France, Germany and UK ready to reimpose sanctions on Iran if talks don't resume
It comes after initial talks between E3 and Iranian diplomats took place in Istanbul, Turkey last month.In a letter to the UN and its chief António Guterres, three foreign ministers - Jean-Noël Barrot from France, David Lammy from the UK and Johann Wadephul from Germany - said they would enforce severe sanctions on Iran unless it agrees to limit its nuclear programme.On Tuesday, the E3 said their offer of an extension to the negotiations "remained unanswered by Iran"."We have made it clear that if Iran is not willing to reach a diplomatic solution before the end of August 2025, or does not seize the opportunity of an extension, the E3 are prepared to trigger the snapback mechanism," the letter said.They added they were committed to using "all diplomatic tools" to ensure Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon - something Iran has denied intending to do.Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said in July that triggering sanctions would be "completely illegal".Sanctions on Iran's nuclear programme were previously lifted in 2015 after Iran signed a nuclear deal with the E3, the US, Russia and China, agreeing limits on its nuclear operations and to allow international inspectors entry to its nuclear sites. The deal is due to expire in October.The US withdrew from the deal in 2018 during President Donald Trump's first term, with the leader saying it did too little to stop Iran from creating a pathway to a nuclear bomb. With its withdrawal, all US sanctions were re-imposed on Iran.Iran retaliated by increasingly breaching the restrictions. In May, the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said it had more than 400kg of uranium enriched to 60% purity - well above the level used for civilian purposes and close to weapons grade. In June Iran's parliament suspended cooperation with the IAEA after tensions with Israel and the US came to a head.Israel launched attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities the same month, triggering a 12-day war.The US bombed a number of Iran's nuclear sites, bringing US-Iran talks to an abrupt end.Following the strikes, the E3 countries stepped up warnings to Iran about its suspension of cooperation with the IAEA.The BBC has contacted the UK Foreign Office for comment. The Iranian mission to the UN did not immediately respond to the BBC's request for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
14 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Plastic pollution treaty talks stall one day before deadline
Talks on the world's first legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution have stalled just one day before the negotiations are due to end. More than 100 'high ambition' countries rejected as 'unacceptable' and 'unambitious' a draft treaty text that does not limit plastic production, nor address chemicals used in plastic products. The main sticking point at the talks, now in their third year, has been whether to cap plastic production or to focus on issues such as better design, recycling and reuse. More than 100 'high ambition' countries have pushed for a plastics treaty to include strong, legally binding measures with a limit on plastic production, in order to address plastic at source, and many have said toxic chemicals in plastics need to be controlled. But oil and plastic producing nations, including Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran, the so-called 'like minded group' which has reportedly been supported by the US, as well as the chemical industry, reject production limits and instead want the treaty to focus on measures such as waste management and recycling. At a meeting in Geneva on Wednesday, many countries rejected the latest treaty text presented by the chair, Luis Vayas Valdivieso. They said they were 'extremely concerned' or 'disappointed' by the low level of ambition it contained. Columbia's delegate, Sebastián Rodríguez, rejected the draft text as 'completely unacceptable', while Julio Cordano, head of delegation for Chile, said it contained gaps and shortcomings which did not reflect the scale of the problem. Panama's delegate, Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, also said it could not accept the draft text as a basis of negotiation and that its red lines had been 'spat on and burned'. The negotiators had 'only 30 hours' to find a solution to end plastic pollution, not 'just a political solution' he added. 'This is not ambition, it is surrender' he said. The UK's head of delegation, Jane Barton, said the text was the 'lowest common denominator'. 'We need an effective treaty for our people and for our planet,' she said. 'Time is running out.' The new draft contains one mention of plastic production, in the preamble reaffirming the importance of sustainable plastic production and consumption. An article on production from a previous draft has been removed. There is no mention of chemicals. A reference to the 'full life cycle' of plastics in a previous draft has also been removed. Kenya described the draft as a 'waste management' instrument, which had 'no democratic value' for states seeking to limit plastic, while Mexico said it represented a 'crisis in multilateralism'. Dennis Clare, a negotiator for Micronesia, said: 'Some parties, including ours, are not even willing to engage on that text, it's a step backward.' 'It certainly seems like it was very biased toward the like-minded countries [Saudi, Russia, Iran etc]. There's problems across the board. There's no binding measures on anything. There's no obligation to contribute resources to the financial mechanism. There's no measures on production or chemicals. This text is just inadequate.' Speaking ahead of the release of the chair's text, Juan Carlos Lozada, a member of the house of representatives of Colombia, said: 'If the production keeps growing at the rate it has grown in the last decades, we have no hope for 2050, 2060. So if the treaty doesn't have those elements, those key elements, there's no treaty. I'd rather not have a treaty if we're not going to have a very robust treaty.' Andreas Bjelland, the head of Norway delegation and the co-chair of the high ambition coalition, also speaking before the release of the text, said: 'To keep production as part of the finalised treaty, that is important. If you look at what we agreed on in the mandate … sustainable production and sustainable consumption was explicitly mentioned. So there should be provisions to be able to work with that and develop that over time.' Greenpeace described the new text as a 'gift to the petrochemical industry and a betrayal of humanity.'. Graham Forbes, Greenpeace's head of delegation, said: 'By failing to address production or harmful chemicals in any way, this text glorifies the industry lie that we can recycle our way out of this crisis, ignoring the root cause: the relentless expansion of plastic production.' The treaty talks will continue on Thursday.
The Guardian
14 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Yvette Cooper solves one headache for justice system but may have caused another
By getting her way and allowing police to consider disclosing the ethnicity and nationality of suspects charged in high-profile cases, Yvette Cooper has solved one enormous headache for the criminal justice system. But she may have caused another, which could have consequences for race relations. The home secretary has encouraged senior police officers to free themselves of longstanding protocols so they can combat the prolific use of social media by far-right bloggers and organisations that have escalated disinformation around high-profile incidents. Last summer's national riots were fomented from an early stage by misinformation about the Southport killer – he was claimed, in posts recycled tens of thousands of times, to be a Muslim, foreign-born and an asylum seeker. All three statements turned out to be wrong. Until today, there was nothing in the College of Policing's guidance that actually prevented police giving information about the nationality, asylum status or even ethnicity of someone who has been charged. The police are restricted as to what they can say about suspects. But the guidance on media relations – and what would be released to the public – said that if someone was arrested, police should only give the suspect's gender and age. Once a suspect was charged, the guidance said police could give out the suspect's name, date of birth and address. Before 2012, police forces made decisions on what information to give to the media on a purely case-by-case basis, decisions often made depending on the force's relationship with individual journalists and media outlets. But it was Lord Leveson's damning 2012 report into press ethics that prompted police forces to become more cautious because of concerns that releasing the ethnicity of suspects could be used to feed false narratives. Leveson examined testimony from the National Union of Journalists claiming that some national newsrooms openly encouraged racist reporting. One reporter was told by the news editor to 'write a story about Britain being flooded by asylum-seeking bummers', another was told to 'make stories as rightwing as you can' and another was told to go out and find Muslim women to photograph, with the instruction: 'Just fucking do it. Wrap yourself around a group of women in burkas for a photo,' the testimony said. He examined numerous reports including a Daily Star article under the headline 'Asylum seekers eat our donkeys,' which claimed that donkey meat was a speciality in Somalia and eastern Europe and blamed asylum seekers, without any evidence. Leveson concluded that 'when assessed as a whole, the evidence of discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers, is concerning.' Fast-forward 12 years to Southport, and Merseyside police were left making decisions on whether to release information on the ethnicity and nationality of the killer of three young girls in order to dispel public anger that had spilled on to the streets. Senior officers had to deal with major criminal incidents and took days to dispel social media untruths. Such disinformation was at least partly responsible for last summer's riots. At the time, Merseyside police said they were not giving out more information because of the contempt of court rules. It is hoped that the new guidance will mean police will no longer be left flat-footed when responding to viral social media posts by extremists. Decisions on releasing such information will remain with police forces, with wider legal and ethical considerations also taken into account, the National Police Chiefs' Council said, but verifying a suspect's immigration status is up to the Home Office. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion There is concern among some former police and race campaigners that Cooper's change will undo the restrictions imposed after Leveson and fuel racist sentiments. The former Met chief superintendent Dal Babu has warned of the 'unintended consequences' of the new guidance, which he said could lead to more online speculation in cases where these details are not released. 'The danger is there will be an expectation for police to release information on every single occasion,' he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. The Home Office insists that it will not be encouraging the release of ethnicity and immigration status in all cases, and there are notable occasions when it has not. But a former race adviser to No 10 told the Guardian: 'Yvette has unwittingly opened a Pandora's box. After every charge, everyone with a union jack on their X bio will demand from the police the ethnicity of the suspect. 'The Home Office is going to to get even more demands for the asylum status of every black or brown suspect. It is going to be chaos, and has handed Nigel Farage another stick to beat Labour with.' There could well be a knock-on effect on mainstream reporting and community relations, campaigners believe. Enny Choudhury, from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, said: 'Releasing the ethnicity of everyone suspected of serious crimes will do nothing to help victims or secure justice – it will simply fuel mistrust, deepen divisions, and make Black and brown communities more vulnerable to prejudice and harm.'
Daily Mail
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
'Anti-Jewish' summer camp accused of backing Iran is cancelled - concerns were raised that it was radicalising children as young as nine
A summer camp sponsored by an Islamic charity accused of backing Iran has been cancelled after concerns were raised it could expose children as young as nine to extreme views. Local councillors said they had been 'swamped' by petitions to call off the upcoming four-day residential camp run by the Ahlulbayt Islamic Mission charity in Kings Langley, Hertfordshire. Representatives of 11 Reform UK branches across the county had also written to the managers of the centre where Camp Wilayah was due to be held, demanding that it be cancelled. The Daily Mail can now reveal that the residential, described as a 'unique opportunity' for children aged nine to 14 to build on their Islamic values, will not go ahead as planned over the August bank holiday. Liberal Democrat and chair of Hertfordshire County Council Laurence Brass welcomed the decision, saying the final call had been made by the scout group that own the venue. He added: 'We have been swamped with petitions for it to be cancelled. 'I was very upset that it was going ahead and I am very pleased with this result. I think it is the right decision.' Mr Brass said that Hertfordshire County Council is due to announce the cancellation of the camp officially on Wednesday. Camp Wilayah, which has been run by Ahlulbayt Islamic Mission for a number of years, was due to be held between August 22 and August 25. According to the charity's website, any girls attending were required to wear a hijab and loose clothing. They were also due to be separated from the boys for the duration of the camp, except for daily prayers, talks and a team photo. Ahlulbayt Islamic Mission, which is based in Cricklewood, north-west London, has been accused of backing Iran's theocratic regime. In posts on social media, the charity has repeatedly praised Tehran's leader Ayatollah Khamenei - and even described his books as a 'great read'. The organisation has also refused to condemn the terror group Hamas and said in the wake of the October 7 attacks that 'Zionists brought this disaster upon themselves'. Meanwhile in another post on Instagram from last year, young children can be seen drawing and colouring in Palestinian flags and watermelon symbols. Legal lobby group UK Lawyers for Israel previously criticised the planned activities at the camp - saying they could incite hatred towards Jewish people. It said in a comment to The Telegraph: 'AIM's deep ideological alignment with the Iranian regime and its record of extremist propaganda presents an unacceptable risk to children. 'We hope the local authority and other agencies will act decisively to protect vulnerable young people from exposure to harmful and radicalising content.' In a post on their website on Tuesday, Ahlulbayt Islamic Mission confirmed that Camp Wilayah had been postponed until further notice. The charity said this was in light of 'serious threats levelled at the safety of children at the camp'. The statement read: 'Following discussions with Hertfordshire Scouts, and in light of serious threats levelled at the safety of children at the camp, we regret to announce that this year's Camp Wilayah will not proceed at Phasels Wood over the bank holiday weekend. 'We know this decision will cause some disappointment; however, our first priority is to protect the safety and security of our children, and we take this matter very seriously. 'For foreign political lobby groups, media outlets and far right thugs to make unfounded allegations that heighten the risk and encourage harm to children in the UK is truly disgraceful. It added: 'For over a decade, Camp Wilayah has been a cherished space where our children could enjoy the outdoors, grow in their values, and form lifelong friendships. 'Many of those who attended Camp Wilayah are now doctors, plumbers, teachers, engineers, and public servants, proud citizens who give back to Britain every single day. 'No evidence of wrongdoing has ever been found at Camp Wilayah, yet our children are being punished simply for their faith.' 'To attack such a wholesome and positive tradition is shameful, especially when threats are made by the Reform Party to mobilise protests and disrupt children's camps. 'Not only is this despicable behaviour, but it is Islamophobia in plain sight, and it should alarm every member of society.' UK Lawyers for Israel wrote to Brentwood Council in London and Hertfordshire County Council last month asking for Camp Wilayah to be banned. The group warned councillors: 'There is compelling reason to believe that the event may be used as a platform to radicalise children, incite hatred or violence, and glorify terrorist ideology.' Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick also raised concerns that children should be allowed to attend camps run by 'supporters of the Iranian regime'. A spokesperson for Hertfordshire County Council previously said: 'We are aware of concerns around this planned activity camp, and we are working with partners to understand the situation and whether it raises any safeguarding issues.' There is no evidence the charity poses a risk to children and in a statement on their website it says its goal is to 'promote peace' and 'create a better world for everyone'. It reads: 'We at AIM are committed in our efforts to spread peace, tolerance and co-existence; and to promote social harmony as contained in our rich and abundant Islamic heritage. 'AIM believes that the continual pursuit of its objectives will create a better world for everyone.'
