US strikes on Iran leave hopes for nuclear diplomacy in tatters
PARIS/ISTANBUL (Reuters) -- In a bid to defuse the conflict over Iran's nuclear program, foreign ministers from Europe's top three powers hurried to meet their Iranian counterpart on Friday in Geneva.
Those hopes collapsed Saturday when US President Donald Trump ordered airstrikes on Iran's three main nuclear sites in support of Israel's military campaign.
"It's irrelevant to ask Iran to return to diplomacy," Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araqchi, visibly angry, told reporters in Istanbul on Sunday, promising a "response" to the US strikes."It's not time for diplomacy now."
Trump, who said the US airstrikes "obliterated" the sites, warned in a televised speech on Saturday that the US could attack other targets in Iran if no peace deal was reached and urged Tehran to return to the negotiating table.
Reuters spoke to seven Western diplomats and analysts who said the prospect of negotiations was negligible for now, with an unbridgeable gap between Washington's demand for zero enrichment by Iran and Tehran's refusal to abandon its nuclear program.
"I think the prospects of effective diplomacy at this point are slim to none," said James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think tank headquartered in Washington.
"I'm much more worried about escalation, both in the short and the long term." According to European diplomats, the three European allies -- Britain, France and Germany -- were not made aware of Trump's decision to strike Iran ahead of time. French President Emmanuel Macron had promised on Saturday -- just before the US strikes -- to accelerate the nuclear talks, following a call with his Iranian counterpart.
One European diplomat, who asked not to be identified, acknowledged there was now no way of holding a planned second meeting with Iran in the coming week.
In the wake of the US military action, any European diplomatic role appears likely to be secondary. Trump on Friday dismissed Europe's efforts towards resolving the crisis, saying Iran only wanted to speak to the US.
Three diplomats and analysts said any future talks between Iran and Washington would likely be through regional intermediaries Oman and Qatar, once Tehran decides how to respond to the US airstrikes on its nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.
The attacks leave Iran with few palatable options on the table.
Since Israel began its military campaign against Iran on June 13, some in Tehran have raised the prospect of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to signal Iran's determination to accelerate enrichment, but experts say that would represent a considerable escalation and likely draw a forceful response from Washington.
Acton, of the Carnegie Endowment, said Iran's most obvious means of retaliation is its short-range ballistic missiles, which could be used to target US forces and assets in the region. But any military response by Iran carried the risk of miscalculation, he said.
"On the one hand, they want a strong enough response that they feel the US has actually paid a price. On the other hand, they don't want to encourage further escalation," he said.
Even before the US strikes, Friday's talks in Geneva showed little sign of progress amid a chasm between the two sides, and in the end, no detailed proposals were put forward, three diplomats said. Mixed messaging may have also undermined their efforts, diplomats said.
European positions on key issues like Iran's enrichment program have hardened in the past 10 days with the Israeli strikes and the looming threat of US bombing.
The three European powers, known as the E3, were parties to a 2015 nuclear deal that Trump abandoned three years later during his first term.
Both the Europeans and Tehran believed they had a better understanding of how to get a realistic deal, given that the E3 has been dealing with Iran's nuclear program since 2003.
But the Europeans have had a difficult relationship with Iran in recent months as they sought to pressure it over its ballistic missiles program, support for Russia and detention of European citizens.
France, which was the keenest to pursue negotiations, has in the last few days suggested Iran should move towards zero enrichment, which until now was not an E3 demand given Iran's red line on the issue, two European diplomats said.
Britain has also adopted a tougher stance more in tune with Washington and that was expressed in Geneva, the diplomats said.
And Germany's new government appeared to go in the same direction, although it was more nuanced.
"Iran has to accept zero enrichment eventually," said one EU official.
A senior Iranian official on Saturday showed disappointment at the Europeans' new stance, saying their demands were "unrealistic," without providing further details.
In a brief joint statement Sunday, which acknowledged the US strikes, the European countries said they would continue their diplomatic efforts.
"We call upon Iran to engage in negotiations leading to an agreement that addresses all concerns associated with its nuclear program," it said, adding the Europeans stood ready to contribute "in coordination with all parties."
David Khalfa, co-founder of the Atlantic Middle East Forum, a Paris-based think tank, said Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's government had taken advantage of the Europeans for years to gain time as it developed its nuclear program and ballistic missile capabilities.
"The European attempt ended in failure," he said.
However, the Europeans still have one important card to play. They are the only ones who, as parties to the nuclear accord, can launch its so-called "snapback mechanism," which would reimpose all previous UN sanctions on Iran if it is found to be in violation of the agreement's terms.
Diplomats said, before the US strikes, the three countries had discussed an end-August deadline to activate it as part of a 'maximum pressure' campaign on Tehran.
In total, the US launched 75 precision-guided munitions, including more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles, and more than 125 military aircraft in the operation against the three nuclear sites, US officials said.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Sunday warned Iran against retaliation and said both public and private messages had been sent to Iran "in multiple channels, giving them every opportunity to come to the table."
Five previous rounds of indirect negotiations between the US and Iran collapsed after a US proposal at the end of May called for Iran to abandon uranium enrichment. It was rejected by Tehran, leading to Israel launching its attack on Iran after Trump's 60-day deadline for talks had expired.
Iran has repeatedly said from then on that it would not negotiate while at war.
Even after Israel struck, Washington reached out to Iran to resume negotiations, including offering a meeting between Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in Istanbul, according to two European diplomats and an Iranian official.
That was rebuffed by Iran, but Araqchi did continue direct contacts with US Special envoy Steve Witkoff, three diplomats told Reuters.
One of the challenges in engaging with Iran, experts say, is that no one can be sure of the extent of the damage to its nuclear program. With the IAEA severely restricted in its access to Iranian sites, it is unclear whether Tehran has hidden enrichment facilities.
A senior Iranian source told Reuters on Sunday that most of the highly enriched uranium at Fordow, the site producing the bulk of Iran's uranium refined to up to 60 percent, had been moved to an undisclosed location before the US attack there.
Acton, of the Carnegie Endowment, said that -- putting aside the damage to its physical installations -- Iran had thousands of scientists and technicians involved in the enrichment program, most of whom had survived the US and Israeli attacks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Korea Herald
33 minutes ago
- Korea Herald
Seoul shares snap 5-day rally following US strike on Iran; won at 1-month low
South Korean stocks ended lower Monday to snap a five-day winning streak, over heightened Middle Eastern uncertainties following the United States' bombing attacks on key Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend. The local currency was trading sharply lower against the US dollar. The benchmark Korea Composite Stock Price Index slid 7.37 points, or 0.24 percent, to close at 3,014.47, after dipping to an intraday low of 2,971.36. Trade volume was heavy at 619.8.7 million shares worth 17.76 trillion won ($12.8 billion), with losers outnumbering winners 646 to 265. Foreigners and institutions combined sold local shares worth 1.32 trillion won, while retail investors snapped up shares worth 1.4 trillion won. On Friday, the Kospi topped the 3,000-point mark for the first time in more than three years, backed by investor optimism over policies under the Lee Jae Myung administration. But investor sentiment was dampened by heightened tensions in the Middle East over the weekend. The US used B-2 bombers to launch air strikes on three key nuclear sites in Iran on Saturday, with President Donald Trump describing the operation as "successful" and claiming the Iranian sites were "obliterated." Chip and bio shares led the overall losses, with market heavyweight Samsung Electronics dropping 2.52 percent to 58,000 won and Samsung Biologics slumping 2.36 percent to 992,000 won. Battery and heavy machinery shares also retreated, with top battery manufacturer LG Energy Solution down 3.61 percent to 294,000 won and defense systems giant Hanwha Aerospace dropping 2.03 percent to 919,000 won. Automotive and shipbuilders also lost ground. Top automaker Hyundai Motor plunged 4.05 percent to 201,500 won, and leading shipyard HD Hyundai Heavy Industries slid 2.14 percent to 433,500 won. In contrast, internet-related shares and financial companies advanced. Top portal operator Naver soared 7.61 percent to 290,000 won, and KB Financial climbed 1.03 percent to 107,600 won. The local currency was trading at 1,384.3 won against the greenback at 3:30 p.m., down sharply by 18.7 won from the previous session, and marking the lowest since May 21, when the corresponding reading was 1,387.2. (Yonhap)
Korea Herald
an hour ago
- Korea Herald
Trump struck Iran — but North Korea is a different story
Iran strike hardens Kim Jong-un's nuclear resolve, pushes Pyongyang deeper into China-Russia orbit, say experts US President Donald Trump's decision to authorize airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities has been widely seen as reinforcing North Korea's long-held belief: that nuclear weapons are essential for regime survival. The strike would further dim the already unfavorable prospects for nuclear dialogue with Washington and accelerate Pyongyang's push for deeper military cooperation with Russia. Still, analysts in Seoul stressed that North Korea's case is fundamentally different from Iran's. Not only does Pyongyang already possess nuclear weapons and advanced delivery systems, it also maintains a distinct rationale and motivation for nuclear armament — unlike Tehran, whose program is framed around deterrence and national pride, Pyongyang's is centered on the survival of the Kim regime. One of the most significant differences, observers noted, is that the likelihood of Trump ordering a similar strike on North Korean nuclear facilities is considered extremely low. A key reason lies in North Korea's counterstrike capabilities: intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US mainland and massed artillery aimed at densely populated areas of Seoul. Joung Kyeong-woon, a senior research fellow at the Seoul Defense Forum, pointed out that densely populated areas — including the Seoul metropolitan area and the city of Goyang — are well within range of North Korean artillery. 'The primary reason North Korea cannot be attacked lies in the fact that we are essentially held hostage by its artillery — far more easily usable than nuclear weapons,' Joung told The Korea Herald. "This reality was confirmed when South Korea opposed, and then-US President Clinton ultimately abandoned, the idea of a surgical strike." Then-President Kim Young-sam opposed the US proposal to strike the Yongbyon nuclear facility during the 1994 nuclear crisis under the Clinton administration. North Korea can launch immediate strikes on the densely populated South Korean capital and its vicinity using artillery systems such as 170mm self-propelled guns and 240mm multiple rocket launchers, in addition to missiles targeting South Korea, including nuclear-capable solid-fuel short-range missiles like the KN-23. 'Since then, North Korea has secured layered deterrence through its possession of various medium- and long-range ballistic missiles, in addition to nuclear weapons,' Joung said. Joung further explained that North Korea's deeply fortified underground nuclear facilities are nearly impossible to neutralize. 'North Korea's key nuclear and missile facilities are located hundreds of meters underground, beneath solid bedrock in the mountainous regions of the country's northwest," Joung said. 'There are no existing weapons capable of directly destroying them — not even tactical nuclear weapons.' Lim Eul-chul, a professor at Kyungnam University's Institute for Far Eastern Studies in Seoul, pointed out, 'North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons and second-strike capabilities are the biggest constraints on a US airstrike" against nuclear facilities in North Korea. In April 2025, Gen. Xavier Bruson, the commander of US Forces Korea, testified before the House Armed Services Committee that the 'DPRK's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs and formidable missile force (ballistic and cruise) pose a threat to the US homeland, US forces in the Indo-Pacific, and allied nations." Pyongyang has formalized a preemptive, or first-use nuclear policy in accordance with the law on North Korea's policy on nuclear forces, promulgated in September 2022. 'This marks a shift from its previous stance of using nuclear weapons solely for defensive purposes, allowing their use also for repelling or retaliating against an enemy's invasion or signs of an impending attack,' Lim said. The roles of Russia and China also set North Korea apart from Iran. 'Unlike the case of Iran, Russia is obligated to intervene automatically under the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty between North Korea and Russia," Lim said. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty, which stipulates a mutual defense obligation, in June 2024, during Putin's visit to Pyongyang. 'China is likely to view a US airstrike on North Korea's nuclear facilities as a direct threat to stability on the Korean Peninsula and to security along the China–North Korea border," Lim added. Leif-Eric Easley, professor of international studies at Ewha Womans University in Seoul, pointed out that 'China and Russia are better positioned to help Pyongyang than Tehran.' 'The North Korean case is very different," Easley said. More importantly, experts in Seoul underscored that the US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities is likely to have far-reaching implications for North Korea — reinforcing Pyongyang's nuclear posture, deepening its distrust of Washington, and reshaping its approach to diplomacy and military cooperation. Kim Dong-yub, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul, pointed out that what matters to South Korea is 'the impact on the Korean Peninsula and how North Korea perceives the situation." 'North Korea is likely thinking that its choice was the right one following the US bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. It will further solidify its belief that 'possessing nuclear weapons is the only means of survival' and will continue to maximize the legitimacy of its nuclear possession,' Kim said. 'Beyond the economic shock, this crisis is highly likely to trigger widespread security instability on the Korean Peninsula and lead to a fundamental shift in the strategic environment,' Kim added. Lim said Trump's decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities 'has a significant impact on North Korea's foreign policy.' 'North Korea will reinforce the legitimacy of its existing policy that prioritizes regime survival and nuclear weapons development, and expand military cooperation rooted in anti-Western solidarity — particularly with Russia and China,' Lim said. 'It will also shift further toward deepening skepticism of inter-Korean dialogue and negotiations with the United States.' The US military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities will further deepen North Korea's distrust of the US — already hardened by Washington's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, or JCPOA, in 2018 and the breakdown of the 2019 North Korea–US summit in Hanoi during the first Trump administration.
Korea Herald
2 hours ago
- Korea Herald
Lee Jae Myung's ‘pragmatic' diplomacy comes into focus
Conservatives accuse Lee of neglecting national interests, while experts note possible consideration of China ties and missed arms export opportunities President Lee Jae Myung's decision not to attend the NATO summit in the Netherlands has brought his 'pragmatic' foreign policy approach into renewed focus, while triggering attacks from conservatives. Lee had considered participating in the NATO summit but decided not to, his office said Sunday, in the face of "various domestic issues and uncertainties due to developments in the Middle East." Following the announcement by Lee's office, NATO revealed that a meeting between the NATO Secretary General, US President Donald Trump and the leaders of NATO partners in the Indo-Pacific region is set to take place at 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday in The Hague. Lee's office has declined to comment on whether Lee was aware of the event before his decision not to fly to the Netherlands. Skipping the NATO trip deprives Lee of a chance to sit down for talks with Trump, as well as with leaders of European countries that South Korea sees as partners in the defense industry and regional security, prompting criticism from the conservative main opposition People Power Party. "We are facing a serious diplomatic test due to the US precision strike on Iran's nuclear sites, the heightened tensions in the Middle East, and President Lee's decision not to attend the NATO summit," said Rep. Kim Seok-ki, a lawmaker with the People Power Party on Monday. "We express deep concern that the ruling bloc's response is 'pragmatic diplomacy' in name only. ... They are not fulfilling their responsibility for our national interests." Rep. Kim Eun-hye of the People Power Party also told reporters that the decision taken soon after the power transition to the liberals "will likely raise concerns among NATO member states" that South Korea might be a weak link in the Western bloc, and that Seoul might be factoring in the perceptions of "totalitarian states." One expert suggested that Lee may have considered South Korea's ties with China in his decision, while also noting his interest in confidence-building with North Korea — though signs of reengagement remain limited, aside from his move to halt propaganda loudspeakers along the inter-Korean border. "President Lee decided not to attend given that the focus of Trump's attention is on Iran and allied defense spending, rather than on a tariff deal with Seoul, and perhaps also out of concern that a strongly worded joint statement could offend China," said Leif-Eric Easley, professor of international studies at Ewha Womans University in Seoul. "Seoul will be on alert for how conflict in the Middle East reverberates in Asia," Easley added. While most observers will understand that Lee has pressing domestic priorities, including staffing his new administration, Easley said, "not attending the NATO summit isn't only a missed opportunity to help defend the international order by supporting Ukraine and coordinating responses to conflict in the Middle East." Another expert called Lee's decision not to attend the NATO summit a "mistake" because his presence there could have convinced Seoul's Western partners that he values Europe and understands the connection between security in the Indo-Pacific and Euro-Atlantic regions. "This is diplomatic low-hanging fruit that Lee is not grabbing," said Mason Richey, professor of international politics at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. "It's also a chance to further cement South Korea's role as an arms exporter to Europe, and perhaps make some connection with European leaders of states who could become future South Korean weapons customers," he added.
