
US strikes on Iran leave hopes for nuclear diplomacy in tatters
PARIS/ISTANBUL, June 22 (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 on Saturday when U.S. 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 U.S. strikes. "It's not time for diplomacy now."
Trump, who said the U.S. airstrikes "obliterated" the sites, warned in a televised speech on Saturday the U.S. 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 negligeable 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 United States.
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 U.S. 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 (NPT) 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 for retaliation is its short-range ballistic missiles, that could be used to target U.S. 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 U.S. has actually paid a price. On the other hand, they don't want to encourage further escalation," he said.
Even before the U.S. 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 own 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 U.S. 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 the E3 have been dealing with Iran's nuclear programme 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 programme, 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 on Sunday, which acknowledged the U.S. 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 party 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, prior to the U.S. 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 U.S. 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, U.S. 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 United States and Iran collapsed after a U.S. 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 the 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 most of the highly enriched uranium at Fordow, the site producing the bulk of Iran's uranium refined to up to 60%, had been moved to an undisclosed location before the U.S. attack there.
Acton, of the Carnegie Endowment, said that - putting aside from the damage to its physical installations - Iran had thousands of scientists and technicians involved in the enrichment program, most of whom had survived the U.S. and Israeli attacks.
"You can't bomb knowledge," said Acton.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Australian government backs US strikes on Iran but urges ‘peaceful settlement from here'
Australia supports the US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and maintains the latter nation must not be allowed to possess atomic weapons, foreign affairs minister Penny Wong says, calling for Tehran to return to negotiations. But while Wong has refused to say whether the communications facility at Pine Gap was used in the American bombing of three Iranian sites, she said it was a 'unilateral strike' from the Trump administration, and that the US has not yet asked Australia to get involved in any future military engagement. 'The world has long understood we cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. This action is being taken to prevent that. So, we support action to prevent Iran getting a nuclear weapon,' Wong told Channel Nine. Nearly 24 hours after US president Donald Trump said American strikes had 'totally obliterated' key Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, the Albanese government on Monday gave its first endorsement of the action, after a statement on Sunday from an unnamed government spokesperson noted the strikes. Fellow senior minister, Tanya Plibersek, told Channel Seven: 'We do support the strikes'. 'We certainly don't want to see full-scale war in the Middle East. It is a very delicate and different time, and we would encourage Iran to come back to the negotiating table,' she said. The federal Coalition backed the strikes and accused Labor of being 'too ambiguous' in its response to the major escalation in the Middle East conflict; but international law experts described the federal government's response as 'pretty weak', saying the American strikes were illegal and that Australia should stand up for the 'red lines of international law'. Anthony Albanese told 2GB radio he would speak on the Iran matter on Monday, following a meeting of the national security committee of cabinet. Asked on the ABC whether Australia believed the strikes were in accordance with international law, she did not directly respond, but said the US bombing had targeted Iran's nuclear program. 'The world has long agreed that Iran is not in compliance with its international obligations when it comes to nuclear material. And the world has long agreed that it is not in the interest of collective peace and security for Iran to gain access to any nuclear weapon,' she said. Wong rebuffed suggestions the government had been slow to respond. She again called for 'de-escalation and diplomacy' rather than further ratcheting up. 'And that's not just words, it's a view about the risk to the people of the region and to the world, to global instability. If we see escalation and a full-scale war. We do not want to see that,' she told Nine. Coalition acting shadow foreign minister Andrew Hastie said the opposition backed the US strikes and also called for dialogue. 'We want to see a peaceful settlement from here. And I'm just not going to speculate on what steps might be taken next,' he told Radio National. On Channel Nine, Wong was asked if the joint Australian-US communications facility at Pine Gap, in the Northern Territory, had been used in planning or carrying out the strikes. She replied: 'You wouldn't expect me to comment on intelligence matters ever'. 'But what I would say is, the US has made it clear this was a unilateral strike.' Wong also said the US had not requested Australian assistance in future military operations, and that she 'wouldn't speculate.' 'I again would say we are concerned, as are so many people around the world about continued escalation. No one wants to see full-scale war in the Middle East.' Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce told Sunrise he was concerned about further escalation in the region. 'This could go south in the most tremendous way for Australia and I did see a sense of gloating and hubris from the United States,' he told Seven's Sunrise show on Monday. 'That is alright if it is the end of the game, but if this takes the next step we are all going to be involved.' Former ambassador to the US Arthur Sinodinos said he believed there was 'no way we would put troops on the ground.' 'I don't think the government or the political establishment here are suggesting that we just follow whatever the US is going to do,' he told AAP. Wong again urged Australians in Iran and Israel to leave if they can do so safely, saying in a doorstop around 2900 Australians in Iran and 1300 in Israel had registered for assistance. She said Australian officials have been deployed to the Azerbaijani border, and if Australians can travel there, they would be helped; and that the government was hoping to take advantage of a possible opening of Israeli airspace. 'Obviously, this is very fluid, but we are seeking to make arrangements to utilise that window, if we are able. And we have advised Australians on the ground of that fact,' she said. 'We are seeking to utilise this opportunity, but the situation on the ground is uncertain and valid and risky.'


Times
an hour ago
- Times
Predictions of £40bn hit to public finances from Brexit ‘correct'
Brexit has blown a £40 billion tax hole in the public finances, according to a forecasting audit that finds that the Office for Budget Responsibility's projections on the impact of leaving the EU have broadly materialised. On the ninth anniversary of the leave vote, the OBR's estimate of a 4 per cent loss in the UK's long-run productivity has been borne out by declining investment and trade volumes, according to John Springford, an associate fellow at the Centre for European Reform. The 4 per cent productivity loss translates to an approximate £40 billion tax loss for the exchequer between 2019 and 2024, a period in which the government raised taxes by £100 billion. 'A large chunk of [the tax rises] would not have been necessary if the UK had voted to remain in the EU or chosen a softer form of Brexit,' Springford said. • Britons may not have right to use e-gates in Europe this summer The figures underscore the growth and fiscal implications of leaving the EU at a time when the government is desperate to revive productivity and repair the public finances. In May this year Labour agreed a deal with Brussels to align UK food regulations with the bloc — a breakthrough that will have limited economic effects but could signal the path to closer regulatory alignment that will make trade in goods and services easier for UK firms. The OBR's estimate, which has been criticised by pro-Brexit economists, was derived from an average of independent forecasters' whose calculations ranged from a productivity hit of about 1 per cent to 10 per cent. The watchdog said the full impact of leaving the EU would be felt over the course of 15 years and estimated a drop of 15 per cent in trade volumes, compared with if the UK had stayed in the bloc. Springford, whose findings were published by the Constitution Society and the Federal Trust, tested the OBR's projections and found the consensus view 'has been borne out'. Springford has also devised a method to calculate the impact of Brexit, which compares the UK's economic outcomes with similar economies since 2016, and found a growth impact of around 5 per cent of GDP, similar to the OBR's figure. Springford said it was 'undeniable' that Brexit had hurt the UK's economic growth prospects and its trade volumes. 'The question is about the magnitude of the effect and we remain a little in the dark because it is incredibly difficult to isolate the Brexit effect,' he said, citing factors such as the pandemic, which complicate how to judge whether trade and investment was lower simply as a result of the UK leaving the single market and customs union. The leave vote in June 2016 led to a prolonged period of negotiation about the UK's new economic and trade relationship with the EU. Britain formally exited the bloc in January 2020, with a trade and co-operation agreement that included a zero tariff on most goods but British businesses lost access to the single market and the UK was no longer part of the EU's trade deals with the rest of the world. • UK economy contracts by greater-than-expected 0.3% The research found that the Brexit effect was most clear in the 'unambiguous stagnation in investment since 2016.' Estimates from Springford and economists including Jonathan Haskel, a former Bank of England rate-setter, calculate an investment gap of 10 per cent if the UK had stayed in the EU. Sectors where the Brexit impact was most pronounced include the auto industry, where the share of exports made up by cars has dropped more sharply than in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the US since 2019. Exports of financial services, which have grown since Brexit, haven't expanded as fast as peer economies after 2020, when UK-based firms lost their access to the single market.


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Nigel Farage unveils plans to charge non-doms a one-off £250,000 fee in exchange for tax breaks... with the money distributed to Britain's lowest earning 10 per cent of workers
Nigel Farage will today unveil a plan to charge non-doms £250,000 in return for avoiding a raft of taxes, with the proceeds going to the lowest-paid workers. In his latest lurch to the Left, the Reform UK leader will use a speech this morning to pledge to 'restore the social contract between rich and poor' in Britain. Under the plan, non-doms would be offered the chance to pay a £250,000 one-off 'Entry Contribution' in return for not being taxed on any offshore income or gains. They would also not be liable to pay inheritance tax, the Mail understands. The 'contribution' would then be distributed to Britain's lowest earning 10 per cent of full-time workers, delivered automatically by HMRC as a cash dividend. It is designed to make the UK a more attractive place to wealthy individuals, as it would reinstate the non-dom regime which Labour abolished in April. Non-domiciled status allows people who live in the UK, but who have a permanent home elsewhere, to only pay tax on the money they earn in the UK. It can be used to shield any overseas income and profits from UK taxes, unless they are transferred into the country. Chancellor Rachel Reeves is reportedly seeking to soften the changes, however, after fears that it is leading to an exodus of wealth creators. It comes after three of Britain's richest men – including a top investment banker -became the latest to join an exodus of the super-rich amid a government crackdown on wealthy non-doms. In April, Ian and Richard Livingstone, brothers who own a £9bn property empire in the UK and abroad, an online casino and plush Monte Carlo hotel, were revealed as having quit the UK for Monaco, according to corporate documents. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs' top banker, Richard Gnodde, worth over £130m, is understood to have ditched London for Milan. Mr Gnodde is believed to be is the first senior banker leaving the UK for a different country, leading to fears the exodus of wealthy talent is spreading among the City's higher echelons. Leslie Macleod-Miller, chief executive of the non-dom lobby group, Foreign Investors for Britain, called for action to 'stem the flow of highly desired – and highly mobile – individuals such as Gnodde'. He told the City AM newspaper: 'We are calling on the government to create an internationally competitive environment that attracts and retains top global talent and investment.' In her budget last October, Rachel Reeves scrapped centuries-old tax privileges for non-doms – under which they were only taxed on income and gains brought into Britain. Now all UK residents will be taxed in Britain on their worldwide income and gains.