Iran enlists China, Russia to block looming European sanctions snapback
'We will try to prevent it,' Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said in an interview with state TV.
'We are working with China and Russia to stop it. If this does not work and they apply it, we have tools to respond. We will discuss them in due course.'
The trio of European powers, known as the E3, told the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Wednesday that they were ready to reimpose sanctions on Tehran if no diplomatic solution was found by the end of August.
All three were signatories to a 2015 deal that lifted sanctions in return for curbs on Iran's nuclear programme.
The agreement, which terminates in October, includes a 'snapback mechanism' allowing sanctions to be restored.
'We have made clear that if Iran is not willing to reach a diplomatic solution before the end of August 2025, or does not seize the opportunity of an extension, E3 are prepared to trigger the snapback mechanism,' the group's foreign ministers said in the letter.
'If Iran continues to violate its international obligations, France and its German and British partners will reimpose the global embargoes on arms, nuclear equipment and banking restrictions that were lifted 10 years ago at the end of August,' French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot posted on X on Wednesday.
Araghchi said the return of sanctions would be 'negative' but that the predicted economic effects 'have been exaggerated'.
'Legally justified'
The 2015 deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, effectively collapsed after US President Donald Trump withdrew from it in 2018 during his first term and restored crippling sanctions.
European countries attempted to keep the deal alive, while Iran initially stuck to the terms before later ramping up its uranium enrichment.
Earlier this year, the United States joined Israel in bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel launched its attacks while Washington and Tehran were still pursuing nuclear talks, which have not since resumed.
Western powers have long accused Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons, a charge the Iranian government strongly denies.
Even before Israel attacked Iran, they had raised concerns about the lack of access given to inspectors from the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Iran halted all cooperation with the IAEA after the strikes.
Last month, Araghchi sent a letter to the UN saying the European countries did not have the legal right to restore sanctions.
The European ministers called the claim 'unfounded'.
They insisted that, as JCPOA signatories, they would be 'clearly and unambiguously legally justified in using relevant provisions' of UN resolutions 'to trigger UN snapback to reinstate UNSC resolutions against Iran which would prohibit enrichment and re-impose UN sanctions.' — AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
From tariff talks to conflict resolutions: Negotiators wanted?
IN today's fragmented and divisive world, demands for skilled negotiators, those steeped in diplomacy and dialogue as statecraft, should be at a premium. After all, a perfect storm is brewing: global politics are becoming increasingly fraught, and common global issues are being weaponised. Open conflicts are flaring up in places like Europe and the Middle East, while other regions, such as East Asia, face renewed risks of unintended conflict due to miscalculations over long-standing disputes. Even South-East Asia, long marked by the absence of open conflict between Asean member states, was recently reminded of the dangers of complacency and the need to continuously nurture a culture of peace. Cross-border issues, such as the climate crisis, demand a cooperative global response, yet nations are unable to look past their immediate interests. A proverbial diplomatic traffic jam confronts us as countries scramble to reach 'a deal' to stave off tariff wars. With true statesmanship, these fraught conditions would be an ideal opportunity for diplomats and negotiators to thrive, demonstrating their unique skills in managing international relations, bridging differences and forging consensus tactfully and respectfully. Unfortunately, the opposite seems to be happening. Diplomacy is facing headwinds as countries increasingly turn inward, seemingly oblivious to the fact that national goals cannot be achieved in a vacuum. Instead, they require a keen awareness of external dynamics and how they affect a country's objectives. Furthermore, multilateral institutions are facing a critical test of their relevance and credibility. They are often seen as disconnected from shifting power dynamics. Complex issues are often oversimplified for headlines, and the popular focus on making 'deals' instead of 'agreements' highlights a short-term, transactional mindset. Do professional negotiators and diplomats matter? The work of a professional negotiator is not one-size-fits-all. Every situation is unique. The setting can vary, from bilateral to multilateral negotiations. Multilateral settings might involve a few countries, often within a region, or many countries, as seen in the United Nations system. Bridge-building efforts can also take place within countries, where the term 'dialogue' is often preferred over 'negotiation'. It is important to recognise that the resolution of internal conflicts, particularly in South-East Asia, has benefited immensely from the tactful, nuanced and calibrated skills of the region's diplomats, who are always conscious of hidden tripwires that could halt fragile dialogues. The subject matter can also vary widely, including political, security, economic, trade, finance and global cross-border issues. To add to the complexity, these subjects are often intertwined, defying clear distinctions between them and between the local, national, regional and global levels. A country's role can also differ, ranging from being a party to a dispute, a facilitator or mediator, to a strictly third-party observer focused on minimising risks and maximising opportunities. In all these different circumstances, the professional negotiator offers important, often unquantifiable, skills. First, a deep understanding of national interests is crucial. Professional negotiators have the ability to clearly identify and, if necessary, recalibrate their country's national interests on international issues. They focus on long-term interests rather than short-term, fleeting ones. Their institutional memory allows them to be alert to even the subtlest shifts that could inadvertently cause irreparable harm. Negotiators also have the capacity to take a comprehensive, unified approach. They are able to develop a whole-of-government, or even whole-of-society, approach in formulating a country's negotiating position, rather than a fragmented, 'siloed' one. This approach creates a sense of common national ownership and participation, making the country's position more resistant to the probes of other negotiating parties and ensuring the effective implementation of any agreements reached. They also possess full knowledge of their country's 'red lines' to adeptly manage changing negotiation dynamics. The real work of negotiation begins after initial positions are presented, it is more than just reading a prepared statement. Second, professional negotiators are trained to develop an acute knowledge and 'feel' of the other side's position, of their interests and objectives as well as their 'red lines'. They understand the other side's constraints and how they align or diverge from their own. This awareness is not a sign of weakness, it is crucial to ensure the most efficient (not to overpromise or over-concede for the sake of reaching agreements) and effective ('national' interest becoming synonymous with 'common' interest) attainment of the set objectives. In today's complex environment, experienced negotiators also discern wider stakeholders and their interests, even if they are not directly involved. This ensures that outcomes are supported and not contested, and that these dynamics work in their country's favour. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Third, professional negotiators have a strong appreciation for detailed preparation. They leave nothing to chance. Every step of a negotiation, no matter how small, is prepared for and, if necessary, negotiated over. The agenda, format, working methods and even seating arrangements matter and can significantly affect outcomes. Unfortunately, such attention to detail, the minutiae of a negotiation process, is sometime mistakenly viewed as archaic and overly bureaucratic. The truth is, they help draw the proverbial line in the sand, to test resolve before attention turn to the issues of substance. Finally, the experienced negotiator possesses a range of unquantifiable qualities. These include the ability to 'read the room' and sense underlying dynamics, points of convergence and the other side's readiness to compromise. They have a keen appreciation for timing, knowing when to reveal a national position or submit fresh proposals. A genuine capacity for empathy allows them to build trust and a comfort level with the other side without being co-opted. They also know how to agree to disagree respectfully, avoiding excessive celebration of gains that could burn bridges for future negotiations. An almost infinite reservoir of patience and resilience is critical in a battle of will and wit. Negotiators must not be too eager for results or fall into the trap of unilaterally set deadlines. Ultimately, since all agreements are expressed in words, experienced negotiators are wordsmiths, equipped with a command of language. They must also be seen as trustworthy, reliable and principled individuals whose words can be relied upon. In our fragmented world, the efficacy and importance of diplomacy as a means to manage relations between states should be beyond doubt. The skills of the diplomat-negotiator should be in high demand, and a surge in diplomacy is needed. — The Jakarta Post/ANN Marty Natalegawa is a former Indonesian foreign minister and founder/convenor of the Amity Circle, which focuses on the promotion of diplomacy, negotiation and dialogue.
The Sun
3 hours ago
- The Sun
Lavrov discusses Alaska summit with Turkey, Hungary after US-Russia
MOSCOW: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov held separate calls with his Turkish and Hungarian counterparts on Saturday. The discussions followed the inconclusive US-Russia summit in Alaska, where no agreement was reached on ending the Ukraine war. The Russian foreign ministry confirmed the call with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan was initiated by Ankara. Both ministers reviewed the outcomes of the August 15 meeting between Presidents Putin and Trump. Turkey has positioned itself as a mediator, maintaining open channels with Russia, Ukraine, and NATO allies. Lavrov also spoke with Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto about the Ukraine crisis in light of the Alaska summit. Hungary has faced criticism for its continued energy ties with Russia and opposition to EU sanctions. Prime Minister Viktor Orban called the world 'safer' post-summit, while EU leaders stressed Ukraine's sovereignty over its territory. - Reuters
Malay Mail
3 hours ago
- Malay Mail
When Alaska freezes, Asia warms the stage: How the East Asian Summit will shape the world order — Phar Kim Beng
AUGUST 17 — The much-anticipated Alaska Summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has failed to deliver a breakthrough on Ukraine. Instead of producing even a framework for dialogue, the summit reinforced entrenched positions. Putin reiterated his long-standing demand that Ukraine withdraw from four partially occupied regions — Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia — and abandon its aspirations of joining Nato. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, however, has categorically rejected such terms, arguing that ceding territory would only embolden Russia to strike again in the future, just as it did in 2022 after the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. Trump, usually known for his unfiltered remarks, remained conspicuously silent as Putin spoke for nearly eight minutes. This silence was as telling as the Russian president's words. It suggested either a lack of consensus within Washington or a strategic ambivalence in how the United States wishes to position itself vis-à-vis Russia and Europe. For many observers, the Alaska Summit exposed the limits of bilateral great-power bargaining when the underlying causes of conflict — territory, sovereignty, and security guarantees — remain non-negotiable. Yet, even as the stalemate in Alaska deepens, attention is already shifting to the upcoming East Asian Summit (EAS) in Kuala Lumpur. Unlike Alaska's narrow focus, the EAS brings together not only the United States and Russia but also China, India, Japan, Australia, and the ten Asean states. What makes this year's summit epochal is the unprecedented presence of all five Brics leaders — President Xi Jinping of China, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, President Vladimir Putin of Russia, and President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa — alongside Donald Trump. Never before has the EAS convened such a dense constellation of global power. This convergence transforms Kuala Lumpur into more than a regional host; it becomes the diplomatic crossroads where the rules of trade, technology, and tariffs will be tested. For Brics, the challenge is to project a united voice on economic sovereignty and resist being cornered by unilateral American tariffs. For Trump, the challenge is to secure a minimal tariff regime that satisfies his domestic political base while avoiding an outright trade war with five major powers who, collectively, represent nearly half of the global population and a third of global GDP. For Brics, the challenge is to project a united voice on economic sovereignty and resist being cornered by unilateral American tariffs. — AFP pic The central question is whether Asean, as convener of the EAS, can seize this moment to anchor a new framework for dialogue. Unlike Europe, where Nato and the EU dominate, Asia has no single hegemonic institution. The strength of Asean lies in its convening power and its ability to set agendas without threatening the sovereignty of its participants. The EAS reflects this tradition of consensus-building. But consensus must now rise to the level of breakthrough if Kuala Lumpur is to be remembered as more than a ceremonial host. The stakes could not be higher. If Brics leaders and Trump fail to hammer out even a minimal tariff regime, the world risks entering another spiral of economic fragmentation. Already, Trump's tariff policies have unsettled global markets, pressuring allies and rivals alike. The Brics, for their part, have long advocated reducing dependence on the US dollar and challenging Washington's monopoly over financial rules. Yet confrontation without compromise risks destabilising not only global supply chains but also the fragile growth trajectories of emerging economies. Here lies Asean's strategic opportunity. By positioning itself as a mediator between Trump's protectionist instincts and Brics' push for economic sovereignty, Asean can demonstrate its relevance at a time when the global order is in flux. It must not merely facilitate polite conversations but instead encourage concrete deliverables: a roadmap for tariff reduction, mechanisms for currency settlement that do not destabilise global finance, and frameworks for sustainable investment across Asia and beyond. The symbolism is powerful. In Alaska, Trump could not even nudge Putin toward flexibility on Ukraine. In Kuala Lumpur, however, he will face not one but five leaders of Brics, each bringing their own grievances, ambitions, and demands. For Trump, the test is whether he can move from unilateral posturing to multilateral bargaining. For Asean, the test is whether it can shepherd this convergence into outcomes that temper confrontation with compromise. If successful, the EAS could mark the beginning of a new economic architecture — one that acknowledges US concerns about market access and intellectual property while also addressing Brics' demands for fairer trade and greater autonomy from Western financial dominance. If it fails, the world may splinter further into rival blocs, each imposing its own tariffs, currencies, and technological standards. This is why the East Asian Summit in Kuala Lumpur is not just another regional gathering. It is an epochal event. The simultaneous presence of Trump and all five Brics leaders ensures that the EAS will be scrutinised not only for its communiqués but for its capacity to chart the contours of global economic governance. The ability to hammer out even a minimal tariff regime would send a powerful signal that dialogue can still shape the future of the world order. For Asean, this is the defining moment. The Alaska Summit showed what happens when two powers lock horns without compromise. The East Asian Summit offers, indeed, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, something different: a chance for a collective breakthrough. This is Anwar's X moment in time. One filled with known knows and unknown unknowns. If Kuala Lumpur succeeds, it will demonstrate that Asia is no longer just a theatre of global competition but a stage upon which the architecture of the future world order is negotiated and defined. * Phar Kim Beng is a professor of Asean Studies and Director of the Institute of Internationalization and Asean Studies at the International Islamic University of Malaysia. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
