EU targets Iranian prison and justice officials over arrests of its citizens
BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union on Monday imposed sanctions on seven Iranian prison and justice officials over what the 27-nation bloc says is a politically motivated campaign by the Islamic Republic to detain EU citizens.
The EU has for years been concerned about the increasing number of its citizens detained by Iran on "spurious grounds,' many of whom it says 'continue to be held in degrading conditions with no chance of a fair trial.'
In response, EU foreign ministers imposed asset freezes and travel bans on three judges, two prosecutors and two prison officials, including Hedayatollah Farzadi, who is in charge of the notorious Evin Prison, which was previously targeted with sanctions.
The bloc claims that Farzadi is 'directly responsible for severe violations of political prisoners' human rights, in particular for restricting their communication and visitation rights and for arbitrarily ordering solitary confinement.'
The EU also froze the assets of Shiraz Central Prison. It said 'several hostages from European countries have been unlawfully detained in this prison, where their access to a fair trial has been denied and where they have experienced severe violations of their most basic rights.'
The first branch of the Revolutionary Court of Shiraz in Fars province was targeted too, with the EU noting its role in 'unjust trials and executions of political dissidents and persecution of individuals from minority communities.'
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot welcomed the sanctions, describing Iran's actions as 'a state policy' of hostage taking.
'It's high time because the conditions in which some of our French and European compatriots are being detained are disgraceful and comparable to torture under international law,' Barrot told reporters. He warned French citizens to avoid traveling to Iran.
Last month, Frenchman Olivier Grondeau, who was imprisoned in Iran for over 880 days, was freed along with another French citizen who had been under house arrest in the capital Tehran for more than four months.
An Iranian court had sentenced Grondeau, a backpacker and world traveler, to five years in prison on espionage charges that he, his family and the French government vigorously denied. He was held at Evin Prison, which holds Westerners, dual nationals and political prisoners often used by Iran as bargaining chips in negotiations with the West.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
American students reveal how they fled the Israel-Iran war
They left with excitement to visit a new country, connect with their Jewish identity and gain first-hand knowledge about one of the world's most storied regions. They left with memories of air raid sirens and bomb shelters. After Israel's surprise attack on Iran earlier this month, young Americans on study abroad programs and birthright trips to Israel made harrowing escapes back to the U.S. as the two countries traded missiles and the American military directly entered the conflict, bombing three Iranian nuclear sites. The thousands of escapees included 17 high schoolers from Arizona who huddled in bomb shelters before boarding a cruise ship to the Mediterranean island of Cyprus. A dozen Florida State University students studying geopolitics in the Middle East fled to Israel's mountainous Dead Sea region and crossed into Jordan. "It was a fear that I have never felt before," Aidan Fishkind, who was in Israel for a two-month birthright and internship program, told USA TODAY. "We had a missile land two miles from our hostel." The conflict, which has calmed under a delicate ceasefire, came during Israel's busiest tourism season – when birthright trips and programs affiliated with American universities were in full swing. According to the Birthright Israel Foundation, a nonprofit that sponsors young people to visit Israel, the group safely evacuated approximately 2,800 young adults from the country – many of them aboard a luxury cruise ship. The nonprofit canceled its scheduled programs through July 10, according to its website. Meanwhile, the spiraling war also sent Americans in Iran looking for a safe place to wait out Israeli bombardments. Hundreds of Americans fled the country as the conflict escalated, according to an internal State Department cable seen by Reuters last week. More: Iran-Israel conflict leaves Iranian Americans feeling helpless, hopeless 'I was scared for my life' Fishkind, of Detroit, Michigan, arrived in Israel on June 3 for what was to be a two-month trip where he'd intern in the marketing department at the Jaffa Institute, a nonprofit based in Tel Aviv. But a little after his first week, the war broke out and left him and his fellow students scrambling for safety. He recalled the first night after Israel launched its attack on Iranian nuclear sites and Iran responded with a barrage of missiles. He and his group of Detroit-area students received phone alerts about incoming rocket fire and rushed into rooms and stairwells designated "safe zones." Throughout the night, he heard deep dooms that shook the building. He considered whether the rumbles were the sound of Israel's air defense system intercepting rockets or Iranian missiles landing in the city. It was both, he would later learn. "I was scared for my life," he said. In Detroit, his mother, Jennifer Fishkind, booked him multiple flights back home. But one-by-one each flight was canceled as Israeli officials closed the country's airspace. "You just feel helpless being thousands of miles away," she said. "We kept telling him 'You're going to be OK. You're going to be OK.'" The next day, Fishkind and his group left for the Dead Sea region in the south, which was considered much safer than Tel Aviv. There, Fishkind stayed in a hotel and met scores of other students from across the U.S. and Canada. After almost a week, he boarded a cruise ship to Cyprus. Once on the island, he immediately got on a flight to Rome and, eventually, Detroit. Fishkind, who is preparing for his junior year at Elon University in North Carolina, said being back home has been an adjustment. The memories of the sirens and the night he spent sheltering from missiles will take time to process, he said. "When I got back home and laid in bed, I kept thinking 'Did that actually happen?'" Tallahassee student recounts memories of sirens and bunkers Madeline King traveled to Israel with a group of over 20 Florida State University students as part of a mission trip to examine and study the Israel-Gaza conflict. It was organized by FSU's Hillel, the university's largest Jewish campus organization. The group was set to leave Israel and return to Florida on Saturday, June 14 – the day after the Israeli military attacked Iran's nuclear program. The unrest left them temporarily stranded in Tel Aviv, which had become a target of Iranian missiles. "We would hear sirens through the night ... and at every time we would find ourselves going down to the bunkers," King told the Tallahassee Democrat, part of the USA TODAY Network. Like Fishkind, her group headed to the Dead Sea region near the West Bank. They then crossed into Jordan, where they boarded a flight bound for Cyprus. There, King and hundreds of others got on flights to Florida in an operation coordinated with the state's Division of Emergency Management agency. In all, more than 1,400 state residents have been evacuated from Israel by plane and passenger ferry, Florida state officials said last week. A tearful reunion The group of 17 high school students from Arizona arrived in Israel on June 4 and traveled through the country for a week, learning Jewish religious traditions and the culture and history of Israel. Like their fellow American students, the group soon discovered they couldn't leave by plane as they had originally intended. 'It is such a helpless, scary feeling to have your child thousands of miles away going into a bomb shelter multiple times a day as warning sirens ring out and missiles approach Israel,' Brett Kurland, a parent to one of the Arizona students, said in a statement, according to the Arizona Republic, part of the USA TODAY Network. With the help of Arizona Sens. Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly, the students managed to get on a luxury cruise ship departing for Cyprus. After an 18-hour voyage they made it to the island and then flew back to the U.S. Scores of families waited for the students at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport on June 25. Some stood anxiously with homemade signs while others held flowers and balloons. When the students emerged from the jet bridge, the families cheered and embraced their loved ones in a tearful reunion. Similar scenes unfolded at international airports across the U.S. In Michigan, Jennifer Fishkind and a group of parents embraced their children as they descended from their plane at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport. "After all that, you're just waiting to get your arms around them," Fishkind said. "It was the best feeling."
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
The Iran-China-Russia Axis Crumbles When It Matters
As Israel and then the United States battered Iran this month, the reaction from China and Russia was surprisingly muted. For years, shared antagonism toward the U.S. has been pushing China, Russia, and Iran together. All three benefit from embarrassing the West in Ukraine and the Middle East, and widening the gaps between Washington and Europe. So after Israel's first strike, on June 13, China—the strongest partner in the anti-America triad—could have been expected to rush short-range missiles and other air-defense equipment to Iran. Surely, Beijing would use its growing diplomatic muscle to isolate Israel and the U.S., demand an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council, and introduce a resolution deploring the two governments that were attacking China's ally. Instead, recent events in Iran have revealed that anti-Americanism can bind an alliance together only so much. After ritually denouncing Israel's first strike as 'b razen ' and a ' violation of Iran's sovereignty, ' Beijing proceeded cautiously, emphasizing the need for diplomacy instead of further assigning blame. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi refrained from condemning Israel's actions, in a call with his Israeli counterpart on June 14, and President Xi Jinping waited four days before calling for 'd e-escalation ' and declaring that 'China stands ready to work with all parties to play a constructive role in restoring peace and stability in the Middle East.' After Iran's parliament voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, Beijing's foreign-affairs spokesperson stressed—in what looked like a warning to Iran —that the Persian Gulf is a crucial global trade route for goods and energy, and called for partners to 'prevent the regional turmoil from having a greater impact on global economic growth.' In calmer times, China, like Russia, is happy to use Iran as a battering ram against the U.S. and its allies. But when tensions turn into military confrontation and global stability is at risk, backing Iran looks like a far less sensible investment to Beijing than preserving its own economic and diplomatic relations with the West. China's mild reaction isn't just a blow to Iran; it may also suggest that the much ballyhooed 'no limits' partnership between Xi and Russia's President Vladimir Putin might not be as sturdy as Moscow and Beijing advertise. Iran, Russia, and China have different ideologies, political regimes, and strategic aims. Iran's relations with its two larger partners are wildly asymmetric. China, for example, is Iran's lifeline. It buys about 90 percent of Iran's oil and supplies materials and technologies central to Iran's weapons development. Yet the trading relationship matters less to China, which gets only about 10 percent of its oil from Iran. Plus, China has an economy more than 40 times as large, and it does far more business with the U.S. and the European Union. Russia has interests that similarly diverge from Iran's, and it, too, has conspicuously refrained from coming to the Islamic Republic's aid. But China following a similar approach toward Iran likely does not please Moscow. Although Moscow's relations with Beijing are less lopsided than Tehran's are, Russia's economy is still less than one-eighth the size of China's. One-third of Russia's state budget comes from oil sales, and China is the largest customer by far. Russia also depends on Chinese supplies for its war machine. This past March, the G7 foreign ministers called China a ' decisive enabler ' of Russia's war in Ukraine. But should the Kremlin begin to run out of money or soldiers, China's willingness to bail out its ally is very much in doubt. Even among authoritarian regimes, differences in values can limit cooperation. In 2023, Xi called Russia's 1917 October Revolution a 'cannon blast' that 'brought Marxism-Leninism to China, demonstrating the way forward and offering a new choice for the Chinese people who were seeking a way to save China from subjugation.' Putin, despite his formative years in the Soviet-era KGB, now laments the fall of the Russian empire and describes Vladimir Lenin's coup as the deed of 'political adventurists and foreign forces' who 'divided the country and tore it apart for selfish benefit.' The head of China's Communist Party may resent Putin's reduction of its Russian counterpart—the country's second-largest party—to the status of another bit player in Russia's rubber-stamping parliament. Since World War II, leaders of Western democracies have successfully collaborated in part because they have shared a common worldview. Whether Iran's Islamic theocrats can say the same about Xi, the leader of an avowedly atheist state, or Putin, who now positions himself as the champion of Orthodox Christianity, is another question entirely. Beijing's response to Iran's predicament ought to make the West feel cautiously optimistic. If Donald Trump finally learns to distinguish the aggressor from the victim—or at least realizes that Putin has been playing him—the U.S. president could support Ukraine in earnest without worrying much about China expanding its assistance to Russia. As long as both Iran and Russia keep providing cheap oil and antagonizing the West and its allies, they are serving China's purposes. But at least for now, Beijing looks unlikely to back either of its supposed partners if they jeopardize China's interest in stability or its extensive and profitable relations with the West.
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
Trump's One-and-Done Approach to Military Force
Weeks before he ended his first term, in December 2020, President Donald Trump was outraged that leaders in Tehran had announced plans to accelerate its nuclear program. He had a simple question: Why don't we just bomb Iran? His advisers walked him through the options but cautioned that such an operation would likely result in the downing of American planes and the start of a regional war. Trump dropped the idea. 'He didn't want to leave a shit sandwich for his successor,' a former official told us. 'He also recognized it wasn't time yet.' Last weekend, with Iranian defenses worn to a nub by days of Israeli attacks, the time finally came. The surprise assault by B-2 bombers, which dropped 30,000-pound 'bunker-buster' bombs onto underground enrichment facilities, marked the most dramatic military action that Trump has ordered in either of his terms as president. The attack showed how Trump's attitudes toward the use of force have evolved as he has grown more confident in his instincts as commander in chief and surrounded himself with advisers disinclined to challenge him. But it also reflected what hasn't changed: Trump is willing to embrace serious risk in approving military operations, so long as it's in a discrete burst rather than a sustained campaign. The president described the weekend bombing as a one-off that 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear program, not the start of a larger war. If any Trump doctrine for military action does exist, it is perhaps best understood as the One-and-Done Doctrine. 'Trump likes to think he can fire a bullet and leave the O.K. Corral, that the first move is decisive and the end of activity,' Kori Schake, the director of defense and foreign-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing writer at The Atlantic, told us. It's not clear, however, that one attack will be enough. Assessments of the operation's impact on Iran's nuclear capability are divided, and Tehran is already vowing to push ahead, suggesting that additional U.S. action may be required if a diplomatic solution isn't reached. During his first term, Trump railed against the 'endless' and 'forever wars' he had inherited, clashing repeatedly with his top security advisers as he sought to end counterinsurgent missions and pull troops from allied nations as part of his 'America First' agenda. He also demonstrated willingness to deploy military force at significant moments, lobbing cruise missiles at Syria after chemical-weapons attacks, intensifying the air campaign against the Islamic State, and authorizing high-stakes operations such as the commando raid targeting ISIS boss Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the drone strike killing Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani. Trump took office in 2017 boasting that he knew better than 'the generals.' But just days into the job, the first military operation he authorized—a hostage-recovery raid in Yemen—went badly awry: A Navy SEAL and numerous civilians were killed, and a $70 million aircraft was destroyed. Other ventures were more successful: Trump oversaw a surge in progress in the campaign against ISIS, which began under President Barack Obama, as U.S. war planes beat back the militants in Syria. But when the advances slowed, Trump began to push for an end to the American presence—much to the chagrin of his military advisers. The turn revealed Trump's discomfort with sustained campaigns that didn't show measurable results, or that carried any whiff of a quagmire. In Afghanistan, the president pressed for a negotiated exit after the initial surge in military action he authorized—including the bombing of drug labs and the use of an explosive dubbed the 'Mother of All Bombs'—failed to yield decisive results. All the while, Trump was feuding with some of his closest military aides. Jim Mattis, the Marine general who served as Trump's first defense secretary, resigned in protest in 2018 after having attempted to block what he viewed as dangerous actions by the president. Mattis even defied demands from then–National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster for the Pentagon to send options for striking Iran. Trump also railed against historic arrangements he believed exploited American generosity, including U.S. support for NATO and the presence of American troops in places such as Germany and South Korea. One outside adviser said that characterizing Trump as an isolationist misses the mark. 'He has a pretty well-established history of dramatic short bursts of kinetic action, but not sustained military involvement in things,' the adviser told us. He suggested a precedent in President Andrew Jackson, who embraced nationalism and economically motivated expansionism for 19th-century America. Trump 'doesn't have an ideology, but if you had to try to sum it up, it's more Jacksonian than isolationist or anti-interventionist,' the adviser told us. Many of the president's advisers told us they believe that his blunt, tough-guy talk and his unpredictable tendencies—akin to Richard Nixon's 'madman theory'—have been effective in establishing deterrence with foreign adversaries. But Trump's volatility has also at times frustrated his own advisers. In 2019, he made an eleventh-hour decision to call off a planned retaliatory strike on Iranian missile batteries in response to the country's downing of a large U.S. drone over the Strait of Hormuz. The decision was based on an estimate of potential casualties on the ground in Iran that one military official said was wildly inaccurate. Then–National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were aghast at the choice to call off the strike, which they believed was proportionate and would deter future attacks. 'He's capable of changing his mind right up until the very end, and when he's finally decided that the decision has been carried out and he can't reverse it, it's very stressful for him,' Bolton told us. He said the recent Iran strikes tracked with the president's preference for stand-alone, epic actions: 'It fits with his short attention span, and it fits with the fact he doesn't have a philosophy; he doesn't have a grand strategy.' When Bolton worked in the first Trump administration, he was frequently at odds with the president. This time around, Trump has few people questioning his calls. Even those who are leery of foreign entanglement have fallen in line to support the strikes. Vice President J. D. Vance, for instance, has led the charge in recent days in messaging that the Iran operation was not about regime change, but rather the more narrow goal of debilitating the country's nuclear program. Vance is 'going to be supportive of whatever the president wants to do, and there's never going to be any daylight between the two of them, even privately,' the outside adviser told us. Marco Rubio, now serving as secretary of state and national security adviser, has been 'very deferential' to Trump, the adviser added. CIA Director John Ratcliffe, meanwhile, has kept to his position's traditional lane, laying out the intelligence but not pushing any particular policy actions. 'If he is putting his thumb on the scale one way or the other, then people aren't going to trust his intelligence,' the adviser told us. The White House is adamant both that Trump gets the advice he needs and that he never gets his decisions wrong. 'President Trump has assembled a talented, world-class team who evaluate all angles of any given issue to provide the President a fulsome view,' White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly wrote to us in an emailed statement. 'Ultimately, the President evaluates all options and makes the decision he feels is best for the country—and he has been proven right about everything time and again.' Retired General Frank McKenzie, who commanded U.S. forces in the Middle East when Trump targeted Soleimani, noted that the most dire possible scenarios following the Soleimani strike and after those on the nuclear sites haven't borne out—at least so far. That may be because, in his view, Trump has accrued more credibility than other American presidents when it comes to threatening Iran. 'He's got a verifiable, auditable trail. He struck Iran twice; no other American president has done that,' McKenzie told us. Trump's Iran operation marked an unexpected deviation from what has been his administration's second-term focus on negotiations. Trump has said he wants diplomatic deals that not only halt Iran's nuclear ambitions but also end the wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and beyond. Now Trump may have more leverage in those talks. 'This guy really wanted a negotiation, and now he's done his one-and-done, and he wants to go back to negotiations,' Ian Bremmer, who leads the consultancy and research firm Eurasia Group, told us. One of Trump's more curious moves since returning to office was his decision to authorize a weeks-long air campaign against Houthi rebels in Yemen. The Biden administration had occasionally struck military targets in Yemen but had judged that the Houthis were unlikely to drop their tactic of attacking commercial and naval vessels, no matter what kind of military beating they received. Trump abruptly halted the campaign and declared victory in May, even though the Houthis retain significant military capability and vowed to continue their assaults on Israel. But Trump had moved on. That may not be so easy if Iran resumes its nuclear activity or continues to support proxy militant groups throughout the Middle East. 'You're going to have a hard time ignoring Iran,' the former official told us, 'and it's going to be much harder to change the subject.'
