Iran ‘ready for nuclear talks with US but only if Washington rebuilds trust'
Iran is set to meet on Friday in Istanbul with the UK, France and Germany, known as the E3 nations, and the European Union's deputy foreign policy commissioner.
They will be the first talks since Iran's 12-day war with Israel in June, which involved US B-52 bombers striking nuclear-related facilities in Iran.
Mr Gharibabadi said in a social media post on Thursday that to enter negotiations, Iran sought 'several key principles' to be upheld.
He said these included 'rebuilding Iran's trust — as Iran has absolutely no trust in the United States — avoiding the use of talks as a platform for hidden agendas such as military action, though Iran remains fully prepared for any scenario; respecting and recognising Iran's rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, including enrichment in line with its legitimate needs; and the lifting of sanctions'.
A woman walks past a building damaged in an Israeli airstrike at a residential compound in Tehran (AP Photo)
Friday's talks will be held at the deputy ministerial level, with Iran sending deputy foreign minister Majid Takht-e Ravanchi. A similar meeting was held in Istanbul in May.
European leaders have threatened to trigger a 'snapback' mechanism included in a 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, which would reimpose sanctions that were lifted in exchange for Iran accepting restrictions and monitoring of its nuclear programme.
The UK, France and Germany were signatories to the 2015 deal. The US withdrew in 2018 during the first term of President Donald Trump, who insisted the agreement was not tough enough.
Iranian officials have warned that a move to reimpose sanctions would have consequences. Mr Gharibabadi said earlier this week that it could force Tehran to withdraw from key non-proliferation agreements.
In a letter to UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the E3 of hypocrisy, saying they failed to uphold their obligations under the 2015 deal while supporting Israel's recent strikes on Iran.
In the recent conflict, US B-52 bombers struck Iranian nuclear facilities in support of Israel's air campaign. Iran responded with missile attacks, including a strike on a US base in Qatar, which President Masoud Pezeshkian insisted was not directed at the Qatari state.
In an interview with Al Jazeera that aired on Wednesday, Mr Pezeshkian said Iran is prepared for another war and accused Israel of attempting to assassinate him during a June 15 meeting of Iran's national security council in Tehran.
Mr Pezeshkian reiterated that Iran's nuclear programme will continue within the framework of international law and insisted the country has no intention of pursuing nuclear weapons.
'Our nuclear capabilities are in the minds of our scientists,' he said, emphasising Iran's position that future negotiations must be rooted in mutual respect, not threats.
According to the official judicial news agency Mizan, at least 13 Iranian nuclear scientists were killed during the 12-day war between Iran and Israel.
Our nuclear industry is deeply rooted. What has roots cannot be harmed by attack or pressure — it will grow back and thrive again
A spokesman for Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation said on Thursday the country's nuclear industry would recover from the recent attacks by Israel and the US.
'Our nuclear industry is deeply rooted. What has roots cannot be harmed by attack or pressure — it will grow back and thrive again,' state TV quoted Behrouz Kamalvandi as saying.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in May that Iran's stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% had grown to over 400 kilogrammes (882 pounds). That material, just below weapons-grade level, remains a central concern for the West.
Despite the growing stockpile, Iran has said it remains open to diplomacy, though it recently suspended co-operation with the IAEA following legislation signed by Mr Pezeshkian.
While European officials say they want to avoid further conflict and are open to a negotiated solution, they have warned that time is running out.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
4 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Colin Sheridan: ICC justice for Netanyahu? Maybe not — but the arrest warrant still changes everything
In school, most of us learned about The Hague the way one learns about algebra or Shakespeare — with begrudging reverence. A solemn Dutch city, home to two of the most formidable-sounding institutions ever cooked up by the sober minds of the post-Second World War West — the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). One for disputes between states. The other for the monsters among us — war criminals, genocidaires, and heads of state with more skeletons than mistresses. But lately, those halls of justice have grown quiet. The problem isn't just that people have stopped listening to the verdicts. It's as if they've stopped pretending to care at all. If all the courts can do is issue warrants nobody will enforce, then what is the point? Last year, the ICC's chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, requested arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant. Charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, tied to Israel's genocide in Gaza. We know by now who said what, but it's instructive to go back in time a little, and learn that none of what we heard came as a surprise. In March 2021, the ICC formally launched an investigation into alleged violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, covering actions by Israel and Hamas dating back to 2014. The investigation focused on alleged war crimes in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. The announcement triggered strong, sharply divided reactions from governments, human rights organisations, and legal observers. Israel, unsurprisingly, strongly condemned the ICC's decision. Netanyahu called it 'the essence of anti-Semitism and hypocrisy', further citing that the ICC had no jurisdiction, as Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute (the founding treaty of the ICC), and that Palestine, in Israel's view, is not a sovereign state capable of delegating jurisdiction. The Israeli government doubled down, vowing to protect its military personnel and refuse co-operation. The Palestinian Authority (the much-maligned Fatah-controlled government body that exercises partial civil control over the Palestinian enclaves in the Israeli-occupied West Bank) welcomed the decision as a long-awaited step toward justice, calling it 'a historic day for the principle of accountability'. It viewed it as international recognition of its right to seek legal redress for Israeli actions. The International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands. Two decades on, the court has handed down just five convictions for core crimes. Most of those were against African warlords. Picture: AP The US, under the Biden administration at that point, strongly opposed the ICC investigation. Then US secretary of state Antony Blinken said: 'We firmly oppose and are deeply disappointed by the ICC prosecutor's announcement.' Washington took the opportunity to reaffirm its support for Israel's right to 'self-defence' and echoed concerns over jurisdiction. So, although president Biden had lifted Trump-era sanctions on the ICC, the administration remained hostile to this investigation. In Europe, reactions ranged from the technical (Germany and Hungary opposed on jurisdictional grounds) to tentative support (France and Belgium respected the court's independence, even if they had concerns). It is important to note that the 2021 investigation pre-dated October 2023 by over two years, and while no arrest warrants were issued at that point, it marked a turning point in international law regarding how Israel would be treated in its ongoing occupation of Palestine, and its military operations therin. In essence, the reactions in 2021were just an appetiser for those that followed the May 2024 decision that 'there were reasonable grounds' to believe Netanyahu, Gallant, and several Hamas officials had committed international crimes since October 7. On that basis, the court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas commander Mohammed Deif (later withdrawn after reports of his death). Israel, if it were so inclined to take heed, had been warned by the ICC in 2021. It ploughed on regardless. Today, in August 2025, Netanyahu isn't in a holding cell. Neither is Vladimir Putin, who had his own ICC warrant slapped on his name last year. Sudan's Omar al-Bashir evaded capture for over a decade despite indictments and a passport that read like a serial offender's travel diary. The ICC shouts into the void, and the void responds with billions of dollars of military aid and state dinners. So what went wrong? Or perhaps more honestly, was it ever really right? The roots of these courts are noble, born from the most ignoble chapters of human history. After the unthinkable horrors of the Holocaust, the international community collectively said 'never again'. The Nuremberg Trials in 1945 introduced the novel idea that even heads of state could be held accountable. The precedent gave rise to the ICJ in 1945, the UN's 'principal judicial organ', meant to settle disputes between countries. Think of it as marriage counselling for nations with nuclear weapons. Then, in 2002, came the ICC — a separate body entirely. Born of the Rome Statute, it was designed to prosecute individuals for four core crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the elusive crime of aggression, which sounds like something out of a philosophy exam paper. The ICC was supposed to be the last line of defence for victims when national courts were unwilling or unable to act. A legal lighthouse amid stormy seas. But there were always caveats. Big ones. The US, China, and Russia never ratified the Rome Statute. Israel signed it but later 'unsigned' it — an act that should be impossible, but like many things in geopolitics, defies logic. Without these major players on board, the ICC became a court with jurisdiction over everyone except the people most likely to ignore it. So, how is the ICC doing two decades on? It has handed down just five convictions for core crimes. Most of those were against African warlords. Critics have long accused the court of selective justice, a phrase that sounds like something from a dystopian menu: 'Would you like your international law with or without hypocrisy?' Emergency services personnel work to extinguish a fire following a Russian attack in the Kharkiv region of Ukraine. Picture: Ukrainian Emergency Service via AP Meanwhile, the ICJ, for its part, has presided over more than 180 disputes, many of them relating to maritime boundaries. It has done admirable work in the dry, academic realm of state-to-state conflict resolution. But unlike the ICC, the ICJ can't issue arrest warrants or hold individuals responsible. It depends on voluntary compliance. That's a bit like having a referee at a boxing match who can only politely ask you to stop punching. Despite their apparent impotence, there is an argument that if neither court existed, you'd invent them both tomorrow. 'Both the ICJ and ICC have major political impact, that perhaps supersedes any ability it lacks to follow through on arrest warrants,' argues Maryam Jamshidi, an associate professor of law at the University of Colorado Law School. 'The legal arguments the ICJ and ICC are making remain the most effective way to shut down any discussion that what Israel is doing is anything other than war crimes.' There is huge symbolism, too, in those who are bringing the cases to the courts, and those who are rejecting them. 'The construct of contemporary international law is, in and of itself, very much a product of the West and Western interests. But over time, especially since decolonisation after the Second World War, the Global South has asserted its role and place in holding actors accountable. 'This moment — with Israel's crimes in Palestine front and centre — is a moment that the Global South is shaping. It is holding a mirror to the West. How we think about genocide, how we think about occupation and colonisation. That is incredibly important. If international law is to have a future, the Global South needs to continue to lead the way, because the Global South understands better than anyone.' Last year, ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan requested arrest warrants for Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant. Picture: AP So here we are. Two international courts, plenty of legal muscle on paper, but little in the way of teeth when it comes to the powerful. They can indict. They can admonish. But increasingly, they cannot compel. 'Yes,' Jamshidi agrees, 'but the courts are a critical weapon in a wider ideological war. They use sound legal arguments to shape the narrative and apply political pressure. The most significant aspect of the ICC warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant was that they were the first issued for 'Western' leaders. That's not nothing.' Power has shifted. The UN Security Council, still stuck in 1945 with its five permanent members, can't agree on lunch, never mind accountability. Multipolarity has returned, and with it, a jostling of narratives. Everyone's got a skeleton to show, and no one wants to open the closet. And yet, the need for justice hasn't disappeared. If anything, it's more acute. In Gaza, in Sudan, in Ukraine, in Myanmar, real people continue to pay the price for the hubris and avarice of their leaders. The legal frameworks exist. The moral arguments are clear. But the enforcement mechanisms are laughably absent. What's next? So what comes next? Some argue for regional courts — African, Asian, or European criminal tribunals, more culturally and politically embedded, less burdened by the Global North-South mistrust. Others speak of truth and reconciliation commissions, like those pioneered in South Africa, which trade prosecution for collective healing. There's also the tech-utopian fantasy: AI-driven evidence collection, blockchain-protected war crime registries, crowdsourced justice via global citizen tribunals. But these ideas, while shiny, are fraught with their own dangers and easily co-opted. Realistically, what we may see is a shift toward informal legitimacy over formal legality. Sanctions, visa bans, public shaming, asset freezes — none of these are justice in the Nuremberg sense, but they may be the closest we get in a world where power trumps process. Perhaps, too, we must rethink what justice looks like. Less about punishment, more about prevention. Less about dragging leaders to The Hague, more about making it politically impossible for them to commit atrocities in the first place. That's a long road. It involves education, diplomacy, and strengthening domestic institutions. But then, so did the building of these courts. What, then, will we teach our children? There's a bench in The Hague. It sits silently beneath a row of flags and beside the empty dock where tyrants are supposed to face their reckoning. Today, it feels like theatre — well-meaning theatre, perhaps, but theatre all the same. A performance of justice rather than its practice. And yet, something nags at the conscience. That small, stubborn belief that laws matter. That truth has weight. That even in an age of polarisation and propaganda, the idea of accountability shouldn't die so easily. Maybe the ICC is failing. Maybe the ICJ is ignored. But the alternative isn't attractive, and perhaps, as Jamshidi argues, the symbolism of its rulings and the discomfort those rulings impart outweigh the futility of its warrants.
The Journal
6 hours ago
- The Journal
US offcials visit Gaza aid depot, ex-EU envoy warns EU leaders they are 'complicit in genocide'
LAST UPDATE | 7 hrs ago THE FORMER CHIEF diplomat of the European Union has issued a grave warning to EU leaders about their 'complicity' in genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity being committed by Israel in Palestine. Josep Borrell said that the EU is tarnishing its reputation with the rest of the world through its continued support for and cooperation with Israel, particularly in supplying arms and maintaining trade relations. 'Those who do not act to stop this genocide and these violations of international law, even though they have the power to do so, are complicit in them,' Borrell wrote in an article in The Guardian newspaper today. 'This is unfortunately the case with the leaders of the European Union and those of its member states, who refuse to sanction Israel even though the EU has a legal obligation to do so.' Former EU High Representative Josep Borrell Alamy Alamy The Spanish diplomat said he had tried to get EU member states to suspend the association agreement between the bloc and Israel, which has a clause mandating it adhere to human rights and international law. But despite his efforts and the worsening situation in Gaza and the West Bank, 'the EU and most EU governments have so far failed to use any of the levers available to them to exert pressure on the Israeli government'. He said the EU is 'deepening its isolation by cutting itself off from the rest of the world'. Borrell also noted that inaction from the EU could have legal consequences. 'The leaders of the EU and its member states will probably be called to account in the future for their complicity in the crimes against humanity committed by Netanyahu's government.' While the EU has not taken action against Israel as a bloc, yesterday, Slovenia announced it would ban all weapons trade with Israel, becoming the first EU state to do so. It said it was moving ahead 'independently' because the EU was 'unable to adopt concrete measures… due to internal disagreements and disunity'. There is a growing consensus among genocide scholars, human rights organisations and countries around the world that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. This week, the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem reached the conclusion that Israel's war on the Gaza Strip is a genocide. It said that the methods and rhetoric of Israeli leaders lead to 'the unequivocal conclusion that Israel is taking coordinated, deliberate action to destroy Palestinian society in the Gaza Strip. 'In other words: Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.' And today, esteemed Israeli author David Grossman said that, 'with immense pain and with a broken heart', he has reached the same conclusion. US envoy visits Gaza Meanwhile, US special envoy Steve Witkoff visited Gaza today to inspect food distribution sites, amid mounting international concern over a worsening starvation crisis and repeated massacres near distribution sites run by the US and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GFH). Witkoff made the visit alongside US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. 'Today, we spent over five hours inside Gaza,' Witkoff said in a post on X, accompanied by a photo of himself wearing a protective vest and meeting staff at a distribution centre. He added that the purpose of the visit was to 'help craft a plan to deliver food and medical aid to the people of Gaza'. This morning I joined @SEPeaceMissions Steve Witkoff for a visit to Gaza to learn the truth about @GHFUpdates aid sites. We received briefings from @IDF and spoke to folks on the ground. GHF delivers more than one million meals a day, an incredible feat! — Ambassador Mike Huckabee (@USAmbIsrael) August 1, 2025 Huckabee said on X that he joined Witkoff for the visit to Gaza 'to learn the truth about (GHF) aid sites'. Witkoff also held a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday, in which discussions reportedly centred on humanitarian challenges in Gaza and the possibility of a ceasefire. US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo The envoy is expected to 'secure a plan to deliver more food and meet with local Gazans to hear firsthand about this dire situation on the ground', White House spokesperson Caroline Leavitt said. The visit comes as at least 111 people were killed in the 24 hours prior to Thursday, with 91 of them reportedly seeking aid, Gaza's health ministry reported. Another 54 Palestinians were killed and hundreds wounded on Wednesday near the Zikim crossing in northern Gaza while waiting for food. Advertisement Palestinians obtained a small amount of flour at the Zikim border crossing yesterday. Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo Footage from the aftermath showed victims being transported on carts to Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. Gazan authorities said that Israeli forces opened fire on crowds gathered around aid lorries. The Israeli military claimed its troops only fired warning shots, and denied knowledge of any casualties resulting from their actions. Some Israeli officials have claimed that gunfire may have come from within the crowd during altercations over access to supplies. Israeli soldiers and mercenaries working with GHF have told media outlets that their colleagues have shot directly at unarmed civilians near aid sites. Crisis Escalates Despite claims from Israel that it is facilitating humanitarian aid, UN agencies and aid organisations describe the situation as 'man-made, mass starvation'. UN-backed experts have stated that the 'worst-case scenario of famine is currently playing out' among Gaza's population of 2.1 million. Over 156 deaths have been attributed to starvation and malnutrition, including at least 90 children. While Israel has introduced daily 'tactical pauses' in its military operations and designated humanitarian corridors to enable aid distribution, the UN says these efforts are insufficient. It continues to report that large, desperate crowds are attempting to offload supplies directly from aid convoys due to the lack of consistent access. Since the GHF began operations in May, the UN human rights office has recorded the deaths of at least 1,373 Palestinians attempting to access aid. Most were allegedly killed by Israeli forces. The UN says it has not seen any evidence that those killed posed a threat or were involved in hostilities. It has refused to co-operate with the GHF's system, citing safety concerns and violations of neutrality, impartiality and independence. A Palestinian boy carry aid after receiving it from the US humanitarian aid distribution centre in Rafah, southern Gaza. Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo Airdrops of aid have continued, with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reporting 43 packages delivered yesterday. However, aid agencies insist that hundreds of trucks are needed daily, far more than the current average of fewer than 300. In Jerusalem, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul met with Netanyahu and warned of 'a humanitarian disaster beyond imagination'. He stressed that the Israeli government must act decisively to prevent mass starvation. Germany has stopped short of joining allies such as France and Britain in moving to recognise a Palestinian state but reiterated that a two-state solution is the only path to lasting peace. Meanwhile, pressure on Israel to agree to a ceasefire is growing. Demonstrators, including families of hostages, protested outside Netanyahu's office yesterday demanding an end to the war. Negotiations stalled following the breakdown of talks in Doha, with both Israeli and US delegations returning home. President Donald Trump has maintained a firm stance in support of Israel, stating on social media that 'the fastest way to end the humanitarian crises in Gaza is for Hamas to surrender and release the hostages'. Nonetheless, he acknowledged earlier this week that Gaza faces 'real starvation', countering Israeli assertions that reports of hunger were exaggerated. With Gaza's death toll now reportedly exceeding 60,000, and horrifying images of emaciated children continuing to circulate, the international community is calling for urgent action. Canada and Portugal are among the latest nations to signal plans to recognise a Palestinian state, adding to the pressure on Israel and its allies to reach a diplomatic solution and end the suffering. With reporting from David Mac Redmond and AFP Need more information on what is happening in Israel and Palestine? Check out our FactCheck Knowledge Bank for essential reads and guides to navigating the news online. Visit Knowledge Bank Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
The Journal
6 hours ago
- The Journal
Italy gets slap on the wrist over plans to deport asylum seekers to Albanian detention centres
THE EU'S TOP court has backed Italian judges who questioned a list of 'safe countries' drawn up by the Italian government to deport International Protection applicants to detention centres in Albania. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's plan to outsource processing of asylum seekers to a non-European Union country and speed up deportations has been closely scrutinised by others in the EU. The costly scheme has been frozen for months by legal challenges. Italian magistrates have cited the European court's decision that EU states cannot designate an entire country as 'safe' when certain regions are not. In its ruling published today, the EU Court of Justice did not contest Italy's right to designate so-called 'safe countries of origin'. 'However, a Member State may not include a country in the list of safe countries of origin if that country does not offer adequate protection to its entire population,' it ruled. It said the sources of information on which the government's 'safe country' designation is based should be accessible both to the defendant and to courts. In the case considered by the court, two Bangladeshi nationals taken to an Albanian migrant centre were denied the possibility of 'challenging and reviewing the lawfulness of such a presumption of safety'. 'A member state may not designate as a 'safe' country of origin a third country which does not satisfy, for certain categories of persons, the material conditions for such a designation,' it said. Advertisement Italy's 'safe country' list included Egypt, Bangladesh and Tunisia, where human rights groups have documented abuses against minorities. Italy's government said the court was 'claiming powers that do not belong do it, in the face of responsibilities that are political'. Meloni and her Albanian counterpart Edi Rama signed the deal in November 2023. Under the plan, Italy would finance and operate detention centres designed to fast-track the processing of asylum seekers from 'safe' countries, and therefore unlikely to be eligible for asylum. Several people have been sent to the centres from October last year but they have been sent back to Italy after judges ruled they did not meet the criteria to be detained there. Italy responded by modifying its 'safe' list but judges ruled twice more against subsequent detentions and referred the issue to the ECJ. The court noted, however that European law will change in June 2026, allowing 'exceptions for such clearly identifiable categories of persons.' © AFP 2025 Need more clarity and context on how migration is being discussed in Ireland? Check out our FactCheck Knowledge Bank for essential reads and guides to finding good information online. Visit Knowledge Bank
