Latest news with #JCPoA
Economic Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- Economic Times
Israel's high-risk strategy has made an already unstable region more dangerous over the weekend
Agencies A building hit by an Iranian missile at Ramat Gan near Tel Aviv, Israeli defence policy seems to have changed in the wake of the Gaza conflict. Unable to see a political solution to the Palestinian question, Tel Aviv appears to have decided on pre-emptive action against any entity or country it suspects of posing any kind of threat to it. Iran, with its tactical, material and financial support for Hamas, has long been on Israel's radar, more so because Tehran is further suspected of developing a nuclear weapons series of military strikes Israel began on June 13 - initially on Iranian nuclear and military installations, followed up by targeted assassinations of top Iranian military and paramilitary functionaries - marks the next stage of Israel's highly risky new defence strategy. Iran's retaliatory missile and drone strikes over the last three days have inaugurated a new phase in the conflict-ridden history of West Asia. Iran has been suspected of a clandestine nuclear weapons programme since 2003, a charge it denies. International sanctions regime had brought Iran to the negotiation table, resulting in Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) in 2015, which put its nuclear programme on ice. When Donald Trump pulled the US out of the deal in 2018 and brought back sanctions on Iran - to force it to curtail its regional ambitions using proxy militias (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, etc) - Tehran accelerated its nuclear programme, and is now believed by Israel to be only a few weeks away from developing nuclear weapons. Soon after the onset of his second term, Trump proposed fresh negotiations towards a new deal. In the five rounds of talks that followed with Qatari mediation, Iran refused to abandon its right to nuclear enrichment, and to even discuss its missile development programme, two key American demands. The sixth round of nuclear talks scheduled for June 15, meant to deliberate on these issues, was cancelled yesterday. Benjamin Netanyahu is convinced that Iran is determined to go nuclear, so talks would be futile. He believes Iran's nuclear problem needs be contained militarily. During the October 2024 tit-for-tat strikes on Iran, Israel had severely damaged the former's air defence system. If further military strikes were to be carried out against Iran's nuclear facilities while its air defences were down, time was running out. On June 12, when IAEA pronounced that Tehran was in breach of its NPT commitments, Netanyahu gave the go ahead - against Trump's advice as late as June 8. Israeli targeting of Iran's nuclear sites in Natanz, Fordow, Esfahan and Tehran-Karaj, and assassination of nine nuclear scientists, matches with its stated aim of preventing Iran going nuclear. Its simultaneous targeting of military installations and high military and regime functionaries - Hossein Salami, Mohammad Bagheri, Gholamali Rashid, and grand ayatollah Ali Khamenei's close associate Ali Shamkhani - could be an attempt to destabilise the unpopular political dispensation, hoping to trigger a popular upheaval against the Islamic republic. Attacks on Iranian energy installations at Fars, fuel depot in Tehran, and other civilian targets on June 14 reinforce that if the aim is to destroy Iran's nuclear programme, these strikes are too little. While its conventional military sites are vulnerable to Israeli aerial attacks, Iran's nuclear sites are dispersed across more than 14 sites. Some, like the enrichment facility at Fordow, are built deep underground in mountainous regions. Israel can hit Fordow, but can't damage it irretrievably. The US has the required munitions, but hasn't passed them on to Tel Aviv, experience shows that assassination of nuclear scientists won't even slow down Iran. The technology is homegrown, not dependent on an individual or two. If Israel's aim is to trigger regime change or cause popular upheavals, airstrikes may prove counterproductive. By causing large civilian casualties, they are more likely to antagonise the Iranian people, even those who oppose the regime. A similar assumption of uprising by Iranian Arabs during Saddam Hussein's invasion in 1980 had failed to materialise. Israeli airstrikes might weaken Iran militarily, but not the regime politically, certainly not in the short run. Given Israel's demonstrated military superiority among West Asian powers, Iran is unlikely to be successful in combat. But Iran does not need to win. It simply needs to inflict enough damage for Israel to find the conflict too costly, as it seems to be doing. Domestically, the Iranian regime needs to convince its people that it shall endure. Indeed, if the war is prolonged, the Islamic republic risks reviving domestic turmoil if prevalent economic hardship increases prolonging the war serves Israel badly as well. With the Gaza crisis unresolved, a considerable section of Israeli military is tied down in Occupied Territories. This is quite apart from the economic toll a prolonged conflict will inflict on of a far worse trajectory can't be ruled out. A sizeable segment of the Iranian establishment that wants to end Iran's economic isolation argue that Tehran should develop nuclear weapons capability, but not actually make weapons. Led by President Masoud Pezeshkian, these pragmatists had brought Iran back to nuclear talks with Khamenei's blessing. The hardline national security establishment, led by Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), has been advocating the nuclear route as insurance against foreign schemes of regime change. By exposing the regime's military weakness, Israel may have strengthened the hands of votaries of the nuclear option as a means of regime-survival. Prospect of successful nuclear talks at this moment is remote. Iran could return to the table in a while as a means of getting Trump to rein in Israel. There is almost no chance of Iran conceding either on its missile development programme or on nuclear enrichment. But Tehran may agree to intrusive inspections and a JCPoA-like deal. Alternatively, if Israel perseveres, Iran could stay away from talks altogether, pull out of NPT, and accelerate its pathway to the bomb. Israel's high-risk strategy has made an already unstable region more dangerous. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. How a nudge from Cyrus Mistry helped TCS unlock a USD1 billion opportunity Operation Sindoor, Turkey, Bangladesh played out as India hosted global airlines after 42 years Benchmarked with BSE 1000, this index fund will diversify your bets. But at a cost. How individual bankruptcy law can halt suicides by failed businessmen Explainer: The RBI's LAF corridor and its role in rate transmission Stock picks of the week: 5 stocks with consistent score improvement and return potential of more than 32% in 1 year Defence stocks: Black & white, and many shades of grey. 10 stocks with an upside potential of up to 30% Stock Radar: 40% drop from highs! Swiggy stocks make a rounding bottom pattern; time to buy the dip?
New York Post
09-06-2025
- Business
- New York Post
Trump reveals the major holdup in Iran nuclear deal
WASHINGTON — President Trump disclosed Monday that Iran is pushing hard for the right to continue enriching uranium in any new nuclear deal — which the US 'can't have.' 'They're just asking for things that you can't do,' Trump, 78, told reporters at the White House. 'They don't want to give up what they have to give up. You know what that is? They seek enrichment. We can't have enrichment. We want just the opposite. And so far, they're not there.' Advertisement The president said US officials would meet again with their Iranian counterparts later this week — but indicated that an agreement was not close. President Donald Trump speaks during an 'Invest in America' roundtable with business leaders at the White House, Monday, June 9, 2025, in Washington. AP 'I hate to say that, because the alternative is a very, very dire one, but they're not there,' he said. 'They have given us their thoughts on the deal, and I said, you know, it's just not acceptable.' Advertisement Trump has expressed hope that Washington and Tehran can reach a new agreement to replace the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA), from which the 45th president removed the US in 2018. 'They are good negotiators, but they're tough,' Trump said of Iran's theocratic leaders. 'Sometimes it can be too tough, that's the problem. So we're trying to, we're trying to make a deal so that there's no destruction and death. And we've told [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] that, and I've told him that, and I hope that's the way it works out, but it might not work out that way. We'll soon find out.' Trump has threatened to use military force on Iran if forced to destroy their enrichment program. AP Advertisement Reports circulated last week that White House special envoy Steve Witkoff gave Iran a proposal that would have allowed enrichment concentration to 3% for civilian purposes — but Trump fired off a Truth Social post hours later insisting: 'Under our potential Agreement — WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM!' On Monday, Trump discussed the status of negotiations with Iran during a phone conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — revealing that Tehran was also involved in talks to broker a cease-fire in Israel's war against Hamas and win the release of hostages held by the terror group. 'Gaza, right now is in the midst of a massive negotiation between us and Hamas and Israel and Iran actually is involved, and we'll see what's going to happen with Gaza,' the president said. 'We want to get the hostages back, it's all I can tell you.'
The Guardian
28-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Iran threatens to end nuclear talks with Europe after Mandelson comments
Iran's foreign minister has threatened to end all talks with European officials over its nuclear programme after Peter Mandelson, the UK ambassador to Washington, appeared to side with US calls to eliminate Iran's uranium enrichment facilities. It was not clear if Lord Mandelson's remarks during a question and answer session at the Atlantic Council in Washington revealed an unannounced change in UK policy or if, in seeking to side with Donald Trump, he had spoken in a way to allow misinterpretation. After five rounds of talks between Iran and the US mediated by Oman, the two sides remain at loggerheads over Iran's continued ability to enrich uranium, which Tehran regards as a sovereign right and which the US fears leaves open a path to an Iranian nuclear bomb. After Mandelson's comments, Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, posted on social media on Wednesday: 'If the UK position is 'zero enrichment' in Iran, there is nothing left for us to discuss on the nuclear issue.' He said such request was a clear violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and violated Britain's commitments in the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPoA), the agreement to contain Iran's civil nuclear programme that the UK and other world powers signed with Iran in 2015. Under the JCPoA, Iran is entitled to enrich uranium to up to 3.75% purity subject to an intrusive inspection regime. Speaking later to reporters on a visit to Oman, Araghchi said: 'This tweet was in response to a British official who had talked about zero enrichment. I said there explicitly that we continued our consultations with three European countries during this period, but if their position is zero enrichment, we will no longer have any talks with them about nuclear issues.' He continued: 'They must determine their own position, and we are not joking with anyone on the issue of enrichment.' On Tuesday, Mandelson had said: 'Iran since the theocratic revolution has never been in a weaker state than it is now. Weakened by economic sanctions, weakened by the heavy pounding that its proxies have taken. Weaker because of the growth of public opinion, especially amongst young people in Iran, away from the regime. Iran is vulnerable. But it still retains enrichment facilities which can produce … a nuclear bomb. And we can't accept that. 'So Britain strongly support the [US] president's initiative in negotiating away these enrichment and related facilities in Iran. We support what Steve Witkoff [the US special envoy to the Middle East] has been doing in his negotiations, which are making some progress.' Trump has spoken of a good announcement within days, but many of his predictions about diplomatic breakthroughs have proved optimistic No date has been set for a sixth round of talks, but in a potentially important concession Iran has announced it may be willing to have US, and not just UN, inspectors visit and monitor its controversial nuclear programme. Iran has already offered to revert to much lower levels of enrichment, and for its stocks of highly enriched uranium to be put out of use, probably in a third country such as Russia. After Trump unilaterally left the agreement in 2018, Iran responded by enriching to much higher levels that took its nuclear programme close to the purity levels required to make a nuclear bomb. The proposal for US inspectors was made in Tehran by Iran's nuclear chief, Mohammad Eslami on Wednesday and came as Oman hosted the Iranian president, Masoud Pezeshkian, in a further attempt to break the deadlock in the talks. One idea is for an interim minimal agreement to be reached in which some US economic sanctions are lifted and inspections are fully restored. The UK, France and Germany have in effect been sidelined in the US-led talks over the nuclear programme, but senior Israeli officials have been holding talks with Witkoff and the CIA. The Iranian foreign ministry briefed three European officials in Geneva two weeks ago but European officials have remained silent on the US conduct of the talks.
Asharq Al-Awsat
06-03-2025
- Politics
- Asharq Al-Awsat
European Powers Alarmed by Iran's Threats to Leave NTP Treaty
France, Germany and the UK on Wednesday said they are alarmed by Iran's repeated threats to leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and of further expanding its enriched uranium stockpile. The troika, known as the E3, said it urgently calls on Iran to change course. In a joint statement to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors on Iran's implementation of its nuclear commitments under the JCPoA, the three countries said Iran should halt and reverse its nuclear escalation and return to the limits imposed by the nuclear deal. 'The international community must remain united and firm in its determination to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons,' the three countries affirmed. 'The E3 will continue to work towards a diplomatic solution, and we stand ready to use all diplomatic levers to achieve this goal,' they said in a statement distributed by the British Foreign Office. The statement noted that the E3 remains alarmed by Iran's repeated threats to leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 'This poses a serious threat to the non-proliferation system upon which we all rely,' the troika said. Therefore, the three countries called on Iran to halt and reverse its nuclear escalation and refrain from making threats regarding nuclear weapons. Also, they said, Iran should return to the limits imposed by the JCPoA, in particular those regarding enrichment levels and enriched uranium stockpiles, and implement the Iran-IAEA March 2023 Joint statement and the commitments it made regarding transparency and cooperation with the IAEA including re-applying all transparency measures that it stopped in February 2021. Furthermore, the European countries said Iran should allow the Agency to install surveillance and monitoring equipment and fully reverse its September 2023 decision to withdraw the designations of experienced inspectors. The E3 statement came in response to the latest report issued by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi on Iran's nuclear program and which confirms that Tehran continues to undertake activities in blatant violation of the nuclear deal.
