Iran vehemently responded Tuesday to new US sanctions against its leaders, saying they showed Washington was “lying” about an offer of talks and marked the end of diplomacy with the Trump administration, amid an escalating regional standoff.
Washington blacklisted Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and top military chiefs on Monday, saying it would also sanction Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif later in the week.
“At the same time as you call for negotiations you seek to sanction the foreign minister? It’s obvious that you’re lying,” Rouhani said in a meeting with ministers, broadcast live on TV.
His comments came as US National Security Advisor John Bolton, on a visit to Iran’s arch-enemy Israel, said Washington had “held the door open to real negotiations” but that “in response, Iran’s silence has been deafening”.
Iran and the US broke off diplomatic relations in 1980 over the hostage crisis at the US embassy in Tehran following Iran’s Islamic revolution.
Tensions between them have been escalating since US President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew last year from a landmark 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and reimposed sanctions on the Islamic republic.
Trump has since moved to choke Iran’s economy, blacklisted Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a “terrorist organisation” and nearly launched a military strike in retaliation to Iran downing a US spy drone.
Zarif said the drone had violated Iranian airspace, a claim the US denies. But Russia, a key ally of Tehran, on Tuesday backed Zarif’s version of events.
Washington has also blamed Iran for mid-June attacks on two tankers in sensitive Gulf waters, a claim Iran hotly refutes.
Trump has said he is ready to negotiate with Iran “with no preconditions” and that Iran could have a “phenomenal future”.
“We do not ask for conflict,” he said, adding that depending on Iran’s response, sanctions could end tomorrow or “years from now.”
But Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi said Tuesday that the new sanctions meant “permanent closure of the path to diplomacy with Trump’s desperate government.”
Rouhani also mocked the logic of blacklisting the supreme leader, who has few assets and no plans to visit the US.
“To sanction (the supreme leader) for what? Not to travel to America? That’s cute,” he said.
– Diplomacy over? –
Rouhani noted that there had been chances for talks between the two sides.
Zarif met former US secretary of state Rex Tillerson several times before Washington unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear deal in May 2018 and reimposed sanctions on Iran.
“You do not seek to negotiate. If you did, we could have,” Rouhani said.
Zarif, a political moderate, was a key architect of the deal under which Iran agreed to curb its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.
But both he and Rouhani have accused Washington of waging an “economic war” on Iran since pulling out of the accord.
Tehran has threatened to scale down some of its commitments under the deal unless the remaining international parties — the Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany — help it circumvent US sanctions, particularly through vital oil exports.
But US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Monday he was working to build what he called a “global coalition” against the Islamic republic.
Amid a flurry of diplomatic activity, the UN Security Council issued a unanimous call for dialogue to address the standoff between the United States and Iran.
China on Tuesday urged “calm and restraint” as tensions grew.
“We believe that blindly applying maximum pressure will not help solve the problem,” said Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang at a press briefing in Beijing.
“Facts have proved that these measures have had the opposite effect and aggravated regional unrest,” he added.
French President Emmanuel Macron said he would use a meeting with Trump at the G20 summit in Japan to urge “a constructive solution with the aim of ensuring collective regional security.”
‘I don’t care’: Watch Kamala Harris shut down Chris Hayes for asking a dumb question about Trump
Sen. Kamala Harris shut down MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes during a post-debate interview on Tuesday evening.
Hayes questioned Harris about her call for Twitter to follow their terms of service and kick President Donald Trump off of the platform.
"Do you think he puts people’s lives in danger when he targets them in tweets?" Hayes asked.
"Absolutely," Harris replied.
"Do you think he knows that?" Hayes asked.
"Does it matter?" Harris replied.
"The fact is he did it. The fact is that he is irresponsible, he is erratic," she explained. "He is like a 2-year-old with a machine gun."
Democrats blast Trump and demand his impeachment at CNN debate
Democratic White House hopefuls united in searing condemnation of Donald Trump during their fourth debate Tuesday, saying the president has broken the law, abused his power, and deserves to be impeached.
From the opening moments, most of the dozen candidates on stage launched fierce broadsides against Trump over the Ukrainian scandal at the heart of the impeachment inquiry.
"The impeachment must go forward," said Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is neck and neck with former vice president Joe Biden at the head of the 2020 nominations race.
"Impeachment is the way that we establish that this man will not be permitted to break the law over and over without consequences," she thundered.
Here are 3 winners and 4 losers from the CNN/NYT Democratic presidential primary debate
Twelve Democrats took to the stage Tuesday night for yet another debate in the party's 2020 president primary hosted by CNN and the New York Times.
After only ten candidates qualified for the previous debate, an additional two — Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and wealthy donor and former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer — made it to the stage this round for an even more crowded event.
The candidates discussed a range of important policy issues, but since the format was a debate, and they're all competing for the same nomination, it is ultimately most critical who won and who lost the night. Here are three winners and four losers — necessarily a subjective assessment, of course — from the debate: