Macron warns of ‘worst-case scenario' if Iran quits nuclear non-proliferation treaty, says US strikes had real impact
As conflicting reports emerge over the alleged 'obliteration' of Iran's nuclear sites during the strikes by the United States over the weekend, Donald Trump has found support in France's Emmanuel Macron as the French President said the bombing were 'genuinely effective'. Emmanuel Macron also warned of a 'worst-case scenario' if Tehran now exits the global non-proliferation treaty.
After an EU summit in Brussels, Macron said, 'The worst would be that the consequence of this is Iran's exit from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and therefore, ultimately, a drift and a collective weakening.'
He added that the aim was 'that there should be no resumption' of nuclear buildup by Iran after the US strikes.
The French President also said that he would be speaking to five members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in a bid to maintain the treaty – that is meant to limit the spread of nuclear weapons.
Those talks already kicked off with a call with President Donald Trump on Thursday, June 26, in which Macron said he informed his US counterparts of contacts Paris had with Tehran in 'the last few days and hours'.
'Our hope is that there will be a real convergence of views,' Emmanuel Macron said.
Iran joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1970, committing to declare its nuclear materials to the International Atomic Energy Agency. But it has recently begun preparing the grounds for a possible withdrawal from the treaty, accusing the agency of acting as a "partner" in Israel's 'war of aggression'.
Last weekend, American B-2 bombers hit two Iranian nuclear sites with massive GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs, while a guided missile submarine struck a third site with Tomahawk cruise missiles. While Donald Trump has his administration has maintained that the military action was 'success', resulting in the 'obliteration' of the nuclear facilities, a leaked preliminary intel report has suggested otherwise.
A leaked preliminary US intelligence report on assessment of Donald Trump's strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities has concluded that the bombing did not destroy the nuclear program but only set it back by a few months – contrary to the claims made by the President.
It further claims that despite the strikes and with little damage Iran's nuclear sites have sustained, Tehran could restart its nuclear program within months.
The report also revealed that Iran relocated a significant portion of its highly enriched uranium – used to make a nuclear weapon – ahead of the strikes, transferring them to other secret nuclear sites.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 minutes ago
- Business Standard
LIVE news updates: Fire breaks out in paint factory in New Delhi's Bawana
10:12 AM Trump says 'very big' trade deal coming up with India US President Donald Trump said a "very big" trade deal is on cards with India, hinting at significant progress in the negotiation process of a long-awaited bilateral trade agreement between the two countries. 'We are having some great deals. We have one coming up, maybe with India. Very big one. Where we're going to open up India," said Trump while speaking at the 'Big Beautiful Bill' event at the White House on Friday.
Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump's threat of more tariffs makes US trade partners wary of signing deals
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tariff negotiations with the Trump administration are running into roadblocks, as partners including Japan, India and the European Union balk at signing deals without knowing how badly they'll be hit by separate levies on exports including chips, drugs and US Commerce Department is set within weeks to announce the outcomes of its investigations into sectors deemed vital to national security, including semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and critical minerals. The probes are widely expected to result in levies applied under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act on a range of foreign-made products in those is, governments seeking agreements to whittle down country-by-country tariffs President Donald Trump announced on April 2, and then suspended till July 9, have no idea where those sectoral levies will land. For many, industry-specific tariffs may be more damaging than the broader levies.'Imagine you're a Vietnam or Japan or Korea, and you've just agreed to some potentially painful compromises on reciprocal tariffs, and the very next day after this is announced, they turn around and levy new 232s against you,' said Deborah Elms, head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation. 'The last thing you want is to agree to a deal only to be hammered the next day.'A cautionary tale for many countries is the partial deal Britain accepted. That pact left key details about bilateral steel trade subject to further negotiation on a quota system and stronger origin requirements. In the meantime, the Trump's tariffs of UK steel remain at 25% — failing to meet the British government's goal of lowering them to zero.'There is no clarity in how all of these tariffs would interplay, which is also causing major concerns among our partners,' said Wendy Cutler, a former senior US trade negotiator who's now vice president of the Asia Society Policy UK framework showed there is some wiggle room with the US on sectoral tariffs, but other nations should not view it as a template for their own negotiations, according to a White House official. The 232 tariffs are meant to reshore manufacturing of goods viewed as critical to national security, which is separate from the aims of the April 2 tariffs, the official the difficulties for many countries is understanding how the Trump administration can at times view the tariffs — and the threat of them — in a transactional Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, testifying before the Senate earlier this month, gave an example of how 232 tariffs could be used in negotiations to induce commercial deals. Part of the UK's deal was no American tariffs on aerospace products — which are subject to a pending 232 investigation.'In exchange for us doing a zero tariff — I mean think of Donald Trump — he then gets an agreement by British Airways to buy $10 billion,' Lutnick said. 'They were competing with Airbus, and in part of that agreement, they committed to buying Boeing aircraft of $10 billion.'Lutnick added that 'if other countries play ball with us, I would expect that's an offer we make provided they're buying our aircraft.'For the EU, which is already getting hit hard by 25% auto tariffs and 50% on steel, talks around the sectoral levies have made less progress and are unlikely to be solved before July 9, according to people familiar with the in Brussels see an agreement on broad principles to allow negotiations to continue as the best-case scenario at this stage in the EU-US talks, the people is keen on settling all potential US tariffs — from duties on cars, auto parts and metals to Trump's country-specific levies – in one go. But a sticking point in negotiations has been the 25% tariffs on cars and car parts imposed by the Trump is focused on autos because it's the sector that's responsible for most of its trade deficit with Japan. But Tokyo sees that industry as a key economic pillar, since it employs about 8.3% of Japan's workforce and generates around 10% of gross domestic product.'For Japan, automobiles are truly a matter of national interest. We will do whatever it takes to protect that,' Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told reporters in Canada earlier this month, shortly after he failed to reach a deal with Trump in their in-person meeting on the sidelines of the Group of Seven hand-picked trade negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, has said Japan won't fixate on the July 9 tariff deadline as he continues talks with his US counterparts. Akazawa has said he expects a deal with the US will spare Japan from higher auto tariffs, even if Trump increases them against other has dug in its heels on the issue and is unwilling to sign a trade deal with Washington that doesn't address both sectoral and reciprocal tariffs for its exports, people familiar with the matter it comes to potential sectoral tariffs, Indian officials are pushing for a commitment from Washington that any deal matches the best agreement offered to any other nation it's in talks with, they deal with the US has to be defensible in the eyes of domestic stakeholders and the US insistence on retaining these additional levies will render Indian producers uncompetitive, the people said, requesting anonymity to disclose private officials are also reluctant to sign a tariff deal amid uncertainty over their legality after a US federal court deemed illegal last month, the people said. A higher court later gave Trump a temporary reprieve of that the legal uncertainty, some Trump administration officials believe the 232 levies could effectively supplant the country-by-country duties, Bloomberg News has tariffs on steel and aluminium, automobiles and the expected levies on pharmaceuticals have raised concerns among Indian exporters that have been urging the government to not ink a deal that will adversely impact their shipments. Exporters say the US move to raise levies on metals and autos are a huge setback for them.'These duties impact India's engineering exports to the US, which are valued at over $20 billion annually,' said Pankaj Chadha, chairman of Engineering Exports Promotion Council. 'We hope that these sectoral tariffs will be suitably addressed in the bilateral trade agreement.
Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
Hot NATO idea signals start of the second Cold War
When World War II ended in 1945, it left much of the world in ruins, except for one nation. The United States emerged not just victorious, but ascendant. Its unmatched military and economic power laid the foundation for what came to be known as Pax Americana, a US-led global order marked by liberal democracy, open markets, and an implicit security guarantee underpinned by American force. For decades, this system delivered a fragile but functional peace, especially across the Western Bloc during the Cold War (1947 to 1991). Even as the world split into rival camps, Pax Americana held firm within its sphere of influence, backed by NATO , bilateral pacts, and institutions like the IMF and United Nations . But now, after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and a fracturing global consensus, the foundational assumptions of that order are cracking. Peace in the West is no longer a given; countries must now make efforts to secure it. And nowhere is that shift more visible than in NATO's bold new defence posture. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Tiger reunites with the zookeeper after 5 years. See the tiger's reaction! Story To Hear Undo Also Read: What is NATO's new 5% defence spending target? At its latest summit in the Netherlands, the alliance agreed to a sweeping rearmament plan: a new target of 5% of GDP for defence and security spending, replacing the longstanding 2% goal. It's a move that recalls the early Cold War years, when fear of Soviet aggression drove defence budgets to historic highs, and it may well mark the start of what some would call the second Cold War. Live Events 'Russia could be ready to use military force against NATO within five years,' NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte warned earlier this month. 'We had a great victory here,' declared US President Donald Trump after the summit, after having pushed allies long to spend more. 'I hope the additional funds will be spent on military hardware made in the US.' The message is clear: NATO no longer assumes peace; it is preparing for conflict. NATO's big defence pivot NATO's big shift in defence spending target, covering both conventional military and hybrid warfare capabilities, goes beyond a routine policy shift. At its annual summit in The Hague this week, NATO leaders endorsed the groundbreaking framework. Under the plan, members are expected to allocate 3.5% of GDP to core military defence, covering weapons, troops, and equipment, and an additional 1.5% to broader security infrastructure, including cyber defences, energy pipeline protection, and transport routes adapted for rapid troop deployment. While the commitment is to be fulfilled by 2035, its symbolism is immediate and potent, signalling the end of post–Cold War optimism. The previous NATO benchmark, 2% of GDP, agreed upon in 2014 in response to Russia's annexation of Crimea, was rarely met. As of 2023, only 11 of NATO's 32 members met it. By 2024, that number rose to 22, largely due to the escalating Ukraine war. Also Read: White House blasts Australia over 'weak' defence budget as China threat grows The new 5% target marks a dramatic increase. As per Reuters, if all NATO countries had spent 3.5% of GDP on core defence in 2024, it would have translated to $1.75 trillion, up from the actual $1.3 trillion that year (itself a jump from about a trillion a decade earlier, in constant 2021 prices). Including the additional 1.5% on broader security infrastructure, total spending would have exceeded $2.2 trillion, a nearly 70% rise from current levels. Echoes of Cold War spending NATO has seen such spending surges before. Between 1949 and 1985, defence expenditures climbed sharply during Cold War peaks. According to the bloc's official data, the US increased its nominal defence budget from $13.5 billion in 1949 to $266.6 billion in 1985. NATO Europe's combined total rose from $8.4 billion to $86.8 billion in the same period, with countries like Germany, the UK, and France significantly boosting their military outlays in response to Soviet pressures. By 1985, defence spending as a share of GDP closely resembled today's emerging trend. The US allocated 6.9% of its GDP to defence, while NATO Europe averaged 3.8%. Greece spent 7.1%, and both the UK and Turkey reached 5.4%. These levels shows the significance of NATO's new 5% target, signalling a return to Cold War norms. Throughout that era, European NATO members routinely spent 3.5–4% of GDP on defence, with Greece and the UK often exceeding 5%. The US, meanwhile, regularly surpassed 6%, peaking at 16.9% in 1952 during the Korean War. (Note: The 5% target refers to national defence spending, not contributions paid directly to NATO). The collapse of Pax Americana For nearly eight decades, Pax Americana, peace under US hegemony, anchored the global order. Forged after World War II through efforts like the Marshall Plan and NATO, it paired military might with economic aid and multilateralism. While initially limited to the Western sphere, the post-1991 unipolar moment saw the US expand its influence globally with few credible rivals. That world no longer exists. In 2024, global military spending reached $2.718 trillion, a 9.4% jump over 2023 and the biggest annual increase since the waning years of the Cold War in 1988, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Military budgets now account for 2.5% of global GDP, signalling a shift from diplomacy to deterrence. Also Read: Canada to spend $150 billion a year on defence in historic NATO deal backed by Trump Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the largest land war in Europe since World War II, upended the West's post–Cold War security architecture. In 2024, Russia's defence budget surged 38% to $149 billion, nearly double its share of GDP from 3.6% in 2021 to 7.1% now. The Kremlin isn't just fighting a war; it's militarising its economy for the long haul. Meanwhile, Ukraine's military spending reached $64.7 billion in 2024, a staggering 34% of GDP, driven almost entirely by NATO aid, weapons and training. In Europe, Poland has emerged as NATO's front-line heavyweight. Its defence allocation has doubled, from 2.2% of GDP in 2022 to 4.2% today. Defence budgets in 2024 (SIPRI): United States: $997 billion (+5.7% YoY) — 66% of NATO's total Germany: $88.5 billion (+28%) Poland: $38.0 billion — 4.2% of GDP (+31%) UK: $74.9 billion — 2.3% of GDP Spain: $18.7 billion — 1.3% of GDP NATO Europe & Canada (combined): $485 billion — 2.02% of GDP The global arms surge China, in 2024, spent $296 billion, just 1.7% of GDP, but remains the second-largest military spender globally, with a focus on naval dominance and technological edge. In the Middle East, Israel's military spending jumped 65% to $46.5 billion in 2024, driven by its war with Hamas and tensions with Iran. Defence now accounts for 8.8% of its GDP, twice the level in 2022. Lebanon, caught in a shadow conflict with Israel, raised its defence budget by 58%, from 1.6% to 2.6% of GDP in a single year. Return to Cold War logic As the Council on Foreign Relations notes, US defence spending has ranged from 15% of GDP during the Korean War in 1952 to just 3.7% in 2000. European allies frequently spent more than 3% in the Cold War years, most likely motivated by the fear of Soviet invasion. That pessimism has returned, not necessarily involving the same adversary, but with familiar dynamics: proxy wars, bloc formation, alliance cohesion, industrial mobilisation and civil readiness. Cold War logic is back with 21st-century urgency. NATO's 5% pivot is more than a spending surge. It's a strategic reset, a return to blocs, hard power and zero-sum security. Whether this marks a second Cold War or something more dangerous remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: peace now comes with a price tag. And if the 5% goal is achieved, it will mark the most dramatic rearmament of Europe since the 1980s.
