China is open to negotiating with the United States to resolve trade tensions, Premier Li Keqiang was quoted as saying by state media late on Thursday, noting that the countries should manage their conflicts through dialogue.&nbsp

Li made the remarks at a meeting with US Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao, state broadcaster China Central Television (CCTV) said.

US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is due to lead a delegation to China for talks intended to ease trade tensions.

President Donald Trump has threatened a new round of tariffs on $100 billion worth of Chinese products that could target mobile phones, computers and other consumer goods. China retaliated against an initial round of US tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese exports.&nbsp

"There is no winner in trade conflict, which will not only affect the recovery of the world economy but also the global industrial chain," Li said in comments reported by the official Xinhua news agency.

"It is also what the international community expects from our two countries," he said.

Larry Kudlow, Trump`s top economic adviser, who will join Mnuchin`s delegation in Beijing, said on Thursday he hoped the talks with China would yield progress but that resolving US complaints would be "a long process."

Trump said earlier this week the United States had a "very good chance" of striking a deal with China over trade.

Xinhua cited Li as saying he hoped the two countries would be able to "manage and control" their differences.Trump has criticised China for raising trade barriers against US companies, including high import tariffs in sectors like autos.

Li added China would "unswervingly open further to the outside world", reiterating President Xi Jinping`s assurances over about the country opening more widely to trade.

"China also stands ready to promote cooperation with the United States in transportation, such as autonomous driving," Li said. China recently announced plans to remove caps on foreign ownership of domestic auto ventures and to cut import duties.

Chinese companies including Baidu Inc&nbspare pushing hard in self-driving vehicles, increasing competition for more established US names such as Waymo, the self-driving arm of Google parent Alphabet, and Tesla Inc.&nbsp

President Donald Trump has threatened a new round of tariffs on $100 billion worth of Chinese products that could target mobile phones, computers and other consumer goods. China retaliated against an initial round of US tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese exports

China is open to negotiating with the United States to resolve trade tensions, Premier Li Keqiang was quoted as saying by state media late on Thursday, noting that the countries should manage their conflicts through dialogue. Li made the remarks at a meeting with US Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao, state broadcaster China Central Television (CCTV) said. US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is due to lead a delegation to China for talks intended to ease trade tensions. President Donald Trump has threatened a new round of tariffs on $100 billion worth of Chinese products that could target mobile phones, computers and other consumer goods. China retaliated against an initial round of US tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese exports. "There is no winner in trade conflict, which will not only affect the recovery of the world economy but also the global industrial chain," Li said in comments reported by the official Xinhua news agency. "It is also what the international community expects from our two countries," he said. Larry Kudlow, Trump`s top economic adviser, who will join Mnuchin`s delegation in Beijing, said on Thursday he hoped the talks with China would yield progress but that resolving US complaints would be "a long process." Trump said earlier this week the United States had a "very good chance" of striking a deal with China over trade. Xinhua cited Li as saying he hoped the two countries would be able to "manage and control" their differences.Trump has criticised China for raising trade barriers against US companies, including high import tariffs in sectors like autos. Li added China would "unswervingly open further to the outside world", reiterating President Xi Jinping`s assurances over about the country opening more widely to trade. "China also stands ready to promote cooperation with the United States in transportation, such as autonomous driving," Li said. China recently announced plans to remove caps on foreign ownership of domestic auto ventures and to cut import duties. Chinese companies including Baidu Inc&nbspare pushing hard in self-driving vehicles, increasing competition for more established US names such as Waymo, the self-driving arm of Google parent Alphabet, and Tesla Inc.

China's Premier Li says open to trade negotiations with United States

President Donald Trump is scheduled to visit the UK on July 13, the White House said Thursday, and he is expected to meet UK Prime Minister Theresa May.&nbsp

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters that the date has been set.

It will mark his first visit to Britain since his 2016 election triumph.

British Ambassador to the USA Kim Darroch also tweeted confirmation of the visit on Thursday afternoon.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delighted that President <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> will visit the UK on 13 July and hold bilateral talks with Prime Minister May.
— Kim Darroch (@KimDarroch) <a href="https://twitter.com/KimDarroch/status/989529614249873408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp

British Ambassador to the USA Kim Darroch also tweeted confirmation of the visit on Thursday afternoon.

President Donald Trump is scheduled to visit the UK on July 13, the White House said Thursday, and he is expected to meet UK Prime Minister Theresa May. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters that the date has been set. It will mark his first visit to Britain since his 2016 election triumph. British Ambassador to the USA Kim Darroch also tweeted confirmation of the visit on Thursday afternoon. Delighted that President @realDonaldTrump will visit the UK on 13 July and hold bilateral talks with Prime Minister May. — Kim Darroch (@KimDarroch) April 26, 2018 ×

US President Donald Trump to visit the UK on July 13

The Taliban announced the start of its annual spring offensive on Wednesday, dismissing an offer for peace talks by President Ashraf Ghani and saying it will focus on U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

The announcement of the Al Khandaq campaign, named after the so-called Battle of the Trench, fought by the Prophet Mohammad to defend the city of Medina in the early days of Islam, marks the symbolic start of the fighting season.

But heavy fighting has been going on in different parts of Afghanistan. Hundreds of people have been killed and wounded in a series of high profile attacks in Kabul since the beginning of the year, despite Ghani's offer in February for peace talks "without preconditions".

A Taliban statement on Wednesday dismissed the peace overtures as a "conspiracy".

"Their main effort is to deviate public opinion from the illegitimate foreign occupation of the country, as the Americans have no serious or sincere intentions of bringing the war to an end," the Taliban said.

Acting U.S. Secretary of State John Sullivan said the Taliban announcement underscored the group's "responsibility for the insecurity that destroys the lives of thousands of Afghans each year."

"There is no need for a new 'fighting season'," Sullivan said. "Still, the Taliban announced another campaign of senseless violence targeting the democratically elected and internationally recognised Afghan government and their fellow Afghans."

The militants, fighting to restore their version of strict Islamic law to Afghanistan, said their campaign was a response to a more aggressive U.S. military strategy adopted last year, which aims to force the militants into peace talks.

"Its primary target will be the American invaders and their intelligence agents. Their internal supporters will be dealt with as a secondary target," the Taliban said.

Thousands more U.S. troops have been sent to Afghanistan to help train the army, and commanders have been given greater authority to carry out air strikes against the militants in a major reversal of the previous policy of phased withdrawal of American forces.

As in previous years, the Taliban pledged to protect the lives of civilians, and made no mention of incidents such as an attack it claimed in Kabul in January in which an explosives-packed ambulance blew up, killing about 100 people.

However, the announcement underlines the risk to parliamentary and district council elections scheduled for October as efforts to register voters in remote areas of Afghanistan get underway.

On Sunday, some 60 people were killed in a suicide bombing at a voter registration centre in Kabul in an attack claimed by Islamic State. There have been a number of other attacks outside the capital.

Estimates of Taliban territorial control vary but the Pentagon estimates that 56 percent of the country is under government control, while a BBC survey this year estimated the insurgents were active in 70 percent of Afghanistan.

The announcement of the Al Khandaq campaign, named after the so-called Battle of the Trench, fought by the Prophet Mohammad to defend the city of Medina in the early days of Islam, marks the symbolic start of the fighting season.

The Taliban announced the start of its annual spring offensive on Wednesday, dismissing an offer for peace talks by President Ashraf Ghani and saying it will focus on U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The announcement of the Al Khandaq campaign, named after the so-called Battle of the Trench, fought by the Prophet Mohammad to defend the city of Medina in the early days of Islam, marks the symbolic start of the fighting season. But heavy fighting has been going on in different parts of Afghanistan. Hundreds of people have been killed and wounded in a series of high profile attacks in Kabul since the beginning of the year, despite Ghani's offer in February for peace talks "without preconditions". A Taliban statement on Wednesday dismissed the peace overtures as a "conspiracy". "Their main effort is to deviate public opinion from the illegitimate foreign occupation of the country, as the Americans have no serious or sincere intentions of bringing the war to an end," the Taliban said. Acting U.S. Secretary of State John Sullivan said the Taliban announcement underscored the group's "responsibility for the insecurity that destroys the lives of thousands of Afghans each year." "There is no need for a new 'fighting season'," Sullivan said. "Still, the Taliban announced another campaign of senseless violence targeting the democratically elected and internationally recognised Afghan government and their fellow Afghans." The militants, fighting to restore their version of strict Islamic law to Afghanistan, said their campaign was a response to a more aggressive U.S. military strategy adopted last year, which aims to force the militants into peace talks. "Its primary target will be the American invaders and their intelligence agents. Their internal supporters will be dealt with as a secondary target," the Taliban said. Thousands more U.S. troops have been sent to Afghanistan to help train the army, and commanders have been given greater authority to carry out air strikes against the militants in a major reversal of the previous policy of phased withdrawal of American forces. As in previous years, the Taliban pledged to protect the lives of civilians, and made no mention of incidents such as an attack it claimed in Kabul in January in which an explosives-packed ambulance blew up, killing about 100 people. However, the announcement underlines the risk to parliamentary and district council elections scheduled for October as efforts to register voters in remote areas of Afghanistan get underway. On Sunday, some 60 people were killed in a suicide bombing at a voter registration centre in Kabul in an attack claimed by Islamic State. There have been a number of other attacks outside the capital. Estimates of Taliban territorial control vary but the Pentagon estimates that 56 percent of the country is under government control, while a BBC survey this year estimated the insurgents were active in 70 percent of Afghanistan.

Taliban announces spring offensive, dismisses peace overtures

A day after flaunting his friendship with Donald Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron forcefully challenged many of the US&nbsp;president's policies on Wednesday, urging the United States to engage more with the world, step up the fight against climate change and stay in the Iran nuclear pact for now.

Capping a three-day visit, Macron repeatedly criticised the president's isolationist principles in a speech to a joint meeting of Congress, an honour given to a small number of visiting foreign leaders.

Macron said US&nbsp;involvement in the global community was vital and Trump's opposition to the Paris climate accord and international trade agreements was short-sighted.

The French president even took a dig at Trump's famous 2016 campaign slogan, calling for the United States to help "make our planet great again."

Macron has developed a strong relationship with Trump at a time when many European leaders are keeping a distance. During the visit, they repeatedly shook and grabbed hands, exchanged kisses on the cheek, and slapped each other's backs while praising their friendship.&nbsp;

Also watch:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-brushes-dandruff-off-perfect-macron-132660">Trump brushes 'dandruff' off Macron, wants to make him 'perfect'</a>

But before Congress, Macron suggested he wanted more than just good optics.

Without mentioning Trump by name, he challenged the Republican president's protectionist and nationalist impulses and said modern economic and security challenges must be a shared global responsibility that is "based on a new breed of multilateralism."

"The United States is the one who invented this multilateralism. You are the one now who has to help preserve and reinvent it," Macron said.

IRAN DEAL

He said an international nuclear deal with Iran, which Trump has harshly criticized, was not perfect but must remain in place until a replacement is forged.

"It is true to say that this agreement may not address all concerns and very important concerns," Macron said. "But we should not abandon it without having something more substantial instead. That's my position."

Trump has often vowed to pull the United States out of the 2015 nuclear pact between Iran and six major powers. He will decide by May 12 whether to restore US&nbsp;economic sanctions on Tehran, which could be a first step to ending the deal.

Macron, a centrist, also said he was confident the United States would eventually come back into the Paris climate accord aimed at combating global warming.

"Let us work together in order to make our planet great again," he said. "We are killing our planet - let us face it, there is no Planet B."

Macron's speech drew frequent cheers and applause, particularly from Democratic lawmakers when he took aim at Trump's views. Afterward, Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer said Macron's call for global engagement was timely.

"I hope that everyone at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue takes President Macron’s words to heart," Schumer said on the Senate floor.

Trump had tweeted earlier on Wednesday that he was, "Looking forward to watching President Macron of France address a Joint Session of Congress today. This is a great honour and seldom allowed to be done...he will be GREAT!"

There was no immediate reaction from the White House afterward to Macron's speech.

Macron's visit also included efforts to convince Trump to exempt Europe from steel tariffs and convince the United States to maintain its military presence in Syria. France joined the United States and Britain in launching air strikes this month in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack blamed on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

But the Iran deal was the centerpiece of this week's talks.

The two leaders pledged to seek stronger measures to contain Iran but Trump made no commitments to stay in the nuclear deal, negotiated by former President Barack Obama. Trump also threatened Tehran with retaliation if it restarted its nuclear programme.

Macron has sought a new approach that would see the United States and Europe agree to address any Iranian nuclear activity after 2025, tackle Iran's ballistic missile programme and seek a political solution to contain Iran in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon.

He said France remains committed to the bottom line goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

"Iran shall never possess any nuclear weapon. Not now not in five years, not in 10 years, never," he told lawmakers.

If Trump reaches an agreement on Iran with France and other European powers, Congress is expected to pass legislation to tweak it.

Lawmakers are widely expected, for example, to change the frequency with which Trump has to report to Congress that Iran is complying with the pact. They could also change some of the expiration dates in the agreement.

Macron is the eighth French president to address a joint meeting of Congress, and the first since Nicolas Sarkozy in 2007, House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan's office said. The last foreign leader to address a joint meeting was Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2016.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel faces difficult talks with Trump on Friday during a visit at a time when Washington and Berlin are at odds over a range of issues from trade to Iran.

Capping a three-day visit, Macron repeatedly criticised the president's isolationist principles in a speech to a joint meeting of Congress. The French president even took a dig at Trump's famous 2016 campaign slogan, calling for the United States to help 'make our planet great again'

A day after flaunting his friendship with Donald Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron forcefully challenged many of the US president's policies on Wednesday, urging the United States to engage more with the world, step up the fight against climate change and stay in the Iran nuclear pact for now. Capping a three-day visit, Macron repeatedly criticised the president's isolationist principles in a speech to a joint meeting of Congress, an honour given to a small number of visiting foreign leaders. Macron said US involvement in the global community was vital and Trump's opposition to the Paris climate accord and international trade agreements was short-sighted. The French president even took a dig at Trump's famous 2016 campaign slogan, calling for the United States to help "make our planet great again." Macron has developed a strong relationship with Trump at a time when many European leaders are keeping a distance. During the visit, they repeatedly shook and grabbed hands, exchanged kisses on the cheek, and slapped each other's backs while praising their friendship. Also watch: Trump brushes 'dandruff' off Macron, wants to make him 'perfect' But before Congress, Macron suggested he wanted more than just good optics. Without mentioning Trump by name, he challenged the Republican president's protectionist and nationalist impulses and said modern economic and security challenges must be a shared global responsibility that is "based on a new breed of multilateralism." "The United States is the one who invented this multilateralism. You are the one now who has to help preserve and reinvent it," Macron said. IRAN DEAL He said an international nuclear deal with Iran, which Trump has harshly criticized, was not perfect but must remain in place until a replacement is forged. "It is true to say that this agreement may not address all concerns and very important concerns," Macron said. "But we should not abandon it without having something more substantial instead. That's my position." Trump has often vowed to pull the United States out of the 2015 nuclear pact between Iran and six major powers. He will decide by May 12 whether to restore US economic sanctions on Tehran, which could be a first step to ending the deal. Macron, a centrist, also said he was confident the United States would eventually come back into the Paris climate accord aimed at combating global warming. "Let us work together in order to make our planet great again," he said. "We are killing our planet - let us face it, there is no Planet B." Macron's speech drew frequent cheers and applause, particularly from Democratic lawmakers when he took aim at Trump's views. Afterward, Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer said Macron's call for global engagement was timely. "I hope that everyone at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue takes President Macron’s words to heart," Schumer said on the Senate floor. Trump had tweeted earlier on Wednesday that he was, "Looking forward to watching President Macron of France address a Joint Session of Congress today. This is a great honour and seldom allowed to be done...he will be GREAT!" There was no immediate reaction from the White House afterward to Macron's speech. Macron's visit also included efforts to convince Trump to exempt Europe from steel tariffs and convince the United States to maintain its military presence in Syria. France joined the United States and Britain in launching air strikes this month in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack blamed on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. But the Iran deal was the centerpiece of this week's talks. The two leaders pledged to seek stronger measures to contain Iran but Trump made no commitments to stay in the nuclear deal, negotiated by former President Barack Obama. Trump also threatened Tehran with retaliation if it restarted its nuclear programme. Macron has sought a new approach that would see the United States and Europe agree to address any Iranian nuclear activity after 2025, tackle Iran's ballistic missile programme and seek a political solution to contain Iran in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. He said France remains committed to the bottom line goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. "Iran shall never possess any nuclear weapon. Not now not in five years, not in 10 years, never," he told lawmakers. If Trump reaches an agreement on Iran with France and other European powers, Congress is expected to pass legislation to tweak it. Lawmakers are widely expected, for example, to change the frequency with which Trump has to report to Congress that Iran is complying with the pact. They could also change some of the expiration dates in the agreement. Macron is the eighth French president to address a joint meeting of Congress, and the first since Nicolas Sarkozy in 2007, House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan's office said. The last foreign leader to address a joint meeting was Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2016. German Chancellor Angela Merkel faces difficult talks with Trump on Friday during a visit at a time when Washington and Berlin are at odds over a range of issues from trade to Iran.

After hugs and kisses, Macron tears into Trump. Says forget America First, 'make our planet great again'

Top seven Indian IT companies experienced a whopping 43 per cent drop in their H-1B visa approvals between 2015 and 2017, a US think-tank has said.

The National Foundation for American Policy in a report said that the 8,468 new H-1B visas for Indian-based companies in the finanacial year 2017 equalled only 0.006 per cent of the 160 million in the US labour force.

The top seven Indian-based companies received only 8,468 approved H-1B petitions for initial employment in FY 2017, a decline of 43 per cent for these companies since FY 2015, when it received 14,792 H-1B visas.

Given that 199,000 applications were filed in FY 2017 for the FY 2018 cap year ? 105,000 in excess of the FY 2018 H-1B annual limit&nbspeven if none of these companies received new H-1B visas the annual limit still would have been reached on the first day of the April filing period, it said.

"The data indicate the problem is not which companies are receiving H-1B visas, which some contend, but that the 85,000-annual limit is too low for an economy the size of the United States," it argued.

Based on the H-1B visa data obtained from the US Citizenship and immigration Services (USCIS), the foundation said that the Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) received 2,312 H-1B visas in 2017 as against 4,674 in 2015, registering a drop of 51 per cent.&nbsp

Infosys, during the same period saw a whooping drop of 57 per cent from 2,830 in 2015 to 1,218 in 2017. Wipro received 1,210 H-1B visas in 2017 as against 3,079 in 2015. Among the seven Indian-based companies the H-

1B approval of Tech Mahindra went up from 1,576 in 2015 to 2233 in 2017.&nbsp

In its analysis, the National Foundation for American Policy said that the drop in H-1B visas for Indian-based companies is due to industry trends toward digital services such as cloud computing and artificial intelligence, which require fewer workers, and a choice by companies to rely less on visas and to build up their domestic workforces in the United States.

In most cases, companies require fewer people per project, it argued.

Also, like all companies, including US companies, restrictions on visas may result in more work being performed outside the US, which is the unintended consequence of many immigration restrictions in a global economy.

Indian-based companies, of course, must compete for the same relatively limited pool of tech talent in the US as other companies, it said.

The foundation said, corporate clients of both the US and Indian-based IT services companies are requesting digital engineering and more sophisticated services, including better data analysis, that require fewer workers and more advanced technology, and this is reflected in the H-1B visa numbers.

While Cognizant, an IT services company headquartered in Teaneck, New Jersey, had the most H-1B petitions approved for new employment in FY 2017, with 3,194, that represented a decline of 800 approved petitions, or 25 per cent from FY 2016.

Further, five of the seven top Indian-based companies saw declines in FY 2017 from FY 2016 ? Infosys, Wipro, HCL America, Larsen & Toubro and Mindtree.&nbsp

Only TCS, with an increase of 13 per cent, and Tech Mahindra, which increased by 42 per cent, had more H-1B petitions for initial employment approved in FY 2017 than in FY 2016, it said.&nbsp

The claim was made by the US think tank National Foundation for American Policy

Top seven Indian IT companies experienced a whopping 43 per cent drop in their H-1B visa approvals between 2015 and 2017, a US think-tank has said. The National Foundation for American Policy in a report said that the 8,468 new H-1B visas for Indian-based companies in the finanacial year 2017 equalled only 0.006 per cent of the 160 million in the US labour force. The top seven Indian-based companies received only 8,468 approved H-1B petitions for initial employment in FY 2017, a decline of 43 per cent for these companies since FY 2015, when it received 14,792 H-1B visas. Given that 199,000 applications were filed in FY 2017 for the FY 2018 cap year ? 105,000 in excess of the FY 2018 H-1B annual limit&nbspeven if none of these companies received new H-1B visas the annual limit still would have been reached on the first day of the April filing period, it said. "The data indicate the problem is not which companies are receiving H-1B visas, which some contend, but that the 85,000-annual limit is too low for an economy the size of the United States," it argued. Based on the H-1B visa data obtained from the US Citizenship and immigration Services (USCIS), the foundation said that the Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) received 2,312 H-1B visas in 2017 as against 4,674 in 2015, registering a drop of 51 per cent. Infosys, during the same period saw a whooping drop of 57 per cent from 2,830 in 2015 to 1,218 in 2017. Wipro received 1,210 H-1B visas in 2017 as against 3,079 in 2015. Among the seven Indian-based companies the H- 1B approval of Tech Mahindra went up from 1,576 in 2015 to 2233 in 2017. In its analysis, the National Foundation for American Policy said that the drop in H-1B visas for Indian-based companies is due to industry trends toward digital services such as cloud computing and artificial intelligence, which require fewer workers, and a choice by companies to rely less on visas and to build up their domestic workforces in the United States. In most cases, companies require fewer people per project, it argued. Also, like all companies, including US companies, restrictions on visas may result in more work being performed outside the US, which is the unintended consequence of many immigration restrictions in a global economy. Indian-based companies, of course, must compete for the same relatively limited pool of tech talent in the US as other companies, it said. The foundation said, corporate clients of both the US and Indian-based IT services companies are requesting digital engineering and more sophisticated services, including better data analysis, that require fewer workers and more advanced technology, and this is reflected in the H-1B visa numbers. While Cognizant, an IT services company headquartered in Teaneck, New Jersey, had the most H-1B petitions approved for new employment in FY 2017, with 3,194, that represented a decline of 800 approved petitions, or 25 per cent from FY 2016. Further, five of the seven top Indian-based companies saw declines in FY 2017 from FY 2016 ? Infosys, Wipro, HCL America, Larsen & Toubro and Mindtree. Only TCS, with an increase of 13 per cent, and Tech Mahindra, which increased by 42 per cent, had more H-1B petitions for initial employment approved in FY 2017 than in FY 2016, it said.

H1-B approvals for Indian IT companies dropped by 43% between 2015-17: Report

Iran's president poured scorn on Wednesday on US&nbspand European discussions over Tehran's nuclear agreement, and dismissed Donald Trump as a "tradesman" who lacked the qualifications to deal with a complex international pact.

Hassan Rouhani spoke after French President Emmanuel Macron flew to Washington to try to persuade Trump not to scrap the 2015 agreement - under which Iran curbed its nuclear programme in return for the lifting of sanctions.

“They say that with the certain leader of a European country we want to make a decision about a seven-sided agreement,” Rouhani said in a speech broadcast live on state TV.

“For what? With what right?”&nbsphe added.

He reserved particular scorn for the US&nbsppresident, who has called the agreement one of the worst deals ever negotiated and has threatened to restore US&nbspsanctions next month unless what he sees as severe flaws are fixed.

“You don’t have any background in politics. You don’t have any background in law. You don’t have any background on international treaties,” Rouhani said. “How can a tradesman, a merchant, a building constructor, a tower constructor make judgements about international affairs,” he added referring to Trump's career as a property developer.

US&nbspPresident Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron pledged on Tuesday to seek stronger measures to contain Iran but Trump refrained from committing to staying in a 2015 nuclear deal and threatened Tehran with retaliation if it restarted its nuclear programme.

At a joint news conference with Macron, Trump kept up his blistering rhetoric against the nuclear accord between Iran and world powers that the US&nbsppresident says does not address Tehran's rising influence in the Middle East or its ballistic missile programme. He called it insane, terrible and ridiculous.

The other powers that signed the agreement with Iran - Russia, China, Germany, Britain and France - have all said they want to preserve it. Many in the West see it as the best hope of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear bomb and heading off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

In a bid to salvage the deal while satisfying Trump's call for tougher action, Macron’s has proposed that the United States and Europe block any Iranian nuclear activity until 2025 and beyond, address Iran’s ballistic missile programme and generate conditions for a political solution to contain Iran in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel will hold talks with Trump in Washington later in the week.

Senior Iranian officials have said repeatedly that Iran’s ballistic missile program is not up for negotiation.

Hassan Rouhani spoke after French President Emmanuel Macron flew to Washington to try to persuade Trump not to scrap the 2015 agreement - under which Iran curbed its nuclear programme in return for the lifting of sanctions

Iran's president poured scorn on Wednesday on US&nbspand European discussions over Tehran's nuclear agreement, and dismissed Donald Trump as a "tradesman" who lacked the qualifications to deal with a complex international pact. Hassan Rouhani spoke after French President Emmanuel Macron flew to Washington to try to persuade Trump not to scrap the 2015 agreement - under which Iran curbed its nuclear programme in return for the lifting of sanctions. “They say that with the certain leader of a European country we want to make a decision about a seven-sided agreement,” Rouhani said in a speech broadcast live on state TV. “For what? With what right?”&nbsphe added. He reserved particular scorn for the US&nbsppresident, who has called the agreement one of the worst deals ever negotiated and has threatened to restore US&nbspsanctions next month unless what he sees as severe flaws are fixed. “You don’t have any background in politics. You don’t have any background in law. You don’t have any background on international treaties,” Rouhani said. “How can a tradesman, a merchant, a building constructor, a tower constructor make judgements about international affairs,” he added referring to Trump's career as a property developer. US&nbspPresident Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron pledged on Tuesday to seek stronger measures to contain Iran but Trump refrained from committing to staying in a 2015 nuclear deal and threatened Tehran with retaliation if it restarted its nuclear programme. At a joint news conference with Macron, Trump kept up his blistering rhetoric against the nuclear accord between Iran and world powers that the US&nbsppresident says does not address Tehran's rising influence in the Middle East or its ballistic missile programme. He called it insane, terrible and ridiculous. The other powers that signed the agreement with Iran - Russia, China, Germany, Britain and France - have all said they want to preserve it. Many in the West see it as the best hope of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear bomb and heading off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. In a bid to salvage the deal while satisfying Trump's call for tougher action, Macron’s has proposed that the United States and Europe block any Iranian nuclear activity until 2025 and beyond, address Iran’s ballistic missile programme and generate conditions for a political solution to contain Iran in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. German Chancellor Angela Merkel will hold talks with Trump in Washington later in the week. Senior Iranian officials have said repeatedly that Iran’s ballistic missile program is not up for negotiation.

Iran pours scorn on nuclear talks, dismisses 'tradesman' Trump

Russia plans to deliver new air defence systems to Syria in the near future, Russian defence ministry said on Wednesday.

The ministry added it plans to study a US Tomahawk cruise missile captured by Syrian forces in a recent attack, in order to improve Russia's own missiles.

"Russian force group is ready to rebut strikes by any air attack weapons. Yesterday Russian air defence system detected and destroyed two rebels' unmanned aerial vehicles at a distance of 10 km from Hmeymim air base," Colonel General Sergei Rudskoi said.

Colonel-general Sergei Rudskoi also said Russian servicemen captured two UAVs which he said belonged to the rebels.

"Russian experts will continue teaching Syrian servicemen and will also provide assistance in mastering new air defence systems which will be delivered," Rudskoi declared.

The ministry added it plans to study a US Tomahawk cruise missile captured by Syrian forces in a recent attack

Russia plans to deliver new air defence systems to Syria in the near future, Russian defence ministry said on Wednesday. The ministry added it plans to study a US Tomahawk cruise missile captured by Syrian forces in a recent attack, in order to improve Russia's own missiles. "Russian force group is ready to rebut strikes by any air attack weapons. Yesterday Russian air defence system detected and destroyed two rebels' unmanned aerial vehicles at a distance of 10 km from Hmeymim air base," Colonel General Sergei Rudskoi said. Colonel-general Sergei Rudskoi also said Russian servicemen captured two UAVs which he said belonged to the rebels. "Russian experts will continue teaching Syrian servicemen and will also provide assistance in mastering new air defence systems which will be delivered," Rudskoi declared.

Russia to deliver new air defence systems to Syria: Defence Ministry

US&nbsp;President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron emphasized pomp and ceremony on Monday as Macron began a state visit to Washington likely to be dominated by differences with the United States over trade and the nuclear accord with Iran.

As Macron headed to the United States, the Iranian government urged European leaders to convince Trump not to tear up the 2015 deal between Tehran and six world powers.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/it-is-either-all-or-nothing-says-iran-foreign-minister-over-nuclear-deal--132298">Either all or </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/it-is-either-all-or-nothing-says-iran-foreign-minister-over-nuclear-deal--132298">nothing,</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/it-is-either-all-or-nothing-says-iran-foreign-minister-over-nuclear-deal--132298"> says Iran foreign minister on&nbsp;</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/it-is-either-all-or-nothing-says-iran-foreign-minister-over-nuclear-deal--132298">nuclear</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/it-is-either-all-or-nothing-says-iran-foreign-minister-over-nuclear-deal--132298"> deal</a>

The French president said on Sunday there was no "<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/frances-president-says-he-has-no-plan-b-for-iran-nuclear-deal-132121">Plan B</a>" for keeping a lid on Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

He is on something of a rescue mission for what is formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which Trump has said he would scrap unless European allies fix by mid-May what he calls "terrible flaws."

"This visit is very important in our current context, with so many uncertainties, troubles and at times threats," Macron said in French remarks as he arrived in Washington.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called on European leaders to support the agreement.

"It is either all or nothing. European leaders should encourage Trump not just to stay in the nuclear deal, but more important to begin implementing his part of the bargain in good faith," Zarif wrote on Twitter.

The deal reached between six powers - all of whom but Germany are nuclear-armed - and Tehran put curbs on Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.

Minutes after Macron touched down in the United States, the White House said it had no announcements on the Iran deal.

"The president has been extremely clear that he thinks it's a bad deal. That certainly has not changed," White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said.

Macron said on "Fox News Sunday" it would be better to protect the deal instead of getting rid of it. "Is this agreement perfect and this JCPOA a perfect thing for our relationship with Iran? No. But for nuclear, what do you have as a better option? I don't see it," he said.

CHARM OFFENSIVE

Macron's visit is the first time Trump has hosted a state visit since he took power in January 2017. While the French leader has tried to develop a close relationship with Trump since he took office last May, he has so far seen few tangible results on issues from Iran to climate politics.

Macron and his wife, Brigitte, shortly after their arrival at the Blair House residence, took quickly to the streets of Washington, walking past the White House complex to the Lincoln Memorial and greeting tourists.

Macron brought with him an oak tree sapling for planting on the South Lawn of the White House. The tree came from the Belleau Woods, site of a World War One battle in 1918 where 9,000 Americans died. Trump and Macron shovelled dirt on the freshly planted tree as the cameras clicked. "France is a very special country," said Trump. "It's a great honour."

Trump and his wife, Melania, and the Macrons then flew aboard Trump's Marine One helicopter to dine at Mount Vernon, the Virginia home of George Washington, the first U.S. president and Revolutionary War commander whose alliance with France was critical to victory over the British.

The Trumps and Macrons spent about two hours at Mount Vernon. "We had a great dinner," President Trump told reporters as they boarded the helicopter for the return trip to the White House.

Working meetings will be held at the White House on Tuesday before Macron addresses the U.S. Congress the following day, the anniversary of the day French General Charles de Gaulle addressed a joint session of Congress in 1960.

Trump and Macron began their friendship a year ago in Belgium with a jaw-clenching handshake. While some other European leaders have kept a distance from Trump, Macron has worked hard to remain close to the U.S. president. The two leaders speak frequently by phone.

TRADE TALKS

Iran has long maintained that its nuclear programme was for peaceful purposes.

Macron also wants to persuade Trump to exempt European nations from metal tariffs that are part of the U.S. president's plan to reduce chronic trade deficits with countries around the world, chiefly China.

His visit comes at a time of mounting alarm in Europe over the effect that U.S. sanctions on Russia will have on their own manufacturing industries.

French officials said Paris and other European governments were coordinating efforts to persuade Trump to ease sanctions on Russia, including measures against Russian aluminium producers.

"There are concerns raised by the extraterritoriality effects of the new sets of sanctions," a French finance ministry source said. "Europeans ... have jointly warned the U.S. administration about the economic impact and consequences and the need to find solutions."

The official said France, Germany, Italy and Ireland were working together on the matter. German Chancellor Angela Merkel will hold talks with Trump in Washington later in the week.

Macron and Trump are also due to discuss Syria less than two weeks after the United States, France and Britain launched air strikes there in retaliation for a suspected chemical weapons attack that killed dozens.

Macron said last week he believed he had persuaded Trump to keep U.S. troops in Syria, though Trump has been insistent on bringing them home.

As Macron headed to the United States, the Iranian government urged European leaders to convince Trump not to tear up the 2015 deal between Tehran and six world powers

US President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron emphasized pomp and ceremony on Monday as Macron began a state visit to Washington likely to be dominated by differences with the United States over trade and the nuclear accord with Iran. As Macron headed to the United States, the Iranian government urged European leaders to convince Trump not to tear up the 2015 deal between Tehran and six world powers. Also read: Either all or nothing, says Iran foreign minister on nuclear deal The French president said on Sunday there was no "Plan B" for keeping a lid on Tehran's nuclear ambitions. He is on something of a rescue mission for what is formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which Trump has said he would scrap unless European allies fix by mid-May what he calls "terrible flaws." "This visit is very important in our current context, with so many uncertainties, troubles and at times threats," Macron said in French remarks as he arrived in Washington. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called on European leaders to support the agreement. "It is either all or nothing. European leaders should encourage Trump not just to stay in the nuclear deal, but more important to begin implementing his part of the bargain in good faith," Zarif wrote on Twitter. The deal reached between six powers - all of whom but Germany are nuclear-armed - and Tehran put curbs on Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. Minutes after Macron touched down in the United States, the White House said it had no announcements on the Iran deal. "The president has been extremely clear that he thinks it's a bad deal. That certainly has not changed," White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said. Macron said on "Fox News Sunday" it would be better to protect the deal instead of getting rid of it. "Is this agreement perfect and this JCPOA a perfect thing for our relationship with Iran? No. But for nuclear, what do you have as a better option? I don't see it," he said. CHARM OFFENSIVE Macron's visit is the first time Trump has hosted a state visit since he took power in January 2017. While the French leader has tried to develop a close relationship with Trump since he took office last May, he has so far seen few tangible results on issues from Iran to climate politics. Macron and his wife, Brigitte, shortly after their arrival at the Blair House residence, took quickly to the streets of Washington, walking past the White House complex to the Lincoln Memorial and greeting tourists. Macron brought with him an oak tree sapling for planting on the South Lawn of the White House. The tree came from the Belleau Woods, site of a World War One battle in 1918 where 9,000 Americans died. Trump and Macron shovelled dirt on the freshly planted tree as the cameras clicked. "France is a very special country," said Trump. "It's a great honour." Trump and his wife, Melania, and the Macrons then flew aboard Trump's Marine One helicopter to dine at Mount Vernon, the Virginia home of George Washington, the first U.S. president and Revolutionary War commander whose alliance with France was critical to victory over the British. The Trumps and Macrons spent about two hours at Mount Vernon. "We had a great dinner," President Trump told reporters as they boarded the helicopter for the return trip to the White House. Working meetings will be held at the White House on Tuesday before Macron addresses the U.S. Congress the following day, the anniversary of the day French General Charles de Gaulle addressed a joint session of Congress in 1960. Trump and Macron began their friendship a year ago in Belgium with a jaw-clenching handshake. While some other European leaders have kept a distance from Trump, Macron has worked hard to remain close to the U.S. president. The two leaders speak frequently by phone. TRADE TALKS Iran has long maintained that its nuclear programme was for peaceful purposes. Macron also wants to persuade Trump to exempt European nations from metal tariffs that are part of the U.S. president's plan to reduce chronic trade deficits with countries around the world, chiefly China. His visit comes at a time of mounting alarm in Europe over the effect that U.S. sanctions on Russia will have on their own manufacturing industries. French officials said Paris and other European governments were coordinating efforts to persuade Trump to ease sanctions on Russia, including measures against Russian aluminium producers. "There are concerns raised by the extraterritoriality effects of the new sets of sanctions," a French finance ministry source said. "Europeans ... have jointly warned the U.S. administration about the economic impact and consequences and the need to find solutions." The official said France, Germany, Italy and Ireland were working together on the matter. German Chancellor Angela Merkel will hold talks with Trump in Washington later in the week. Macron and Trump are also due to discuss Syria less than two weeks after the United States, France and Britain launched air strikes there in retaliation for a suspected chemical weapons attack that killed dozens. Macron said last week he believed he had persuaded Trump to keep U.S. troops in Syria, though Trump has been insistent on bringing them home.

France's Macron visits Trump as Iran nuclear deal hangs in balance

US sanctions on Russian military exports have put the brakes on a $6 billion deal with India and may derail the arms purchases of other US allies around Asia, experts say.

Under a law that US President Donald Trump signed in August, any country trading with Russia's defence and intelligence sectors will face sanctions.

The law is designed to punish Russian President Vladimir Putin for the 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, involvement in the Syrian civil war and meddling in the 2016 US presidential election.

But American allies who buy weapons and equipment from Russia, the world's second-largest arms exporter, could suffer as well.

The highest-profile example is India, which wants to buy five S-400 long-range surface-to-air missile systems that the country's military sees as a game changer. The systems are touted as being able to counter the ballistic missiles and stealth aircraft that China is developing while overwhelming the capabilities of Pakistan, India's other main adversary.

The deal, which Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi struck as part of an inter-government agreement in 2016, has run headlong into the US sanctions law, two officials in Delhi said.

Indonesia and Vietnam also buy weapons from Russia while being regional partners of the United States. Jakarta closed a $1.14 billion pact for Sukhoi fighters recently, while Vietnam is seeking more jet fighter-bombers from Russia.

And with both Almaz-Antey Air and Space Defense Corporation, which makes the S-400, and Rosoboronexport, which negotiates Russian export deals, listed as under sanction, those deals have become trickier.

"The optics of a major arms purchase from Russia looks quite 'iffy' from the point of view of Western capitals, especially at a time when Russia-West relations are at an all-time low and India seeks strategic convergence with the West, including with the US" said Abhijnan Rej, a defence strategy expert at Observer Research Foundation, a New Delhi think tank.

The US-led airstrikes this month against facilities of the Syrian government, an ally of Russia, has further aggravated tensions between the superpowers.

A Russian source close to the Indian S-400 deal said: "a lot will depend on the confidence and sanity of our Indian partners."

Wider impact

The effects of the US sanctions law could be more sweeping than intended, said Cara Abercrombie, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Vietnam, whose air force flies Russian-made Su-30 fighters and uses the S-300 air defence system, wants to continue modernising its inventory.

Vietnamese military scholar Carl Thayer said he believed Moscow was still pushing Hanoi to invest in state-of-the-art S-400 missile defences as part of its long-term military plans.

"I think it is clear that Russia is still pressing Vietnam for big deals," Thayer said, noting that the two countries already have had reciprocal visits by defence ministers this year.

But with the United States working hard to promote sales of American military hardware, and sanctions against Russia's exporting agencies, Vietnam's plans could prove overly costly. 
Indonesia, meanwhile, said the delivery of the first couple of Sukhoi Su-35 jets out of a total of 11 is on track for this year. Officials said that so far they did not anticipate any changes to the deal with the Russians.

Indonesian defence officials declined to describe what, if anything, they might do to tackle the fallout of the sanctions imposed on Russian arms sales.

A thorny problem

Indian foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale and defence secretary Sanjay Mitra held discussions with US officials in Washington last month to try to find a solution, a second Indian official said.

The issue is crucial to the Indian military, because without Russian parts, supplies and maintenance help, "our ships won't sail, our planes won't fly," the official said. "We can hardly be the regional security provider that America wants us to be at this rate."

One way to avoid secondary sanctions would be if the US determines that India is reducing its dependence on Russian arms, said Atman Trivedi, managing director of Hills & Company, a Washington-based firm that advises on international trade and investment.

Russian hardware represented 62 percent of the country's total weapons imports during the past five years, compared with 79 percent in 2008-2012, the Stockholm Peace Research Institute said in a report last month.

The US administration could also declare that imposing sanctions on India, a major defence partner, would hurt US national security interests. That would allow a waiver permitting India to do business with Russia.

The United States has emerged as India's No. 2 weapons supplier, closing $15 billion worth of deals over the last decade. Now Lockheed Martin and Boeing are leading the race to provide India with a fleet of new fighter-bombers, one of the world's largest open tenders.

"The intent of the legislation was never to disrupt US-India defence relations, which Congress has repeatedly recognised in law as a strategic priority to the US," said Benjamin Schwartz, aerospace and defence head at the United States India Business Council.

Abercrombie of Carnegie added that if Congress grants waivers to India, it may also need to do so for other countries such as Vietnam and Indonesia.

"The bottom line: India warrants an exemption from these secondary sanctions, as does any country with which the US is forging new and strategically important defence relations," she said.

India wants to buy five S-400 long-range surface-to-air missile systems that the country's military sees as a game changer.

US sanctions on Russian military exports have put the brakes on a $6 billion deal with India and may derail the arms purchases of other US allies around Asia, experts say. Under a law that US President Donald Trump signed in August, any country trading with Russia's defence and intelligence sectors will face sanctions. The law is designed to punish Russian President Vladimir Putin for the 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, involvement in the Syrian civil war and meddling in the 2016 US presidential election. But American allies who buy weapons and equipment from Russia, the world's second-largest arms exporter, could suffer as well. The highest-profile example is India, which wants to buy five S-400 long-range surface-to-air missile systems that the country's military sees as a game changer. The systems are touted as being able to counter the ballistic missiles and stealth aircraft that China is developing while overwhelming the capabilities of Pakistan, India's other main adversary. The deal, which Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi struck as part of an inter-government agreement in 2016, has run headlong into the US sanctions law, two officials in Delhi said. Indonesia and Vietnam also buy weapons from Russia while being regional partners of the United States. Jakarta closed a $1.14 billion pact for Sukhoi fighters recently, while Vietnam is seeking more jet fighter-bombers from Russia. And with both Almaz-Antey Air and Space Defense Corporation, which makes the S-400, and Rosoboronexport, which negotiates Russian export deals, listed as under sanction, those deals have become trickier. "The optics of a major arms purchase from Russia looks quite 'iffy' from the point of view of Western capitals, especially at a time when Russia-West relations are at an all-time low and India seeks strategic convergence with the West, including with the US" said Abhijnan Rej, a defence strategy expert at Observer Research Foundation, a New Delhi think tank. The US-led airstrikes this month against facilities of the Syrian government, an ally of Russia, has further aggravated tensions between the superpowers. A Russian source close to the Indian S-400 deal said: "a lot will depend on the confidence and sanity of our Indian partners." Wider impact The effects of the US sanctions law could be more sweeping than intended, said Cara Abercrombie, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Vietnam, whose air force flies Russian-made Su-30 fighters and uses the S-300 air defence system, wants to continue modernising its inventory. Vietnamese military scholar Carl Thayer said he believed Moscow was still pushing Hanoi to invest in state-of-the-art S-400 missile defences as part of its long-term military plans. "I think it is clear that Russia is still pressing Vietnam for big deals," Thayer said, noting that the two countries already have had reciprocal visits by defence ministers this year. But with the United States working hard to promote sales of American military hardware, and sanctions against Russia's exporting agencies, Vietnam's plans could prove overly costly. Indonesia, meanwhile, said the delivery of the first couple of Sukhoi Su-35 jets out of a total of 11 is on track for this year. Officials said that so far they did not anticipate any changes to the deal with the Russians. Indonesian defence officials declined to describe what, if anything, they might do to tackle the fallout of the sanctions imposed on Russian arms sales. A thorny problem Indian foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale and defence secretary Sanjay Mitra held discussions with US officials in Washington last month to try to find a solution, a second Indian official said. The issue is crucial to the Indian military, because without Russian parts, supplies and maintenance help, "our ships won't sail, our planes won't fly," the official said. "We can hardly be the regional security provider that America wants us to be at this rate." One way to avoid secondary sanctions would be if the US determines that India is reducing its dependence on Russian arms, said Atman Trivedi, managing director of Hills & Company, a Washington-based firm that advises on international trade and investment. Russian hardware represented 62 percent of the country's total weapons imports during the past five years, compared with 79 percent in 2008-2012, the Stockholm Peace Research Institute said in a report last month. The US administration could also declare that imposing sanctions on India, a major defence partner, would hurt US national security interests. That would allow a waiver permitting India to do business with Russia. The United States has emerged as India's No. 2 weapons supplier, closing $15 billion worth of deals over the last decade. Now Lockheed Martin and Boeing are leading the race to provide India with a fleet of new fighter-bombers, one of the world's largest open tenders. "The intent of the legislation was never to disrupt US-India defence relations, which Congress has repeatedly recognised in law as a strategic priority to the US," said Benjamin Schwartz, aerospace and defence head at the United States India Business Council. Abercrombie of Carnegie added that if Congress grants waivers to India, it may also need to do so for other countries such as Vietnam and Indonesia. "The bottom line: India warrants an exemption from these secondary sanctions, as does any country with which the US is forging new and strategically important defence relations," she said.

US sanctions on Russian arms put brakes on $6 billion deal with India

US&nbspPresident Donald Trump treated French President Emmanuel Macron to a colorful welcome ceremony at the White House on Tuesday (April 24) during a state visit that threatened to expose differences on Iran, trade and Syria between two close allies.

The two leaders were then to launch into a morning of talks expected to include how to salvage the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which Trump wants to withdraw the United States from unless European powers strengthen its terms.

Trump, in welcoming remarks, thanked France for joining with the United States and Britain in launching airstrikes in Syria earlier this month in response to a chemical weapons attack blamed on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Macron, in his remarks, called for the two countries to work together against Islamist militants, on North Korea and Iran, on "free and fair trade," and on climate change.

"It is together that we will counter the proliferation in weapons of mass destruction, whether it is in North Korea or in Iran," Macron said.

In the evening, the Trumps are to host the Macrons at the first state dinner conducted by Trump since he took power.

The two leaders were then to launch into a morning of talks expected to include how to salvage the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which Trump wants to withdraw the United States from unless European powers strengthen its terms

US&nbspPresident Donald Trump treated French President Emmanuel Macron to a colorful welcome ceremony at the White House on Tuesday (April 24) during a state visit that threatened to expose differences on Iran, trade and Syria between two close allies. The two leaders were then to launch into a morning of talks expected to include how to salvage the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which Trump wants to withdraw the United States from unless European powers strengthen its terms. Trump, in welcoming remarks, thanked France for joining with the United States and Britain in launching airstrikes in Syria earlier this month in response to a chemical weapons attack blamed on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Macron, in his remarks, called for the two countries to work together against Islamist militants, on North Korea and Iran, on "free and fair trade," and on climate change. "It is together that we will counter the proliferation in weapons of mass destruction, whether it is in North Korea or in Iran," Macron said. In the evening, the Trumps are to host the Macrons at the first state dinner conducted by Trump since he took power.

Trump welcomes France's Macron to White House

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Tuesday warned US President Donald Trump to remain in the nuclear deal or else he could face "severe consequences."

The nuclear deal was formed by Tehran in 2015 for which the other signatories have stepped up efforts to save it. Rouhani also said that Iran is "prepared for all possible situations."

“I am telling those in the White House that if they do not live up to their commitments, the Iranian government will firmly react,” Rouhani said in a speech broadcast live on state television.

“If anyone betrays the deal, they should know that they would face severe consequences,” he told a cheering crowd of thousands gathered in the city of Tabriz. “Iran is prepared for all possible situations,” he added.

His comments come during a time when Trump has been hosting French President Emmanuel Macron in Washington, who is working to convince him to stay in the pact. As per reports, &nbspGermany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel will also work to convince Trump at a meeting later this week.

On Monday, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/it-is-either-all-or-nothing-says-iran-foreign-minister-over-nuclear-deal--132298">Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif</a> had said that "It is either all or nothing. European leaders should encourage Trump not just to stay in the nuclear deal, but more important to begin implementing his part of the bargain in good faith."

Under Iran's settlement with the United States, France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China, Teheran agreed to curb its nuclear programme to satisfy the powers that it could not be used to develop atomic bombs.

In exchange, Iran received relief from sanctions, most of which were lifted in January 2016.

Trump has given the European signatories a May 12 deadline to "fix the terrible flaws" of the 2015 nuclear deal, or he will refuse to extend US sanctions relief on Iran.

The nuclear deal was formed by Tehran in 2015 for which the other signatories have stepped up efforts to save it. Rouhani also said that Iran is 'prepared for all possible situations'

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Tuesday warned US President Donald Trump to remain in the nuclear deal or else he could face "severe consequences." The nuclear deal was formed by Tehran in 2015 for which the other signatories have stepped up efforts to save it. Rouhani also said that Iran is "prepared for all possible situations." “I am telling those in the White House that if they do not live up to their commitments, the Iranian government will firmly react,” Rouhani said in a speech broadcast live on state television. “If anyone betrays the deal, they should know that they would face severe consequences,” he told a cheering crowd of thousands gathered in the city of Tabriz. “Iran is prepared for all possible situations,” he added. His comments come during a time when Trump has been hosting French President Emmanuel Macron in Washington, who is working to convince him to stay in the pact. As per reports, &nbspGermany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel will also work to convince Trump at a meeting later this week. On Monday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had said that "It is either all or nothing. European leaders should encourage Trump not just to stay in the nuclear deal, but more important to begin implementing his part of the bargain in good faith." Under Iran's settlement with the United States, France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China, Teheran agreed to curb its nuclear programme to satisfy the powers that it could not be used to develop atomic bombs. In exchange, Iran received relief from sanctions, most of which were lifted in January 2016. Trump has given the European signatories a May 12 deadline to "fix the terrible flaws" of the 2015 nuclear deal, or he will refuse to extend US sanctions relief on Iran.

Trump will face 'severe consequences' if nuclear deal not accepted: Iran President

*By:&nbspRichard Holden

It’s not all that often that the semi-annual report titled “US Treasury Macroeconomic and Foreign Exchange Policies of Major Trading Partners of the United States” is a hotly anticipated document. But against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s views on trade, it was this week.

The report was prepared by seasoned folks at Treasury, yet it has the fingerprints of the administration and its mercantilist views all over it.

Early on the report states: “The global economy accelerated in 2017 to its fastest pace of growth since the post-crisis rebound in 2011. The broad-based strengthening of growth was led by the United States, where domestic demand growth averaged 3 percent over the last three quarters of the year, and by a synchronized expansion in Europe…Notwithstanding the pick-up in global growth, the U.S. trade deficit widened in 2017…

The Administration remains deeply concerned by the significant trade imbalances in the global economy, and is working actively across a broad range of areas to help ensure that trade expands in a way that is fair and reciprocal.”

“Fair and reciprocal”. Well that sounds nice. But US trade is fair and reciprocal. Imports from China allow the US to allocate its resources to what it does relatively more efficiently – make fewer t-shirts, produce more iMacs, iPhones and Apple watches, for example.

President Trump has long thought – mistakenly, mind you – that trade is a zero-sum game and that bilateral trade deficits are evidence of a “bad deal”. That’s flat-out wrong. But given the president’s famously short attention span, there was some hope those views wouldn’t affect policy too much.

Unfortunately, he appointed Peter Navarro as Director of the White House National Trade Council. Navarro thinks if trade deficits go down, economic output must rise – a conclusion that is false as a matter of logic. It’s distressing that Navarro doesn’t understand the principle of comparative advantage, or even how the national accounts work in that exports add to GDP, but imports leave it unchanged.

As a brief aside, Navarro is a self-described “heterodox economist”. Those folks in Australia who wear that moniker with pride would do well to reflect on how one of their intellectual fellow travellers is complicit in attacking the living standards of not only the poorest people in the US but also in China.

Speaking of China, figures released this week showed that China’s GDP grew a little faster than expected, expanding 6.8 per cent in the first quarter of 2018. This was largely due to strong consumer demand (which accounted for roughly 80 per cent of that growth), but also strong exports and a healthy construction sector. Indeed, Chinese retail sales rose 10.1 per cent for the 12 months to March, exceeding both their recent pace and market expectations.

Given time lags and implementation issues, the recent tit-for-tat tariffs between the US and China have yet to take effect – so next quarter’s numbers will be the really interesting ones to focus on. In fact, Chinese exports to the US were up 14.8 per cent on an annualised basis, suggesting that exporters may have shipped goods early in a bid to beat the tariffs. That “pipeline filling” could result in a significant drop next quarter.

In the US, retail sales figures for March showed positive signs. Commerce Department data showed retail sales up 0.6 per cent in March, a bounce back from previous disappointing monthly figures in 2018. Importantly, bellwether categories like cars and appliances were up strongly – a sign of consumer confidence.

Residential construction in the US was also strong, with housing starts up 1.9 per cent to 1.32 million at an annualised rate, compared to market expectations of 1.27 million. This was driven, however, by so-called “multifamily” construction, which is essentially apartments. As in Australia, that is a volatile category month to month. It was up strongly but had been down 10.2 per cent in February. Single-family construction fell 5.5 per cent, the largest decline in seven years. All in all, a mixed bag.

In Australia, fewer jobs were created in March than expected, with unemployment steady at 5.5 per cent, seasonally adjusted. This is still far too high, and with the participation rate picking up it could head higher, rather than lower.

The RBA released minutes of its most recent board meeting.

The most interesting part was the discussion of the financial stability of Australian households. The minutes noted: “Risks remained from the high level of household debt and the growth of riskier lending in earlier years, but regulatory measures had helped to contain the build-up of risks.”

They added that while household debt had outpaced income in recent years, net household wealth was also growing, with housing and financial assets of Australian households exceeding borrowing.

“Members noted, however, that this was not reflective of the financial positions of all individual households. Nevertheless, measures of household financial stress did not indicate a high level of financial stress at present.” (emphasis added).

It’s that italicised part that is important. Just because on average households might have their noses above water doesn’t mean significant problems don’t loom.

It’s the marginal household or borrower that matters and can drive financial problems. Think sub-prime in the US. Average borrowers in California or Massachusetts or New York were fine. But the marginal borrowers were not, and it was their borrowing behaviour (and the behaviour of those who lent to them) that triggered the financial crisis. Surely the RBA understands that, using this to inform its approach to macroprudential regulation?

*Richard Holden, Professor of Economics and PLuS Alliance Fellow, UNSW

(This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-the-calm-before-the-storm-in-us-china-trade-95149">original article</a>.)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Given time lags and implementation issues, the recent tit-for-tat tariffs between the US and China have yet to take effect – so next quarter’s numbers will be the really interesting ones to focus on

*By: Richard Holden It’s not all that often that the semi-annual report titled “US Treasury Macroeconomic and Foreign Exchange Policies of Major Trading Partners of the United States” is a hotly anticipated document. But against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s views on trade, it was this week. The report was prepared by seasoned folks at Treasury, yet it has the fingerprints of the administration and its mercantilist views all over it. Early on the report states: “The global economy accelerated in 2017 to its fastest pace of growth since the post-crisis rebound in 2011. The broad-based strengthening of growth was led by the United States, where domestic demand growth averaged 3 percent over the last three quarters of the year, and by a synchronized expansion in Europe…Notwithstanding the pick-up in global growth, the U.S. trade deficit widened in 2017… The Administration remains deeply concerned by the significant trade imbalances in the global economy, and is working actively across a broad range of areas to help ensure that trade expands in a way that is fair and reciprocal.” “Fair and reciprocal”. Well that sounds nice. But US trade is fair and reciprocal. Imports from China allow the US to allocate its resources to what it does relatively more efficiently – make fewer t-shirts, produce more iMacs, iPhones and Apple watches, for example. President Trump has long thought – mistakenly, mind you – that trade is a zero-sum game and that bilateral trade deficits are evidence of a “bad deal”. That’s flat-out wrong. But given the president’s famously short attention span, there was some hope those views wouldn’t affect policy too much. Unfortunately, he appointed Peter Navarro as Director of the White House National Trade Council. Navarro thinks if trade deficits go down, economic output must rise – a conclusion that is false as a matter of logic. It’s distressing that Navarro doesn’t understand the principle of comparative advantage, or even how the national accounts work in that exports add to GDP, but imports leave it unchanged. As a brief aside, Navarro is a self-described “heterodox economist”. Those folks in Australia who wear that moniker with pride would do well to reflect on how one of their intellectual fellow travellers is complicit in attacking the living standards of not only the poorest people in the US but also in China. Speaking of China, figures released this week showed that China’s GDP grew a little faster than expected, expanding 6.8 per cent in the first quarter of 2018. This was largely due to strong consumer demand (which accounted for roughly 80 per cent of that growth), but also strong exports and a healthy construction sector. Indeed, Chinese retail sales rose 10.1 per cent for the 12 months to March, exceeding both their recent pace and market expectations. Given time lags and implementation issues, the recent tit-for-tat tariffs between the US and China have yet to take effect – so next quarter’s numbers will be the really interesting ones to focus on. In fact, Chinese exports to the US were up 14.8 per cent on an annualised basis, suggesting that exporters may have shipped goods early in a bid to beat the tariffs. That “pipeline filling” could result in a significant drop next quarter. In the US, retail sales figures for March showed positive signs. Commerce Department data showed retail sales up 0.6 per cent in March, a bounce back from previous disappointing monthly figures in 2018. Importantly, bellwether categories like cars and appliances were up strongly – a sign of consumer confidence. Residential construction in the US was also strong, with housing starts up 1.9 per cent to 1.32 million at an annualised rate, compared to market expectations of 1.27 million. This was driven, however, by so-called “multifamily” construction, which is essentially apartments. As in Australia, that is a volatile category month to month. It was up strongly but had been down 10.2 per cent in February. Single-family construction fell 5.5 per cent, the largest decline in seven years. All in all, a mixed bag. In Australia, fewer jobs were created in March than expected, with unemployment steady at 5.5 per cent, seasonally adjusted. This is still far too high, and with the participation rate picking up it could head higher, rather than lower. The RBA released minutes of its most recent board meeting. The most interesting part was the discussion of the financial stability of Australian households. The minutes noted: “Risks remained from the high level of household debt and the growth of riskier lending in earlier years, but regulatory measures had helped to contain the build-up of risks.” They added that while household debt had outpaced income in recent years, net household wealth was also growing, with housing and financial assets of Australian households exceeding borrowing. “Members noted, however, that this was not reflective of the financial positions of all individual households. Nevertheless, measures of household financial stress did not indicate a high level of financial stress at present.” (emphasis added). It’s that italicised part that is important. Just because on average households might have their noses above water doesn’t mean significant problems don’t loom. It’s the marginal household or borrower that matters and can drive financial problems. Think sub-prime in the US. Average borrowers in California or Massachusetts or New York were fine. But the marginal borrowers were not, and it was their borrowing behaviour (and the behaviour of those who lent to them) that triggered the financial crisis. Surely the RBA understands that, using this to inform its approach to macroprudential regulation? *Richard Holden, Professor of Economics and PLuS Alliance Fellow, UNSW (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: The calm before the storm in US-China trade

China on Monday said that President Xi Jinping and his Indian counterpart Prime Minister Narendra Modi will discuss United States's "protectionist" trade policy during the 2-day-long summit this week.&nbsp

Both the leaders will also talk about the "unprecedented" global developments in the past 100 years.&nbsp

Modi and Xi will also hold talks over bilateral relations, trade penalties by the US, the Korean peninsula crisis among other issues of pressing concern.&nbsp

"During this meeting, the two leaders will discuss the changes that have taken place and which are unprecedented in the past 100 years and exchange views on the strategic, over-arching and long-term issues concerning our bilateral relations," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang noted.

"The two sides believe that the strategic and global significance of our relations have become more prominent and our common interests far outweigh our differences," Lu noted.

China and the United States are involved in an ongoing trade spat. The Trump administration has also threatened India with taxes if import duties are not lowered.&nbsp 
&nbsp

Modi and Xi will also hold talks over bilateral relations, trade penalties by the US, the Korean peninsula crisis among other issues

China on Monday said that President Xi Jinping and his Indian counterpart Prime Minister Narendra Modi will discuss United States's "protectionist" trade policy during the 2-day-long summit this week. Both the leaders will also talk about the "unprecedented" global developments in the past 100 years. Modi and Xi will also hold talks over bilateral relations, trade penalties by the US, the Korean peninsula crisis among other issues of pressing concern. "During this meeting, the two leaders will discuss the changes that have taken place and which are unprecedented in the past 100 years and exchange views on the strategic, over-arching and long-term issues concerning our bilateral relations," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang noted. "The two sides believe that the strategic and global significance of our relations have become more prominent and our common interests far outweigh our differences," Lu noted. China and the United States are involved in an ongoing trade spat. The Trump administration has also threatened India with taxes if import duties are not lowered.

Modi, Xi to discuss US' 'protectionist' trade policy during summit

India will lodge a trade dispute case against the United States at the World Trade Organisation(WTO) if Washington does not grant it exemptions from higher tariffs on steel and aluminium, three government officials involved in trade talks told Reuters.

Three senior officials who did not want to be named said New Delhi would file a case citing discrimination with the WTO as a first course of action if the US&nbsp;did not grant the exemptions.

Indian steel minister Chaudhary Birender Singh declined to say how India might respond if its request for exemption was rejected.

"Our proposal is still pending with the US&nbsp;government and they have assured us they will reconsider," Singh told Reuters.&nbsp;

However, an internal note prepared by his ministry and seen by Reuters showed India could also consider temporarily raising the basic customs duty on some US&nbsp;goods in the event the exemptions were not granted.

Following an outcry over the US&nbsp;tariffs announced in March, Trump agreed to suspend their imposition until May 1 for Argentina, Australia, Brazil, South Korea, Canada, Mexico and the European Union, the biggest US&nbsp;trading partner, in order to allow discussions to continue.

"Why should there be artificial barriers when everyone else seems to be getting an exemption? We are not a security threat," one of the officials involved in the discussions told Reuters.

Earlier this month, US&nbsp;Assistant Trade Representative Mark Linscott held talks with India`s trade minister, Suresh Prabhu, and other senior officials in New Delhi.

India exported less than 1 million tonnes of steel to the US in 2017, and was the tenth biggest supplier, according to an internal note prepared by the steel ministry. Steel exports to the United States account for 2.2 percent of India`s total steel exports, it showed.

India's goods trade deficit with the United States fell by nearly six percent to less than $23 billion last year.&nbsp;

The three Indian officials involved in the trade talks said New Delhi could seek support, if needed, from other WTO member nations worried about the direction of US&nbsp;trade policy. The commerce ministry did not respond to Reuters'&nbsp;emails seeking comment.&nbsp;

India's goods trade deficit with the United States fell by nearly six percent to less than $23 billion last year

India will lodge a trade dispute case against the United States at the World Trade Organisation(WTO) if Washington does not grant it exemptions from higher tariffs on steel and aluminium, three government officials involved in trade talks told Reuters. Three senior officials who did not want to be named said New Delhi would file a case citing discrimination with the WTO as a first course of action if the US did not grant the exemptions. Indian steel minister Chaudhary Birender Singh declined to say how India might respond if its request for exemption was rejected. "Our proposal is still pending with the US government and they have assured us they will reconsider," Singh told Reuters. However, an internal note prepared by his ministry and seen by Reuters showed India could also consider temporarily raising the basic customs duty on some US goods in the event the exemptions were not granted. Following an outcry over the US tariffs announced in March, Trump agreed to suspend their imposition until May 1 for Argentina, Australia, Brazil, South Korea, Canada, Mexico and the European Union, the biggest US trading partner, in order to allow discussions to continue. "Why should there be artificial barriers when everyone else seems to be getting an exemption? We are not a security threat," one of the officials involved in the discussions told Reuters. Earlier this month, US Assistant Trade Representative Mark Linscott held talks with India`s trade minister, Suresh Prabhu, and other senior officials in New Delhi. India exported less than 1 million tonnes of steel to the US in 2017, and was the tenth biggest supplier, according to an internal note prepared by the steel ministry. Steel exports to the United States account for 2.2 percent of India`s total steel exports, it showed. India's goods trade deficit with the United States fell by nearly six percent to less than $23 billion last year. The three Indian officials involved in the trade talks said New Delhi could seek support, if needed, from other WTO member nations worried about the direction of US trade policy. The commerce ministry did not respond to Reuters' emails seeking comment.

India will file trade dispute with WTO if US rejects exemption on tariffs: Report

French President Emmanuel Macron's three-day visit to the United States will begin tomorrow,&nbsp;April 23. A day before Macron is scheduled to arrive in the US, a leading American news channel aired an interview wherein the French President spoke about rebuilding Syria.

Macron noted that United States, France and other allies will have a "very important" role in rebuilding Syria after they defeat Islamic State militants.

The French president noted that even after the war against ISIS is won, the Assad-led government will fuel new terrorists and wage a new war which will require fresh efforts from the United States, France and other allies in order to create a new Syria.&nbsp;

"The day we will have finished this war against ISIS, if we leave, definitely and totally, even from a political point of view, we will leave the floor to the Iranian regime, Bashar al-Assad and these guys. And they will prepare the new war. They will fuel the new terrorists," Macron shared

Although Trump wants US forces to leave Syria as quickly as possible, Macron had warned against Iran's efforts to overrun Syria if the countries exit too quickly.<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Qbh7cBHtl2A" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

"It's not automatically US&nbsp;Forces, but that's US&nbsp;diplomacy and that's your presence. We will have to build a new Syria after the war. And that's why I think the US&nbsp;role is very important to play. Why? I will be very blunt.... So my point is to say, even after the end of the war against ISIS, the US., France, our allies, all the countries of the region, even Russia and Turkey, will have a very important role to play in order to create this new Syria and ensure Syrian people to decide for the future," Macron explained

Macron's arrival in Washington on Monday will see bilateral talks with his American counterpart. Both the leaders will discuss the Iran nuclear agreement at the White House on Tuesday, a senior US&nbsp;administration official said on Friday.

Trump and Macron will also discuss the joint military strike on Syria this month following a suspected chemical weapons attack near Damascus.

(With inputs from Reuters)&nbsp;

Macron noted that even after the war against ISIS is won, the Assad-led government will fuel new terrorists and wage a new war

French President Emmanuel Macron's three-day visit to the United States will begin tomorrow, April 23. A day before Macron is scheduled to arrive in the US, a leading American news channel aired an interview wherein the French President spoke about rebuilding Syria. Macron noted that United States, France and other allies will have a "very important" role in rebuilding Syria after they defeat Islamic State militants. The French president noted that even after the war against ISIS is won, the Assad-led government will fuel new terrorists and wage a new war which will require fresh efforts from the United States, France and other allies in order to create a new Syria. "The day we will have finished this war against ISIS, if we leave, definitely and totally, even from a political point of view, we will leave the floor to the Iranian regime, Bashar al-Assad and these guys. And they will prepare the new war. They will fuel the new terrorists," Macron shared Although Trump wants US forces to leave Syria as quickly as possible, Macron had warned against Iran's efforts to overrun Syria if the countries exit too quickly. "It's not automatically US Forces, but that's US diplomacy and that's your presence. We will have to build a new Syria after the war. And that's why I think the US role is very important to play. Why? I will be very blunt.... So my point is to say, even after the end of the war against ISIS, the US., France, our allies, all the countries of the region, even Russia and Turkey, will have a very important role to play in order to create this new Syria and ensure Syrian people to decide for the future," Macron explained Macron's arrival in Washington on Monday will see bilateral talks with his American counterpart. Both the leaders will discuss the Iran nuclear agreement at the White House on Tuesday, a senior US administration official said on Friday. Trump and Macron will also discuss the joint military strike on Syria this month following a suspected chemical weapons attack near Damascus. (With inputs from Reuters)

US, France have 'very important' role to play after end of Syrian war: Emmanuel Macron

French President Emmanuel Macron will arrive in Washington on Monday (April 23) for a three-day visit, where his good rapport with US&nbsp;President Donald Trump will be put to the test.

Macron will try to sway Trump on key issues from Syria to Iran and trade after a year spent investing a lot of political capital with few returns.

He played to Trump's admiration for the military and grandeur by inviting him to Paris for the annual July 14 celebrations and dining him at the Eiffel Tower. The soft diplomacy aimed to gain Trump's confidence and influence US&nbsp;foreign policy at a time European diplomats say Washington lacks direction.

French political scientist and international relations expert Bertand Badie said Macron was seeking to take the place of Britain as the United States' privileged ally.

With the exception of one unusually prolonged and firm handshake, Macron has opted for a non-confrontational approach toward the unconventional US&nbsp;president, hoping that by engaging with him he could win concessions.

Trump has given the European Union until May 1 to negotiate permanent exemptions from steel and aluminium tariffs and France, Britain and Germany until May 12 to "fix" the Iran nuclear deal with world powers.

Macron will try to sway Trump on key issues from Syria to Iran and trade after a year spent investing a lot of political capital with few returns

French President Emmanuel Macron will arrive in Washington on Monday (April 23) for a three-day visit, where his good rapport with US President Donald Trump will be put to the test. Macron will try to sway Trump on key issues from Syria to Iran and trade after a year spent investing a lot of political capital with few returns. He played to Trump's admiration for the military and grandeur by inviting him to Paris for the annual July 14 celebrations and dining him at the Eiffel Tower. The soft diplomacy aimed to gain Trump's confidence and influence US foreign policy at a time European diplomats say Washington lacks direction. French political scientist and international relations expert Bertand Badie said Macron was seeking to take the place of Britain as the United States' privileged ally. With the exception of one unusually prolonged and firm handshake, Macron has opted for a non-confrontational approach toward the unconventional US president, hoping that by engaging with him he could win concessions. Trump has given the European Union until May 1 to negotiate permanent exemptions from steel and aluminium tariffs and France, Britain and Germany until May 12 to "fix" the Iran nuclear deal with world powers.

As French President heads to US, 'strong relationship' with Donald Trump under test

A record number of 20 Indian Americans are running for US Congressional elections this year. Collectively they have raised more than $ 5.5 million, as per latest official figures, with seven of them raising over a million each. 
 
With six months still to go for the November Congressional election, except for Hiral Tipirneni who is running for April 24 special elections in Arizona, the figure of more than USD 15.5 million raised by Indian Americans so far that could be a record in itself for any ethnic community in the US.&nbsp; 
 
Traditionally, a significant amount of money is raised by candidates in the last two quarters. 
 
As per the latest fund-raising figures released by the Federal Election Commission, Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi from Illinois has raised maximum over $ 3.5 million. Mr Krishnamoorthi is seeking his re-election from the eighth Congressional district in Illinois. Pitted against him is Indian American Jitender Digankar from the Republican party.&nbsp; 
 
Indian-American scientist and entrepreneur Shiv Ayyadurai, who is running as an independent candidate for the US Senate seat from Massachusetts.&nbsp;

Three other Indian American Congressmen Ro Khanna, Dr Ami Bera and Pramila Jayapal each have raise more than a million each. Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, Bera and Jayapal are the four Indian Americans in the current House of Representative. They are collectively called Samosa Caucus. 
 
According to Federal Election Commission Ro Khanna, seeking re-election from California's 17th Congressional district had raised nearly $2 million ($1.92 million to be precise) till March 31.&nbsp; 
 
He is followed by Dr Ami Bera ($ 1.7 million), who is seeking his fourth consecutive term in the US House of Representative from the seventh Congressional District in California. 
 
Pramila Jayapal, the first ever Indian-American to be elected to the House of Representative has raised $ 1.3 million. She is seeking her re-election from the seventh Congressional District of Washington State.&nbsp; 
 
In addition to Jayapal, four other Indian American women are running for the US House of Representatives Hiral Tipirneni from eights Congressional District of Arizona Aruna Miller from sixth Congressional District of Maryland, Anita Malik from sixth Congressional District of Arizona and Saira Rao from the first Congressional District of Colorado. 
 
All four are from the Democratic party. This week all eyes are on Tipirneni as latest polls suggests that in the April 24 Special election she might create an upset by winning this Republican stronghold. She had raised $ 670,521 till March 31, according to FEC records. 
 
Aruna Miller, who has to win the June 26 primaries to become party's nominee for the November Congressional elections has surprised many by raising more than $ 1 million till the last quarter.&nbsp; 
 
Among other two women candidates, Rao has raised $ 255,000 and Malik has raised $64,000, according to FEC records. 
 
Indian-American Aftab Pureva, who is seeking to enter the House of Representative from First Congressional District of Ohio on a Democratic ticket has raised $ 663,000. Recently the Democratic party identified him as a potential winner. 
 
By raising more than $ 1.1 million for the June 26 primary against incumbent Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, young Suraj Patel has surprised many.&nbsp; 
 
In the 11th Congressional District of New York two Indian Americans Omar Vaid and Mohan Radhakrishnan -- are vying for Democratic primary on June 26.&nbsp; 
 
Two have raised 31,000 and 16,000 respectively. Similarly, in the two Indian Americans Peter Jacob and Goutam U Jois -- are running against each other for the June 5 Democratic primary in the Seventh Congressional District of New Jersey.&nbsp; 
 
Sri Preston Kulkarni is headed for a primary run-off for the 22nd Congressional District of Texas on May 22. He has raised more than $ 178,000, FEC records reveal, Abhijit Das from the third Congressional District of Massachusetts more than $ 220,000 and Chintan Desai from the One Congressional District of Arkansas has raised $ 16,000.&nbsp; 
 
In addition to Digankar, Harry Arora is the only other Republican Indian American in race for the Congress. Running from fourth Congressional District of Connecticut, Arora has raised $ 192,000 so far.&nbsp; 
 
A calculation of FEC figures, as of March 31 indicated, that all the 20 Indian-American candidates in the race for the Congressional elections this year have more than $11 million in all for the rest part of the campaign.&nbsp;

FEC figures also reveal that these candidates have loaned more than $1.1 million to their campaigns. The list is topped by Arora with $ 500,000, followed by Abhijit Das ($ 283,000), Vaid ($ 105,000) Jois ($ 100,000), Tipirneni ($ 70,000), Radhakrishnan ($50,000), Kulkarni ($ 35,000) and Jacob ($ 10,000). 
 
The current Congress has four Indian Americans in the House of Representatives, which is a record in itself.

<ul data-ad-size="[0,370]" data-adheight="360" data-adwidth="640" data-autoplay="false" data-callback="sponsorAdSuccess" data-cb="processCtnAds" data-desc-len="90" data-expansion-size="[0,480]" data-loop="0" data-native-tmpl="ctn_midarticle" data-native-vid-tmpl="ctn_belly_vid" data-position="638677211" data-skew="0" data-slot="129146" id="129146-638677211">
</ul>

<ul data-ad-size="[0,370]" data-adheight="360" data-adwidth="640" data-autoplay="false" data-callback="sponsorAdSuccess" data-cb="processCtnAds" data-desc-len="90" data-expansion-size="[0,480]" data-loop="0" data-native-tmpl="ctn_midarticle" data-native-vid-tmpl="ctn_belly_vid" data-position="638677211" data-skew="0" data-slot="129146" id="129146-638677211">
</ul>

Traditionally, a significant amount of money is raised by candidates in the last two quarters

A record number of 20 Indian Americans are running for US Congressional elections this year. Collectively they have raised more than $ 5.5 million, as per latest official figures, with seven of them raising over a million each. With six months still to go for the November Congressional election, except for Hiral Tipirneni who is running for April 24 special elections in Arizona, the figure of more than USD 15.5 million raised by Indian Americans so far that could be a record in itself for any ethnic community in the US. Traditionally, a significant amount of money is raised by candidates in the last two quarters. As per the latest fund-raising figures released by the Federal Election Commission, Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi from Illinois has raised maximum over $ 3.5 million. Mr Krishnamoorthi is seeking his re-election from the eighth Congressional district in Illinois. Pitted against him is Indian American Jitender Digankar from the Republican party. Indian-American scientist and entrepreneur Shiv Ayyadurai, who is running as an independent candidate for the US Senate seat from Massachusetts. Three other Indian American Congressmen Ro Khanna, Dr Ami Bera and Pramila Jayapal each have raise more than a million each. Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, Bera and Jayapal are the four Indian Americans in the current House of Representative. They are collectively called Samosa Caucus. According to Federal Election Commission Ro Khanna, seeking re-election from California's 17th Congressional district had raised nearly $2 million ($1.92 million to be precise) till March 31. He is followed by Dr Ami Bera ($ 1.7 million), who is seeking his fourth consecutive term in the US House of Representative from the seventh Congressional District in California. Pramila Jayapal, the first ever Indian-American to be elected to the House of Representative has raised $ 1.3 million. She is seeking her re-election from the seventh Congressional District of Washington State. In addition to Jayapal, four other Indian American women are running for the US House of Representatives Hiral Tipirneni from eights Congressional District of Arizona Aruna Miller from sixth Congressional District of Maryland, Anita Malik from sixth Congressional District of Arizona and Saira Rao from the first Congressional District of Colorado. All four are from the Democratic party. This week all eyes are on Tipirneni as latest polls suggests that in the April 24 Special election she might create an upset by winning this Republican stronghold. She had raised $ 670,521 till March 31, according to FEC records. Aruna Miller, who has to win the June 26 primaries to become party's nominee for the November Congressional elections has surprised many by raising more than $ 1 million till the last quarter. Among other two women candidates, Rao has raised $ 255,000 and Malik has raised $64,000, according to FEC records. Indian-American Aftab Pureva, who is seeking to enter the House of Representative from First Congressional District of Ohio on a Democratic ticket has raised $ 663,000. Recently the Democratic party identified him as a potential winner. By raising more than $ 1.1 million for the June 26 primary against incumbent Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, young Suraj Patel has surprised many. In the 11th Congressional District of New York two Indian Americans Omar Vaid and Mohan Radhakrishnan -- are vying for Democratic primary on June 26. Two have raised 31,000 and 16,000 respectively. Similarly, in the two Indian Americans Peter Jacob and Goutam U Jois -- are running against each other for the June 5 Democratic primary in the Seventh Congressional District of New Jersey. Sri Preston Kulkarni is headed for a primary run-off for the 22nd Congressional District of Texas on May 22. He has raised more than $ 178,000, FEC records reveal, Abhijit Das from the third Congressional District of Massachusetts more than $ 220,000 and Chintan Desai from the One Congressional District of Arkansas has raised $ 16,000. In addition to Digankar, Harry Arora is the only other Republican Indian American in race for the Congress. Running from fourth Congressional District of Connecticut, Arora has raised $ 192,000 so far. A calculation of FEC figures, as of March 31 indicated, that all the 20 Indian-American candidates in the race for the Congressional elections this year have more than $11 million in all for the rest part of the campaign. FEC figures also reveal that these candidates have loaned more than $1.1 million to their campaigns. The list is topped by Arora with $ 500,000, followed by Abhijit Das ($ 283,000), Vaid ($ 105,000) Jois ($ 100,000), Tipirneni ($ 70,000), Radhakrishnan ($50,000), Kulkarni ($ 35,000) and Jacob ($ 10,000). The current Congress has four Indian Americans in the House of Representatives, which is a record in itself.

20 Indian Americans running for US Congress raise more than $15.5 million

French President Emmanuel Macron said he has no "plan B" for the Iran nuclear deal and that the United States should stay in the agreement as long as there is no better option.

In a Fox News interview on Sunday, the day before he arrives in Washington for a three-day state visit, Macron also said the United States, France and other allies will have a "very important" role to play in rebuilding Syria after they defeat Islamic State militants.

President Donald Trump has said he wants US&nbspforces to leave Syria as quickly as possible, but Macron warned that Iran, which has been Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's most supportive ally, will overrun Syria if the countries exit too quickly.

Macron and Trump will discuss the Iran nuclear agreement at the White House on Tuesday, a senior US&nbspadministration official said on Friday. They will also discuss the joint military strike on Syria this month following a suspected chemical weapons attack near Damascus, the official said.

The 2015 deal reached between Iran, the United States and five other world powers put curbs on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

"I don't have any plan B," Macron said. "Let's present this framework because it's better than the sort of North Korean-type situation."

Macron, who said he and Trump have "a very special relationship," said he wanted to complete the Iran deal by addressing ballistic missiles and working to contain Iran's influence in the region.

Trump has called it one of the worst deals ever negotiated and will decide by May 12 whether to restore US&nbspeconomic sanctions on Tehran, which would be a severe blow to the pact. Trump has pressured European allies to work with Washington to fix the deal.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a CBS interview on Sunday the United States would be viewed as an unreliable partner to the international community if it pulls out of the deal. He added that there would be no reason for Iran to remain in the deal if the United States leaves and the benefits for Iran start to diminish.

"This would be a very bad precedent if the United States sends this message to the international community that the length or the duration of any agreement would depend on the duration of the presidency," Zarif said.

Macron also said the United States, France and other allies will have a 'very important' role to play in rebuilding Syria

French President Emmanuel Macron said he has no "plan B" for the Iran nuclear deal and that the United States should stay in the agreement as long as there is no better option. In a Fox News interview on Sunday, the day before he arrives in Washington for a three-day state visit, Macron also said the United States, France and other allies will have a "very important" role to play in rebuilding Syria after they defeat Islamic State militants. President Donald Trump has said he wants US&nbspforces to leave Syria as quickly as possible, but Macron warned that Iran, which has been Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's most supportive ally, will overrun Syria if the countries exit too quickly. Macron and Trump will discuss the Iran nuclear agreement at the White House on Tuesday, a senior US&nbspadministration official said on Friday. They will also discuss the joint military strike on Syria this month following a suspected chemical weapons attack near Damascus, the official said. The 2015 deal reached between Iran, the United States and five other world powers put curbs on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. "I don't have any plan B," Macron said. "Let's present this framework because it's better than the sort of North Korean-type situation." Macron, who said he and Trump have "a very special relationship," said he wanted to complete the Iran deal by addressing ballistic missiles and working to contain Iran's influence in the region. Trump has called it one of the worst deals ever negotiated and will decide by May 12 whether to restore US&nbspeconomic sanctions on Tehran, which would be a severe blow to the pact. Trump has pressured European allies to work with Washington to fix the deal. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a CBS interview on Sunday the United States would be viewed as an unreliable partner to the international community if it pulls out of the deal. He added that there would be no reason for Iran to remain in the deal if the United States leaves and the benefits for Iran start to diminish. "This would be a very bad precedent if the United States sends this message to the international community that the length or the duration of any agreement would depend on the duration of the presidency," Zarif said.

France's president says he has no 'plan B' for Iran nuclear deal

The first big showdown at the US&nbsp;Supreme Court over President Donald Trump's immigration policies is set for Wednesday when the justices hear a challenge to the lawfulness of his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries.

The case represents a test of the limits of presidential power. Trump's policy, announced in September, blocks entry into the United States of most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Chad previously was on the list but Trump lifted those restrictions on April 10.

The high court has never decided the legal merits of the travel ban or any other major Trump immigration policy, including his move to rescind protections for young immigrants sometimes called Dreamers brought into the United States illegally as children. It has previously acted on Trump requests to undo lower court orders blocking those two policies, siding with him on the travel ban and opposing him on the Dreamers.

Trump's immigration policies - also including actions taken against states and cities that protect illegal immigrants, intensified deportation efforts and limits on legal immigration - have been among his most contentious.

The conservative-majority Supreme Court is due to hear arguments on Wednesday on the third version of a travel ban policy Trump first sought to implement a week after taking office in January 2017, and issue a ruling by the end of June.

The lead challenger is the state of Hawaii, which argues the ban violates federal immigration law and the US&nbsp;Constitution's prohibition on the government favoring one religion over another.

"Right now, the travel ban is keeping families apart. It is degrading our values by subjecting a specific set of people to be denigrated and marginalized," Hawaii Lieutenant Governor Doug Chin said in an interview.

The Supreme Court on Dec. 4 signaled it may lean toward backing Trump when it granted the administration's request to let the ban go into full effect while legal challenges played out.

In another immigration-related case, the justices on April 17 invalidated a provision in a US&nbsp;law requiring deportation of immigrants convicted of certain crimes of violence. Trump's administration and the prior Obama administration had defended the provision.

'Politically correct'

Trump has said the travel ban is needed to protect the United States from terrorism by Islamic militants. Just before the latest ban was announced, Trump wrote on Twitter that the restrictions "should be far larger, tougher and more specific - but stupidly that would not be politically correct!"

The challengers have argued the policy was motivated by Trump's enmity toward Muslims, pressing that point in lower courts with some success by citing statements he made as a candidate and as president. As a candidate, Trump promised "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."

The Justice Department argues Trump's statements as a candidate carry no weight because he was not yet president. The policy's challengers also point to views he has expressed as president, including his retweets in November of anti-Muslim videos posted by a far-right British political figure.

In a court filing last week, US&nbsp;Solicitor General Noel Francisco, representing Trump in court, said those retweets "do not address the meaning" of the travel ban policy.

Francisco cited Trump statements complimentary toward Muslims and Islam, including in a May 2017 speech in Saudi Arabia.

In defending the ban, the administration has pointed to a waiver provision allowing people from targeted countries to seek entry if they meet certain criteria. The State Department said that as of last month 375 waivers to the travel ban had been granted since the policy went into effect on Dec 8.

Some former Republican senators and officials who served in Republican former President George W. Bush's administration have signed onto legal briefs asking the high court to invalidate the ban.

"I think the travel ban is a terribly misguided policy that appeared to be motivated more by a political intention of the president than by any real national security need," John Bellinger, the State Department's top legal advisor during the Bush administration, said in an interview.

The arguments in the case follow US&nbsp;missile strikes this month in one of the targeted countries, Syria, after Trump's administration blamed President Bashar al-Assad for a chemical weapons attack on Syrian people near Damascus.

"Lots of people have pointed out the hypocrisy of the president, on the one hand, being willing to bomb Syria and on the other hand being unwilling to accept refugees and immigrants from that country who are trying to escape," lawyer Omar Jadwat of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the travel ban in a separate case in Maryland, said in an interview.

Venezuela and North Korea also were targeted in the travel ban but those restrictions were not challenged in court.

Trump's policy, announced in September, blocks entry into the United States of most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen

The first big showdown at the US Supreme Court over President Donald Trump's immigration policies is set for Wednesday when the justices hear a challenge to the lawfulness of his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. The case represents a test of the limits of presidential power. Trump's policy, announced in September, blocks entry into the United States of most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Chad previously was on the list but Trump lifted those restrictions on April 10. The high court has never decided the legal merits of the travel ban or any other major Trump immigration policy, including his move to rescind protections for young immigrants sometimes called Dreamers brought into the United States illegally as children. It has previously acted on Trump requests to undo lower court orders blocking those two policies, siding with him on the travel ban and opposing him on the Dreamers. Trump's immigration policies - also including actions taken against states and cities that protect illegal immigrants, intensified deportation efforts and limits on legal immigration - have been among his most contentious. The conservative-majority Supreme Court is due to hear arguments on Wednesday on the third version of a travel ban policy Trump first sought to implement a week after taking office in January 2017, and issue a ruling by the end of June. The lead challenger is the state of Hawaii, which argues the ban violates federal immigration law and the US Constitution's prohibition on the government favoring one religion over another. "Right now, the travel ban is keeping families apart. It is degrading our values by subjecting a specific set of people to be denigrated and marginalized," Hawaii Lieutenant Governor Doug Chin said in an interview. The Supreme Court on Dec. 4 signaled it may lean toward backing Trump when it granted the administration's request to let the ban go into full effect while legal challenges played out. In another immigration-related case, the justices on April 17 invalidated a provision in a US law requiring deportation of immigrants convicted of certain crimes of violence. Trump's administration and the prior Obama administration had defended the provision. 'Politically correct' Trump has said the travel ban is needed to protect the United States from terrorism by Islamic militants. Just before the latest ban was announced, Trump wrote on Twitter that the restrictions "should be far larger, tougher and more specific - but stupidly that would not be politically correct!" The challengers have argued the policy was motivated by Trump's enmity toward Muslims, pressing that point in lower courts with some success by citing statements he made as a candidate and as president. As a candidate, Trump promised "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." The Justice Department argues Trump's statements as a candidate carry no weight because he was not yet president. The policy's challengers also point to views he has expressed as president, including his retweets in November of anti-Muslim videos posted by a far-right British political figure. In a court filing last week, US Solicitor General Noel Francisco, representing Trump in court, said those retweets "do not address the meaning" of the travel ban policy. Francisco cited Trump statements complimentary toward Muslims and Islam, including in a May 2017 speech in Saudi Arabia. In defending the ban, the administration has pointed to a waiver provision allowing people from targeted countries to seek entry if they meet certain criteria. The State Department said that as of last month 375 waivers to the travel ban had been granted since the policy went into effect on Dec 8. Some former Republican senators and officials who served in Republican former President George W. Bush's administration have signed onto legal briefs asking the high court to invalidate the ban. "I think the travel ban is a terribly misguided policy that appeared to be motivated more by a political intention of the president than by any real national security need," John Bellinger, the State Department's top legal advisor during the Bush administration, said in an interview. The arguments in the case follow US missile strikes this month in one of the targeted countries, Syria, after Trump's administration blamed President Bashar al-Assad for a chemical weapons attack on Syrian people near Damascus. "Lots of people have pointed out the hypocrisy of the president, on the one hand, being willing to bomb Syria and on the other hand being unwilling to accept refugees and immigrants from that country who are trying to escape," lawyer Omar Jadwat of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the travel ban in a separate case in Maryland, said in an interview. Venezuela and North Korea also were targeted in the travel ban but those restrictions were not challenged in court.

Trump's travel ban faces US Supreme Court showdown

A US&nbsp;push to change the Iran nuclear deal was sending a "very dangerous message" that countries should never negotiate with Washington, Iran's foreign minister warned as US&nbsp;and North Korean leaders prepare to meet for denuclearisation talks.

Speaking to reporters in New York on Saturday, Mohammad Javad Zarif also said that for French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel "to try to appease the president (Donald Trump) would be an exercise in futility."

Trump will decide by May 12 whether to restore US&nbsp;economic sanctions on Tehran, which would be a severe blow to the 2015 pact between Iran and six major powers. He has pressured European allies to work with Washington to fix the deal.

Macron and Merkel are both due to meet with Trump in Washington this week.

"The United States has not only failed to implement its side (of the deal), but is even asking for more," said Zarif, who is in New York to attend a UN&nbsp;General Assembly meeting.

"That's a very dangerous message to send to people of Iran but also to the people of the world - that you should never come to an agreement with the United States because at the end of the day the operating principle of the United States is 'what's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable,'" he said.

US&nbsp;Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said earlier this month that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has "looked at the Iran deal, he's seen what he can get and he's seen how he can push through loopholes and we're not going to let that happen again."

Under the Iran nuclear deal, Tehran agreed to curb its nuclear program in return for relief from economic sanctions. Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, struck the pact to try to keep Iran from building a nuclear weapon but Trump believes it has "disastrous flaws."

Zarif said if Washington leaves the deal, there were many options being considered by Tehran, including complaining through a dispute mechanism set up by the agreement or simply leaving the deal by restarting its nuclear activities.

"We will make a decision based on our national security interests when the times comes. But whatever that decision will be, it won't be very pleasant to the United States," he said.

When asked if Iran could stay in the deal with the remaining parties, Zarif said: "I believe that's highly unlikely because it is important for Iran to received the benefits of the agreement and there was no way Iran would do a one-sided implementation of the agreement."

Iran has always said its nuclear program was only for peaceful purposes and Zarif said if Tehran resumed its nuclear activities it would not be intended "to get a bomb."

"America should never have feared Iran producing a nuclear bomb, but we will pursue vigorously our nuclear enrichment. If they want to fear anything its up to them," Zarif said.

Trump will decide by May 12 whether to restore US economic sanctions on Tehran

A US push to change the Iran nuclear deal was sending a "very dangerous message" that countries should never negotiate with Washington, Iran's foreign minister warned as US and North Korean leaders prepare to meet for denuclearisation talks. Speaking to reporters in New York on Saturday, Mohammad Javad Zarif also said that for French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel "to try to appease the president (Donald Trump) would be an exercise in futility." Trump will decide by May 12 whether to restore US economic sanctions on Tehran, which would be a severe blow to the 2015 pact between Iran and six major powers. He has pressured European allies to work with Washington to fix the deal. Macron and Merkel are both due to meet with Trump in Washington this week. "The United States has not only failed to implement its side (of the deal), but is even asking for more," said Zarif, who is in New York to attend a UN General Assembly meeting. "That's a very dangerous message to send to people of Iran but also to the people of the world - that you should never come to an agreement with the United States because at the end of the day the operating principle of the United States is 'what's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable,'" he said. US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said earlier this month that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has "looked at the Iran deal, he's seen what he can get and he's seen how he can push through loopholes and we're not going to let that happen again." Under the Iran nuclear deal, Tehran agreed to curb its nuclear program in return for relief from economic sanctions. Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, struck the pact to try to keep Iran from building a nuclear weapon but Trump believes it has "disastrous flaws." Zarif said if Washington leaves the deal, there were many options being considered by Tehran, including complaining through a dispute mechanism set up by the agreement or simply leaving the deal by restarting its nuclear activities. "We will make a decision based on our national security interests when the times comes. But whatever that decision will be, it won't be very pleasant to the United States," he said. When asked if Iran could stay in the deal with the remaining parties, Zarif said: "I believe that's highly unlikely because it is important for Iran to received the benefits of the agreement and there was no way Iran would do a one-sided implementation of the agreement." Iran has always said its nuclear program was only for peaceful purposes and Zarif said if Tehran resumed its nuclear activities it would not be intended "to get a bomb." "America should never have feared Iran producing a nuclear bomb, but we will pursue vigorously our nuclear enrichment. If they want to fear anything its up to them," Zarif said.

As US, North Korea plan to meet, Iran warns against Trump deals

The aftermath of US and its ally's action of claiming to have targeted Syrian Chemical weapon related establishments, and taught a lesson to Syria is full of contradictions and conflicting news from its intent to actions.

The US President may claim it to be a 'Mission Accomplished' but was it an accomplishment of any sort, without UN sanction or a debate in US Congress? Was it an effort of concerned players to show Russia and Syria in poor light, besides threatening them?

The US President may find it difficult to convince its Congressmen, opposing citizens and rest of the world. Controversies like Mattis wanted Congress to be informed before strikes, but was over-ruled, Nikki Haley wanted tougher sanctions on Russia but it was not implemented, indicate that all were not on the same page regarding this action.

Was it a plan executed by US President to divert domestic attention from the controversy over alleged Russian meddling in US elections to favor him? How could two specific US allies agree to President Trump's plan knowing well that neither Assad will quit nor Russia will give a walk over only by missile strikes?

If missile attack in 2017 on Syria did not achieve anything, then how US and allies were convinced that it will achieve anything in 2018? There is also a wide variation in the description of damages inflicted by US and Syrians.

On the other side also there are many controversies, which will find answers in times to come. Did Syria actually use chemical weapons against its countrymen or was it a story built over a period by the US and its allies, who want to change Assad regime and push Russia out of the region?

Was the double agent killed by nerve agent of Russia or planted by someone else? If chemical weapons/nerve agents were used then the culprit nation/organisation is shame on humanity and needs to be condemned by the global community.

The controversy is that Assad denies the use of chemical weapons based on simple logic that there was no need for Syria to use chemical agents when they were already nearing victory in that area? Similarly, Russians also deny any such attack because nothing very much was at stake in a besieged dilapidated township with militants holed up.

At the same time, the US and its allies are very confident of possession and use of chemical weapons by Syria. The recent media reports of three Belgium companies accused of supplying heavy amount of chemicals, which can be used for manufacturing deadly sarin nerve agent is a new revelation, to which Assad was quick to blame anti-government groups of such possible involvement/use of chemical weapons.

While the US and allies hold Syria and Russia for a delay in investigations and allege that the evidences would have been tampered by them, whereas Russia blames untimely US attack as the cause of the delay. With such controversies, the question is that can OPCW findings be relied upon or can they be manipulated?

Even some of the Russian actions seem controversial. How did such a magnitude of attack not cause a single casualty to Russians troops or equipment, if the US claims it did not inform Russians in advance? If Russians were informed, it is likely that they would have informed the Syrians, because they also claim not to have lost any troops or equipment, and claim that the attacks caused damage to few buildings and civilian casualties, then the whole operation raises a doubt about its credibility in the mind of an analyst?

If this operation was like a Hollywood drama as commented by some, then how could Russia and Syria agree to it? Russians knew it fully well that any UNSC resolution against the three participating countries having veto powers who took part in operations had to be defeated, still went for it.

Was it to convince that they explored all peaceful means of retaliation before going in for some other means in current spectrum of warfare, which is not limited to only conventional domain only? Does Russian and Iranian threat to retaliate is eyewash or it has some potential to make subsequent events dangerous.

There is another angle to read this event. After the release of National Security Strategy of US, which indirectly brands Russia, China, Iran and North Korea as a threat, the signaling to embarrass Russia can be a messaging for China and North Korea prior to the meeting of Kim. Notwithstanding the claims and counterclaims few points which emerge out are:-

-The action did not help innocents in Syria in any way. The action continues to be marred by controversies.

-It would have given joy to ISIS and other militants, observing countries who were chasing them fighting amongst each other and are diverting from goal to get into their power-politics in the region.

-It does not guarantee non-use of chemical agents unless it is established who the culprit was, and was the use accidental or deliberate?

-The attackers may not be able to avoid criticism and suspicions even in the domestic constituency.

-Russia may have additional pressure to prove the credibility of its threat, before being branded as fading power, if they were not part of this suspected drama. It may show its strength in cyber or other domains.

-The use of chemical weapons is inhumane, but the reality is that such stockpiles exist and can be used. Its proliferation to militants is easier than nukes hence the world has another dimension of terrorism to worry.

-The countries not involved in this power-play like India will like the grip of militants like IS should not be loosened and humanity must be protected from chemical weapons, besides calling for peaceful resolution of the controversy.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

How did such a magnitude of attack not cause a single casualty to Russians troops or equipment, if the US claims it did not inform Russians in advance?

The aftermath of US and its ally's action of claiming to have targeted Syrian Chemical weapon related establishments, and taught a lesson to Syria is full of contradictions and conflicting news from its intent to actions. The US President may claim it to be a 'Mission Accomplished' but was it an accomplishment of any sort, without UN sanction or a debate in US Congress? Was it an effort of concerned players to show Russia and Syria in poor light, besides threatening them? The US President may find it difficult to convince its Congressmen, opposing citizens and rest of the world. Controversies like Mattis wanted Congress to be informed before strikes, but was over-ruled, Nikki Haley wanted tougher sanctions on Russia but it was not implemented, indicate that all were not on the same page regarding this action. Was it a plan executed by US President to divert domestic attention from the controversy over alleged Russian meddling in US elections to favor him? How could two specific US allies agree to President Trump's plan knowing well that neither Assad will quit nor Russia will give a walk over only by missile strikes? If missile attack in 2017 on Syria did not achieve anything, then how US and allies were convinced that it will achieve anything in 2018? There is also a wide variation in the description of damages inflicted by US and Syrians. On the other side also there are many controversies, which will find answers in times to come. Did Syria actually use chemical weapons against its countrymen or was it a story built over a period by the US and its allies, who want to change Assad regime and push Russia out of the region? Was the double agent killed by nerve agent of Russia or planted by someone else? If chemical weapons/nerve agents were used then the culprit nation/organisation is shame on humanity and needs to be condemned by the global community. The controversy is that Assad denies the use of chemical weapons based on simple logic that there was no need for Syria to use chemical agents when they were already nearing victory in that area? Similarly, Russians also deny any such attack because nothing very much was at stake in a besieged dilapidated township with militants holed up. At the same time, the US and its allies are very confident of possession and use of chemical weapons by Syria. The recent media reports of three Belgium companies accused of supplying heavy amount of chemicals, which can be used for manufacturing deadly sarin nerve agent is a new revelation, to which Assad was quick to blame anti-government groups of such possible involvement/use of chemical weapons. While the US and allies hold Syria and Russia for a delay in investigations and allege that the evidences would have been tampered by them, whereas Russia blames untimely US attack as the cause of the delay. With such controversies, the question is that can OPCW findings be relied upon or can they be manipulated? Even some of the Russian actions seem controversial. How did such a magnitude of attack not cause a single casualty to Russians troops or equipment, if the US claims it did not inform Russians in advance? If Russians were informed, it is likely that they would have informed the Syrians, because they also claim not to have lost any troops or equipment, and claim that the attacks caused damage to few buildings and civilian casualties, then the whole operation raises a doubt about its credibility in the mind of an analyst? If this operation was like a Hollywood drama as commented by some, then how could Russia and Syria agree to it? Russians knew it fully well that any UNSC resolution against the three participating countries having veto powers who took part in operations had to be defeated, still went for it. Was it to convince that they explored all peaceful means of retaliation before going in for some other means in current spectrum of warfare, which is not limited to only conventional domain only? Does Russian and Iranian threat to retaliate is eyewash or it has some potential to make subsequent events dangerous. There is another angle to read this event. After the release of National Security Strategy of US, which indirectly brands Russia, China, Iran and North Korea as a threat, the signaling to embarrass Russia can be a messaging for China and North Korea prior to the meeting of Kim. Notwithstanding the claims and counterclaims few points which emerge out are:- -The action did not help innocents in Syria in any way. The action continues to be marred by controversies. -It would have given joy to ISIS and other militants, observing countries who were chasing them fighting amongst each other and are diverting from goal to get into their power-politics in the region. -It does not guarantee non-use of chemical agents unless it is established who the culprit was, and was the use accidental or deliberate? -The attackers may not be able to avoid criticism and suspicions even in the domestic constituency. -Russia may have additional pressure to prove the credibility of its threat, before being branded as fading power, if they were not part of this suspected drama. It may show its strength in cyber or other domains. -The use of chemical weapons is inhumane, but the reality is that such stockpiles exist and can be used. Its proliferation to militants is easier than nukes hence the world has another dimension of terrorism to worry. -The countries not involved in this power-play like India will like the grip of militants like IS should not be loosened and humanity must be protected from chemical weapons, besides calling for peaceful resolution of the controversy. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Aftermath of US missiles attack on Syria — Is it really 'mission accomplished'?

The United States labeled China, Russia, Iran and North Korea on Friday as "morally reprehensible" governments that it said violated human rights within their borders on a daily basis, making them "forces of instability".

In releasing the State Department's global human rights report for 2017, acting Secretary of State John Sullivan also singled out Syria, Myanmar, Turkey and Venezuela as nations with a poor human rights record. Improved human rights in Uzbekistan, Liberia and Mexico were global "bright spots," Sullivan added.

Michael Kozak, a senior State Department official who helped oversee the report, said he did not think policies by President Donald Trump's administration on freedom of the press, refugees, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights and other issues undermined the report or left the United States open to accusations of hypocrisy.

The governments of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea "violate the human rights of those within their borders on a daily basis and are forces of instability as a result," Sullivan said in a preface to the congressionally mandated report that documents human rights in nearly 200 countries and territories.

Countries like these that restrict freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly, allow and commit violence against religious, ethnic and other minority groups or undermine the people's fundamental dignity "are morally reprehensible and undermine our interests," Sullivan added.

Sullivan said Russia's government "continues to quash dissent and civil society, even while it invades its neighbors and undermines the sovereignty of Western nations."

"We once again urge Russia to end its brutal occupation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula, to halt the abuses perpetrated by Russian-led forces in Ukraine's Donbas region, and to address impunity for the human rights violations and abuses in the Republic of Chechnya," Sullivan said.

Sullivan said the United States seeks to lead other nations by example in promoting just and effective governance based on the rule of law and respect for human rights.

He said the right of peaceful assembly and freedoms of association and expression are "under attack almost daily" in Iran, drawing criticism from Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi.

The Iranian state news agency IRNA quoted Qasemi as saying the report was "completely biased and politically motivated, and presented a distorted and unrealistic image of the conditions in Iran".

'Quite a distinction'

Critics in the United States and globally have accused Trump of giving short shrift to human rights as a foreign policy issue, and of cozying up to authoritarian leaders in Russia, the Philippines and the Middle East. Trump also frequently attacks the US&nbspnews media.

"I think we make quite a distinction between political leaders being able to speak out and say, 'That story was not accurate,' or using even stronger words sometimes, and using state power to prevent the journalists from continuing to do their work," Kozak told reporters.

Kozak said the standards used in the report, which is among the most widely read US&nbspgovernment documents, tended to be derived from international treaties or American law.

"I think the report is very clear about the kinds of things that we consider to be inappropriate restrictions on freedom of the media ... using the legal system to go after members of the press, using physical force and so on. It doesn't go to the nature of discourse in a country," Kozak said.

The report's release comes at a time of increased tensions with China over trade and other matters.

It also coincides with deteriorating relations with Moscow over its support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whom Washington accuses of using chemical weapons on his own people, and US&nbspaccusations of Russian meddling in the 2016 US&nbsppresidential election.

Sullivan accused China of spreading "the worst features of its authoritarian system" by restricting activists, civil society and freedom of expression.

"We are particularly concerned about the efforts of Chinese authorities to eliminate the religious, linguistic and cultural identities of Uighur Muslims and Tibetan Buddhists, as well as restrictions on the worship of Christians," Sullivan added.

Trump has agreed to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in the coming months even as Washington increases pressure on Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons.

Sullivan said Kim oversees one of the most "repressive and abusive regimes in the world" and accused Pyongyang of "systematically" neglecting its own people to "underwrite and fund its illicit weapons program and child labor."

He also condemned what he called "ethnic cleaning" of Muslim Rohingya in Myanmar, and said those responsible for attacks against the Rohingya should be held accountable.

Acting Secretary of State John Sullivan also singled out Syria, Myanmar, Turkey and Venezuela as nations with a poor human rights record

The United States labeled China, Russia, Iran and North Korea on Friday as "morally reprehensible" governments that it said violated human rights within their borders on a daily basis, making them "forces of instability". In releasing the State Department's global human rights report for 2017, acting Secretary of State John Sullivan also singled out Syria, Myanmar, Turkey and Venezuela as nations with a poor human rights record. Improved human rights in Uzbekistan, Liberia and Mexico were global "bright spots," Sullivan added. Michael Kozak, a senior State Department official who helped oversee the report, said he did not think policies by President Donald Trump's administration on freedom of the press, refugees, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights and other issues undermined the report or left the United States open to accusations of hypocrisy. The governments of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea "violate the human rights of those within their borders on a daily basis and are forces of instability as a result," Sullivan said in a preface to the congressionally mandated report that documents human rights in nearly 200 countries and territories. Countries like these that restrict freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly, allow and commit violence against religious, ethnic and other minority groups or undermine the people's fundamental dignity "are morally reprehensible and undermine our interests," Sullivan added. Sullivan said Russia's government "continues to quash dissent and civil society, even while it invades its neighbors and undermines the sovereignty of Western nations." "We once again urge Russia to end its brutal occupation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula, to halt the abuses perpetrated by Russian-led forces in Ukraine's Donbas region, and to address impunity for the human rights violations and abuses in the Republic of Chechnya," Sullivan said. Sullivan said the United States seeks to lead other nations by example in promoting just and effective governance based on the rule of law and respect for human rights. He said the right of peaceful assembly and freedoms of association and expression are "under attack almost daily" in Iran, drawing criticism from Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi. The Iranian state news agency IRNA quoted Qasemi as saying the report was "completely biased and politically motivated, and presented a distorted and unrealistic image of the conditions in Iran". 'Quite a distinction' Critics in the United States and globally have accused Trump of giving short shrift to human rights as a foreign policy issue, and of cozying up to authoritarian leaders in Russia, the Philippines and the Middle East. Trump also frequently attacks the US&nbspnews media. "I think we make quite a distinction between political leaders being able to speak out and say, 'That story was not accurate,' or using even stronger words sometimes, and using state power to prevent the journalists from continuing to do their work," Kozak told reporters. Kozak said the standards used in the report, which is among the most widely read US&nbspgovernment documents, tended to be derived from international treaties or American law. "I think the report is very clear about the kinds of things that we consider to be inappropriate restrictions on freedom of the media ... using the legal system to go after members of the press, using physical force and so on. It doesn't go to the nature of discourse in a country," Kozak said. The report's release comes at a time of increased tensions with China over trade and other matters. It also coincides with deteriorating relations with Moscow over its support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whom Washington accuses of using chemical weapons on his own people, and US&nbspaccusations of Russian meddling in the 2016 US&nbsppresidential election. Sullivan accused China of spreading "the worst features of its authoritarian system" by restricting activists, civil society and freedom of expression. "We are particularly concerned about the efforts of Chinese authorities to eliminate the religious, linguistic and cultural identities of Uighur Muslims and Tibetan Buddhists, as well as restrictions on the worship of Christians," Sullivan added. Trump has agreed to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in the coming months even as Washington increases pressure on Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons. Sullivan said Kim oversees one of the most "repressive and abusive regimes in the world" and accused Pyongyang of "systematically" neglecting its own people to "underwrite and fund its illicit weapons program and child labor." He also condemned what he called "ethnic cleaning" of Muslim Rohingya in Myanmar, and said those responsible for attacks against the Rohingya should be held accountable.

US calls China, Russia, Iran, North Korea 'morally reprehensible' on rights

Chemical weapons watchdog Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had its team visit Douma&nbsp;today&nbsp;to collect site samples in connection with the alleged chemical attack carried out on April 7.&nbsp;

OPCW's Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) collected samples from one of the sites in Douma, Syria today. The team will evaluate if another possible visit to the site would be necessary.

The collected samples will be sent to the OPCW Laboratory in Rijswijk, Netherlands. Further investigations at OPCW’s designated labs will also be carried out.&nbsp;

"Based on the analysis of the sample results as well other information and materials collected by the team, the FFM will compile their report for submission to the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention for their consideration," read the official release on OPCW's website.&nbsp;

US State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert on Friday stated OPCW team's&nbsp;inability to get access to Douma even after 12 days.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y3DLV5pLTqg" width="560"></iframe>

"We confirm that the OPCW team has not been able to enter Douma, it is now 12 days since the attack took place... We have credible information that indicates that Russian officials are working with the Syrian regime to deny and to delay these inspectors from gaining access to Douma," she said.

Nauert&nbsp;also noted that Russia and Syria have been working together to sanitise the site, removing evidence of chemical weapon use.

"We believe it is an effort to conduct their own staged investigations. Russian officials with Syrian regime are working to sanitise the locations of the suspected attacks and remove incriminating evidence of chemical weapons use," Nauert stated on Friday.&nbsp;

The collected samples will be sent to the OPCW Laboratory in Rijswijk, Netherlands

Chemical weapons watchdog Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had its team visit Douma today to collect site samples in connection with the alleged chemical attack carried out on April 7. OPCW's Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) collected samples from one of the sites in Douma, Syria today. The team will evaluate if another possible visit to the site would be necessary. The collected samples will be sent to the OPCW Laboratory in Rijswijk, Netherlands. Further investigations at OPCW’s designated labs will also be carried out. "Based on the analysis of the sample results as well other information and materials collected by the team, the FFM will compile their report for submission to the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention for their consideration," read the official release on OPCW's website. US State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert on Friday stated OPCW team's inability to get access to Douma even after 12 days. "We confirm that the OPCW team has not been able to enter Douma, it is now 12 days since the attack took place... We have credible information that indicates that Russian officials are working with the Syrian regime to deny and to delay these inspectors from gaining access to Douma," she said. Nauert also noted that Russia and Syria have been working together to sanitise the site, removing evidence of chemical weapon use. "We believe it is an effort to conduct their own staged investigations. Russian officials with Syrian regime are working to sanitise the locations of the suspected attacks and remove incriminating evidence of chemical weapons use," Nauert stated on Friday.

OPCW team enters Douma, collects site samples for investigation

An Indian-American teenager, wanted on a felony firearms possession warrant, was shot dead by a California police after he opened fire on them, officials said.

The individual, identified as Nathaniel Prasad, 18, was shot dead on April 5, according to an investigation report released by the Freemont Police Department on Thursday.

He was wanted on a felony probation warrant and a misdemeanor evading arrest warrant for fleeing from a Fremont School Resource Officer on March 22.

On April 5, the Fremont Police Department's Street Crimes Unit identified Prasad as a passenger in a vehicle that was being driven by a female in Fremont area.

The vehicle was known to be associated with Prasad.

Soon the information was broadcast over the police radio about the vehicle and the active warrants and requested marked patrol units to assist with a traffic stop.

Thereafter, two patrol officers responded to the area, activated their emergency lights and siren, and stopped the suspect vehicle just prior to the intersection of Fremont Blvd. And Nicolet Ave.

According to the investigation report, the driver of the vehicle stopped and Prasad fled from the right passenger side of the car on foot.

One of the patrol officers followed Prasad to the rear of a nearby petrol station. The officer, soon stopped his vehicle and quickly got out to confront Prasad.

Prasad pulled a firearm from his waist area and it appears that he fired one to two shots in the direction of the officer, police said.

The officer drew his duty weapon, returned fire and broadcast over the police radio that the suspect had a gun.

Prasad ran back toward Fremont Blvd.

This interaction was captured on video surveillance and was corroborated by statements of the involved officer and witnesses at the scene, the local police said in a statement.

Additional police officers were rushed to the scene.

During the time the six officers were giving chase, Prasad pulled a gun from his waist area, pointed it in the direction of the officers and it appears he fired at least one round.

This interaction is corroborated by the statements of the involved officers, statements of witnesses, the body-worn camera footage and in-car camera footage of the event," the report said.

In response, the officers shot in the direction of Prasad, striking him several times, causing him to fall, it said.

"On the ground, Prasad still had the weapon in his hand and officers fired additional rounds,? the report said.

Fremont Fire paramedics who arrived on the scene announced Prasad was deceased shortly thereafter.

No officers were injured during the incident, the police said.

The driver of the vehicle was identified as Prasad's mother. She was transported back to the Fremont Police Department where she provided a statement to investigators.

The firearm in Prasad's possession was a .22 caliber revolver.

When officers examined the weapon at the scene, it had three spent casings and three empty cylinders.

A record check revealed it was reported stolen.

The recovery of the firearm from Prasad was captured via body worn camera and corroborated by witness statements.&nbsp

The individual, identified as Nathaniel Prasad, 18, was shot dead on April 5, according to an investigation report released by the Freemont Police Department on Thursday

An Indian-American teenager, wanted on a felony firearms possession warrant, was shot dead by a California police after he opened fire on them, officials said. The individual, identified as Nathaniel Prasad, 18, was shot dead on April 5, according to an investigation report released by the Freemont Police Department on Thursday. He was wanted on a felony probation warrant and a misdemeanor evading arrest warrant for fleeing from a Fremont School Resource Officer on March 22. On April 5, the Fremont Police Department's Street Crimes Unit identified Prasad as a passenger in a vehicle that was being driven by a female in Fremont area. The vehicle was known to be associated with Prasad. Soon the information was broadcast over the police radio about the vehicle and the active warrants and requested marked patrol units to assist with a traffic stop. Thereafter, two patrol officers responded to the area, activated their emergency lights and siren, and stopped the suspect vehicle just prior to the intersection of Fremont Blvd. And Nicolet Ave. According to the investigation report, the driver of the vehicle stopped and Prasad fled from the right passenger side of the car on foot. One of the patrol officers followed Prasad to the rear of a nearby petrol station. The officer, soon stopped his vehicle and quickly got out to confront Prasad. Prasad pulled a firearm from his waist area and it appears that he fired one to two shots in the direction of the officer, police said. The officer drew his duty weapon, returned fire and broadcast over the police radio that the suspect had a gun. Prasad ran back toward Fremont Blvd. This interaction was captured on video surveillance and was corroborated by statements of the involved officer and witnesses at the scene, the local police said in a statement. Additional police officers were rushed to the scene. During the time the six officers were giving chase, Prasad pulled a gun from his waist area, pointed it in the direction of the officers and it appears he fired at least one round. This interaction is corroborated by the statements of the involved officers, statements of witnesses, the body-worn camera footage and in-car camera footage of the event," the report said. In response, the officers shot in the direction of Prasad, striking him several times, causing him to fall, it said. "On the ground, Prasad still had the weapon in his hand and officers fired additional rounds,? the report said. Fremont Fire paramedics who arrived on the scene announced Prasad was deceased shortly thereafter. No officers were injured during the incident, the police said. The driver of the vehicle was identified as Prasad's mother. She was transported back to the Fremont Police Department where she provided a statement to investigators. The firearm in Prasad's possession was a .22 caliber revolver. When officers examined the weapon at the scene, it had three spent casings and three empty cylinders. A record check revealed it was reported stolen. The recovery of the firearm from Prasad was captured via body worn camera and corroborated by witness statements.

Indian-American teenager shot dead for firing on police in US

Days after the US-led air strikes in Syria, the retaliation possibly seems to be coming from Russia in cyberspace. Moscow may actually opt for cyber attacks over nuclear war.&nbsp;

Cyberspace is proving to be a battleground for Russia and the West. Russia has already been accused of carrying out cyber attacks on Washington, London and other cities.

In a fresh series of allegations, the United States and Britain have accused the Kremlin of launching attacks on firewalls and other networking equipment used by government agencies, businesses and critical infrastructure operators across the globe.

American and British officials say that the new cyber attacks have affected a wide range of organisations including internet service providers, private businesses, among others around the world.&nbsp;

Washington and London issued a joint statement that says, "The operation is to support espionage, extract intellectual property, maintain persistent access to victim networks and potentially lay a foundation for future offensive operations".&nbsp;

Britain and US have issued an alert to understand the threat and protect potential targets. This comes amid tensions between Russia and the West over a suspected chemical attack in Syria.&nbsp;

White House's cybersecurity coordinator, Rob Joyce, recently noted, "The alert is not related to the suspected chemical attack in a town in Syria that prompted a US-led military strike over the weekend targetting facilities of the Russian-backed Syrian government".&nbsp;

The Kremlin has outrightly denied the allegations. The Russian embassy issued a statement saying that "British accusations of cyber threats from Moscow are striking examples of a reckless, provocative and unfounded policy against Russia".

Australia has also joined the US and the UK in blaming Russia for the cyber attacks.&nbsp;

This is not the first time when such allegations are levelled against Putin-led Russia. While Moscow continues to rubbish all accusations, the blame-game continues to intensify between Russia and the West.&nbsp;

Australia has also joined the US and the UK in blaming Russia for the cyber attacks

Days after the US-led air strikes in Syria, the retaliation possibly seems to be coming from Russia in cyberspace. Moscow may actually opt for cyber attacks over nuclear war. Cyberspace is proving to be a battleground for Russia and the West. Russia has already been accused of carrying out cyber attacks on Washington, London and other cities. In a fresh series of allegations, the United States and Britain have accused the Kremlin of launching attacks on firewalls and other networking equipment used by government agencies, businesses and critical infrastructure operators across the globe. American and British officials say that the new cyber attacks have affected a wide range of organisations including internet service providers, private businesses, among others around the world. Washington and London issued a joint statement that says, "The operation is to support espionage, extract intellectual property, maintain persistent access to victim networks and potentially lay a foundation for future offensive operations". Britain and US have issued an alert to understand the threat and protect potential targets. This comes amid tensions between Russia and the West over a suspected chemical attack in Syria. White House's cybersecurity coordinator, Rob Joyce, recently noted, "The alert is not related to the suspected chemical attack in a town in Syria that prompted a US-led military strike over the weekend targetting facilities of the Russian-backed Syrian government". The Kremlin has outrightly denied the allegations. The Russian embassy issued a statement saying that "British accusations of cyber threats from Moscow are striking examples of a reckless, provocative and unfounded policy against Russia". Australia has also joined the US and the UK in blaming Russia for the cyber attacks. This is not the first time when such allegations are levelled against Putin-led Russia. While Moscow continues to rubbish all accusations, the blame-game continues to intensify between Russia and the West.

Watch: US, Britain blame Russia for global cyber attack

The US&nbspState Department on Friday labelled China, Russia, Iran and North Korea as "morally reprehensible" governments it said violated human rights within their borders on a daily basis, making them "forces of instability as a result."

In releasing the department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017, acting Secretary of State John Sullivan said the latest US&nbspNational Security Strategy recognised that corrupt and weak governance threatened global stability and US&nbspinterests.

"Some governments are unable to maintain security and meet the basic needs of their people, while others are simply unwilling," Sullivan said.

"States that restrict freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly that allow and commit violence against members of religious, ethnic, and other minority groups or that undermine the fundamental dignity of persons are morally reprehensible and undermine our interests," he said.

"The governments of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, for example, violate the human rights of those within their borders on a daily basis and are forces of instability as a result." 
Sullivan said the United States sought to lead other nations by example in promoting just and effective governance based on the rule of law and respect for human rights.

"The United States will continue to support those around the world struggling for human dignity and liberty," he said.

The US State Department on Friday labelled China, Russia, Iran and North Korea as 'morally reprehensible' governments it said violated human rights within their borders on a daily basis, making them 'forces of instability as a result.'

The US&nbspState Department on Friday labelled China, Russia, Iran and North Korea as "morally reprehensible" governments it said violated human rights within their borders on a daily basis, making them "forces of instability as a result." In releasing the department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017, acting Secretary of State John Sullivan said the latest US&nbspNational Security Strategy recognised that corrupt and weak governance threatened global stability and US&nbspinterests. "Some governments are unable to maintain security and meet the basic needs of their people, while others are simply unwilling," Sullivan said. "States that restrict freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly that allow and commit violence against members of religious, ethnic, and other minority groups or that undermine the fundamental dignity of persons are morally reprehensible and undermine our interests," he said. "The governments of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, for example, violate the human rights of those within their borders on a daily basis and are forces of instability as a result." Sullivan said the United States sought to lead other nations by example in promoting just and effective governance based on the rule of law and respect for human rights. "The United States will continue to support those around the world struggling for human dignity and liberty," he said.

US labels China, Russia, Iran and North Korea 'morally reprehensible' over rights

China's recent decision to provide Pakistan with the military version of Beidou, its hi-tech ballistic missile tracking and monitoring system, has once again certified a well known strategic view that Beijing uses Islamabad as the first choice exporting nation for testing its weaponry under supervision.

According to an opinion piece published on a website called Strategypage, China and Pakistan have little in common historically or culturally and Beijing sees Islamabad more as a "client state.dependent enough on Chinese goodwill to provide the latter with security."

The opinion piece on the website says, "Pakistan needs China and never the other way around. After all, democratic Pakistan is run by its military and intelligence services, which use Islamic terrorists to attack its neighbours.

China has employed such tactics in the past, but has since moved on to more sophisticated methods."It further goes on to say that China is okay Pakistan's military backing its homegrown and dangerous Islamic terror groups so long as Beijing's huge investments and Chinese personnel in Pakistan are not affected by their brand of coercive violence."

The military lets their pet Islamic terrorists understand that this risk (of Islamic terrorism) is well understood by the generals and that any "protected" Islamic terror group that decides to forget that will be eliminated and the survivors constantly hunted," says the article".

China (has) told the Pakistanis that any Islamic terrorist violence against these projects or the Chinese personnel in Pakistan to ensure everything was built on time and according to spec would result in Pakistan losing the support of China.

Pakistan could not afford that. China was not only the major supplier of weapons to Pakistan but also the only major power ally Pakistan had.

In short, Pakistan needed China more than the other way around,&nbsp;it adds. The testing of the Chinese GPS (Beidou) in Pakistan is not the first instance of the two countries collaborating at the defence level.

Pakistan was the first foreign customer for Chinese stealth aircraft. Pakistan is often the first customer approached by China for testing and purchase of new types of warships.

"If there are any problems with these ships, and that is normal, China will quietly fix things and the Pakistanis will ensure their media does not make an issue of the problem," the article reads.

Pakistan is willing to do all this because (of) the patronage China gives Pakistan without looking to establish control politically over the latter.

The article says, "There is little danger of China seeking to take control of Pakistan because that is not how China operates. China does not like trying to rule and absorb large alien populations. It has enough problems with less than ten million Turkic Uighurs and would not want to deal with over 160,000 more Moslems..".

China, however, possesses the "economic clout to demand certain things from Pakistan and Pakistan find providing that level of security to Chinese investments and personnel (is) a useful exercise in counter-terrorism. This also makes Pakistan one of the few South Asian nations that take comfort in rising Chinese military and economic power in the region," the opinion piece concludes.

The opinion piece on the website says, 'Pakistan needs China and never the other way around'

China's recent decision to provide Pakistan with the military version of Beidou, its hi-tech ballistic missile tracking and monitoring system, has once again certified a well known strategic view that Beijing uses Islamabad as the first choice exporting nation for testing its weaponry under supervision. According to an opinion piece published on a website called Strategypage, China and Pakistan have little in common historically or culturally and Beijing sees Islamabad more as a "client state.dependent enough on Chinese goodwill to provide the latter with security." The opinion piece on the website says, "Pakistan needs China and never the other way around. After all, democratic Pakistan is run by its military and intelligence services, which use Islamic terrorists to attack its neighbours. China has employed such tactics in the past, but has since moved on to more sophisticated methods."It further goes on to say that China is okay Pakistan's military backing its homegrown and dangerous Islamic terror groups so long as Beijing's huge investments and Chinese personnel in Pakistan are not affected by their brand of coercive violence." The military lets their pet Islamic terrorists understand that this risk (of Islamic terrorism) is well understood by the generals and that any "protected" Islamic terror group that decides to forget that will be eliminated and the survivors constantly hunted," says the article". China (has) told the Pakistanis that any Islamic terrorist violence against these projects or the Chinese personnel in Pakistan to ensure everything was built on time and according to spec would result in Pakistan losing the support of China. Pakistan could not afford that. China was not only the major supplier of weapons to Pakistan but also the only major power ally Pakistan had. In short, Pakistan needed China more than the other way around, it adds. The testing of the Chinese GPS (Beidou) in Pakistan is not the first instance of the two countries collaborating at the defence level. Pakistan was the first foreign customer for Chinese stealth aircraft. Pakistan is often the first customer approached by China for testing and purchase of new types of warships. "If there are any problems with these ships, and that is normal, China will quietly fix things and the Pakistanis will ensure their media does not make an issue of the problem," the article reads. Pakistan is willing to do all this because (of) the patronage China gives Pakistan without looking to establish control politically over the latter. The article says, "There is little danger of China seeking to take control of Pakistan because that is not how China operates. China does not like trying to rule and absorb large alien populations. It has enough problems with less than ten million Turkic Uighurs and would not want to deal with over 160,000 more Moslems..". China, however, possesses the "economic clout to demand certain things from Pakistan and Pakistan find providing that level of security to Chinese investments and personnel (is) a useful exercise in counter-terrorism. This also makes Pakistan one of the few South Asian nations that take comfort in rising Chinese military and economic power in the region," the opinion piece concludes.

Pakistan is China's 'client state': US report

India will claim the top spot among the world’s fastest-growing major economies this year, but rising trade tensions between the United States and China may restrain that growth, a Reuters poll of economists showed.

The recent tit-for-tat import tariffs imposed by the US and China have raised concerns about a full-fledged global trade war which could throw an otherwise-strong world economy off-course.

Twenty of 29 economists who answered an extra question said India’s economy will be hurt by the ongoing trade dispute.

“India runs the risk of being caught in the middle of the trade spat between the US and China,” said Hugo Erken, senior economist at Rabobank.

Erken said growth will take a hit if India takes sides as the side not chosen may retaliate by imposing duties.

“The damage would especially be large if India retaliated with an import duty on either US or Chinese imports,” said Erken, adding that such a scenario was unlikely.

However, not all economists shared that view. Nine respondents said India’s economy would benefit from the dispute.

“Though in the short-term a trade war between US and China may impact global trade including India, in the long-term, India is likely to benefit as China will be forced to devaluate its currency to remain a dominant player in the world market,” wrote RK Gupta, managing director at Taurus Asset Management.

“In that scenario, India’s exports will be more competitive with China.”

The latest poll, taken April 11-18, predicted India’s economy will expand 7.4 per cent in the fiscal year that began this month. That is in line with the International Monetary Fund’s projection, and is a slight upgrade from the January poll.

For the next fiscal year, growth is expected to average 7.5 per cent, a touch lower than the IMF’s forecast of 7.8 per cent.

After growth slowed sharply for much of last year, India regained its status as the world’s fastest-growing major economy in the quarter ending December 2017.

The slowdown was mainly driven by the government’s sudden decision in November 2016 to scrap high-value currency notes and a botched implementation of a goods and services tax (GST) in July last year.

But the impact of those moves has now faded.

“The investment cycle is recovering, and there is steady improvement in consumption,” noted Sonal Verma and Aurodeep Nandi at Nomura.

Inflation to push higher

While India’s retail inflation has eased this year and hit a five-month low in March, it remained above the Reserve Bank of India’s medium-term target of 4 per cent.

But increased government spending ahead of national elections next year is yet to kick in and that is expected to be inflationary.

Inflation is forecast to average 4.7 per cent in the fiscal year ending next March, and 4.9 per cent the following year, the poll showed.

The state-run India Meteorological Department has forecast a normal monsoon in 2018 - a boon for the farm sector that accounts for about 15 per cent of India’s $2 trillion economy and employs more than half its 1.3 billion people.

A normal monsoon would boost grain production and keep a lid on food price inflation, which tends to be volatile, but especially in India.

The Reserve Bank of India has kept interest rates steady after a 25 basis-point cut to the repo rate in August last year. It is forecast to keep rates on hold until the second half of next year, according to the poll of almost 50 economists.

But economists have shifted their expectation for a repo rate hike to the quarter ending September next year from a move in the first three months of 2019.

'India runs the risk of being caught in the middle of the trade spat between the US and China,'said Hugo Erken, senior economist at Rabobank

India will claim the top spot among the world’s fastest-growing major economies this year, but rising trade tensions between the United States and China may restrain that growth, a Reuters poll of economists showed. The recent tit-for-tat import tariffs imposed by the US and China have raised concerns about a full-fledged global trade war which could throw an otherwise-strong world economy off-course. Twenty of 29 economists who answered an extra question said India’s economy will be hurt by the ongoing trade dispute. “India runs the risk of being caught in the middle of the trade spat between the US and China,” said Hugo Erken, senior economist at Rabobank. Erken said growth will take a hit if India takes sides as the side not chosen may retaliate by imposing duties. “The damage would especially be large if India retaliated with an import duty on either US or Chinese imports,” said Erken, adding that such a scenario was unlikely. However, not all economists shared that view. Nine respondents said India’s economy would benefit from the dispute. “Though in the short-term a trade war between US and China may impact global trade including India, in the long-term, India is likely to benefit as China will be forced to devaluate its currency to remain a dominant player in the world market,” wrote RK Gupta, managing director at Taurus Asset Management. “In that scenario, India’s exports will be more competitive with China.” The latest poll, taken April 11-18, predicted India’s economy will expand 7.4 per cent in the fiscal year that began this month. That is in line with the International Monetary Fund’s projection, and is a slight upgrade from the January poll. For the next fiscal year, growth is expected to average 7.5 per cent, a touch lower than the IMF’s forecast of 7.8 per cent. After growth slowed sharply for much of last year, India regained its status as the world’s fastest-growing major economy in the quarter ending December 2017. The slowdown was mainly driven by the government’s sudden decision in November 2016 to scrap high-value currency notes and a botched implementation of a goods and services tax (GST) in July last year. But the impact of those moves has now faded. “The investment cycle is recovering, and there is steady improvement in consumption,” noted Sonal Verma and Aurodeep Nandi at Nomura. Inflation to push higher While India’s retail inflation has eased this year and hit a five-month low in March, it remained above the Reserve Bank of India’s medium-term target of 4 per cent. But increased government spending ahead of national elections next year is yet to kick in and that is expected to be inflationary. Inflation is forecast to average 4.7 per cent in the fiscal year ending next March, and 4.9 per cent the following year, the poll showed. The state-run India Meteorological Department has forecast a normal monsoon in 2018 - a boon for the farm sector that accounts for about 15 per cent of India’s $2 trillion economy and employs more than half its 1.3 billion people. A normal monsoon would boost grain production and keep a lid on food price inflation, which tends to be volatile, but especially in India. The Reserve Bank of India has kept interest rates steady after a 25 basis-point cut to the repo rate in August last year. It is forecast to keep rates on hold until the second half of next year, according to the poll of almost 50 economists. But economists have shifted their expectation for a repo rate hike to the quarter ending September next year from a move in the first three months of 2019.

India claims top spot for 2018 growth among major economies: Poll

In a sprawling plant near Amarillo, Texas, rows of workers perform by hand one of the most dangerous jobs in American industry. Contract workers at the US&nbsp;Department of Energy’s Pantex facility gingerly remove the plutonium cores from retired nuclear warheads.

Although many safety rules are in place, a slip of the hand could mean disaster.

In Energy Department facilities around the country, there are 54 metric tons of surplus plutonium. Pantex, the plant near Amarillo, holds so much plutonium that it has exceeded the 20,000 cores, called “pits,” regulations allow it to hold in its temporary storage facility. There are enough cores there to cause thousands of megatons of nuclear explosions. More are added each day.

The delicate, potentially deadly dismantling of nuclear warheads at Pantex, while little noticed, has grown increasingly urgent to keep the United States from exceeding a limit of 1,550 warheads permitted under a 2010 treaty with Russia. The United States wants to dismantle older warheads so that it can substitute some of them with newer, more lethal weapons. Russia, too, is building new, dangerous weapons.&nbsp;

The United States has a vast amount of deadly plutonium, which terrorists would love to get their hands on. Under another agreement, Washington and Moscow each are required to render unusable for weapons 34 metric tons of plutonium.

The purpose is twofold: keep the material out of the hands of bad guys, and eliminate the possibility of the two countries themselves using it again for weapons. An Energy Department website says the two countries combined have 68 metric tons designated for destruction - enough to make 17,000 nuclear weapons. But the United States has no permanent plan for what to do with its share.

Plutonium must be made permanently inaccessible because it has a radioactive half-life of 24,000 years.

A much more dangerous situation

Edwin Lyman, a physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science advocacy group based in Washington, says solving the problem of plutonium storage is urgent. In an increasingly unstable world, with terrorism, heightened international tensions and non-nuclear countries coveting the bomb, he says, the risk is that this metal of mass annihilation will be used again. William Potter, director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, told Reuters: “We are in a much more dangerous situation today than we were in the Cold War.”&nbsp;

Washington has not even begun to take the steps needed to acquire additional space for burying plutonium more than 2,000 feet below ground - the depth considered safe.

Much of America’s plutonium currently is stored in a building at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina - like Pantex, an Energy Department site. Savannah River used to house a reactor.

Local opponents of the storage, such as Tom Clements, director of SRS Watch, contend the facility was never built for holding plutonium and say there is a risk of leakage and accidents in which large amounts of radioactivity are released.

The Energy Department has a small experimental storage site underground in New Mexico. The department controls the radioactive materials - plutonium, uranium and tritium - used in America’s nuclear weapons and in the reactors of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines.

In a Senate hearing in June 2017, Energy Secretary Rick Perry said the Energy Department has been in talks with New Mexico officials to enlarge the site. Environmental groups there have strongly opposed expansion.

Under an agreement with Russia, the United States was to convert 34 metric tons of plutonium into fuel for civilian reactors that generate electricity. The fuel is known as MOX, for “mixed oxide fuel.” Plutonium and uranium are converted into chemical compounds called oxides, and mixed together in fuel rods for civilian nuclear power plants.

The two metals are converted into oxides because these can’t cause nuclear explosions. But the US&nbsp;effort has run into severe delays and cost overruns.

The alternative method is known as dilute-and-dispose. It involves blending plutonium with an inert material and storing it in casks. The casks, however, are projected to last only 50 years before beginning to leak, and so would need to be buried permanently deep underground.&nbsp;

The MOX mess

President Donald Trump has sided with the Energy Department in wanting to kill the MOX project because of the extreme cost overruns and delays. The Energy Department, beginning in the Obama administration, favoured closing down the MOX project for the same reason, but Congress overruled it.

The federal budget adopted in February, however, specifies a means for ending the project, if a study shows that dilute-and-dispose would be at least 50 percent cheaper than making MOX.&nbsp;

The National Nuclear Security Administration, the part of the Energy Department that oversees the nuclear sites and materials, favours switching to the dilute-and-dispose method. In recent testimony before a House of Representatives subcommittee, Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, the new NNSA administrator, said that method would “cost billions less” than completing the MOX plant.

Plutonium is a versatile nuclear bomb material. Terrorists would need only 11 kilograms or less to make a bomb, Lyman says.&nbsp;

Its ordinarily limited radioactivity makes plutonium safe for terrorists or other thieves to transport with little risk of radiation injury. It goes undetected by most sensors. It radiates alpha particles, relatively large on an atomic scale, which means the thin glass of a test tube, the leather of a briefcase, or even air or skin stop them. The danger from handling small amounts is inhaling plutonium dust. In that case, the dust spreads from the lungs throughout the body, causing multiple kinds of cancer.&nbsp;

The federal government now has no solution in sight to dispose of the plutonium permanently. Its one effort to make it unusable for bombs has turned into what the White House and Energy Department say is a costly failure.

The MOX project, at the Energy Department’s Savannah River Site in South Carolina, has been kept on life support by Congress thanks to the influence of South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham and other lawmakers. The MOX plant employs about 2,000 people in Graham’s state.

Graham and other Congressional backers say MOX is the best way to keep plutonium out of the hands of terrorists. They note too that the pact with Russia requires the United States to use MOX as the method for disposal.

A spokeswoman for Graham declined to comment on his behalf but sent a link to a YouTube video of a Senate hearing in March. In the hearing, Graham, referring to steps already taken to limit work on the MOX plant, said: “What I think we’ve done is ended the biggest non-proliferation program in the world, and I’m going to try and fix that.”

Today’s plutonium glut mainly is a legacy of the Cold War. The quantities now seem surreal. By 1967 the U.S. nuclear arsenal reached its apex, with 37,000 warheads. The Soviet Union’s peak came in the 1970s, with approximately 45,000. These were enough to destroy life on Earth thousands of times over.

A radioactive peace dividend

Amid the terror and aggressiveness then of government and military leaders on both sides, little or no thought was given what to do with the warheads should the risk of mass annihilation ebb.&nbsp;

Daniel Ellsberg, best known for leaking in 1971 the Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam war, in the early 1960s was an adviser to the Air Force and White House on nuclear policy. He recently published a book detailing and criticizing the nuclear policy debates and decisions of that era. In a phone interview, he said disposal of weapons was never considered at the time.

“I don’t think one person gave one moment of thought to that,” Ellsberg said. “No one thought that the Cold War would end.”

Treaties that dramatically reduced US&nbsp;and Russian nuclear arsenals were signed soon after the Soviet Union fell. It was then that the magnitude of the problem – disposing of the surplus plutonium – dawned on the two countries. Scientists proffered ideas, nearly all involving making the plutonium forbiddingly dangerous for malefactors to transport and burying it deep underground.

Instead, under a 2000 treaty, the United States agreed to transform the 34 metric tons of plutonium into MOX, unusable for bombs. Russia agreed to destroy the same quantity using a special type of reactor. But the United States had never before built a MOX plant. No US&nbsp;civilian reactor had ever used MOX as fuel.

This misplaced optimism led to one of the costliest snafus ever in US&nbsp;government construction. Work began in 2007 to build a MOX plant that was to be operational by November 2016. The Energy Department now estimates that, if allowed to proceed, it will not be finished until 2048. In 2007 the Energy Department said the total cost would be $4.8 billion. Now it estimates the cost at more than $17 billion.

Building of the plant began when detailed designs were between 20 percent and 40 percent complete. But once initial construction finished, the contractor, under instructions from the Energy Department, breezed ahead without architectural plans.

Reports from the Union of Concerned Scientists said rooms were built for laboratories and offices where none were needed. Ventilation ducts and electrical wiring were in the wrong places. Plumbing was a maze of misplaced pipes. The contractor later had to rip out much of its work and start over.&nbsp;

The contractor is a consortium of companies, CB&I Areva MOX Services. It includes CB&I (formerly Chicago Bridge and Iron), based in the Netherlands, and Areva, which specializes in nuclear-related and alternative power projects, majority owned by the French government.

Giving it away

In an e-mailed statement to Reuters, the consortium said it expects to finish the facility. It said “the project is over 70 percent physically complete.”

But Gordon-Hagerty, the National Nuclear Security Administration’s new chief, testified in March before a House Appropriations Subcommittee that it is “nowhere near” 50% complete. Government Accountability Office reports criticized the Energy Department for awarding a “cost plus” contract, which guarantees a profit regardless of how much work is done.

In an emailed response to questions for this article, Lindsey Geisler, a spokesperson for the NNSA, said that in 2011, after the contract had been awarded, “NNSA recognised the need to institute project management reforms.” She said the NNSA established a new office to better oversee contracting and acquisition, and that practices have improved significantly.

Echoing other critics, Frank von Hippel, a Princeton University professor who researches nuclear arms control and policymaking, said weak oversight continues. “The problem at DOE is that the quality of managers, with some exceptions, is quite low,” he said. “Contractors just milk them for money.”

An Energy Department panel reported in 2016 that there is no US market for MOX. To use MOX fuel rods, civilian power plants would have to modify their reactors, requiring lengthy relicensing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The report said the best the Energy Department could hope for was to give the stuff away.&nbsp;

In Energy Department facilities around the country, there are 54 metric tons of surplus plutonium. The United States has a vast amount of deadly plutonium, which terrorists would love to get their hands on

In a sprawling plant near Amarillo, Texas, rows of workers perform by hand one of the most dangerous jobs in American industry. Contract workers at the US Department of Energy’s Pantex facility gingerly remove the plutonium cores from retired nuclear warheads. Although many safety rules are in place, a slip of the hand could mean disaster. In Energy Department facilities around the country, there are 54 metric tons of surplus plutonium. Pantex, the plant near Amarillo, holds so much plutonium that it has exceeded the 20,000 cores, called “pits,” regulations allow it to hold in its temporary storage facility. There are enough cores there to cause thousands of megatons of nuclear explosions. More are added each day. The delicate, potentially deadly dismantling of nuclear warheads at Pantex, while little noticed, has grown increasingly urgent to keep the United States from exceeding a limit of 1,550 warheads permitted under a 2010 treaty with Russia. The United States wants to dismantle older warheads so that it can substitute some of them with newer, more lethal weapons. Russia, too, is building new, dangerous weapons. The United States has a vast amount of deadly plutonium, which terrorists would love to get their hands on. Under another agreement, Washington and Moscow each are required to render unusable for weapons 34 metric tons of plutonium. The purpose is twofold: keep the material out of the hands of bad guys, and eliminate the possibility of the two countries themselves using it again for weapons. An Energy Department website says the two countries combined have 68 metric tons designated for destruction - enough to make 17,000 nuclear weapons. But the United States has no permanent plan for what to do with its share. Plutonium must be made permanently inaccessible because it has a radioactive half-life of 24,000 years. A much more dangerous situation Edwin Lyman, a physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science advocacy group based in Washington, says solving the problem of plutonium storage is urgent. In an increasingly unstable world, with terrorism, heightened international tensions and non-nuclear countries coveting the bomb, he says, the risk is that this metal of mass annihilation will be used again. William Potter, director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, told Reuters: “We are in a much more dangerous situation today than we were in the Cold War.” Washington has not even begun to take the steps needed to acquire additional space for burying plutonium more than 2,000 feet below ground - the depth considered safe. Much of America’s plutonium currently is stored in a building at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina - like Pantex, an Energy Department site. Savannah River used to house a reactor. Local opponents of the storage, such as Tom Clements, director of SRS Watch, contend the facility was never built for holding plutonium and say there is a risk of leakage and accidents in which large amounts of radioactivity are released. The Energy Department has a small experimental storage site underground in New Mexico. The department controls the radioactive materials - plutonium, uranium and tritium - used in America’s nuclear weapons and in the reactors of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines. In a Senate hearing in June 2017, Energy Secretary Rick Perry said the Energy Department has been in talks with New Mexico officials to enlarge the site. Environmental groups there have strongly opposed expansion. Under an agreement with Russia, the United States was to convert 34 metric tons of plutonium into fuel for civilian reactors that generate electricity. The fuel is known as MOX, for “mixed oxide fuel.” Plutonium and uranium are converted into chemical compounds called oxides, and mixed together in fuel rods for civilian nuclear power plants. The two metals are converted into oxides because these can’t cause nuclear explosions. But the US effort has run into severe delays and cost overruns. The alternative method is known as dilute-and-dispose. It involves blending plutonium with an inert material and storing it in casks. The casks, however, are projected to last only 50 years before beginning to leak, and so would need to be buried permanently deep underground. The MOX mess President Donald Trump has sided with the Energy Department in wanting to kill the MOX project because of the extreme cost overruns and delays. The Energy Department, beginning in the Obama administration, favoured closing down the MOX project for the same reason, but Congress overruled it. The federal budget adopted in February, however, specifies a means for ending the project, if a study shows that dilute-and-dispose would be at least 50 percent cheaper than making MOX. The National Nuclear Security Administration, the part of the Energy Department that oversees the nuclear sites and materials, favours switching to the dilute-and-dispose method. In recent testimony before a House of Representatives subcommittee, Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, the new NNSA administrator, said that method would “cost billions less” than completing the MOX plant. Plutonium is a versatile nuclear bomb material. Terrorists would need only 11 kilograms or less to make a bomb, Lyman says. Its ordinarily limited radioactivity makes plutonium safe for terrorists or other thieves to transport with little risk of radiation injury. It goes undetected by most sensors. It radiates alpha particles, relatively large on an atomic scale, which means the thin glass of a test tube, the leather of a briefcase, or even air or skin stop them. The danger from handling small amounts is inhaling plutonium dust. In that case, the dust spreads from the lungs throughout the body, causing multiple kinds of cancer. The federal government now has no solution in sight to dispose of the plutonium permanently. Its one effort to make it unusable for bombs has turned into what the White House and Energy Department say is a costly failure. The MOX project, at the Energy Department’s Savannah River Site in South Carolina, has been kept on life support by Congress thanks to the influence of South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham and other lawmakers. The MOX plant employs about 2,000 people in Graham’s state. Graham and other Congressional backers say MOX is the best way to keep plutonium out of the hands of terrorists. They note too that the pact with Russia requires the United States to use MOX as the method for disposal. A spokeswoman for Graham declined to comment on his behalf but sent a link to a YouTube video of a Senate hearing in March. In the hearing, Graham, referring to steps already taken to limit work on the MOX plant, said: “What I think we’ve done is ended the biggest non-proliferation program in the world, and I’m going to try and fix that.” Today’s plutonium glut mainly is a legacy of the Cold War. The quantities now seem surreal. By 1967 the U.S. nuclear arsenal reached its apex, with 37,000 warheads. The Soviet Union’s peak came in the 1970s, with approximately 45,000. These were enough to destroy life on Earth thousands of times over. A radioactive peace dividend Amid the terror and aggressiveness then of government and military leaders on both sides, little or no thought was given what to do with the warheads should the risk of mass annihilation ebb. Daniel Ellsberg, best known for leaking in 1971 the Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam war, in the early 1960s was an adviser to the Air Force and White House on nuclear policy. He recently published a book detailing and criticizing the nuclear policy debates and decisions of that era. In a phone interview, he said disposal of weapons was never considered at the time. “I don’t think one person gave one moment of thought to that,” Ellsberg said. “No one thought that the Cold War would end.” Treaties that dramatically reduced US and Russian nuclear arsenals were signed soon after the Soviet Union fell. It was then that the magnitude of the problem – disposing of the surplus plutonium – dawned on the two countries. Scientists proffered ideas, nearly all involving making the plutonium forbiddingly dangerous for malefactors to transport and burying it deep underground. Instead, under a 2000 treaty, the United States agreed to transform the 34 metric tons of plutonium into MOX, unusable for bombs. Russia agreed to destroy the same quantity using a special type of reactor. But the United States had never before built a MOX plant. No US civilian reactor had ever used MOX as fuel. This misplaced optimism led to one of the costliest snafus ever in US government construction. Work began in 2007 to build a MOX plant that was to be operational by November 2016. The Energy Department now estimates that, if allowed to proceed, it will not be finished until 2048. In 2007 the Energy Department said the total cost would be $4.8 billion. Now it estimates the cost at more than $17 billion. Building of the plant began when detailed designs were between 20 percent and 40 percent complete. But once initial construction finished, the contractor, under instructions from the Energy Department, breezed ahead without architectural plans. Reports from the Union of Concerned Scientists said rooms were built for laboratories and offices where none were needed. Ventilation ducts and electrical wiring were in the wrong places. Plumbing was a maze of misplaced pipes. The contractor later had to rip out much of its work and start over. The contractor is a consortium of companies, CB&I Areva MOX Services. It includes CB&I (formerly Chicago Bridge and Iron), based in the Netherlands, and Areva, which specializes in nuclear-related and alternative power projects, majority owned by the French government. Giving it away In an e-mailed statement to Reuters, the consortium said it expects to finish the facility. It said “the project is over 70 percent physically complete.” But Gordon-Hagerty, the National Nuclear Security Administration’s new chief, testified in March before a House Appropriations Subcommittee that it is “nowhere near” 50% complete. Government Accountability Office reports criticized the Energy Department for awarding a “cost plus” contract, which guarantees a profit regardless of how much work is done. In an emailed response to questions for this article, Lindsey Geisler, a spokesperson for the NNSA, said that in 2011, after the contract had been awarded, “NNSA recognised the need to institute project management reforms.” She said the NNSA established a new office to better oversee contracting and acquisition, and that practices have improved significantly. Echoing other critics, Frank von Hippel, a Princeton University professor who researches nuclear arms control and policymaking, said weak oversight continues. “The problem at DOE is that the quality of managers, with some exceptions, is quite low,” he said. “Contractors just milk them for money.” An Energy Department panel reported in 2016 that there is no US market for MOX. To use MOX fuel rods, civilian power plants would have to modify their reactors, requiring lengthy relicensing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The report said the best the Energy Department could hope for was to give the stuff away.

America's nuclear headache: Old 'deadly' plutonium with nowhere to go

US&nbspPresident Donald Trump invited his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin to the United States during a phone call, and said he would be glad to see Putin in the White House, RIA Novosti reported on Friday, citing the Russian Foreign Ministry.

The news agency quoted Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov as saying Trump returned to the subject of an invitation a couple of times during a call last month and that Russia was now expecting Trump to formalise the invitation.&nbsp

"We proceed from the fact that the US&nbsppresident in a telephone conversation...made such an invitation, said he would be glad to see (Putin) in the White House, would then be glad to meet on a reciprocal visit," said Lavrov, according to a transcript of an interview with RIA on the foreign ministry website.&nbsp

"He returned to this topic a couple of times, so we let our American colleagues know that we do not want to impose, but we also do not want to be impolite, and that considering that President Trump made this proposal, we proceed from the position that he will make it concrete."&nbsp

Rolling out a welcome for Putin in the White House could anger Trump's domestic critics, who accuse Russia of hostile acts against Western countries, including the United States.

"I would simply turn your attention to the fact that Donald Trump after this phone conversation has said several times in both Tweets and in words that it is necessary to resolve issues with Russia, we want to have good relations with Russia, this is better than not having good relations, and that only a fool thinks otherwise," Lavrov said. "We also hear this."

Trump and Putin spoke by phone on March 20. 
&nbsp

Trump and Putin spoke by phone on March 20.

US&nbspPresident Donald Trump invited his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin to the United States during a phone call, and said he would be glad to see Putin in the White House, RIA Novosti reported on Friday, citing the Russian Foreign Ministry. The news agency quoted Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov as saying Trump returned to the subject of an invitation a couple of times during a call last month and that Russia was now expecting Trump to formalise the invitation. "We proceed from the fact that the US&nbsppresident in a telephone conversation...made such an invitation, said he would be glad to see (Putin) in the White House, would then be glad to meet on a reciprocal visit," said Lavrov, according to a transcript of an interview with RIA on the foreign ministry website. "He returned to this topic a couple of times, so we let our American colleagues know that we do not want to impose, but we also do not want to be impolite, and that considering that President Trump made this proposal, we proceed from the position that he will make it concrete." Rolling out a welcome for Putin in the White House could anger Trump's domestic critics, who accuse Russia of hostile acts against Western countries, including the United States. "I would simply turn your attention to the fact that Donald Trump after this phone conversation has said several times in both Tweets and in words that it is necessary to resolve issues with Russia, we want to have good relations with Russia, this is better than not having good relations, and that only a fool thinks otherwise," Lavrov said. "We also hear this." Trump and Putin spoke by phone on March 20.

Russia says Trump invited Putin to US during phone call

The New York Times reported on Tuesday that Republicans close to the White House whisper about a possible joint campaign by Haley and Pence in 2020.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SK4l0XWP270" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Rumours of a possible Haley-Pence ticket in the 2020 US Presidential polls also made the rounds after reports surfaced suggesting that Haley was not communicated about White House's change in course on Russia sanctions.

US ambassador to UN Nikki Haley recently shut down Trump administration over calling her "confused". US President Donald Trump was infuriated over Haley's remarks stating that Trump would call for fresh sanctions on Russia while he wasn't planning anything on those lines.

National Economics Adviser, Larry Kudlow called Haley's statement an outcome of her "confusion" to which she responded saying that, "With all due respect, I don't get confused".

While the incident made front-page headlines across the world, experts and political analysts got busy anticipating a possible rift between Trump and Haley.&nbsp;

Trump has already confirmed running for a second term in 2020. Haley's role at the United Nations, which initially raised eyebrows among diplomats, has been widely appreciated. She is often acknowledged for her political skills while her ambitions for a higher office is also speculated.

However, Haley on Wednesday smoothened-out speculations over her sour relationship with the US President calling it "perfect".&nbsp;

A senior administration official said that Haley had not been "freelancing" when she spoke about new Russian sanctions on Sunday. "The president just wanted to slow down the process after she spoke," the official said.

When asked on Wednesday if Trump should be worried about a Pence/Haley campaign, Haley smiled, shook her head and said: "No."

Pence's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

(With inputs from Reuters)

Haley is often acknowledged for her political skills while her ambitions for a higher office is also speculated.

The New York Times reported on Tuesday that Republicans close to the White House whisper about a possible joint campaign by Haley and Pence in 2020. × Rumours of a possible Haley-Pence ticket in the 2020 US Presidential polls also made the rounds after reports surfaced suggesting that Haley was not communicated about White House's change in course on Russia sanctions. US ambassador to UN Nikki Haley recently shut down Trump administration over calling her "confused". US President Donald Trump was infuriated over Haley's remarks stating that Trump would call for fresh sanctions on Russia while he wasn't planning anything on those lines. National Economics Adviser, Larry Kudlow called Haley's statement an outcome of her "confusion" to which she responded saying that, "With all due respect, I don't get confused". While the incident made front-page headlines across the world, experts and political analysts got busy anticipating a possible rift between Trump and Haley. Trump has already confirmed running for a second term in 2020. Haley's role at the United Nations, which initially raised eyebrows among diplomats, has been widely appreciated. She is often acknowledged for her political skills while her ambitions for a higher office is also speculated. However, Haley on Wednesday smoothened-out speculations over her sour relationship with the US President calling it "perfect". A senior administration official said that Haley had not been "freelancing" when she spoke about new Russian sanctions on Sunday. "The president just wanted to slow down the process after she spoke," the official said. When asked on Wednesday if Trump should be worried about a Pence/Haley campaign, Haley smiled, shook her head and said: "No." Pence's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. (With inputs from Reuters)

Haley for President in 2020? Trump, White House see red

us-1

Us, News on Us, stories on Us, articles on Us, Us stories at Wion, Us news, Us latest news

us 1