Iran and Europeans hold nuclear talks with questions over future UN sanctions
Delegations from Iran, the European Union and the so-called E3 group of France, Britain and Germany, arrived at the Iranian consulate in Istanbul for talks that the United Nations nuclear watchdog said could provide an opening to resume inspections.
The European countries, along with China and Russia, are the remaining parties to a 2015 deal - from which the U.S. withdrew in 2018 - that lifted sanctions on Iran in return for restrictions on its nuclear programme.
A deadline of Oct. 18 is fast approaching when the resolution governing that deal expires.
At that point, all U.N. sanctions on Iran will be lifted unless a "snapback" mechanism is triggered at least 30 days before. This would automatically reimpose those sanctions, which target sectors from hydrocarbons to banking and defence.
To give time for this to happen, the E3 have set a deadline of the end of August to revive diplomacy. Diplomats say they want Iran to take concrete steps to convince them to extend the deadline by up to six months.
Iran would need to make commitments on key issues including eventual talks with Washington, full cooperation with the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and accounting for 400 kg (880 pounds) of near-weapons grade highly enriched uranium, whose whereabouts are unknown since last month's strikes.
Minutes before the talks began, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei told the state news agency IRNA that Iran considered talk of extending U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231 to be "meaningless and baseless".
IAEA head Rafael Grossi said he was optimistic that nuclear inspection visits might be able to restart this year and that it was important to discuss the technical details now.
"We need to agree on where to go, how to do it. We need to listen to Iran in terms of what they consider should be the precautions to be taken," he told reporters in Singapore.
The United States held five rounds of talks with Iran prior to its airstrikes in June, which U.S. President Donald Trump said had "obliterated" a programme that Washington and its ally Israel say is aimed at acquiring a nuclear bomb.
However, NBC News has cited current and former U.S. officials as saying a subsequent U.S. assessment found the strikes destroyed most of one of three targeted nuclear sites, but that the other two were not as badly damaged.
Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon and says its nuclear programme is meant solely for civilian purposes.
European and Iranian diplomats say there is no prospect of Iran re-engaging with the U.S. at the negotiating table for now.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
US to burn $10m of birth control intended for low-income countries
The US government is incinerating $9.7 million worth of contraceptives, originally purchased for low−income countries, at an additional cost of $167,000. It comes despite offers from charities and European governments, including France and Belgium, to take on the costs of distributing the supplies. The contraceptives were acquired under a contract partially cancelled as part of President Donald Trump 's significant reductions to foreign aid. Critics, including charities and medical experts, contend that the destruction is driven by a political agenda harmful to women, rather than efficiency, and will exacerbate health crises in vulnerable populations. The US State Department 's claim that the birth control is "abortifacient" has been refuted by medical professionals and a congressional aide who inspected the stock.
Reuters
37 minutes ago
- Reuters
Breakingviews - Europe's absurd US investment pledge brings risks
BERLIN, July 29 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Donald Trump is a master of the art of making brash promises he has no intention of keeping. Ursula von der Leyen appears to have done the same to clinch the European Union's controversial tariff deal with its largest trading partner. But the European Commission president's vague pledge that $600 billion of European investment will flow stateside in the next three years is risky. If the U.S. president decides that the Europeans have failed to keep their end of the bargain, he will have an excuse to tear up the agreement. Just a day after announcing the deal that will impose a 15% charge on most European imports to the U.S., the two sides seemed at odds on many details – including the EU's investment promise. The White House said, opens new tab on Monday that the 'massive' pledge would be 'in addition' to current investment flows from the bloc, which it said exceed $100 billion a year. By contrast, the European Commission said, opens new tab on Tuesday that EU companies had simply 'expressed interest' in investing such an amount in the U.S. by 2029 – but didn't specify it would be on top of existing flows. In either case, it would be a big increase. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Europeans last year sent some $205 billion of new investments, opens new tab across the Atlantic. Strip out the $53 billion from the United Kingdom, and the EU number is closer to $150 billion. If the White House is correct, EU firms would have to more than double their investment spending every year until 2028 to deploy an extra $600 billion. Even the EU's more modest interpretation implies a sustained one-third jump from 2024 levels. This is as implausible as the EU's equally brash promise to import American energy worth $750 billion. Neither pledge may be binding. The deal clinched by Trump and von der Leyen has not yet been formalised in a document signed by both parties. Commission officials hope such a text might be signed by August 1, when the U.S. tariffs come into force. But even then Brussels cannot direct investment decisions by private European companies. Unlike Japan, which promised a similarly vague $550 billion investment fund, the EU cannot even support or subsidise U.S.-bound investments, as these powers belong to its members. Any transatlantic investment drive is also at odds with policies to encourage investment and boost productivity at home. Whether the lure of the U.S. market will trigger an outbreak of enthusiasm among European investors in the next few years is dubious. Tariffs may help persuade carmaker Volkswagen ( opens new tab and luxury giant LVMH ( opens new tab to produce more in the world's largest economy. But they must also factor in the effect of trade barriers on supply chains, Trump's unpredictable policies, and the consequences of higher import prices on U.S. growth and inflation. If Trump's trade deals fail to deliver the economic bonanza he promises his voters, he may look for an excuse to revisit the EU deal. Von der Leyen will then regret having made a vague promise that she knew she could not deliver. Follow Pierre Briancon on Bluesky, opens new tab and LinkedIn, opens new tab.
Economist
2 hours ago
- Economist
Can China save South Africa from Donald Trump?
SOUTH AFRICA is a country with a dark past and a frustrating present. In such a society, to represent the future is a glorious thing. For many South Africans, China holds the keys to a better tomorrow. To its admirers, China represents a timely alternative to a West that is turning inwards, cutting aid and tightening border controls. If America imposes 30% tariffs on South Africa on August 1st, as it says it will, their country has options, they say. China long ago overtook America as South Africa's largest trading partner, with two-way trade growing 25-fold this century. A Chinese maker of electric cars, BYD, is said to be scouting for South African factory sites. Public opinion is marked by racial divides. Asked by the Social Research Foundation, a think-tank, whether Russia and China provide more investment and jobs than America and the EU, 59% of black South Africans agreed, but only 34% of whites. Geopolitics inspires more caution. Asked whether South Africa should pursue anti-Western foreign policies aligned with China, Iran and Russia, 41% of black respondents and 12% of whites said yes. A narrow majority of all said no.
