Ahead of new talks, Iran blames Europeans for nuclear deal collapse
The 2015 agreement – reached between Iran and UN Security Council permanent members Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany – imposed curbs on Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.
However, it unravelled in 2018 when the United States, during Donald Trump's first term as president, unilaterally withdrew from the accord and reimposed sweeping sanctions.
Though Europe pledged continued support, the mechanism to offset US sanctions never effectively materialised, forcing many Western firms to exit Iran and deepening its economic crisis.
European powers plan fresh nuclear talks with Iran: German diplomatic source
'Iran holds the European parties responsible for negligence in implementing the agreement,' said foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei ahead of Friday's talks in Istanbul with Britain, France and Germany on the deal's future.
Tehran will also host a trilateral meeting Tuesday with Chinese and Russian representatives to discuss the nuclear issue and potential sanctions.
The Chinese foreign ministry said Beijing would 'continue to play a constructive role in pushing relevant sides to restart dialogue and negotiations, and reach a solution that takes in account the legitimate concerns of all parties'.
In recent weeks, the three European powers have threatened to reimpose international sanctions on Tehran, accusing it of breaching its nuclear commitments.
Germany said the Istanbul talks would be at the expert level, with the European trio working 'flat out' to find a sustainable and verifiable diplomatic solution.
'If no solution is reached by the end of August… the snapback also remains an option for the E3,' said its foreign ministry spokesman, Martin Giese.
A clause in the 2015 agreement allows for UN sanctions on Iran to be reimposed through a 'snapback' mechanism in the event of non-compliance.
However, the agreement expires in October, leaving a tight deadline.
'No intention of speaking with America'
The International Atomic Energy Agency says Iran is the only non-nuclear-armed country currently enriching uranium to 60 percent – far beyond the 3.67 percent cap set by the 2015 accord.
That is a short step from the 90 percent enrichment required for a nuclear weapon.
Using the snapback clause was 'meaningless, unjustifiable and immoral', Baqaei told a news conference, arguing that Iran only began distancing itself from the agreement in response to Western non-compliance.
'Iran's reduction of its commitments was carried out in accordance with the provisions outlined in the agreement,' he said.
Western powers – led by the United States and backed by Israel, Iran's arch-enemy – have long accused Tehran of secretly seeking nuclear weapons capability.
Iran has repeatedly denied this, insisting its nuclear programme is solely for civilian purposes such as energy production.
Tehran and Washington had held five rounds of nuclear talks since April, but a planned meeting on June 15 was cancelled after Israel launched strikes on Iran on June 13, triggering a 12-day conflict.
'At this stage, we have no intention of speaking with America,' Baqaei said Monday.
Israel launched on June 13 a wave of surprise strikes on its regional nemesis, targeting key military and nuclear facilities.
The United States launched its own set of strikes against Iran's nuclear programme on June 22, hitting the uranium enrichment facility at Fordo, in Qom province south of Tehran, as well as nuclear sites in Isfahan and Natanz.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
7 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
Trump's belligerence drives a major shift in Indo-Pacific
The author writes on geopolitical issues and regional conflicts. He can be reached at Listen to article Donald Trump's implacable belligerence has tutored traditional American allies to quickly adjust to new geopolitical realities or truckle to his ceaseless demands. An increased sense of urgency across Europe and the Indo-Pacific implies that they have decided to take up the gauntlet of diversifying their partnerships. In a rare show of displeasure at the US president's stubborn arrogance, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese during his China visit sought to stabilise relations and manage differences to "contribute" to regional peace and prosperity, holding a "constructive" meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping to underscore Beijing's importance for "our economy, our security and the stability of our region". Beijing is Canberra's largest trading partner with almost a third of Australia's exports destined for China and bilateral trade hitting 312 billion Australian dollars in 2024. The two economies are highly complementary, meaning China has a huge demand for Australian goods and services. This symbiotic bond, unlike the Australia-US parasitistic trade ties, provides a sound footing to tap the opportunity and strengthen the extensive relationship. China's investments contribute to infrastructure development, productivity and job creation in Australia; and its development, opening-up and rising middle class unleash new vistas for Australian exporters. As members of Asia-Pacific Economic Forum and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, both countries also have shared interests in safeguarding regional stability and prosperity. In the face of rising protectionism and unprecedented volatility in global trade due to Trump's unilateral tariffs, a stable and strengthened Australia-China relationship would ensure the Australian economy to withstand and navigate strenuous trials and continue to make a positive impact on domestic workers, employers and industries. The strengthening of the Beijing-Canberra ties has ushered in a wave of optimism among Australian businesses with 75% of foreign firms in a poll by the Australia-China Chamber of Commerce reporting profitability in 2024. Their enthusiasm — because 70% rate China as one of their top three destinations for investment over the next three years — reinforces Beijing's appeal as a hub of innovation and industrial transformation. Canberra's intent to "do more business with China" was reflected in its Trade Minister Don Farrell's interview in which he refused to budge to US pressure, emphasising that Chinese trade was nearly 10 times more valuable to Canberra. "We'll make decisions... to engage with China based on our national interests and not on what the Americans may or may not want." Nonetheless, disparity between Albanese's and the country's defence department's approaches risks derailing Australia's newfound charm offensive against China. For instance, Canberra has been accusing Beijing of spearheading the largest and most ambitious military buildup since the Second World War. Its Defense Minister, Richard Marles, recently echoed such an assertion. Yet this assessment has long been contested by none other than Australia's own analysts and former diplomats who believe the Chinese strategy is essentially inward looking, focusing internal stability and external security. Even leading Western investigations reveal that the US, by far, outspends China in defence spending and that Beijing's military development and the record of use of force are relatively restrained. Conversely, Trump's return is spurring new challenges for the Albanese government. After the Biden administration wanted to get Canberra "off the fence" by locking it for the next 40 years through AUKUS, Trump's AUKUS-skeptic undersecretary of defense Elbridge Colby is leveraging the trilateral partnership to hard-press Australia into making pre-commitments if a US-China war breaks out on Taiwan. The Trump administration is also pressurising Australia to increase defence spending to 3.5% of the GDP. Canberra has hitherto resisted the US pressure for it would cost Australia tens of billions of dollars. For an economy that will remain in a structural deficit through 2034-35, a defence splurge would indeed imperil Albanese's social policy agenda. Trade with China has helped Australia put the cost of living on a downward trajectory. Studies show that this trade relationship has increased disposable income of Australian households by an average of 2,600 Australian dollars, supporting around 600,000 jobs. While US maintains 10% baseline tariff on Australian goods, 25% on automobiles and 50% on steel and aluminum, Beijing thanks to the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement applies an average of just 1.1%, urging Canberra to rethink before jumping on Washington's bandwagon vis-à-vis Beijing. No wonder China is seen as a more reliable trade partner than the US by Australians with a sizeable majority of them (71%) agreeing that the country's relationship with Beijing is important. This comes as Trump has upended the long-held assumption that America could be a dependable ally, stoking a belief in many Aussies whether it could even act responsibly. Establishing diplomatic relations, Beijing and Canberra in 1972 agreed to develop the relationship on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in internal affairs, equality, mutual benefit and peaceful coexistence. These fundamental tenets laid the foundation of a robust Beijing-Canberra relationship as people across the two countries lived together peacefully through decades. Should Australia chuck out its schizophrenic ambivalence, both nations can still pioneer the way for a resilient strategic partnership and a secure and thriving Indo-Pacific.
Express Tribune
37 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
China is catching up with the United Sates
Listen to article David Autor and Gordon Hanson, two economic professors known for their research into how globalisation and especially the rise of China is reshaping the American labour market, contributed an article to the Opinion pages of The New York Times. The article was titled "Did we learn nothing from the 'China Shock'?" They wrote: "The first time China upended the U.S. economy between 1999 and 2007, it helped erase nearly a quarter of all technological jobs. Known as the 'China Shock', it was driven by a singular process — China's late 1970s transition from Maoist central panning to a market economy, which rapidly moved the country's labor and capital from collective rural farms to urban factories. Waves of inexpensive goods from China imploded the economic foundations of places where manufacturing was the main game in town... Twenty years later, these workers haven't recovered from those job losses. Although places like these are growing again, most job gains are in low-wage industries such as textiles, sporting goods electronics and auto parts." China's transition to manufacturing was complete once Chairman Deng Xiaoping succeeded Mao as the supreme leader. He opened the country to the outside world and invited foreign participation in China's development. While what Autor and Hanson described in their 2013-16 research story has lost its relevance, they have begun to focus on what they call China Shock 2. This has seen the transition from China as an underdog and is successfully developing innovative sectors such as aviation, AI, telecommunications, microprocessors, robotics, quantum computing, biotech, pharma and solar batteries. To quote again from the authors, "In the 1990s and 2000s, private Chinese businesses working alongside multinational corporations had turned China into the world's factory. The new Chinese model is different. China has created an agile, if costly, innovation system in which local officials such as mayors and governors are rewarded for growth in certain advanced sectors. An example of the outcome is the city of Hefei located in a poor hinterland province. By putting up venture funding, taking risks on supporting EV (electric vehicles) producers, and investing in local research and development, Hefei made the leap into the country's top industrial tier in barely half a decade." China is now the world's largest and most innovative producers of electric vehicles. BYD (EV), CATL (EV batteries), DJI (drones) and LONGi (solar wafers) are all Chinese startups, none more than 30 years' old. The rest of the world, including the United States, is ill prepared to compete with these privately owned but state-supported enterprises. If the extent to which China has drawn not only even but overtaken the United States, we might look at the study done by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a think-tank. According to the Institute, the United States led China in 60 of 64 frontier technologies, such as AI and cryptography, from 2003 to 2007, while China led the United States in just three. In the Institute's most recent report, the rankings were flipped. China led in 57 of 64 key technologies while the United States had the lead in only seven. Autor and Hanson are proposing a four-pronged approach to the Chinese challenge. First, the US should work with other old economies that face similar challenges such as the European Union, Japan and South Korea rather than imposing tariffs. Second, the US government should encourage China to build in America high technology plants such as those developing rare earth minerals as well as those making batteries and electric vehicles. The government should get involved in developing the industries that produce these items. At the time of the WWII, the Office of Scientific Research and Development brought major developments in jet propulsion, radar and mass-produced penicillin. Later, NASA accepted the Soviet Union challenge which sent the first astronaut to circle the earth by sending and bringing back men to and from the moon and launched the Operation Warp Speed which partnered with pharmaceutical companies to produce a Covid-19 vaccine faster than any other major vaccine had been produced. The third area of government sponsorship, the authors advocate, is for the United States to choose the battles that it can win (semiconductors) or those it cannot afford to lose (development of rare earths). The fourth priority is to prevent the devastating impacts of job loss from the next major shock. Tariffs, President Trump's preferred policy option to deal with the challenges the country faces, is not right for the actions needed. The authors conclude their assessment with the following words: "We must nourish industries that have high potential for innovation, funded by joint investments by the public and private sectors. These industries are in play globally, something China figured out a decade ago. America should stop fighting the last trade war and meet China's challenge in the current one." These ecosystems, with the government in the lead, will need supporting infrastructure: reliable and inexpensive energy generation, rare earths, modern shipping and universities with vibrant STEM programmes. This will mean pulling back from subsidising legacy sectors such as coal and oil; restoring federal support for scientific research; and welcoming rather than demonising the talented foreign arrivals into the country who would help the country they have adopted as their own to move forward. This is not the direction in which America, under Trump, is headed. President Trump acted out the programme laid out by Elon Musk, the world's richest man who joined Trump to redesign and refocus the public sector. His DOGE programme was aimed at reshaping the government but it did more damage than good. His moves reduced the country's capacity to innovate. On July 21, major newspapers took out full-page advertisements that said the following in bold letters: "America doesn't settle for second place in Science. We don't play catch up. We build what others copy. Invent what others copy. The science that wins on the battlefield and finds breakthrough in the bloodstream — that's the sharp edge of American power. American science that is funded by the federal government is launched from the flight deck. Developed by American industry. Proven on our factory floors. And tested on the front line - everyday. The only thing American science can't do. Fund itself. That depends on the wisdom and leadership of those we send to Washington." With Donald Trump occupying the White House, that is not happening.
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Thailand and Cambodia to hold talks on deadly border conflict in Malaysia
Military vehicles are seen in Sisaket province, as Cambodia and Thailand each said the other had launched artillery attacks across contested border areas early on Sunday, hours after US President Donald Trump said the leaders of both countries had agreed to work on a ceasefire, Thailand, July 27, 2025. Photo: Reuters Listen to article The leaders of Thailand and Cambodia will attend mediation talks over their deadly border conflict in Malaysia on Monday, the Thai government said, even as both sides accused each other of launching fresh artillery strikes across contested areas. Talks are scheduled to begin at 3 pm local time (0700 GMT) on Monday, with acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai leading the Thai negotiating team, the government announced in a statement on Sunday night. Malaysia, which chairs the ASEAN regional cooperation forum, has informed the Thai government that Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet would also be attending the talks, the statement said. Also Read: US, China to resume tariff talks in effort to extend truce Tensions between Thailand and Cambodia have intensified since the late-May killing of a Cambodian soldier during a brief border skirmish. Border troops on both sides were reinforced amid a full-blown diplomatic crisis that brought Thailand's fragile coalition government to the brink of collapse. Hostilities resumed on Thursday and, within just four days, escalated into the worst fighting between the Southeast Asian neighbours in more than a decade. The death toll has risen above 30, including 13 civilians in Thailand and eight in Cambodia, while authorities report that more than 200,000 people have been evacuated from border areas. Monday's talks come after Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim last week proposed a ceasefire and US President Donald Trump said on Saturday that the two leaders had agreed to work on a ceasefire. Calls for peace Bangkok and Phnom Penh have each accused the other side of sparking last week's hostilities. Cambodia's Defence Ministry said Thailand had shelled and launched ground assaults on Sunday morning at a number of points along the border. The ministry's spokesperson said heavy artillery was fired at historic temple complexes. "For me, I think it is great if Thailand agreed to stop fighting so both countries can live with peace," Phnom Penh university student Sreung Nita told Reuters. The Thai army said Cambodian forces had fired shots into several areas, including near civilian homes, on Sunday, and were mobilising long-range rocket launchers. "The situation remains tense and Cambodian troops may be preparing intensified military operations to inflict maximum damage in the final stages before negotiations," the army said in an update. In the Thai province of Sisaket, Reuters reporters heard shelling throughout Sunday and said it was unclear which side of the border it was on. Read: Israel announces daily pauses in Gaza fighting as aid airdrops begin A government health clinic about 10 km (6 miles) from the border had shattered windows, collapsed walls and exposed wiring. Local media reported it was hit by artillery on Saturday, two days after the building and surrounding neighbourhood was evacuated. Only a few men remained to look after their homes, camping near a makeshift bunker they had dug for protection. Intermittent sounds of artillery fire could be heard in the distance. "It's great that America is insisting on the ceasefire because it would bring peace," Sisaket resident Thavorn Toosawan told Reuters. Thailand and Cambodia have bickered for decades over undemarcated points along their 817-km (508-mile) land border, with ownership of the ancient Hindu temples Ta Moan Thom and the 11th century Preah Vihear central to the disputes. Preah Vihear was awarded to Cambodia by the International Court of Justice in 1962, but the situation worsened in 2008 after Cambodia attempted to list it as a UNESCO World Heritage site. Skirmishes over several years brought at least a dozen deaths. Cambodia said in June it had asked the International Court of Justice to resolve its disputes with Thailand. Bangkok says it has never recognised the court's jurisdiction and prefers a bilateral approach.
