logo
‘Slim to none': US strikes on Iran leave hopes for nuclear diplomacy in tatters

‘Slim to none': US strikes on Iran leave hopes for nuclear diplomacy in tatters

Straits Times4 hours ago

A handout satellite image made available by Maxar Technologies shows damage at the Isfahan nuclear technology centre after US airstrikes on June 22. PHOTO: EPA-EFE
'Slim to none': US strikes on Iran leave hopes for nuclear diplomacy in tatters
PARIS/ISTANBUL - In a bid to defuse the conflict over Iran's nuclear programme, foreign ministers from Europe's top three powers hurried to meet their Iranian counterpart on June 20 in Geneva.
Those hopes collapsed on June 21 when US President Donald Trump ordered airstrikes on Iran's three main nuclear sites, in support of Israel's military campaign.
'It's irrelevant to ask Iran to return to diplomacy,' Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araqchi, visibly angry, told reporters in Istanbul on June 22, promising a 'response' to the US strikes. 'It's not time for diplomacy now.'
Mr Trump, who said the US airstrikes 'obliterated' the sites, warned in a televised speech on June 21 that the US could attack other targets in Iran if no peace deal was reached and urged Tehran to return to the negotiating table.
Reuters spoke to seven Western diplomats and analysts who said the prospect of negotiations was negligeable for now, with an unbridgeable gap between Washington's demand for zero enrichment by Iran and Tehran's refusal to abandon its nuclear programme.
'I think the prospects of effective diplomacy at this point are slim to none,' said Mr James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think tank headquartered in Washington.
'I'm much more worried about escalation, both in the short and the long term.'
According to European diplomats, the three European allies - Britain, France and Germany - were not made aware of Mr Trump's decision to strike Iran ahead of time. French President Emmanuel Macron had promised on June 21 - just before the US strikes - to accelerate the nuclear talks, following a call with his Iranian counterpart.
One European diplomat, who asked not to be identified, acknowledged there was now no way of holding a planned second meeting with Iran in the coming week.
In the wake of the US military action, any European diplomatic role appears likely to be secondary. Mr Trump on June 20 dismissed Europe's efforts towards resolving the crisis, saying Iran only wanted to speak to the United States.
Three diplomats and analysts said any future talks between Iran and Washington would likely be through regional intermediaries Oman and Qatar, once Tehran decides how to respond to the US airstrikes on its nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.
The attacks leave Iran with few palatable options on the table. Since Israel began its military campaign against Iran on June 13, some in Tehran have raised the prospect of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to signal Iran's determination to accelerate enrichment, but experts say that would represent a considerable escalation and likely draw a forceful response from Washington.
Mr Acton, of the Carnegie Endowment, said Iran's most obvious means for retaliation is its short-range ballistic missiles, that could be used to target US forces and assets in the region. But any military response by Iran carried the risk of miscalculation, he said.
'On the one hand, they want a strong enough response that they feel the US has actually paid a price. On the other hand, they don't want to encourage further escalation,' he said.
European effort ended in failure
Even before the US strikes, the June 20 talks in Geneva showed little sign of progress amid a chasm between the two sides and in the end no detailed proposals were put forward, three diplomats said. Mixed messaging may have also undermined their own efforts, diplomats said.
European positions on key issues like Iran's enrichment programme have hardened in the past 10 days with the Israeli strikes and the looming threat of US bombing.
The three European powers, known as the E3, were parties to a 2015 nuclear deal that Mr Trump abandoned three years later during his first term.
Both the Europeans and Tehran believed they had a better understanding of how to get a realistic deal given the E3 have been dealing with Iran's nuclear programme since 2003.
But the Europeans have had a difficult relationship with Iran in recent months as they sought to pressure it over its ballistic missiles programme, support for Russia and detention of European citizens.
France, which was the keenest to pursue negotiations, has in the last few days suggested Iran should move towards zero enrichment, which until now was not an E3 demand given Iran's red line on the issue, two European diplomats said.
Britain has also adopted a tougher stance more in tune with Washington and that was expressed in Geneva, the diplomats said. And Germany's new government appeared to go in the same direction, although it was more nuanced.
'Iran has to accept zero enrichment eventually,' said one EU official.
A senior Iranian official on June 21 showed disappointment at the Europeans' new stance, saying their demands were 'unrealistic', without providing further details.
In a brief joint statement on June 2, which acknowledged the US strikes, the European countries said they would continue their diplomatic efforts.
'We call upon Iran to engage in negotiations leading to an agreement that addresses all concerns associated with its nuclear programme,' it said, adding the Europeans stood ready to contribute 'in coordination with all parties'.
Mr David Khalfa, co-founder of the Atlantic Middle East Forum, a Paris-based think tank, said Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's government had taken advantage of the Europeans for years to gain time as it developed its nuclear programme and ballistic missile capabilities.
'The European attempt ended in failure,' he said.
However, the Europeans still have one important card to play. They are the only ones who, as party to the nuclear accord, can launch its so-called 'snapback mechanism', which would reimpose all previous UN sanctions on Iran if it is found to be in violation of the agreement's terms.
Diplomats said, prior to the US strikes, the three countries had discussed an end-August deadline to activate it as part of a 'maximum pressure' campaign on Tehran.
'Multiple channels' for US talks
In total, the US launched 75 precision-guided munitions, including more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles, and more than 125 military aircraft in the operation against the three nuclear sites, US officials said.
US Defecse Secretary Pete Hegseth on June 22 warned Iran against retaliation and said both public and private messages had been sent to Iran 'in multiple channels, giving them every opportunity to come to the table'.
Five previous rounds of indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran collapsed after a US proposal at the end of May called for Iran to abandon uranium enrichment. It was rejected by Tehran, leading to Israel launching its attack on Iran after Mr Trump's 60-day deadline for talks had expired.
Iran has repeatedly said from then on that it would not negotiate while at war.
Even after Israel struck, Washington reached out to Iran to resume negotiations, including offering a meeting between Mr Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in Istanbul, according to two European diplomats and an Iranian official.
That was rebuffed by Iran, but Mr Araqchi did continue direct contacts with US Special envoy Steve Witkoff, three diplomats told Reuters.
One of the challenges in engaging with Iran, experts say, is that no one can be sure of the extent of the damage to its nuclear programme. With the IAEA severely restricted in its access to Iranian sites, it is unclear whether Tehran has hidden enrichment facilities.
A senior Iranian source told Reuters on June 22 that most of the highly enriched uranium at Fordow, the site producing the bulk of Iran's uranium refined to up to 60 per cent, had been moved to an undisclosed location before the US attack there.
Mr Acton, of the Carnegie Endowment, said that - putting aside from the damage to its physical installations - Iran had thousands of scientists and technicians involved in the enrichment programme, most of whom had survived the US and Israeli attacks.
'You can't bomb knowledge,' he said. REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Around military bases in the US, unease over what comes next
Around military bases in the US, unease over what comes next

Straits Times

time20 minutes ago

  • Straits Times

Around military bases in the US, unease over what comes next

The past few days have served as a solemn reminder of the unsettling emotions military service can bring. PHOTO: AFP Around military bases in the US, unease over what comes next Follow our live coverage here. WASHINGTON – For some families who gathered this weekend at Fort Benning in Georgia, the past few days have served as a solemn reminder of the unsettling emotions military service can bring. On June 20 , a group of Army enlistees graduated from basic training. On J une 21 , President Donald Trump bombed Iran. On June 22 , service members and their loved ones pondered an uncertain future. 'People can lose their life, so I'm worried,' said Ms Michele Bixby, 24, of upstate New York, whose brother had just graduated. 'But it's what he wanted to do; it's what he loves to do. He's going to move forward with it no matter what.' One day after the administration announced it had carried out airstrikes at three nuclear sites in Iran, the mood in some communities around military bases on US soil varied from firm support to bitter disagreement. But one sentiment stood out among those interviewed: concern for the safety of America's troops everywhere. No one knows how the strikes on Iran could affect service members. Mr Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, emphasised on June 22 that the administration did not want an open-ended war. But Iranian leaders have vowed to retaliate, and US military installations in the Middle East, with more than 40,000 active-duty troops and civilians employed by the Pentagon, are already potential targets. That reality, along with the potential repercussions for the entire military, was on the minds of many people around US bases at home, even as service members accepted that reality as part of the job. 'A lot of the families around here are quickly realizing this is a real threat; this is something we need to be worried about,' said Ms Meghan Gilles, 37, a self-described military brat who works in the Army Reserve's human resources division at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, a training site and home to the 101st Airborne Division. At Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, Blake Carlson, a 23-year-old Army National Guard combat medic who was visiting from Austin, Texas, said that he could be deployed. 'It's what I signed up for,' he said. 'If I have to, I'll do it.' But his mother and brother hoped the country would not be dragged into the escalating conflict in the Middle East. Some people who were interviewed stood by Mr Trump and agreed with his assertions that the targeted bombings were unlikely to lead to a wider conflict. Mr Carlson's mother, Ms Tonya Carlson, said she hoped the attack would force Iran to negotiate with the United States. Others stood by Mr Trump's statement that Iran posed an imminent threat – a point that contradicts recent national security assessments. 'Iran doesn't need to have nuclear weapons, for sure,' said Mr Tony Saluzzo, 72, a former combat engineer who served in the US offensive against Iraq and lives near Fort Campbell. Mr James Arthur, a 42-year-old retired Coast Guard captain who lives north of Tampa, Florida, and was visiting the Air Force Armament Museum at the Eglin base, said that the Iran airstrikes happened 'about two decades too late'. Other former service members castigated Trump for bombing Iran without congressional approval. The Constitution's framers included language to ensure that wars would not be entered rashly, said Mr Paul Oyler, a Navy veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and who lives near the Naval Air Station Lemoore in California, where he was based while on active duty. He said he would have agreed with the airstrikes if there were a proven, credible threat to the region, but 'I don't have any reason to believe that Iran was in possession of actual nuclear weapons.' Mr Denver Thiery, 30, who works on military maintenance contracts and lives in Trenton, Kentucky, near Fort Campbell, said he would remain firmly behind Trump. But he also acknowledged that it was difficult to know exactly what capabilities Iran possessed. 'I don't know the truth of what's going on,' he said. 'I don't know if they really have nuclear warheads or not. I don't know what I can support anymore.' Ms Meghan Gilles , the reservist, whose father is a veteran and whose husband is an active-duty serviceman, was troubled by the decision to edge the country to war at the very moment the government was cutting funding for Veterans Affairs. The administration is taking away a lot of benefits for veterans and 'then just sending them off again to be the world police,' Ms Gilles said. If the current conflict worsens, military members and veterans said, they would put aside their disagreements over Mr Trump and support one another. But one veteran lamented what he said such a scenario would ultimately mean. 'I learned from my time on active duty that war is devastating,' Navy veteran Oyler said. NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

China says US attack on Iran has damaged its credibility, World News
China says US attack on Iran has damaged its credibility, World News

AsiaOne

time27 minutes ago

  • AsiaOne

China says US attack on Iran has damaged its credibility, World News

HONG KONG — China said the US attack on Iran's nuclear facilities has damaged Washington's credibility and Beijing was concerned that the situation "may go out of control", its state broadcaster reported, following a UN Security Council meeting on Sunday (June 22). President Donald Trump said the US had "obliterated" Tehran's key nuclear sites, joining Israel in the biggest Western military action against the Islamic Republic since its 1979 revolution. The UN Security Council met on Sunday to discuss US strikes on Iran's nuclear sites as Russia, China and Pakistan proposed the 15-member body adopt a resolution calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in the Middle East. China's UN Ambassador Fu Cong said parties should restrain the "impulse of force, avoid exacerbating conflicts and adding fuel to the fire," according to the state broadcaster CCTV. Fu said parties, especially Israel, "should immediately cease fire to prevent the situation from escalating and avoid the spillover of war." Iran was hurt "but the United States credibility was also damaged- both as a country and as a participant in any international negotiations," Fu said. State media commentary late on Sunday said the US move was extremely dangerous and provocative. The Global Times newspaper in an opinion piece, said external military interference would never bring peace, and only "deepen regional hatred and trauma." Separately China's embassy in Iran said late on Sunday that most Chinese citizens in Iran had been evacuated safely, and those remaining were not in high-risk areas. [[nid:719366]]

Commentary: Iran has no good choices to respond to US strikes – only the best of bad options
Commentary: Iran has no good choices to respond to US strikes – only the best of bad options

CNA

timean hour ago

  • CNA

Commentary: Iran has no good choices to respond to US strikes – only the best of bad options

SINGAPORE: In the end, it was the American president who appeared to be the most dead set against 'stupid, endless wars' in the Middle East that sent the nation's military back into the region in a purely offensive manner. Although expectations were raised that the United States could act against Iran, the attacks early on Sunday (Jun 22) were a surprise – at least in terms of timing. Donald Trump gave Iran two weeks to come to a decision on whether it wanted to return to the negotiating table. Instead, he took all of two days to strike. Whether the two-week window was a ruse, or whether the US leader had gained new intelligence about Iran's unwillingness to negotiate – or even whether Mr Trump had already decided to attack when he set the deadline – will likely be unknown for some time, if ever. Another big unknown is how successful the American attacks were in setting back Iran's nuclear programme. Mr Trump claimed that Iran's nuclear facilities had been 'completely and totally obliterated'. But the press conference on Sunday night by the Pentagon provided neither detailed battle damage assessments nor satellite imagery that could shed light on the success of Operation Midnight Hammer beyond the superlatives employed by Mr Trump. Details will surely be clearer to the White House, but whether the message has been received by Tehran remains an open question. IRAN HAS NO GOOD CHOICES Perhaps what was most significant about the president's remarks was what was not explicitly stated: The US action was intended as a one-time effort, and whether it stays that way is up to the leadership of the Islamic Republic. That, of course, hinges on two things: Whether the bomb and missile strikes were as effective as claimed, and how Iran will respond to them. On the former, a successful mission is a preferable outcome: It increases the chances that calm will return sooner, rather than later – because Iran has no good choices. If, as threatened, it decides that the only way forward for it is to exit the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and take its programme underground, this will likely invite more American, and Israeli, action as they seek to exploit a moment of extraordinary Iranian weakness and vulnerability. This is a trail that has been blazed by North Korea, which is now estimated to have about 60 nuclear weapons. Washington will have no doubt learned lessons from its failure to keep Pyongyang from breaking out. Then again, the kinetic options that were available to the US in Iran were never really on the table in the case of North Korea, despite threats from a succession of US presidents – Mr Trump himself warned of 'fire and fury like the world has never seen'. The risks of a dramatic escalation, geopolitical uncertainty and lack of solid intelligence were among the reasons the US did not draw a firm line in the sand, and allowed North Korea to call its bluff. When it comes to Iran, the line has been drawn, and the consequences for crossing it have been clearly spelled out. DOING NOTHING WOULD BE CAPITULATION As Mr Trump put it, there will either be peace or tragedy for Iran, and the choice is theirs. Beyond the missile salvo it launched on Israel hours after the US strikes, Iran could hit American bases and the 40,000 troops in the Middle East as retaliation. It could also lash out by attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz, crippling oil supplies and attack Gulf Arab states, as it has done in the past. It could also resort to cyberattacks, or terrorist actions against US and Israeli interests around the world. But that is inviting further trouble on itself. The US attacks on Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, Mr Trump claimed, were the 'most difficult' for the military to carry out, and that future ones would be 'a lot easier'. For good measure, he added a footnote: 'Remember, there are many targets left.' In its current weakened and exposed state, any action Iran takes to widen the conflict will make its position even more precarious. That said, Iran cannot be expected to do nothing. Standing idly by would be tantamount to announcing its humiliating capitulation to the world. For the regime, much worse could follow: Doing nothing would validate an idea that many Iranians themselves believe – that their leaders have led them down a reckless path that has brought them economic misery, international opprobrium and isolation from the world. Iranians are a proud people and will rally around the flag in the face of severe attacks, setting aside political and ideological differences despite all their misgivings. An unconditional surrender, however, will force them to look inward at the choices that brought them here, and begin a reckoning against the clerical regime. WHAT'S THE BEST OF BAD OPTIONS? That leaves Iran the best of bad options – one it has taken before. In 2020, during Mr Trump's first term, it took five days after the US assassination of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leader Qassem Soleimani before Iran retaliated. It fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at US bases in Iraq. Before it pressed the trigger, however, Tehran telegraphed the attacks, allowing Americans to seek safety. This prevented US fatalities, although more than 100 troops suffered traumatic brain injuries. This would appear to be the best course forward. Iran can claim retaliation in force, both sides can then put a lid on this episode and then sit down to work out a lasting solution. An agreement on the terms of Iran's surrendering of its nuclear ambitions – without ever using that word – may then be worked out, allowing all sides to claim some wins, and climb down from the escalatory ladder. Then again, in the Middle East, there are exceedingly few who have been accused of being rational actors.

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