Iranian FM meets with UK, Germany, France, EU counterparts
French president Emmanuel Macron says "moving towards zero enrichment" should be a priority in European talks with Iran in Geneva. CNN's Becky Anderson speaks to French Foreign Ministry spokesperson Christophe Lemoine about the diplomatic efforts to stop the Israel-Iran conflict.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Germany to hire 11,000 more military personnel this year, Bild reports
FRANKFURT (Reuters) -The German government will provide funds for an extra 11,000 military personnel by the end of the year, an increase of around 4%, tabloid Bild reported on Saturday, citing government sources. The money will be provided for 10,000 soldiers and 1,000 civilian employees for the military by end-2025, the newspaper said, adding the move was part of this year's budget planning to be approved by the cabinet next week. The new jobs will cover armed, air, naval and cyber forces, the report said. Germany's Defence Ministry declined to comment. Germany needs up to 60,000 additional troops under new NATO targets for weapons and personnel, Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said earlier this month, as the alliance beefs up its forces to respond to what it sees as an increased threat from Russia.
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
American Democracy Might Not Survive a War With Iran
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. The current debate over bombing Iran is surreal. To begin with, bombardment is unlikely to lead to a satisfactory outcome. If history has shown one thing, it is that achieving a lasting resolution by bombing alone is almost impossible. There was a reason the United States sent ground forces into Iraq in 2003, and it was not to plant democracy. It was that American officials believed they could not solve the problem of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs simply by bombing. They had tried that. The Clinton administration bombed Iraq for four days in 1998. At the end, they had no idea what they had destroyed and what they hadn't. They certainly knew they had not put a permanent end to the program. In 2003, if George W. Bush thought he could have permanently ended Saddam's weapons programs by bombing alone, he would have taken that option. Iran today poses the same dilemma. America's weapons may be better than they were in 2003, its intelligence capabilities greater, and Iran may be weaker than it was even a year ago, but the problem remains. Bombing alone will not achieve a verifiable and lasting end to Iran's nuclear program. It can buy time, and Israel's strikes have done that. American strikes could extend that period, but a determined Iranian regime will likely try again. A permanent solution would require a far more intrusive international verification regime, which in turn would require a ground presence for protection. However, that is not the main reason I oppose bombing Iran. Nor is it the reason I find the discussion of all of this so bizarre. You would never know, as The New York Times churns out its usual policy-option thumb-suckers, that the United States is well down the road to dictatorship at home. That is the context in which a war with Iran will occur. Donald Trump has assumed dictatorial control over the nation's law enforcement. The Justice Department, the police, ICE agents, and the National Guard apparently answer to him, not to the people or the Constitution. He has neutered Congress by effectively taking control of the power of the purse. And, most relevant in Iran's case, he is actively and openly turning the U.S. military into his personal army, for use as he sees fit, including as a tool of domestic oppression. Whatever action he does or doesn't take in Iran will likely be in furtherance of these goals. When he celebrates the bombing of Iran, he will be celebrating himself and his rule. The president ordered a military parade to honor his birthday. Imagine what he will do when he proclaims military success in Iran. The president is working to instill in our nation's soldiers a devotion to him and him alone. Imagine how that relationship will blossom if he orders what he will portray as a successful military mission. [Read: The three dramatic consequences of Israel's attack on Iran] Indeed, I can think of nothing more perilous to American democracy right now than going to war. Think of how Trump can use a state of war to strengthen his dictatorial control at home. Trump declared a state of national emergency in response to a nonexistent 'invasion' by Venezuelan gangs. Imagine what he will do when the United States is actually at war with a real country, one that many Americans fear. Will he tolerate dissent in wartime? Woodrow Wilson locked up peace activists, including Eugene V. Debs. You think Trump won't? He has been locking people up on flimsier excuses in peacetime. Even presidents not bent on dictatorship have taken measures in wartime that would otherwise be unthinkable. Then there is the matter of terrorism. What if Iran is able to pull off a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in retaliation for an American strike? Or even just tries and fails? The courts will permit a president almost anything in the aftermath of an attack: Any restraints they've put on Trump will vanish. The administration may claim that anti-terrorism laws permit it to violate the rights of American citizens in the same way that it is currently violating the rights of the noncitizens being scooped off the streets by masked men. The attorney general has already threatened to use terrorism statutes to prosecute people who throw stones at Tesla dealerships. Imagine what she will do to anti-war protesters with the justification of a real terrorist threat. Finally, there are the global implications. The United States is currently ruled by anti-liberal forces trying to overturn the Founders' universalist liberal ideals and replace them with a white, Christian ethnoreligious national identity. American officials are actively supporting similar anti-liberal forces all around the world, including the current anti-liberal ethnoreligious government of Israel. Any success Trump claims in Iran, whatever its other consequences, will be a victory for the anti-liberal alliance and will further the interests of anti-liberalism across the globe. This is true even though the current regime in Iran is itself anti-liberal. Should the mullahs fall, Trump and Israel are likely to support a military strongman against any democratic forces that might emerge there. That has been Israel's policy throughout the region, and even presidents who did not share Trump's proclivity for dictators, such as Barack Obama, have acquiesced to Israel's preferences. I'm not interested in using American military power to make the world safer for dictatorship. [Read: Isn't Trump supposed to be anti-war?] I might feel differently if Iran posed a direct threat to the United States. It doesn't. The U.S. policy of containing Iran was always part of a larger strategy to defend a liberal world system with a liberal America at its center. Americans need to start thinking differently about our foreign policy in light of what is happening in our country. We can no longer trust that any Trump foreign-policy decision will not further illiberal goals abroad or be used for illiberal ends at home. Today, the United States itself is at risk of being turned into a military dictatorship. Its liberal-democratic institutions have all but crumbled. The Founders' experiment may be coming to an end. War with Iran is likely to hasten its demise. Not that it matters, but count me out. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pakistan to nominate Trump for Nobel prize
The government of Pakistan said Friday it would nominate President Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize while lauding his contributions to global peace. Last month, the Trump administration intervened in a brief conflict between India and Pakistan after the former struck the latter in what it described as retaliatory strikes, killing dozens. 'At a moment of heightened regional turbulence, President Trump demonstrated great strategic foresight and stellar statesmanship through robust diplomatic engagement with both Islamabad and New Delhi which de-escalated a rapidly deteriorating situation, ultimately securing a ceasefire and averting a broader conflict between the two nuclear states that would have had catastrophic consequences for millions of people in the region and beyond,' the government of Pakistan wrote in a Friday statement on the social media platform X. After Pakistan announced the nomination, Trump shared a grim outlook on his chances of obtaining recognition from an international award for conflict intervention hours after securing a treaty between Rwanda and the Congo. 'No, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that's all that matters to me!' Trump wrote in a Friday Truth Social post. Former President Obama is the last sitting president to receive a Nobel Peace Prize for international diplomacy in 2009, eight months into his first term. Pakistan now hopes to help Trump receive the same honor. 'President Trump's leadership during the 2025 Pakistan India crisis manifestly showcases the continuation of his legacy of pragmatic diplomacy and effective peace-building,' the government wrote. 'Pakistan remains hopeful that his earnest efforts will continue to contribute towards regional and global stability, particularly in the context of ongoing crises in the Middle East, including the humanitarian tragedy unfolding in Gaza and the deteriorating escalation involving Iran,' they added. The White House did not immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment on the matter In May, missiles from India killed 31 people and injured 57 in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and the country's Punjab province, according to the Pakistani military. Amid the turmoil, Trump told foreign partners, 'If I can do anything to help, I will be there,' while Vice President Vance said the conflict was 'none of our business' as threats of war between the two nuclear powers crescendoed. Days later, Trump announced that India and Pakistan agreed to a 'full and immediate' ceasefire with the help of U.S. mediation. Pakistan's government said his efforts were a sign of the leader's commitment to stability and peace. 'This intervention stands as a testament to his role as a genuine peacemaker and his commitment to conflict resolution through dialogue,' the government wrote on social media. . Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
