Britain, France and Germany threaten to reimpose sanctions on Iran as nuclear program deadline nears
The three countries, known as the E3, wrote in a letter to the United Nations dated Friday that they were willing to trigger a process known as the 'snapback' mechanism, which allows one of the Western parties to reimpose U.N. sanctions, if Tehran doesn't comply with its requirements.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Nöel Barrot posted the letter Wednesday to X. He co-signed it along with top diplomats from Germany and the United Kingdom.
'E3 have always committed to use all diplomatic tools at our disposal to ensure Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon,' the letter said. 'We have made 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, E3 are prepared to trigger the snapback mechanism.'
The letter comes following a period of apparent diplomatic deadlock after a 12-day war between Iran and Israel in June, where Israeli and American jets struck some key nuclear-related facilities in the Islamic Republic.
The countries met with Iranian officials last month in Turkey at Iran's consulate building in Istanbul on the possibility of reimposing international sanctions, lifted in 2015 in exchange for Tehran accepting restrictions and monitoring of its nuclear program.
Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Esmail Baghaei, said at the time that he hoped that the meeting would see the E3 nations reassess their 'previous unconstructive attitude.'
The Iranian government didn't immediately comment Wednesday on the development.
Since the war, talks with Washington for a new nuclear deal haven't resumed, and Iran has since suspended ties with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, following the attacks. The IAEA's first visit to Iran since the war didn't entail any visits to nuclear facilities Monday, and cooperation wasn't officially restored.
One of the three countries opting to trigger the snapback mechanism would renew sanctions on Iran, but Tehran renewing cooperation with the Vienna-based IAEA and addressing concerns about its highly-enriched uranium stockpile would delay it, according to a diplomat who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity following July's meeting in Istanbul.
Iran has had limited IAEA inspections in the past as a pressure tactic in negotiating with the West and it is unclear how soon talks between Tehran and Washington for a deal over its nuclear program will resume.
German Foreign Ministry spokesperson Josef Hinterseher on Wednesday said that the letter 'once again underlines that the legal preconditions for snapback have long existed.'
'Our position and our appeal is, very clearly, that Iran still has the choice of deciding to return to diplomacy … and full cooperation with the IAEA,' he told reporters at a regular news conference in Berlin.
U.S. intelligence agencies and the IAEA had assessed Iran last had an organized nuclear weapons program in 2003, though Tehran had been enriching uranium up to 60% — a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%.
The IAEA didn't immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
___
Kareem Chehayeb reported from Beirut. Geir Moulson contributed to this report from Berlin.
Stefanie Dazio And Kareem Chehayeb, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
27 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Limits of Recognition
On a prominent ridge in the center of Toronto stands a big stone castle. Built in the early 20th century, Casa Loma is now a popular venue for weddings and parties. The castle is flanked by some of the city's priciest domestic real estate. It is not, in short, the kind of site that usually goes unpoliced. On May 27, Casa Loma was booked for a fundraiser by the Abraham Global Peace Initiative, a pro-Israel advocacy group. The gathering was to be addressed by Gilad Erdan, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations and United States. A crowd of hundreds formed opposite the castle. They temporarily overwhelmed police lines, closing the street to the castle entrance. Protesters accosted and insulted individual attendees. One attendee, a former Canadian senator now in his 90s, told me about being pushed and jostled as police looked on. Eventually, two arrests were made, one for assaulting a police officer and the other for assaulting an attendee. Last year, the city of Toronto averaged more than one anti-Jewish incident a day, accounting for 40 percent of all reported hate crimes in Canada's largest city. Jewish neighborhoods, Jewish hospitals, and Jewish places of worship have been the scenes of demonstrations by masked persons bearing flags and chanting hostile slogans. Gunmen fired shots at a Toronto Jewish girls' school on three nights last year. A synagogue in Montreal was attacked with firebombs in late 2024. On Saturday, an assailant beat a Jewish man in a Montreal park in front of his children. David Frum: There is no right to bully and harass Canadian governments—federal, provincial, municipal—of course want to stop the violence. But their inescapable (if often unsayable) dilemma is that many of those same governments depend on voters who are sympathetic to the motives of the violent. Canadian authorities of all kinds have become frightened of important elements in their own populations. Just this week, the Toronto International Film Festival withdrew its invitation to a Canadian film about the invasion of southern Israel on October 7, 2023. The festival's statement cited legal concerns, including the fear that by incorporating footage that Hamas fighters filmed of their atrocities without ' legal clearance,' the film violated Hamas's copyright. (In polite Canada, it seems that even genocidal terrorists retain their intellectual-property claims.) Another and more plausible motive cited by the festival: fear of 'potential threat of significant disruption.' A small group of anti-Israel protesters invaded the festival's gala opening in 2024. The legal violations have been larger and more flagrant this year. All of this forms the backdrop necessary to understand why the Canadian government has joined the British and French governments in their intention to recognize a Palestinian state. The plan began as a French diplomatic initiative. In July, France and Saudi Arabia co-chaired a United Nations conference on the two-state solution. Days before the conference began, French President Emmanuel Macron declared that his nation would recognize a Palestinian state in September. The French initiative was almost immediately seconded by the British government. Canada quickly followed. This week, Australia added its weight to the group. Anti-Jewish violence has been even more pervasive and aggressive in Australia than in Canada, including the torching of a Sydney day-care center in January. (Germany declined to join the French initiative but imposed a limited arms embargo on Israel.) All four governments assert that their plan offers no concessions to Hamas. All four insist that a hypothetical Palestinian state must be disarmed, must exclude Hamas from any role in governance, must renounce terrorism and incitement, and must accept Israel's right to exist. Those conditions often got omitted in media retellings, but they are included in all the communiqués with heavy emphasis. As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told reporters on July 30: 'Canada reiterates that Hamas must immediately release all hostages taken in the horrific terrorist attack of October 7, that Hamas must disarm, and that Hamas must play no role in the future governance of Palestine.' All those must s make these plans impossible to achieve, from the outset. How do the French, British, Canadian, and Australian governments imagine them being enforced, and by whom? Even now, after all this devastation, Hamas remains the most potent force in Palestinian politics. A May survey by a Palestinian research group, conducted in cooperation with the Netherland Representative Office in Ramallah, reported that an overwhelming majority of Palestinians reject the idea that Hamas's disarmament is a path to ending the war in Gaza, and a plurality said they would vote for a Hamas-led government. Observers might question the findings from Gaza, where Hamas can still intimidate respondents, but those in the West Bank also rejected the conditions of France, Britain, Canada, and Australia. What does recognition mean anyway? Of UN member states, 147 already recognize a state of Palestine, including the economic superpowers China and India; regional giants such as Brazil, Indonesia, and Nigeria; and the European Union member states of Poland, Romania, Slovenia, and Sweden. About half of those recognitions date back to 1988, when Yasser Arafat proclaimed Palestinian independence from his exile in Algiers after the Israeli military drove Arafat's organization out of the territory it had occupied in Lebanon. Such diplomatic niceties do not alter realities. States are defined by control of territory and population. In that technical sense, Hamas in Gaza has proved itself to be more like a state than has the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Even the mighty United States learned that lesson the hard way over the 22 years from 1949 to 1971, when Washington pretended that the Nationalist regime headquartered in Taipei constituted the legitimate government of mainland China. Macron, Carney, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese are savvy, centrist politicians. All regard themselves as strong friends of Israel. Starmer in particular has fought hard to purge his Labour Party of the anti-Semitic elements to whom the door was opened by his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn. If they're investing their prestige in a seemingly futile gesture, they must have good reason. They do. All four men lead political coalitions that are fast turning against Israel. Pressure is building on the leaders to vent their supporters' anger, and embracing the French initiative creates a useful appearance of action. The Canadian example is particularly stark. Prime Minister Carney has pivoted in many ways from the progressive record of his predecessor, Justin Trudeau. He canceled an increase in the capital-gains tax that Trudeau had scheduled. He dropped from the cabinet a housing minister who had championed a major government-led building program. (The program remains, but under leadership less beholden to activists.) Carney has committed to a major expansion of the Canadian energy sector after almost a decade of dissension between energy producers and Ottawa. The new Carney government is also increasing military spending. Many on the Canadian left feel betrayed and frustrated. Recognizing a Palestinian state is a concession that may appease progressives irked by Carney's other moves toward the political center. But appeasement will not work. In the Middle East, the initiative by France, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom has already pushed the region away from stability, not toward it. Cease-fire talks with Hamas 'fell apart' on the day that Macron declared his intent to recognize a Palestinian state, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Hamas then released harrowing photographs of starved Israeli hostages, one shown digging his own grave. Embarrassed pro-recognition leaders had to deliver a new round of condemnations of Hamas at the very moment they were trying to pressure Israel to abandon its fight against Hamas. Nor does the promise of Palestinian recognition seem to be buying the four leaders the domestic quiet they had hoped for. On Sunday, British police arrested more than 500 people for demonstrating in support of a pro-Palestine group proscribed because of its acts of violence against British military installations. Those arrests amounted to the largest one-day total in the U.K. in a decade. Hours before Prime Minister Albanese's statement promising recognition, some 90,000 pro-Palestinian demonstrators blocked traffic on Sydney Harbour Bridge. Their organizers issued four demands—recognition was not one of them. 'What we marched for on Sunday, and what we've been protesting for two years, is not recognition of a non-existent Palestinian state that Israel is in the process of wiping out,' a group leader told CNN. 'What we are demanding is that the Australian government sanction Israel and stop the two-way arms trade with Israel.' On August 6, 60 anti-Israel protesters mobbed the private residence of former Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly, banging pots and projecting messages onto her Montreal dwelling—an action especially provocative because Canadian cabinet ministers are not normally protected by personal security detachments. The present foreign minister, Anita Anand, had to close her constituency office in Oakville, a suburb of Toronto, because of threats to the staff who worked there. From the December 2024 issue: My hope for Palestine The issue for protesters is Israel, not Palestine. During the Syrian civil war, more than 3,000 Palestinian refugees in the country were killed by Syrian government forces, hundreds of them by torture. Nobody blocked the Sydney Harbour Bridge over that. It's Israel's standing as a Western-style state that energizes the movement against it and that is unlikely to change no matter what shifts in protocol Western governments adopt. After all, on October 6, 2023, Gaza was functionally a Palestinian state living alongside Israel. If the pro-Palestinian groups in the West had valued that status, they should have reacted to October 7 with horror, if nothing else for the existential threat that the attacks posed to any Palestinian state-building project. Instead, many in the pro-Palestinian diaspora—and even at the highest levels of Palestinian official life—applauded the terror attacks with jubilant anti-Jewish enthusiasm. The chants of 'from the river to the sea' heard at these events reveal something important about the pro-Palestinian movement in the democratic West. The slogan expresses an all-or-nothing fantasy: either the thrilling overthrow of settler colonialism in all the land of Palestine, or else the glorious martyrdom of the noble resistance. It's not at all clear that ordinary Palestinians actually living in the region feel the same way. The exact numbers fluctuate widely depending on how the question is framed, but at least a significant minority—and possibly a plurality—of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza would accept coexistence with Israel if that acceptance brought some kind of state of their own. But their supporters living in the West can disregard such trade-offs. They can exult in the purity of passion and still enjoy a comfortable life in a capitalist democracy. These are the people that Albanese, Carney, Macron, and Starmer are trying so desperately to satisfy. They are unlikely to succeed. The Hamas terror attacks of October 7 provoked a war of fearsome scale. Almost two years later, the region is almost unrecognizable. Tens of thousands have been killed, and much of Gaza laid to ruin. Almost every known leader of Hamas is dead. Hezbollah has been broken as a military force. The Assad regime in Syria has been toppled and replaced. The United States directly struck Iran, and the Iranian nuclear program seems to have been pushed years backward, if not destroyed altogether. In this world upended, the creative minds of Western diplomacy have concluded that the best way forward is to revert to the Oslo peace process of 30 years ago. The Oslo process ended when the Palestinian leadership walked away from President Bill Clinton's best and final offer without making a counteroffer—and gambled everything on the merciless terrorist violence of the Second Intifada. Now here we are again, after another failed Palestinian terror campaign, and there is only one idea energizing Western foreign ministries: That thing that failed before? Let's try it one more time. But this time, the hope is not to bring peace to the Middle East. They hope instead to bring peace to their own streets. The undertaking is a testament either to human perseverance, or to the eternal bureaucratic faith in peace through fog.
Washington Post
27 minutes ago
- Washington Post
The EU urges China to lift 'unjustified' sanctions on Lithuanian banks
VILNIUS, Lithuania — The European Union on Thursday called on China to revoke sanctions imposed on two Lithuanian banks, arguing there is no justification for them. Beijing announced the measures this week against Urbo Bank and Mano Bank in retaliation for EU penalties on two Chinese lenders.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The EU urges China to lift 'unjustified' sanctions on Lithuanian banks
VILNIUS, Lithuania (AP) — The European Union on Thursday called on China to revoke sanctions imposed on two Lithuanian banks, arguing there is no justification for them. Beijing announced the measures this week against Urbo Bank and Mano Bank in retaliation for EU penalties on two Chinese lenders. The Lithuanian banks do not operate in China, giving Beijing's move a largely symbolic character. Nonetheless, the tit-for-tat measures underscore deepening tensions between the EU and China over Beijing's support for Russia in its war on Ukraine. In this case, China targeted banks from an EU member with whom diplomatic ties have been particularly strained due to Lithuania's relationship with Taiwan. At EU headquarters in Brussels, European Commission spokesperson Olof Gill defended the bloc's sanctions on Chinese banks. China 'must respect the problems we have identified,' Gill said. 'Our sanctions are the centerpiece of our efforts to minimize the effectiveness of the Russian war machine.' He said the Commission does not believe that the Chinese countermeasures 'have any justification or are evidence based, and therefore we call on China to remove them even now.' The EU's latest Russia sanctions package, adopted in July and effective August 9, included Heihe Rural Commercial Bank and Heilongjiang Suifenhe Rural Commercial Bank. The bloc accused them of providing crypto-asset services that help Moscow evade restrictions. In explaining its sanctions on the Lithuanian banks, the Chinese Ministry said the EU sanctions on Chinese firms had "a serious negative impact on China-EU economic and trade relations and financial cooperation.' The banks and the government in Lithuania said the sanctions were not expected but would likely have little practical impact. 'According to the preliminary assessment, this decision will not have a significant impact on either the country's financial system or the activities of the banks themselves, since the business models of the mentioned banks are focused on the local market,' the Bank of Lithuania said on Wednesday in a statement. Marius Arlauskas, the head of administration of Urbo Bank, said: 'Since we do not have any business partnerships with Chinese individuals or legal entities, the sanctions will have no impact on the activities of Urbo Bank and the implementation of prudential regulations." The Baltic nation has drawn China's ire for years. Beijing expelled Lithuania's ambassador in 2021 in response to Lithuania allowing Taiwan to open a liaison office in Vilnius, the Lithuanian capital. China regards Taiwan as a breakaway province and prohibits other countries from having formal ties with Taipei. Taiwan has long sought closer relations with the Baltic states, citing their past experiences under authoritarian rule and embrace of multiparty democracy and liberal values. In 2024 Lithuania expelled Chinese diplomats after a Chinese ship came under suspicion during an investigation into the severing of two undersea data cables. One runs under the Baltic Sea between Lithuania and Sweden. ___ McNeil reported from Brussels. Liudas Dapkus And Sam Mcneil, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
