logo
Europe scrambles to revive diplomacy after the US strikes Iran's nuclear sites

Europe scrambles to revive diplomacy after the US strikes Iran's nuclear sites

LONDON (AP) — European nations worked Monday to keep diplomatic efforts to curb the Israel-Iran war alive as the two countries traded strikes following the United States' weekend attack on Iran's nuclear program. Calls for Tehran to enter talks with Washington appeared to fall on deaf ears as it reached out to ally Russia for support.
The crisis topped the agenda for European Union foreign ministers meeting in Brussels, where diplomats agonized about the potential for Iranian retaliation to spark a wider war and global economic instability.
'The concerns of retaliation and this war escalating are huge,' said the bloc's foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas.
Kallas said any attempt by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for global shipping, would be 'extremely dangerous and not good for anybody.'
Europe seeks more talks
Along with the EU, the 'E3' of Britain, France and Germany have led efforts to find a diplomatic solution, holding a tense seven-hour meeting in Geneva on Friday with Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. A day after those talks ended with a vague promise to "meet again in the future,' U.S. bombers struck three Iranian nuclear and military sites.
No further E3 talks with Iran are currently planned, a European diplomatic official said on condition of anonymity to discuss the negotiations.
Still, U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy urged Iran to meet the E3 again, and to open negotiations with the United States. Planned U.S.-Iran talks in Oman were scuttled after Israel began attacking Iran's nuclear facilities on June 13. Iran has since ruled out negotiating while it is under attack.
'Take the off-ramp, dial this thing down and negotiate with the United States immediately and seriously," said Lammy, who spoke to both Araghchi and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday.
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said Europe had a role to play, but that 'a real precondition for a settlement to the conflict is that Iran be ready to negotiate directly with the U.S.'
Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani told reporters in Brussels that he was proposing a meeting between the United States and Iran in Rome.
Iran's envoy visits Russia
It was Moscow that Iran reached out to Monday, though, sending Araghchi to meet President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. Putin condemned the United States' 'unprovoked aggression' against Iran and said Russia would help the Iranian people.
Putin said he saw the visit as a chance to explore 'how we can get out of today's situation.' Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia had offered to mediate.
European diplomatic efforts were complicated by a lack of foreknowledge of the Trump administration's moves. Some countries had no advance notice of the strikes. Britain was notified, but only shortly before bombs fell.
Another hurdle was Trump's post on social media late Sunday musing about the potential for 'regime change' in Iran, despite U.S. officials' insistence that Washington is not seeking to change the government in Tehran.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot stressed Monday that 'we reject all attempts to organize a change of regime by force.'
'It would be illusory and dangerous to think that such a change can be provoked through force and bombs,' he said.
Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, and U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Tehran is not actively pursuing a bomb. However, Trump and Israeli leaders have argued that Iran could quickly assemble a nuclear weapon, making it an imminent threat.
Mixed emotions among US allies
The U.S. strikes have brought mixed emotions in European capitals. Amid alarm at the potential for a wider war and calls for de-escalation, some American allies expressed relief that Iran's nuclear program had been set back.
'We can't pretend that the prevention of Iran getting nuclear weapons isn't a good thing for this country. But we're prioritizing diplomacy as the way forward,' said Tom Wells, a spokesman for British leader Starmer. 'The prime minister's priority is getting parties back around the table to negotiate a lasting settlement.'
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, whose country is a particularly staunch ally of Israel, said he saw 'no reason to criticize what Israel began a week ago, and also no reason to criticize what America did last weekend.'
He acknowledged 'it is not without risk, but leaving things the way they were was also not an option.'
Merz said he was 'somewhat optimistic' that the conflict would not widen. He said Iran's response so far has been far short 'of what we had to fear,' and that Iran's regional proxies had shown 'relatively little' reaction so far.
But he cautioned that 'it doesn't have to stay that way.'
___
Joyner reported from Brussels. Associated Press writers Elise Morton in London, Lorne Cook and Sam McNeil in Brussels, John Leicester in Paris, Geir Moulson in Berlin and Stephanie Liechtenstein in Vienna contributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump Wants to ‘Make Iran Great Again'
Trump Wants to ‘Make Iran Great Again'

Atlantic

time18 minutes ago

  • Atlantic

Trump Wants to ‘Make Iran Great Again'

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. When Donald Trump raised the idea of toppling Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei yesterday, it wasn't just the idea that was surprising. It was the particular phrase he used to describe it. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' he posted yesterday on Truth Social. The phrase became toxic for a reason. Two years ago, an essay in the Claremont Review of Books noted that regime change entered the popular lexicon in 'the early days of the 9/11 wars, when the Bush (43) Administration argued that the security of America and of the entire world depended not merely on defeating hostile countries militarily but on changing their governments into ones more inherently peaceable and favorable to our interests.' Of course, regimes change all the time, but regime change came to mean 'external, forcible transformation from 'authoritarianism' or 'dictatorship.'' This sounds very much like what Trump is discussing. Having switched from discouraging Israeli military strikes against Iran to joining them, he appears to now be toying with broader ambitions. (Trump offers few endorsements stronger than calling something 'politically incorrect.') But the writer of the Claremont Review essay, a prominent right-wing intellectual, warned about such projects. 'We know how that worked out. Regimes were changed all right, but not into democracies,' he wrote. 'And some of them—e.g., the one in Afghanistan—20 years later changed back to the same regime American firepower had overthrown in 2001.' That writer was Michael Anton. Today he is the director of the policy-planning staff at the State Department (a bit of an oxymoron in this administration), and in April, the White House named him to lead the U.S. delegation at technical talks with Iran on a nuclear deal—negotiations that are presumably irrelevant for the time being. Trump's abrupt shift has thrown the MAGA right into acrimony. In truth, the president has never been a pacificist, as I wrote last week. During the 2016 GOP primary, Trump cannily grasped public anger at the Iraq War and turned it against his rivals. Thinkers such as Anton and politicians such as Vice President J. D. Vance then tried to retrofit a more complete ideology of retrenchment and restraint onto it, but Trump is an improviser, not an ideologue. No one should have been too surprised by the president's order to bomb. Still, his rhetorical embrace of regime change was stunning even to those who never bought into his identity as a dove, and certainly to some of his aides. Perhaps Anton was not surprised to see his view so cavalierly discarded; after all, he once likened backing Trump to playing Russian roulette. But Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were unprepared for the change in rhetoric. Rubio solemnly told Fox Business that the U.S. is not at war with the country it just dropped hundreds of thousands of pounds of ordnance on. Vance, on Meet the Press, insisted, 'Our view has been very clear that we don't want a regime change. We do not want to protract this or build this out any more than it's already been built out.' A few hours later, Trump contradicted him directly, in what would have been embarrassing for someone still capable of the emotion. Vance's views on foreign policy are deeply shaped by the Iraq War, in which he served. Now his boss is at risk of speedwalking that conflict one country to the east. The Iraq War was the product of months of preparation by the George W. Bush administration: military mobilization, avid though unsuccessful attempts to rally international support, an extended period of manufacturing consensus in Congress and in the American public. Yet despite that work, and as even proponents of regime change in Iran acknowledge, the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War was a disaster, perhaps the worst American foreign-policy blunder in history. The U.S. government had good war plans for getting rid of Saddam Hussein's regime but had not effectively thought through what would happen after that. Trump has done even less of that thinking, and leads a nation far more politically divided and warier of foreign intervention. Americans have long viewed Iran negatively: A Fox News poll before this weekend's airstrikes found that roughly three-quarters of them view Iran as a 'real security threat.' Still, another poll earlier this month found that most don't want the U.S. to get involved in armed conflict there. A Pew Research Center poll in May even found that slightly more Americans think that the United States is its own 'greatest threat' than that Iran is. Trump's flippant transformation of 'Make America great again' into 'Make Iran great again' exemplifies the hubris of the Iraq War project that he had promised to leave behind. Just as U.S. officials claimed that Iraq could be easily and quickly converted into an American-style democracy, Trump wants to export his catchphrase to Iran, where the implementation would be even hazier than it is here. Iran is a country of some 90 million people, not a dollhouse to be rearranged. Can regime change work? The answer depends on how success is defined. In 1973, for example, the U.S. backed a coup in Chile, toppling the leftist leader Salvador Allende. It worked: Allende was killed and replaced by Augusto Pinochet, who created a stable, market-based, U.S.-friendly Chilean government. But doing that involved horrifying repression and the killing and disappearances of thousands of critics, leaving a black mark on the U.S. record. In another case of regime change, the U.S. government helped topple Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. This, too, was an immediate success. Mossadegh was removed, and the Washington-friendly Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was restored to power. But the legacy of the moment stretched on much longer. The shah was also brutally repressive, and Iranians remembered the 1953 coup bitterly. In 1979, a revolution swept Iran, deposing Pahlavi and installing a virulently anti-American government. That regime still rules in Tehran—for now, at least. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Iran launched strikes on a U.S. base in Qatar, which were intercepted by Qatar's air-defense system, according to the Qatari government. The Supreme Court temporarily allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to countries other than their own without giving them the chance to contest their removals. President Donald Trump called on 'everyone' to ' keep oil prices down ' after America's recent attack on Iranian nuclear sites sparked fear of higher oil prices. Dispatches Explore all of our newsletters here. Evening Read Extreme Violence Without Genocide By Graeme Wood Signs of violent criminality are ubiquitous in South Africa. Electric fences and guard dogs protect homes containing something worth stealing. Reported rapes, carjackings, and armed robberies all occur far more frequently than in the United States. In Bloemfontein, one of the safer cities, I asked a hotel clerk for directions to a coffee shop, and she said it was 'just across the road,' not more than 500 feet away. When I headed out on foot, she stopped me and said that for my safety, 'I would prefer that you drive.' More From The Atlantic Culture Break Play. In Death Stranding 2, people play as an unlikely hero: a courier who trips over rocks and experiences sunburn. It's the Amazonification of everything, now as a video game, Simon Parkin writes. Disconnect. Franklin Schneider has never owned a smartphone. And, based on the amount of social and libidinal energy that phones seem to have sucked from the world, he's not sure he ever wants to.

Charlamagne says Dems 'sound like hypocrites' for demanding congressional approval for strikes
Charlamagne says Dems 'sound like hypocrites' for demanding congressional approval for strikes

Fox News

time20 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Charlamagne says Dems 'sound like hypocrites' for demanding congressional approval for strikes

Radio host Charlamagne tha God called out Democrats on Monday for their outrage about President Donald Trump launching strikes on Iran without congressional authority, saying they turned a blind eye when Democrats recently did the same. The U.S. launched a surprise strike using B-2 stealth bombers on Iran's Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities on Saturday. "All three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," Joint Chiefs Chairman Air Force Gen. Dan Caine said during a briefing at the Pentagon on Sunday morning. Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., called out Trump for the strikes during a Sunday appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," arguing the head of state should have begun the process by first "coming to Congress and asking for authorization to do this." He continued, "That's the constitutional approach to this. He could have talked to us about what the goal is and what the plan is ahead of time. And we could have had a discussion about it." Charlamagne agreed, but argued Democrats like Kelly should look in the mirror. "Morgyn, this is one of those times when politicians sound like hypocrites, because Mark Kelly is right, the president should get congressional approval," he said about the national war powers debate. "But there have been a bunch of presidents who have ordered strikes without congressional approval." "Barack Obama did it against Libya. Joe Biden ordered strikes in Iraq and Syria without congressional approval. Bill Clinton did it with - 'Kosovo' I think you pronounce it?" he recalled. "So presidents ordering military action without congressional approval has become pretty routine." Co-host Morgyn V. Wood noted that this issue is now being cited for possible impeachment. "So why didn't it lead to an impeachment for everybody else? Like, when Barack Obama did it, when Biden did it, when Clinton did it?" Charlamagne asked. Wood said that there have been calls for impeachment over presidents' military actions without congressional approval before, but Charlamagne was not persuaded. "I don't even remember hearing about it during the Joe Biden administration," Charlamagne said. "I guess that's just because of the way Trump has been moving," co-host DJ Envy said. "But we didn't hear about it when Obama did it. We didn't hear about it when Biden did it." "I do remember when Obama did it," Charlamagne said. "When Obama did it, I do remember, you know, people in Congress saying he needed congressional approval, and they were making it a thing. I don't remember the Biden thing at all. I don't remember that even making a headline." After Wood recalled the widespread outrage over Biden's botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, Charlamagne said he recalled Biden's lack of accountability for military missteps after an NBC News piece headlined, "Presidents' ordering military action without Congress' approval has become routine."

Iran Capabilities Are Damaged, Not Gone: Jeffrey Lewis
Iran Capabilities Are Damaged, Not Gone: Jeffrey Lewis

Bloomberg

time21 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Iran Capabilities Are Damaged, Not Gone: Jeffrey Lewis

Jeffrey Lewis, Professor at Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, discusses roughly 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium being stashed somewhere in Iran at a location unknown to both the United States & Israel and talks about what Iran could possibly do with that amount of uranium. He speaks with Kailey Leinz and Joe Mathieu on the late edition of Bloomberg's "Balance of Power." (Source: Bloomberg)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store