Iran used drug traffickers to stoke trouble in France, says minister
PARIS, June 22 (Reuters) - France has evidence that Iran has used intermediaries in the past to hire drug traffickers to carry out activities in France on its behalf and could do so again, Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau said on Sunday.
France is on heightened alert following U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities overnight.
"Iran uses proxies that are often linked to drug traffickers. They get a contract and don't even know that the contract is linked to the Iranian regime," Retailleau told LCI television. "But that's the modality used by Iran on (our)national territory."
Retailleau did not say what activities had been carried out in France and gave no specific evidence.
Iran's embassy was not immediately available for comment.
"It's very simple. These are contracts through intermediaries that don't link back to the regime," Retailleau said.
Highlighting the heightened security threat, Retailleau also referred to a foiled plot in July 2018 to blow up an opposition rally near Paris where several Iranians were arrested after a joint Franco-German-Belgian operation.
The plot was led by Vienna-based Iranian diplomat Assadolah Assadi and three others, according to court documents.
Assadi, who French officials said was running an Iranian state intelligence network and was acting on orders from Tehran, was sentenced in Belgium to a 20-year prison term in 2021. He was exchanged in May 2023 for four Europeans held in Iran.
Iran has repeatedly denied carrying out destabilising activities in Europe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
42 minutes ago
- The Guardian
EU ‘cannot linger at the margins' of Gaza conflict, says former top diplomat
The EU must come up with a more assertive response to the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and the violations of international law, the bloc's former chief diplomat has said. In a strongly worded article, Josep Borrell said the EU had a 'duty' to intervene and must come up with its own concerted plan to end the war instead of relying on the US. 'Europe can no longer afford to linger at the margins,' he said in the article that was co-authored with Kalypso Nicolaïdis, an occasional adviser to the EU and professorial chair in international affairs at the Florence school of transnational governance at the European University Institute. 'The EU needs a concerted plan. 'Not only is Europe's own security at stake, but more important, European history imposes a duty on Europeans to intervene in response to Israel's violations of international law,' they say, adding: 'Europeans cannot stay the hapless fools in this tragic story, dishing out cash with their eyes closed.' Their intervention in Foreign Affairs magazine comes as EU member states continue to struggle to unite on action. Last week Borrell's successor, Kaja Kallas, said it was 'very clear' that Israel had breached its human rights commitments in Gaza but said the 'concrete question' was what action the member states could agree on. Her remarks were made after a review of the EU-Israel association agreement, a trade and cooperation pact, was triggered last month by 17 member states in protest at Israel's blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza. Last month Borrell launched a blistering attack on Israel accusing it of 'carrying out the largest ethnic-cleansing operation since the end of the second world war'. The authors say there are ways and lessons from the past to guide EU member states who want to take action without having to get buy-in from countries reluctant to do so, for historical reasons, including Germany, Hungary and Austria. They suggest a number of actions, from using the EU's financial leverage, to suspending Israel's presence in EU programmes such as the Erasmus+ student exchange. They also suggest EU member states could explore using article 20 of the EU's treaty to 'allow for at least nine member states to come together to utilise certain foreign policy tools not related to defence'. 'Because such an action has never been taken before, those states would have to explore what [it] … would concretely allow them to do,' the article said. Borrell and Nicolaidïs argue that the disunity in the EU has reduced what should be a powerful mediating voice in the Middle East into a bit player. 'Some EU leaders cautiously backed the international criminal court's investigations, while others, such as Austria and Germany, have declined to implement its arrest warrants against Israeli officials,' they say. 'And because EU member states, beginning with Germany and Hungary, could not agree on whether to revisit the union's trade policy with Israel, the EU continues to be Israel's largest trading partner. 'As a result, the EU, as a bloc, has been largely relegated to the sidelines, divided internally and overshadowed in ceasefire diplomacy by the United States and regional actors such as Egypt and Qatar. Shouldn't the EU also have acted as a mediator?'
The Sun
43 minutes ago
- The Sun
Most Brits think Labour has done a bad job in its first year of government, damning poll finds
MOST Brits think Labour has done a bad job in its first year of government, a damning poll has found. Fifty-four per cent believe Sir Keir Starmer's party has flopped since it stormed into power with a huge majority last July. 1 And even a third of those who voted for Labour at the election now think the party is doing a bad job, compared to 37 per cent saying it has done well. More people, 29 per cent, think the previous Tory government was doing a better job than Labour, while 26 per cent believe the reverse. Sir Keir's approval rating remains low at -35 per cent, behind Tory leader Kemi Badenoch on -24 per cent and Reform UK's Nigel Farage on -9. The survey was carried out by pollsters Opinium this week. James Crouch, their head of policy and public affairs, said: 'As Labour marks its first year in office, the public's mood is pessimistic. 'A majority believe the government has underperformed There is a sense of little to no visible progress on their key promises to rebuild Britain.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘There's a significant lack of knowledge': Iranian American legislator on countries' tangled history amid conflict
Arizona congresswoman Yassamin Ansari brings an unusually personal perspective to the US's fraught relationship with Iran. The daughter of two Iranian parents who fled their homeland – her father as a student in the 1970s who couldn't return after the 1979 revolution, her mother as a 17-year-old in 1981 escaping the new regime's restrictions on women – Ansari grew up immersed in the complexities of US-Iran relations. This deep familiarity with both Iranian domestic politics and the tangled history between Washington and Tehran has given the Democratic freshman a distinctive edge in debates over military strikes, sanctions and diplomatic engagement. As tensions teetered for 12 days, culminating in the direct US bombardment on Iranian nuclear facilities, Ansari finds herself navigating between hawkish calls for regime change and concerns about empowering Iran's authoritarian government. We spoke to Ansari about how her background influences her approach to one of foreign policy's most intractable issues. It's a topic I not only grew up learning about at home but also studied formally during my undergraduate years. I have a minor in Iranian studies, I speak the language [Farsi], and I wrote my college thesis on Iran's nuclear breakout capacity. So I've been working on and thinking about these issues for a long time. When it comes to US-Iran policy – especially during the Trump administration – I think there has been a significant lack of knowledge. And even within Congress, there's often limited information about the historical and political context – not just since 1979, but also what led up to that point and how we arrived at the current situation. I don't believe the strikes were the right move for several reasons. First and foremost, we wouldn't even be in this position if Trump hadn't unilaterally withdrawn from the JCPOA [in 2018]. That agreement would have prevented Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and created a framework for diplomacy. Even after the withdrawal, we were in the midst of negotiations. Based on briefings I've received from subject matter experts, those negotiations were progressing – until the US suddenly shifted the goalposts and demanded zero uranium enrichment, which had never been part of the deal. That effectively derailed talks. Beyond that, Trump never made the case to Congress or the American public. There was no presentation of intelligence justifying strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. In a country with such a fraught history of military interventions in the Middle East – from the 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup in Iran to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – that lack of transparency is especially dangerous. I'm not familiar with all the specifics of that proposal, but I see what you're getting at. And I do think Trump's actions have emboldened the Islamic Republic, a regime that is deeply unpopular with the majority of Iranians. Since the recent escalation, we've seen reports that hundreds of people have been arrested on espionage charges – charges often used by the regime to imprison political opponents. Iran's most notorious prison, Evin, is full of some of the country's brightest minds, including Nobel laureates. It's heartbreaking. Trump's actions have not only hurt US foreign policy interests and increased the risk of a wider war, but they've also given the regime cover to intensify its domestic repression. During the past two weeks, we've even seen the government black out the internet to prevent communication with the outside world. This is a regime focused entirely on its own survival – and it will do whatever it takes, including more arrests and crackdowns. We should be supporting Iranian civilians, not strengthening the regime or risking another war. Exactly. I think any sort of US-led military intervention or regime change would be a terrible mistake. I was genuinely terrified during the days Trump was making contradictory threats – one moment urging civilians in Tehran to evacuate, the next talking about regime change, and then suddenly calling for peace. That kind of unpredictability is dangerous. There are also groups like the MEK – a cult-like organization that was once designated a terrorist group by the US – that are trying to position themselves as the alternative. They've paid people like John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani to support them, but they could be even more repressive than the current regime. That said, there are ways the US could support the Iranian people – like helping provide secure internet access or advocating for the release of political prisoners. But instead we're seeing more crackdowns because the regime feels threatened and is reacting in the only way it knows: repression. Not directly, but many of us are still pushing for the War Powers Resolution to come to a vote so members of Congress can make their positions clear. It's important that we reassert Congress's constitutional authority over decisions of war and peace. Unfortunately, the Republican lead on the resolution, Representative Thomas Massie, recently said he no longer sees the need for [the resolution] due to the ceasefire. I strongly disagree. The resolution isn't just about this moment – it's about reaffirming that only Congress has the power to declare war, as the constitution lays out. Trump should never have taken unilateral military action. We've already seen the consequences. I know the Senate is moving forward with it, and it'll be important to see where key leaders stand. You're right, I'm definitely not the spokesperson for all Iranian Americans, but I can share some perspective. Nearly all Iranian Americans strongly oppose the regime. That's because most of our families came here after fleeing it, either during the revolution in 1979 or in the years since. But there's a wide range of views on what the solution should be. Some Iranian Americans, including a sizable portion who voted for Trump, believed he would help topple the regime. I remember when Trump posted 'Make Iran great again', a segment of the diaspora was genuinely excited. Many of those people support the son of the former Shah as a potential leader. Others – myself included – strongly oppose US-led regime change. The US has a bad track record in this region. The 1953 coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mosaddeq is still remembered bitterly by many Iranians. He was democratically elected and wanted to nationalize Iran's oil, but the US and UK didn't want that. So they overthrew him. Then came the Shah, then the revolution, and now this regime. So while we all oppose the current regime, there's disagreement about what comes next and how to get there. I think most Iranian Americans fear war and want a better future for Iranians – without more violence, repression or foreign intervention. My dad came to the US in the early 1970s on a student visa to attend the University of Oregon for his engineering degree. He planned to go back but once the revolution happened, it wasn't safe to return, so he stayed. My mom fled in 1981. Women's rights had already been severely restricted – forced hijab, schools being shut down. She happened to be a US citizen because her father had done a medical residency in the US in the 60s. So her parents sent her here alone at 17 to live with a family in Delaware. She talks about it a lot, about how she and her family opposed the revolution even though it was popular at the time. Coming here alone was traumatic. She went through deep depression for years before the rest of her family could join her. That experience shaped a lot of how I was raised. She always stressed not taking freedom and democracy for granted, and that's something I carry with me in my work today, especially when I see authoritarian threats here in the US.
