire. Both governments claimed victory. Media outlets moved on. Cricket resumed. Hashtags faded.

But what lingers is the story each side now tells about itself: We were right. They were wrong. We showed strength. They backed down.

This is the story that will shape textbooks, elections, military budgets. It will inform the next standoff, the next skirmish, the next war.

And until the story changes, nothing will. And it can change.

Narratives constructed on competing truths, forged in newsrooms and battlefields, performed in rallies and funerals, are not eternal.

Just as they were constructed, they can be deconstructed. And that can happen only if we start listening not to the loudest voice, but to the one we’ve learned to ignore.

So the next time war drums beat, ask not just who fired first, but who spoke last. And ask what story that speech was trying to tell.

Because in South Asia, the most dangerous weapon isn’t nuclear.

It’s narrative.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

With a battered economy and a restless population, Iran is as desperate as the United States to come together, Johns Hopkins University Professor Vali Nasr argues.

Nasr told host Steve Clemons that US President Donald Trump’s administration is eager to reach an arms control deal with Iran, and Iran is eager to grow economically. “Both of them have arrived, after 40 some years, at a juncture where they need to change the direction of their relationship,” Nasr said.

Join the conversation on Nasr’s latest book, Iran’s Grand Strategy: A Political History, which explains how Iran’s anti-Americanism “is not ideological or theological”.

May 24 (UPI) — President Donald Trump signed four executive orders to overhaul the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and hasten the process and deployment of new nuclear power reactors in the United States.

They allow agencies to build reactors on federally owned land, revamp the NRC, create new timelines for construction permits, and expand domestic uranium production and enrichment capabilities.

Trump on Friday signed the orders called: Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy, Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security and Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base.

Nuclear executives joined Trump, including Constellation CEO Joe Dominguez, who leads the largest operator of nuclear plants in the U.S.

Constellation wants to restart operations at Three Mile Island, aiming to bring the Unit 1 reactor back online in 2028. The Unit 2 reactor at Three Mile Island was the site of a partial meltdown in 1979.

“We’re wasting too much time on permitting and we’re answering silly questions, not the important ones,” the Constellation CEO said.

The agency is also reviewing whether to restart the mothballed Palisades plant in Michigan.

Dominguez said nuclear energy is best-suited to support artificial intelligence data center needs with consistent, around-the-clock service.

Between 1954 and 1978, the United States authorized construction of 133 civilian nuclear reactors at 81 power plants. Since 1978, the NRC has authorized a fraction of that number, and only two reactors have entered into commercial operation.

“Instead of efficiently promoting safe, abundant nuclear energy, the NRC has instead tried to insulate Americans from the most remote risks without appropriate regard for the severe domestic and geopolitical costs of such risk aversion,” according to one of the executive orders.

Former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who now heads the Nuclear Threat Initiative and Energy Futures Initiative, said the moves could increase safety or security risks.

“Reorganizing and reducing the independence of the NRC could lead to the hasty deployment of advanced reactors with safety and security flaws,” Moniz, a nuclear physicist who served under President Barack Obama, said.

NRC overhaul

The 50-year-old independent NRC regulates nuclear reactors. The new executive order dictates reductions in force “though certain functions may increase in size consistent with the policies in this order, including those devoted to new reactor licensing.”

The NRC shall also create a team of at least 20 officials to draft the new regulations.

The order will not remove or replace any of the five commissioners who lead the body, according to the White House.

The NRC will work with the Department of Government Efficiency, the Office of Management and Budget, and other executive departments and agencies on the reorganization, according to the White House.

The public hearings process at the agency also will be streamlined, the executive order said.

New reactors

Trump’s orders also create a regulatory method for the departments of Energy and Defense to build nuclear reactors on federal land, the administration official said.

The commission will be required to decide on nuclear reactor licenses within 18 months and, within 60 days, the secretary of energy is expected to issue guidance on what counts as a qualified test reactor.

The order says that qualified test reactors can be safely operational at Department-owned or Department-controlled facilities within two years.

“Federal Government has effectively throttled the domestic deployment of advanced reactors, ceding the initiative to foreign nations in building this critical technology,” the order reads. “Our proud history of innovation has succumbed to overregulated complacency.”

Two new reactors that recently came online at Plant Vogtle near Augusta, Ga., took seven years longer than planned to build and came in $18 billion over budget.

The secretary of state is also expected to “aggressively pursue” at least 20 new agreements by the close of the 120th Congress “to enable the United States nuclear industry to access new markets in partner countries.”

“We’re also talking about the big plants — the very, very big, the biggest,” Trump said at the signing. “We’re going to be doing them also.”

Other changes

Another of the orders Trump signed seeks to fully leverage federally owned uranium and plutonium resources declared excess to defense needs.

Trump also wants a pilot program for reactor construction and operation outside the National Laboratories.

Within 240 days, the agencies are expected to develop management of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste, and deployment of advanced fuel cycle capabilities “to establish a safe, secure, and sustainable long-term fuel cycle,” according to the order.

Additionally, the order directs the Department of Education to work toward increasing participation in nuclear energy-related apprenticeships and career and technical education programs.

A series of new executive orders seeks to fast-track approvals to grow the US’s nuclear energy sector, a lengthy process.

United States President Donald Trump has signed a series of new executive orders aimed at boosting nuclear energy production in the country, while rolling back regulations.

Friday’s orders, signed by Trump at an Oval Office event, called on the nation’s independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission to cut down on regulations and fast-track new licences for reactors and power plants.

One order requires the body to make decisions on new nuclear reactors within 18 months. That would severely pare down a process that can take more than a decade. Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump described the nuclear industry as “hot”.

“It’s a brilliant industry. You have to do it right,” he said, flanked by CEOs of nuclear companies, as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.

Burgum told reporters that the president’s actions would “turn the clock back on over 50 years of overregulation” in the nuclear industry.

Trump’s orders also called for assessing staffing levels at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and directed the US Departments of Energy and Defense to work together to build nuclear plants on federal land.

Building more nuclear reactors, an official told reporters in advance of the signing, is aimed in part at addressing the increased energy needs created by artificial intelligence (AI) technology.

It was not immediately clear how much authority Trump and the executive branch could assert over the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which Congress created as an independent agency in 1974.

Trump’s orders also called for growth in the domestic production and enrichment of uranium, the primary fuel used in nuclear power.

‘National energy emergency’

Trump has focused heavily on energy industry deregulation since taking office for a second term in January, but much of the emphasis has been directed at fossil fuels.

On January 20, the day he returned to the White House, Trump declared a “national energy emergency”.

As part of that order, he called on the heads of federal agencies to identify any emergency powers they could use to “facilitate the identification, leasing, siting, production, transportation, refining, and generation of domestic energy resources” on federal and non-federal land.

He further called high energy prices an “active threat” to US citizens and national security.

Nuclear energy has long been a thorny issue in the US, splitting those who seek alternatives to fossil fuels.

On one hand, the industry offers a means of producing energy with low levels of greenhouse gas emissions. But on the other hand, the production of nuclear energy creates waste that can remain radioactive for long periods of time, and requires special storage to ensure public safety.

Nuclear power also carries the risk of rare, but potentially cataclysmic, accidents.

For many, incidents like the Three Mile Island accident represent the possible dangers. In 1979, the nuclear generator on Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania suffered a mechanical failure, releasing radioactive gases into the air and spurring a backlash against nuclear power.

Even with Trump’s regulatory rollback, many experts in the field believe it would take years for the US to scale up its nuclear infrastructure.

WASHINGTON — President Trump signed executive orders Friday intended to quadruple domestic production of nuclear power within the next 25 years, a goal experts say the United States is highly unlikely to reach.

To speed up the development of nuclear power, the orders grant the U.S. Energy secretary authority to approve advanced reactor designs and projects, taking authority away from the independent safety agency that has regulated the U.S. nuclear industry for five decades.

The order comes as demand for electricity surges amid a boom in energy-hungry data centers and artificial intelligence. Tech companies, venture capitalists, states and others are competing for electricity and straining the nation’s electric grid.

“We’ve got enough electricity to win the AI arms race with China,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said. “What we do in the next five years related to electricity is going to determine the next 50” years in the industry.

Still, it’s unlikely the U.S. could quadruple its nuclear production in the time frame the White House specified. The United States lacks any next-generation reactors operating commercially and only two large reactors have been built from scratch in nearly 50 years. Those two reactors, at a nuclear plant in Georgia, were completed years late and at least $17 billion over budget.

Trump is enthusiastic

At the Oval Office signing, Trump, surrounded by industry executives, called nuclear a “hot industry,” adding, “It’s time for nuclear, and we’re going to do it very big.”

Burgum and other speakers said the industry has stagnated and has been choked by overregulation.

“Mark this day on your calendar. This is going to turn the clock back on over 50 years of overregulation of an industry,’’ said Burgum, who chairs Trump’s newly formed Energy Dominance Council.

The orders would reorganize the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure quicker reviews of nuclear projects, including an 18-month deadline for the NRC to act on industry applications. The measures also create a pilot program intended to place three new experimental reactors online by July 4, 2026 — 13 months from now — and invoke the Defense Production Act to allow emergency measures to ensure the U.S. has the reactor fuel needed for a modernized nuclear energy sector.

The NRC is assessing the executive orders and will comply with White House directives, spokesperson Scott Burnell said Friday.

Jacob DeWitte, chief executive of the nuclear energy company Oklo, brought a golf ball to the Oval Office. He told Trump that’s the amount of uranium that can power someone’s needs for their entire life.

“It doesn’t get any better than that,” he said, holding up the ball.

“Very exciting indeed,” Trump said.

Trump has signed a spate of executive orders promoting oil, gas and coal that warm the planet when burned to produce electricity. Nuclear reactors generate electricity without emitting greenhouse gases. Trump said reactors are safe and clean but did not mention climate benefits. Safety advocates warn that nuclear technology still comes with significant risks that other low-carbon energy sources don’t, including the danger of accidents or targeted attacks, and the unresolved question of how to store tens of thousands of tons of hazardous nuclear waste.

The order to reorganize the NRC will include significant staff reductions but is not intended to fire NRC commissioners who lead the agency. David Wright, a former South Carolina elected official and utility commissioner, chairs the five-member panel. His term ends June 30, and it is unclear whether he will be reappointed.

Critics have trepidations

Critics say the White House moves could compromise safety and violate legal frameworks such as the Atomic Energy Act. Compromising the independence of the NRC or encouraging it to be circumvented entirely could weaken the agency and make regulation less effective, said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“Simply put, the U.S. nuclear industry will fail if safety is not made a priority,” he said.

Gregory Jaczko, who led the NRC under President Obama, said Trump’s executive orders look like someone asked an AI chatbot, “How do we make the nuclear industry worse in this country?”

He called the orders a “guillotine to the nation’s nuclear safety system” that will make the country less safe, the industry less reliable and the climate crisis more severe.

A number of countries are speeding up efforts to license and build a new generation of smaller nuclear reactors to meet a surging demand for electricity and supply it carbon-free. Last year, Congress passed legislation that President Biden signed to modernize the licensing of new reactor technologies so they can be built faster.

This month, the power company in Ontario, Canada, began building the first of four small nuclear reactors.

Valar Atomics is a nuclear reactor developer in California. Founder and CEO Isaiah Taylor said nuclear development and innovation in the United States has been slowed by too much red tape, while Russia and China are speeding ahead. He said he’s most excited about the mandate for the Energy Department to speed up the pace of innovation.

The NRC is currently reviewing applications from companies and a utility that want to build small nuclear reactors to begin providing power in the early 2030s. Currently, the NRC expects its reviews to take three years or less.

Tori Shivanandan, chief operating officer of Radiant Nuclear, a California-based startup, said the executive orders mark a “watershed moment” for nuclear power in the U.S., adding that Trump’s support for the advanced nuclear industry will help ensure its success.

Daly and McDermott write for the Associated Press.

Washington and Tehran have taken a tough public stance before talks, with enrichment a key point of contention.

Iran and the United States are set to hold a fifth round of talks on Tehran’s nuclear programme amid uncompromising rhetoric on both sides.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff are due to meet in Rome on Friday.

The ongoing talks, mediated by Oman, seek a new deal in which Iran would be prevented from producing nuclear weapons while having international sanctions eased. However, little progress has been made so far, and both Washington and Tehran have taken a tough stance in public in recent days, particularly regarding Iran’s enrichment of uranium.

Witkoff has said Iran cannot be allowed to carry out any enrichment.

Tehran, which has raised its enrichment to about 60 percent, well above civilian needs but below the 90 percent needed for weaponisation, has rejected that “red line”.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called the demand “excessive and outrageous,” warning that the ongoing talks are unlikely to yield results.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Tuesday that Washington is working to reach an agreement that would allow Iran to have a civil nuclear energy program but not enrich uranium, while admitting that achieving such a deal “will not be easy”.

On Thursday, the State Department announced new sanctions on Iran’s construction sector.

“Figuring out the path to a deal is not rocket science,” Araghchi said on social media on Friday morning. “Zero nuclear weapons = we DO have a deal. Zero enrichment = we do NOT have a deal. Time to decide…”

A spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tehran took aim at the new sanctions, calling the move “vicious, illegal, and inhumane”.

High stakes

The stakes are high for both sides. Trump wants to curtail Tehran’s potential to produce a nuclear weapon that could trigger a regional nuclear arms race.

Iran insists its nuclear ambitions are strictly civilian, but seeks to ease international sanctions that hamper its economy.

During his first term, in 2018, Trump nixed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a 2015 agreement that saw Iran scale back its nuclear programme in exchange for eased sanctions.

After his return to the White House for a second term in January, Trump renewed his “maximum pressure” programme against Iran, piling further economic pressure, for example, by choking the country’s oil exports, particularly to China.

Iran responded defiantly, promising to defend itself against any attack and escalating enrichment far beyond the 2015 pact’s limits.

Tensions began to ease in April as the two countries launched the talks mediated by Oman, but Tehran’s enrichment programme has become a major point of contention.

Should that see the talks fail, the cost could be high. Trump has repeatedly threatened military action if no deal is reached.

Israel, which opposes the US talks with its regional foe, has warned that it would never allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Following reports that Israel may be planning to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, Araghchi warned on Thursday that Washington will bear legal responsibility if Iran is attacked.

Negotiations between Washington and Tehran looking shaky as Iran resists US negotiator Witkoff’s ‘red line’.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has derided demands from the United States that it halt nuclear enrichment as negotiations between the two countries hang in the balance.

“Saying things like ‘We will not allow Iran to enrich uranium’ is nonsense. No one [in Iran] is waiting for others’ permission,” said Khamenei in a speech reported by the country’s semi-official Mehr News Agency on Tuesday.

He added that he did not know whether talks would “bring results”.

Since mid-April, Washington and Tehran have held four rounds of Omani-mediated talks aimed at getting Iran to limit its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.

However, repeated clashes between the pair have thrown the next round of negotiations, which the news agency Reuters said were expected to take place in Rome at the weekend, into doubt.

US President Donald Trump ditched the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed by Iran and world powers during his last term in office. Intent on striking a new deal since his return to power in January, he has revived his “maximum pressure” approach against Iran, warning last week that talks needed to “move quickly or something bad is going to happen”.

Tehran confirmed on Tuesday that it has received and is reviewing a US proposal, but Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi had said the previous day that talks would fail if Washington insisted that Tehran refrained from domestic enrichment of uranium, which the US says is a possible pathway to developing nuclear bombs.

Iran currently enriches uranium to 60 percent, far above the 3.67-percent limit set in the 2015 deal but below the 90 percent needed for a nuclear warhead. It has repeatedly insisted its programme is for peaceful purposes and is “non-negotiable”.

However, US negotiator Steve Witkoff has dubbed the continuation of the programme a “red line”. On Sunday, he reiterated that the US “cannot allow even 1 percent of an enrichment capability”.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Sunday that a deal ensuring Iran would not have nuclear weapons was “within reach”.

However, he underlined, Iran would continue enriching uranium “with or without a deal”.

In addressing the talks regarding Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, our U.S. interlocutors are naturally free to publicly state whatever they deem fit to ward off Special Interest groups; malign actors which set the agendas of at least previous Administrations.

Iran can only…

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) May 18, 2025

‘Suspicious and unwarranted’ arrests of Iranians come amid lingering tensions over Iran’s nuclear programme and the fallout of Russia-Ukraine war.

Tehran, Iran – Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has summoned the United Kingdom’s charge d’affaires over what it called “suspicious and unwarranted” arrests of several Iranian nationals.

The UK earlier this month accused several Iranian nationals of offences without offering evidence, wilfully refrained from informing Iran’s embassy in time, and prevented consular access contrary to international norms, the ministry said in a statement issued late on Sunday, according to state media.

It also accused the British government of harbouring “political motivations to exert pressure on Iran” with the arrests.

The diplomatic spat comes two days after British police charged three Iranians with suspected espionage for Iran’s intelligence services under the country’s National Security Act of 2023.

Mostafa Sepahvand, 39, Farhad Javadi Manesh, 44, and Shapoor Qalehali Khani Noori, 55, were accused of conduct likely to assist a foreign intelligence service between August 14, 2024 and February 16, 2025.

They appeared before a Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Saturday, where they were also charged with engaging in surveillance and reconnaissance with the intention of committing or supporting serious violence against a person in the UK.

Their cases were referred to a central criminal court, and the next hearing is scheduled for early June.

The three are among eight individuals arrested in May, including seven Iranians, as part of two separate operations which Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said were some of the biggest investigations of their kind in recent years.

The four other Iranians were arrested as part of a “counterterrorism” operation, with investigations ongoing. The eighth man was released without charge last week.

In a stated effort towards improving national security against covert foreign influences, the UK has placed Iran on its highest tier under the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (FIRS).

Strained ties

The arrests come amid strained ties between Iran and three European powers over Tehran’s nuclear programme.

The UK, France and Germany have repeatedly criticised Iran for a purported lack of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to ensure that Iran’s nuclear programme remains peaceful.

The trio, branded the E3 in the context of the negotiations, were party to Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal, which the United States unilaterally abandoned in 2018.

However, the US has reopened talks with Tehran in a bid to secure a new deal, and amid four rounds of talks mediated by Oman, Iran has emphasised it is open to holding more talks with the E3 as well.

Senior diplomats from the two sides gathered on Friday in Turkiye’s Istanbul for their first meeting since the nuclear talks with Washington commenced last month. Both sides stressed a commitment to continued diplomacy, but there was no breakthrough.

Rather, Iran has repeatedly warned that there will be “serious ramifications” if the E3 push to invoke the “snapback” mechanism of the comatose 2015 nuclear deal, which would reinstate the United Nations Security Council sanctions that were lifted as part of the landmark accord.

Tehran and Washington have also failed to see eye to eye so far when it comes to enrichment of uranium, with Iran reiterating on Monday that it will not back down from its right to have a civilian nuclear programme.

After US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff said President Donald Trump’s administration would not allow Iran to enrich uranium even to 1 percent, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said “unrealistic” demands would only lead to a dead end.

The E3 is also concerned about numerous reports that Iran has been arming Russia for its war in Ukraine, accusations that Tehran denies.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Tehran has yet to receive a written proposal from the US to advance to a fifth round of negotiations, which is expected soon.

He also said Iran has not proposed a joint enrichment venture with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, but backs such an effort.

“The West Asia region, and specifically countries of the Persian Gulf, may increasingly require nuclear energy and to build power plants requiring nuclear fuel, so it won’t be bad if nuclear fuel facilities or consortiums are created in our region so everyone can invest in them.”

Tehran, Iran – Iran’s political and military leaders are pointing the finger back at Donald Trump after the United States president sharpened his rhetoric during his first major tour of the Middle East.

In a speech to a group of teachers gathered for a state ceremony in Tehran on Saturday, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said some of Trump’s comments were not even worth responding to.

“The level of those remarks is so low that they are a disgrace for the one who uttered them and a disgrace to the American nation,” he said, to chants of “Death to America” and others from the crowd.

Khamenei added that Trump “lied” when he said he wants to use power towards peace, as Washington has backed “massacring” Palestinians and others across the region. He called Israel a “dangerous cancerous tumour” that must be “uprooted”.

Meanwhile, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also told a gathering of navy officers on Saturday that Trump is extending a message of peace while threatening destruction at the same time as backing Israel’s “genocide” in the Gaza Strip.

“Which one of this president’s words should we believe? His message of peace, or his message of massacre of human beings?” the Iranian president said, pointing out that Trump sanctioned the International Criminal Court (ICC) in a move that was internationally criticised.

The statements came after Trump used his Middle East tour – during which he signed huge deals with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates – to heap praise on Arab leaders neighbouring Iran and blasting the leadership in Tehran.

The US president told Arab leaders they were developing their infrastructure while Iran’s “landmarks are collapsing into rubble” after its theocratic establishment replaced a monarchy in a 1979 revolution.

He said Iran’s leaders have “managed to turn green farmland into dry deserts” as a result of corruption and mismanagement, and pointed out that Iranians are experiencing power outages several hours a day.

The blackouts, a result of a years-long energy crisis that is hurting Iran’s already strained economy, are expected to linger for the rest of this year as well, according to Iranian authorities.

The largest associations of the mining, steel and cement industries in Iran on Saturday wrote a joint letter to Pezeshkian, urgently requesting him to review a 90 percent electricity use restriction imposed on the critical sectors.

Trump, who hailed Syria’s interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa and lifted sanctions on Damascus, also took aim at Iran’s regional policy.

He described Tehran’s support for the fallen establishment of President Bashar al-Assad as a cause of “misery and death” and regional destabilisation.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the US president’s remarks as “deceptive”, telling state media on Friday it was the US that hampered Iran through sanctions and military threats while backing Israel and attacking Syria.

Parliament chief Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who was addressing an Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) conference in Indonesia, said Trump’s remarks showed he was “living in a delusion”.

Hossein Salami, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), addressed Trump directly on Friday and said even though Iran has beautiful landmarks, “we take pride in the elevation of character, identity, culture, and Islam”.

The sharp rhetoric in response to Trump’s latest controversial comments come days after he teased that he may start calling the “Persian Gulf” the “Arabian Gulf” soon.

This angered Iranians across the board, prompting criticism of any attempt to rename the key waterway from average citizens online, authorities, local media, and even some pro-Trump Iranians outside the country who have been advocating for US sanctions and regime change.

Scepticism over Iran-US deal

Both Iran and the US say they would prefer an agreement that would serve to quickly de-escalate tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme, despite the latest war of words.

But after four rounds of negotiations mediated by Oman, any prospective deal – which would lift sanctions in exchange for making sure Iran would not have a nuclear bomb – still appears to face significant hurdles.

Trump said Tehran has been handed a proposal to rapidly advance towards a deal, but Iran’s Araghchi on Friday said no written proposal was produced yet amid “confusing and contradictory” rhetoric from Washington.

“Mark my words: there is no scenario in which Iran abandons its hard-earned right to enrichment for peaceful purposes: a right afforded to all other NPT signatories, too,” he wrote in a post on X, in reference to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Kazem Gharibabadi, a senior nuclear negotiator, on Friday rejected reports by Western media outlets that Iran may agree to fully halt its enrichment of uranium for the remainder of the Trump presidency to build trust.

“The right to enrich is our absolute red line! No halt to enrichment is acceptable.”

Trump in 2018 unilaterally withdrew from a landmark nuclear accord signed between Iran and world powers three years earlier, imposing the harshest sanctions yet by the US that have only intensified during the latest negotiations.

The nuclear deal set a 3.67 percent enrichment rate with first-generation centrifuges for civilian use in Iran, in exchange for lifting United Nations sanctions. Iran is now enriching up to 60 percent and has enough fissile material for multiple bombs, but has made no effort to build one yet.

The US president has repeatedly threatened to unleash air strikes targeting Iran’s programme if a deal isn’t reached.

United States President Donald Trump says that Iran has his administration’s proposal regarding its rapidly advancing nuclear programme as negotiations between the two countries continue.

Trump made the remarks on Friday on board Air Force One as he ended his trip to the United Arab Emirates. It is the first time he has acknowledged sending a proposal to Tehran after multiple rounds of negotiations between US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

“We’re in very serious negotiations with Iran for long-term peace,” Trump told a journalist when asked about the proposal.

“We’re not going to be making any nuclear dust in Iran. I think we’re getting close to maybe doing a deal without having to do this,” he said.

“But most importantly, they know they have to move quickly, or something bad is going to happen.”

On Thursday, Araghchi spoke to journalists at the Tehran International Book Fair and said that Iran had not received any proposal from the US yet.

Araghchi also criticised what he called conflicting and inconsistent statements from the Trump administration, describing them as either a sign of disarray in Washington or a calculated negotiation strategy.

Witkoff at one point suggested that Iran could enrich uranium at 3.67 percent, then later said that all Iranian enrichment must stop.

“We are hearing many contradictory statements from the United States – from Washington, from the president, and from the new administration,” Araghchi said.

“Sometimes we hear two or three different positions in a single day.”

Iranian and American officials have met in Oman and Rome in recent weeks for the negotiations mediated by Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi, a trusted interlocutor between the two nations.

The talks seek to limit Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of some of the crushing economic sanctions the US has imposed on the Islamic republic.

Trump has previously threatened to launch attacks targeting Iran’s nuclear programme if a deal isn’t reached.

Some Iranian officials have warned that Tehran could pursue a nuclear weapon with their stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels.

Separately on Friday, Iranian officials also met officials from Britain, France and Germany in Istanbul to discuss their nuclear negotiations with Washington.

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, who attended the talks in the Turkish city, said in a post on X: “We exchanged views and discussed the latest status of the indirect nuclear negotiations and the lifting of sanctions.”

Gharibabadi added that if necessary, Tehran would meet with the so-called E3 – the European parties to the 2015 nuclear deal, along with China, Russia and the United States – once again to continue discussions, after several meetings since last year.

Trump had effectively torpedoed the deal during his first term by unilaterally abandoning it in 2018 and reimposing sanctions on Iran’s banking sector and oil exports.

A year later, Iran responded by rolling back its own commitments under the deal, which provided relief from sanctions in return for UN-monitored restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities.

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — President Trump said Thursday that the United States and Iran have “sort of” agreed to terms on a nuclear deal, offering a measure of confidence that an accord is coming into sharper focus.

Trump, in an exchange with reporters at a business roundtable in Doha, Qatar, described talks between American envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi as “very serious negotiations” for long-term peace and said they were continuing to progress.

Still, throughout his four-day visit to the Gulf this week, the president has underscored that military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities remains a possibility if the talks derail.

“Iran has sort of agreed to the terms: They’re not going to make, I call it, in a friendly way, nuclear dust,” Trump said at the business event. “We’re not going to be making any nuclear dust in Iran.”

Without offering detail, he signaled growing alignment with the terms that he has been seeking.

A top political, military and nuclear advisor to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told NBC News on Wednesday that Tehran stands ready to get rid of its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium that can be weaponized, agree to enrich uranium only to the lower levels needed for civilian use and allow international inspectors to supervise the process.

Ali Shamkhani added that in return, Iran wants an immediate lifting of all economic sanctions.

On Thursday, hours after Trump said the two sides were getting closer to a deal, Araghchi said Tehran’s ability to enrich uranium remained a core right of the Iranian people and a red line in nuclear talks.

“We have said repeatedly that defending Iran’s nuclear rights — including enrichment — is a fundamental principle,” the official said. “This is not something we concede, either in public discourse or in negotiations. It is a right that belongs to the Iranian people, and no one can take it away.”

Trump said his demands have been straightforward.

“They can’t have a nuclear weapon. That’s the only thing. It’s very simple,” Trump said. “It’s not like I have to give you 30 pages worth of details. It is only one sentence. They can’t have a nuclear weapon.”

But Trump on Wednesday suggested he was looking for Tehran to make other concessions as part of a potential agreement.

Iran “must stop sponsoring terror, halt its bloody proxy wars and permanently and verifiably cease pursuit of nuclear weapons,” Trump said in remarks at a meeting in Saudi Arabia, the first stop on the Mideast trip.

Before moving on to the United Arab Emirates from Qatar on Thursday, Trump stopped at a U.S. military installation at the center of American involvement in the Middle East and spoke to U.S. troops. The Republican president has used his visit to Gulf states to reject the “interventionalism” of America’s past in the region.

Al-Udeid Air Base was a major staging ground during the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The base houses some 8,000 U.S. troops, down from about 10,000 at the height of those wars.

Trump told the troops that his “priority is to end conflicts, not start them.”

“But I will never hesitate to wield American power if it’s necessary to defend the United States of America or our partners,” he said.

Trump has held up Gulf nations such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar as models for economic development in a region plagued by conflict. He urged Qatari officials to use their influence to entice Iran to come to terms with his administration on a nuclear deal.

Trump later flew to Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates for the final leg of his trip. He visited the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque, the country’s largest mosque. The United Arab Emirates’ founder, Sheikh Zayed, is buried in the mosque’s main courtyard.

Trump took his shoes off, which is customary, as he stepped into the house of worship and spent time marveling at the architecture.

“It’s beautiful,” Trump said.

He later attended a state visit hosted by United Arab Emirates President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan at the Qasr Al Watan presidential palace. Trump and his delegation were greeted by children wearing traditional robes and waving small U.S. and United Arab Emirates flags, and they were guided through a space exhibit inside the palace.

Al Nahyan also presented Trump with the Order of Zayed, the United Arab Emirates’ highest civil decoration and credited Trump with building the two nations’ economic partnership to new heights.

“This partnership has taken a significant leap forward since you assumed office,” he told Trump.

As he made his way to Abu Dhabi on Thursday, Trump reminded reporters about President Biden’s 2022 fist bump with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, a moment roundly criticized by human rights activists already upset by the Democrat’s decision to hold the meeting. Trump noted in contrast that while in Saudi Arabia and Qatar this week, he had shaken many hands.

“They were starving for love because our country didn’t give them love,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One. “They gave him a fist bump. Remember the fist bump in Saudi Arabia? He travels all the way to Saudi Arabia … and he gives him a fist bump. That’s not what they want. They don’t want a fist bump. They want to shake his hand.”

Miller and Madhani write for the Associated Press. Madhani reported from Dubai. AP writers Amir Vahdat in Tehran and Gabe Levin in Dubai contributed to this report.

The radiation containment domes at Arizona’s Palo Verde Generating Station were, truth be told, pretty boring to look at: giant mounds of concrete, snap a picture, move on. The enormous cooling towers and evaporation ponds were marginally more interesting — all that recycled water, baking in the Sonoran Desert.

You know what really struck my fancy, though? The paintings on conference room walls.

There were five of them, each representing one of the far-flung Southwestern cityscapes powered by Palo Verde. Two showcased Arizona: one for the Phoenix metro area — saguaro cacti and ocotillo in the foreground, freeway and skyscrapers in the background — and one for the red-rock country to the north. Another showed downtown Albuquerque. A fourth portrayed farm fields in El Paso, likely irrigated with water from the Rio Grande.

Then there was an image that may have looked familiar to Southern Californians: Pacific Coast Highway, twisting through a seaside neighborhood that looks very much like Malibu before the Palisades fire.

A painting of Pacific Coast Highway winding through Southern California, on display at Arizona’s Palo Verde nuclear plant.

(Sammy Roth / Los Angeles Times)

That’s right: If you live in Los Angeles County, there’s a good chance your computer, your phone, your refrigerator and your bedside lamp are powered, at least some of the time, by nuclear reactors.

The city of L.A., Southern California Edison and a government authority composed of cities including Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena all own stakes in Palo Verde, the nation’s second-largest power plant. In 2023, the most recent year for which data are available, the plant was L.A.’s single largest energy source, supplying nearly 14% of the city’s electricity. The reactors supplied just over 9% of Edison’s power.

During a tour last month, I walked past the switchyard, a tangle of poles and wires where energy is transferred to power lines marching west and east. When all three reactors are running, the yard can transfer “the equivalent of half of the peak [electric demand] of the state of California on its hottest day,” according to John Hernandez, vice president of site services for utility company Arizona Public Service, which runs the plant.

“So it is a massive, massive switchyard,” Hernandez said.

For all the heated debate over the merits of nuclear energy as a climate change solution, the reality is it’s already a climate change solution. Nuclear plants including Palo Verde generate nearly one-fifth of the nation’s electricity, churning out 24/7, emissions-free power. Shutting down the nuclear fleet tomorrow would cause a giant uptick in coal and gas combustion, worsening the heat waves, wildfires and storms of the climate crisis.

Phasing out the nation’s 94 nuclear reactors over a period of decades, on the other hand, might be manageable — and there’s a case to be made for it. Extracting uranium for use as nuclear fuel has left extensive groundwater contamination and air pollution across the Southwest, especially on tribal lands, including the Navajo Nation.

“When we talk about nuclear, thoughts often go toward spent fuel storage, or the safety of reactors themselves,” said Amber Reimondo, energy director at the Grand Canyon Trust, a nonprofit conservation group. “But I think an often overlooked piece…has been the impacts to those who are at the beginning of the supply chain.”

Reimondo participated in a panel that I moderated at Palo Verde, part of the annual conference of the Society of Environmental Journalists. She noted that the nation’s only active conventional uranium mill — where uranium is leached from crushed rock — is located in Utah, just a few miles from the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation.

Waste ponds at Energy Fuels’ White Mesa uranium mill in southeastern Utah.

(Jim West / UCG / Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

Even during the Biden years, Reimondo said, it was tough to overcome bipartisan enthusiasm for nuclear energy and “get folks to take seriously the impacts that [tribal] communities are feeling” from mining and milling.

“We just haven’t reached a place in this country where we are listening to these folks,” she said.

That dynamic has remained true during the second Trump administration. Just this week, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said his agency would fast-track permitting for a uranium mine proposed by Anfield Energy in Utah’s San Juan County, completing the environmental review — which would normally take a year — in just 14 days.

Burgum and President Trump, like Biden-era officials before them, say it’s unwise for the U.S. to rely on overseas suppliers for nearly all its uranium. But many environmental activists, even some who are fans of nuclear, believe running roughshod over Indigenous nations and public lands is disgraceful. And counterproductive.

Victor Ibarra Jr., senior manager for nuclear energy at the nonprofit Clean Air Task Force, said rebuilding the U.S. nuclear power supply chain will require local buy-in — on the front end, where uranium is mined, and on the back end, where spent fuel is stored. Thus far, political opposition has derailed every attempt to build a permanent fuel storage site, meaning nuclear waste is piling up at power plants across the country.

If there’s any hope for more uranium mining and power plants, Ibarra said, it will involve a lot of conversations — conversations that lead to less pollution, and fewer mistakes like those made during the 20th century.

“I think it’s really unfortunate that the nuclear industry has behaved the way it has in the past,” he said.

The benefits of nuclear reactors are straightforward: They generate climate-friendly electricity around the clock, while taking up far less land than solar or wind farms. If building new nuclear plants were cheap and easy — and we could solve the lingering pollution and safety concerns — then doing so would be a climate no-brainer.

If only.

The only two nuclear reactors built in the U.S. in decades came online at Georgia Power’s Vogtle plant in 2023 and 2024, respectively, and cost $31 billion, according to the Associated Press. That was $17 billion over budget.

Units 1 and 2 at the Vogtle nuclear plant near Waynesboro, Ga., seen in 2024.

(Mike Stewart / Associated Press)

Meanwhile, efforts to build small modular reactors have proved more expensive than large nuclear plants.

“It would really be quite unprecedented in the history of engineering, and in the history of energy, for something that is much smaller to have a lower price per megawatt,” said Joe Romm, a senior researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media. “We try to make use of the economies of scale.”

Those setbacks haven’t stopped wealthy investors including billionaires Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos from bankrolling efforts to bring down the cost of small modular reactors, in hopes that mini-nuclear plants will someday join solar panels and wind turbines as crucial tools in replacing planet-warming fossil fuels.

I hope they succeed. But I’m not going to spend much time worrying about it.

Like I said earlier: Love it or hate it, nuclear is already a huge part of the nation’s power mix, including here in L.A. We’ve lived with it, almost always safely, for decades — at Palo Verde, at Washington state’s Centralia Generating Station, at the Diablo Canyon plant on California’s Central Coast. Nuclear, for all its flaws, is hardly the apocalyptic threat to humanity that its most righteous detractors make it out to be.

It’s also not the One True Solution to humanity’s energy woes, as many of its techno-optimist devotees claim it to be. There’s a reason that solar, wind and batteries made up nearly 94% of new power capacity built in the U.S. last year: They’re cheap. And although other technologies will be needed to help solar and wind phase out fossil fuels, some researchers have found that transitioning to 100% clean energy is possible even without nuclear.

So what’s the answer? Is nuclear power good or bad?

I wish it were that simple. To the extent existing nuclear plants limit the amount of new infrastructure we need to build to replace fossil fuels: good. To the extent we’re unable to eliminate pollution from uranium mining: bad. To the extent small reactors might give us another tool to complement solar and wind, alongside stuff like advanced geothermal — good, although we probably shouldn’t spend too much more taxpayer money on it yet.

Sorry not to offer up more enthusiasm, or more outrage. The climate crisis is a big, thorny problem that demands nuance and thoughtful reflection. Not every question can be answered with a snappy soundbite.

Before leaving Palo Verde, I stopped by the conference room for a last look at the paintings: Arizona. New Mexico. Texas. California. It was strange to think this plant was responsible for powering so many different places.

It was strange to think the uranium concealed beneath those domes could power so many different places.

A painting of metro Phoenix, on display at Arizona’s Palo Verde nuclear plant.

(Sammy Roth / Los Angeles Times)

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our “Boiling Point” podcast here.

For more climate and environment news, follow @Sammy_Roth on X and @sammyroth.bsky.social on Bluesky.

Donald Trump says he thinks the US is close to doing a nuclear deal with Iran. The US president made the comments in Qatar, where he praised the Emir for helping to push for a diplomatic solution, rather than war.

May 14 (UPI) — For a third straight day, the United States on Wednesday issued sanctions targeting Iran as the Trump administration attempts to negotiate a new nuclear arms deal with the Middle Eastern country.

The punitive measures imposed by the Treasury Department are secondary sanctions, meaning those aimed and punishing third parties for dealing with previously designated entities, individuals and countries.

The sanctions target six individuals and 12 entities in China and Iran accused of aiding Tehran source the manufacturing of critical materials used in the Islamic state’s ballistic missile program, specifically carbon fiber materials used in the construction of intercontinental rockets.

The State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce explained in a statement that Iran is “heavily reliant on China to conduct its malign activities in the Middle East.”

The targets work with the U.S.-sanctioned elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

“The United States cannot allow Iran to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement.

“The Iranian regime’s relentless and irresponsible pursuit of advanced ballistic missile capabilities, including its efforts to indigenize its production capacity, represents an unacceptable threat to the United States and the stability of the region.”

The sanctions are the third batch of Iran-targeted punitive measures that the Trump administration has imposed this week as it engages in negotiations with Iran on a new agreement aimed at preventing Tehran from securing a nuclear weapon — a goal long held by President Donald Trump.

In 2018, during his first term in the White House, Trump slapped sanctions on Iran and unilaterally pulled the United States from a landmark Obama-era multinational accord, calling it “defective at its core.”

He pursued a so-called maximum pressure campaign of sanctions and other punitive measures, but failed to coerce Iran back to the negotiating table, and it instead advanced its nuclear weapons capability to the point the U.S. government estimated in 2022 that it would need just a week to produce enough weapons-grade highly-enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon.

In February, Trump reinstated his maximum pressure policy, which includes the recent batches of further sanctions.

The United States and Iran have had four recent negotiations on a new deal, but there does not appear to be a fifth round scheduled yet.

Trump administration officials have said a deal would see Iran dismantle its three enrichment facilities, but Iranian officials have said it will not stop enriching uranium but would be open to restrictions.

Trump is in the Middle East this week for a four-day trip, and has repeatedly voiced optimism that a deal can be made.

“I have a feeling it’s going to work out. I think it’s going to work. It’s got to work out, one way or the other we know it’s going to work out,” Trump said during a press conference Wednesday in Doha, Qatar.

Later to reporters aboard Air Force One, he was more direct with his threats against Iran.

“One way or the other. It’s very simple. It’s going to happen one way or the other. They can’t have a nuclear weapon. So, we will either do it friendly, or we will do it very unfriendly, and that won’t be pleasant,” he said.

The Trump administration has said it has sanctioned more than 250 people, entities and vessels related to Iran and its proxies since February.

Taipei, Taiwan – As Taiwan prepares to shut down its last nuclear reactor, soaring energy demand driven by the island’s semiconductor industry is rekindling a heated debate about nuclear power.

Taiwan’s electricity needs are expected to rise by 12-13 percent by 2030, largely driven by the boom in artificial intelligence (AI), according to the Ministry of Economic Affairs.

Environmental group Greenpeace has estimated that the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), the world’s largest contract chipmaker, will by itself consume as much electricity as roughly one-quarter of the island’s some 23 million people by the same date.

The self-ruled island’s soaring appetite for power complicates Taipei’s pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, which is heavily dependent on raising renewable energy production to about 60-70 percent of the total from about 12 percent at present.

Nuclear power advocates argue that the energy source is the most feasible way for Taiwan to reach its competing industrial and environmental goals.

On Tuesday, Taiwan’s legislature passed an amendment to allow nuclear power plants to apply for licences to extend operations beyond the existing 40-year limit.

The opposition Kuomintang and Taiwan People’s Party passed the bill over the objections of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, which came to power in 2016 on a pledge to achieve a “nuclear-free homeland”.

The legal change will not halt Sunday’s planned closure of the last operating reactor – the No 2 reactor at the Maanshan Nuclear Power Plant – though it casts doubt over the island’s longstanding opposition to nuclear power.

The government said after the vote that it had no immediate plans for any future nuclear power projects, though Premier Cho Jung-tai indicated earlier that the government would not oppose the restoration of decommissioned reactors if the amendment passed.

Cho said Taipei was “open” to nuclear power provided safety was ensured and the public reached a consensus on the issue.

Any move to restart the local nuclear industry would, at a minimum, take years.

Taiwan began its civilian nuclear programme in the 1950s with the assistance of technology from the United States.

By 1990, state-owned power firm Taipower operated three plants with the capacity to generate more than one-third of the island’s electricity needs.

‘Renewable energy isn’t stable’

Angelica Oung, a member of the Clean Energy Transition Alliance who supports nuclear power, said Taiwan could generate about 10 percent of its energy requirements from nuclear plants when the DDP came to power nearly a decade ago.

“Energy emissions at the time were lower than now – isn’t that ridiculous?” Oung told Al Jazeera.

“At the time, it was reasonable to launch the anti-nuclear policy as the public was still recovering from the devastating Fukushima nuclear disaster … but now even Japan has now decided to return to nuclear,” Oung said, referring to Tokyo’s plans to generate 20 percent of its power from the energy source by 2040.

“That’s because renewables simply don’t work.”

“The supply of renewable energy isn’t stable … solar energy, for example, needs the use of batteries,” Oung added.

While the 2011 Fukushima disaster helped solidify opposition to nuclear power, Taiwan’s history of anti-nuclear activism stretches back decades earlier.

The DPP was founded just months after the 1986 Chornobyl disaster and included an anti-nuclear clause in its charter.

The following year, the Indigenous Tao people launched protests against Taipower’s policy of dumping nuclear waste on Orchid Island, helping cement the civil anti-nuclear movement.

Nuclear energy attracted further negative scrutiny in the 1990s, when it emerged that about 10,000 people had been exposed to low levels of radiation due to the use of radioactive scrap metals in building materials.

In 2000, Taipei halted construction of a planned fourth nuclear plant amid protests by environmental groups.

A 2021 referendum proposal to restart work on the mothballed project was defeated 52.84 percent to 47.16 percent.

Chia-wei Chao, research director of the Taiwan Climate Action Network, said nuclear power is not the answer to Taiwan’s energy needs.

“Developing nuclear energy in Taiwan often means cutting the budget for boosting renewables, as opposed to other countries,” Chao told Al Jazeera.

Chao said Taiwan’s nuclear plants were built without taking into account the risk of earthquakes and tsunamis, and that establishing a local industry that meets modern standards would be costly and difficult.

“Extension of the current plants and reactors means having to upgrade the infrastructure to meet more updated safety standards and factoring in quake risks. This costs a lot, so nuclear energy doesn’t translate into cheaper electricity,” he said.

Lena Chang, a climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace East Asia, said that reviving nuclear energy would not only be costly, but potentially dangerous, too.

“We, Greenpeace, firmly [oppose] restarting nuclear plants or expanding the use of nuclear because nuclear poses an unresolved safety, waste and environmental risk, particularly in Taiwan – a small island that can’t afford a nuclear and environmental disaster,” Chang told Al Jazeera.

Chang said the chip industry should have to contribute to the cost of switching to renewable energy sources.

“They should be responsible for meeting their own green energy demand, instead of leaving all the work to Taipower, as any of the money to build more energy plants and storage facilities ultimately comes from people’s tax money,” she said.

Chao agreed, saying chip giants such as TSMC should lead the push to go green.

“The chipmaking industry is here to stay … Sure, energy supply will be tight in the next three years, but it’s still enough,” he said.

May 14 (UPI) — The United States has imposed additional Iran-related sanctions, as the Trump administration negotiates with Tehran on a new nuclear weapons deal.

The sanctions announced Tuesday by the U.S. Treasury target an Iranian oil smuggling network the Trump administration accuses of generating billions of dollars for the Tehran regime’s military and proxy forces.

Fifteen front companies, buyers and facilitators in Hong Kong, mainland China, the Seychelles and Singapore were hit by the punitive measures, along with 52-year-old Iranian national Mohammad Khorasani Niasari and two shipping vessels.

The secondary sanctions were levied due to their links to Sepehr Energy Jahan Nama Pars Company, which the previous Biden administration blacklisted in November 2023 for overseeing the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff’s network of front companies that it uses to sell commodities, including oil, internationally — funds that are used to further Iran’s weapons and nuclear programs and other destabilizing activities.

According to Treasury officials Sepehr Energy obfuscates the origin of these oil shipments through a series of deals involving between multiple front companies it owns. Some of the entities that were blacklisted Tuesday were established in China and Hong Kong.

Among the tactics deployed to conceal the oil’s Iranian origin is the use of ship-to-ship transfers at sea before the cargo reaches China. Once in the country, Sepehr Energy relies on complicit local agencies willing to aid their sanctioned sales.

Khorasani is a financial inspector for Sepehr Energy and its affiliates and was sanctioned Tuesday for helping to manage the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff’s transactions.

“As long as Iran devotes its illicit revenues to funding attacks on the United States and our allies, supporting terrorism around the world and pursuing other destabilizing actions, we will continue to use all the tools at our disposal to hold the regime accountable,” State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a statement.

The sanctions are the latest the Trump administration has imposed since early February when President Donald Trump resumed his so-called maximum pressure policy from his first term — an effort that failed to coerce Iran into returning to the negotiating table for a new nuclear weapons deal.

During his first term in office, Trump imposed sanctions against Iran and unilaterally withdrew the United States from a landmark Obama-era multinational nuclear accord aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Trump applied his maximum pressure campaign of sanctions and political pressure to force Tehran to negotiate a new deal he believed would be better. Instead, the Middle Eastern country ignored its obligations under the accord and escalated its nuclear weapons program to the point where the U.S. government estimates Iran could need as little as a week to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a single nuclear bomb.

However, talks about a new nuclear deal between the two countries have resumed during the Trump’s second term, with State Department deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott telling reporters in at a Washington press conference on Tuesday that the negotiations “continue to show progress.”

There have been four rounds of informal talks with the fifth round yet to be scheduled.

Trump, speaking in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, called on Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions and accept “a much better path toward a far better and more hopeful future” or expect consequences. The United States under administration of both Democrats and Republicans have said they will not permit Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

“I want to make a deal with Iran,” Trump said. “This is an offer that will not last forever. The time is right now to choose. We don’t have a lot of time to wait.”

The Trump administration is demanding that Iran discontinue its uranium enrichment program and dismantle its facilities. Iran has said it will not compromise on its enrichment capabilities.

On Monday, after the United States blacklisted three Iranians and a related technology firm involved in nuclear weapons research, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Majid Takht-Ravanchi suggested there was a possibility of negotiating on its enrichment allotments.

For a limited period of time, we can accept a series of restrictions on the level and volume of enrichment,” he said, state-run Press TV reported.

“We have not yet gone into details about the level and volume of enrichment.”

According to the Treasury, since Trump announced the resumption of his maximum pressure campaign, the United States has sanctioned 253 individuals, entities and vessels related to Iran and its proxies.