European powers plan fresh nuclear talks with Iran
Britain, France and Germany, known as the E3, "are in contact with Iran to schedule further talks for the coming week", the source said.
The trio had recently warned that international sanctions against Iran could be reactivated if Tehran does not return to the negotiating table.
Iran's Tasnim news agency also reported that Tehran had agreed to hold talks with the three European countries, citing an unnamed source.
Consultations are ongoing regarding a date and location for the talks, the report said.
"Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. That is why Germany, France and the United Kingdom are continuing to work intensively in the E3 format to find a sustainable and verifiable diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear programme," the German source said.
Israel and Western nations have long accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran has consistently denied.
On June 13, Israel launched a wave of surprise strikes on its regional nemesis, targeting key military and nuclear facilities.
The United States launched its own set of strikes against Iran's nuclear programme on June 22, hitting the uranium enrichment facility at Fordo, in Qom province south of Tehran, as well as nuclear sites in Isfahan and Natanz.
- Kremlin meeting -
Iran and the United States had held several rounds of nuclear negotiations through Omani mediators before Israel launched its 12-day war against Iran.
However, US President Donald Trump's decision to join Israel in striking Iranian nuclear facilities effectively ended the talks.
The E3 countries last met with Iranian representatives in Geneva on June 21 -- just one day before the US strikes.
Meanwhile on Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin held a surprise meeting in the Kremlin with Ali Larijani, top adviser to Iran's supreme leader on nuclear issues.
Larijani "conveyed assessments of the escalating situation in the Middle East and around the Iranian nuclear programme", Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said of the unannounced meeting.
Putin had expressed Russia's "well-known positions on how to stabilise the situation in the region and on the political settlement of the Iranian nuclear programme", he added.
Moscow has a cordial relationship with Iran's clerical leadership and provides crucial backing for Tehran but did not swing forcefully behind its partner even after the United States joined Israel's bombing campaign.
- Snapback mechanism -
Iran and world powers struck a deal in 2015 called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which placed significant restrictions on Tehran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.
But the hard-won deal began to unravel in 2018, during Trump's first presidency, when the United States walked away from it and reimposed sanctions on Iran.
European countries have in recent days threatened to trigger the deal's "snapback" mechanism, which allows the reimposition of sanctions in the event of non-compliance by Iran.
After a call with his European counterparts on Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the Western allies had no grounds for reactivating sanctions.
"If EU/E3 want to have a role, they should act responsibly and put aside the worn-out policies of threat and pressure, including the 'snap-back' for which they (have) absolutely no moral (or) legal grounds," Araghchi said on X.
However, the German source on Sunday said that "if no solution is reached over the summer, snapback remains an option for the E3".
Iran last week said there would be no new nuclear talks with the United States if they were conditioned on Tehran abandoning its uranium enrichment activities.
fec/gv
By Femke Colborne
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
14 minutes ago
- IOL News
Why Trump's 30% blow to South Africa is a wake-up call for a new economic order
On August 1, 2025, South African exporters will wake up to a 30% tariff on all goods entering the United States, a decision announced by the administration of President Donald Trump. Image: File On August 1, 2025, South African exporters will wake up to a 30% tariff on all goods entering the United States, a decision announced by the administration of President Donald Trump. This is not a sector-specific sanction, nor the outcome of any formal trade dispute. It is a sweeping penalty imposed on all products, citing trade imbalances and regulatory barriers imposed by South Africa. But this is not the end of trade. It is the beginning of South Africa's trade adolescence, the moment we decide to grow up or continue being disciplined by our 'partners.' The justification provided by the US administration rests on the claim that South Africa runs a trade surplus with the United States. In truth, South Africa exported around R170 billion worth of goods to the US in 2023 (Stats SA, 2024), largely in automotive components, citrus and minerals, while importing just over R100 billion in return. The surplus exists but it is relatively small in the context of overall bilateral trade. Trade imbalances are also not inherently unfair; the US itself enjoys surpluses with many countries. What this tariff reveals is not a fiscal grievance but a display of geopolitical leverage, an assertion of economic power with limited regard for multilateral process. The tariff appears partly aimed at appeasing domestic political interests ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, particularly in states where trade unions are concerned about foreign competition. However, the consequences for South Africa's economy will be profound and immediate. South Africa is already under pressure to reindustrialise and this penalty could not come at a worse time. The automotive industry alone accounts for over 4% of GDP and more than 110 000 jobs (Naamsa and Department of Trade, Industry and Competition, 2024). With the US as a key destination for vehicle parts and assembled models, this tariff will deal a serious blow to sectoral stability. Reports indicate that companies relocating production to the US may receive expedited regulatory approvals. In effect, this risks incentivising capital flight and weakening local value chains. This policy shift is taking place while South Africa holds the presidency of the G20 (G20 Secretariat, 2025). That irony is difficult to ignore. We are presiding over a global forum committed to equitable development while being subjected to unilateral economic pressure by one of its most powerful members. This is more than a diplomatic discomfort; it is a direct challenge to the credibility of multilateralism. If the G20 cannot protect developing economies from arbitrary market exclusion, it must ask itself what kind of influence it truly holds. While this move falls outside the scope of Agoa, it nonetheless underscores how preferential trade access can shift at the stroke of a pen. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Past threats to South Africa's participation in Agoa, such as the poultry trade dispute of 2015 (USTR, 2016), highlight how even codified benefits remain vulnerable to political shifts. Critics of South Africa's trade policy may point to the use of technical regulations and local content rules. However, these are allowed under World Trade Organisation (WTO) guidelines, as outlined in the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (WTO, 2020). Developing countries are within their rights to protect and promote industrial growth through policy instruments that stimulate domestic value addition. The United States also protects its own industries through farm subsidies, defence procurement and steel tariffs. To frame South Africa's approach as uniquely restrictive is not only unfair; it reflects a double standard embedded in the global trade architecture. This situation reflects a deeper structural issue in South Africa's trade exposure. Our economy remains disproportionately dependent on the EU, the US and China. Even beyond the US, our exposure to external shocks is growing from the EU's carbon border taxes to shifting Chinese demand. Diversification must be structural, not just diplomatic. There is also a domestic reckoning to be had. South Africa's industrial policy remains constrained by loadshedding, underinvestment in ports and rail and persistent skills mismatches. If we are to reposition ourselves globally, these internal constraints must be addressed with equal urgency. A resilient economy cannot rely solely on favourable trade preferences beyond its control. It must be built on a foundation of functional infrastructure, competitive inputs and policy certainty. South Africa faces a choice. It can wait out the Trump presidency in the hope that future leadership will reverse course or it can act decisively now. This is not a call for isolationism. South Africa should not abandon global trade nor retaliate blindly. However, we must negotiate from a position of design rather than deference. We must ensure that this is the last time our national strategy is disrupted by external political cycles. Our trade strategy must pivot. Already, trade with BRICS+ partners has rivalled that of individual Western blocs in recent quarters, accounting for more than 22% of South Africa's exports in 2024 (SARB, Q4 2024). This is a foundation we can build upon. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) remains our continent's most ambitious economic project. While its infrastructure is still maturing, its potential cannot be deferred any longer. Trade corridors, payment systems and regulatory alignment must be fast-tracked in practice, not just policy. The World Bank estimates AfCFTA could lift 30 million people out of poverty by 2035 (World Bank, 2020). Parliament and the economic cluster must now take this seriously not as a trade spat but as a strategic inflection point for the country's long-term development path. The legality of this tariff under WTO rules remains debatable, especially given its blanket nature and lack of arbitration. However, legality aside, the message it sends is unmistakable. The global playing field remains unequal and South Africa must protect itself accordingly. This is not an argument for withdrawal. It is an argument for resilience. We cannot afford to build a 21st-century economy on the hope that global goodwill will prevail. We must design for volatility, prepare for shocks and root our trade agenda in real production, regional depth and economic clarity. US President Donald Trump may eventually give way to a different leader but the conditions that made this tariff possible are not tied to any single administration. The unpredictability of external markets, the asymmetry of trade power and the fragility of our supply chains are structural issues. They will not be resolved with the next election. The tariffs may be American but the decision before us is South African. Do we keep asking permission to grow or do we take the blows and build something of our own? Nomvula Zeldah Mabuza is a Risk Governance and Compliance Specialist with extensive experience in strategic risk and industrial operations. She holds a Diploma in Business Management (Accounting) from Brunel University, UK, and is an MBA candidate at Henley Business School, South Africa. Image: Supplied Nomvula Zeldah Mabuza is a Risk Governance and Compliance Specialist with extensive experience in strategic risk and industrial operations. She holds a Diploma in Business Management (Accounting) from Brunel University, UK, and is an MBA candidate at Henley Business School, South Africa. *** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL. BUSINESS REPORT
TimesLIVE
an hour ago
- TimesLIVE
Japan ruling party's election loss is in the price, investors say
Japan's upper house election on Sunday dealt a big blow to the ruling coalition and sets up markets for possible policy paralysis and a bigger fiscal deficit, much of which is priced in, analysts said. The nation's ruling coalition lost control of the upper house, further weakening Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba's grip on power as he vowed to remain party leader, citing a looming tariff deadline with the US. Japanese markets were closed on Monday for a holiday, but the rise in the yen and Nikkei futures showed investors had priced in the election outcome. The Japanese currency has weakened considerably this year on expectations of changes to taxes and a bigger fiscal deficit. The election result, while not entirely a shock to markets, also comes at a tricky time for a country trying to get a tariff deal with US President Donald Trump before an August 1 deadline. Japanese government bonds plunged last week, sending yields on 30-year debt to an all-time high, while the yen slid to multi-month lows against the US dollar and the euro.
TimesLIVE
2 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
US threatens Mexican flights over cargo, competition issues
The transportation department alleges Mexico has violated a bilateral air agreement by slashing slots for passenger flights and forcing all-cargo carriers to relocate operations. Then-president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador defended the decisions, arguing the capital's main airport was too crowded and the new, farther-away Felipe Angeles International Airport (AIFA) could handle the extra traffic. Officials are rushing to renovate the ageing Benito Juarez International Airport (MEX) ahead of next year's World Cup, for which Mexico is a host country. 'By restricting slots and mandating that all-cargo operations move out of MEX, Mexico has broken its promise, disrupted the market and left American businesses holding the bag for millions in increased costs,' the transportation department said. The AIFA is at full capacity for cargo handling and needs to be expanded. For passenger flights, it lags far behind MEX as transportation to and from the city remains spotty. 'The move not only disrupted critical air cargo operations and set a dangerous precedent for how all-cargo carriers may be treated in global markets, it also created uncertainty about how potential safety emergencies could be handled,' said the Cargo Airline Association, which represents major US cargo carriers. Mexico's transportation ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The transportation department issued orders requiring Mexican airlines to file schedules with the department for all their US operations by a late-July deadline while requiring prior US approval for large charter flights to or from the US. Airlines set to be affected by the measures, including Volaris and Viva Aerobus, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. If the US rescinds antitrust approval for Delta and Aeromexico, they would be required to end their co-operation on pricing, capacity and revenue sharing. Delta would be able to retain its equity stake in Aeromexico and continue other aspects of its partnership. The transportation department also said it could take action against European countries over limitations at airports.
