U.S. issues additional Iran-related sanctions, Treasury website shows
The oil sales benefit Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force, Iran's most powerful paramilitary organization, it said. The U.S. has designated Quds as a foreign terrorist organization.
The Quds Force employs front companies outside of Iran that use offshore accounts to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in profits derived from Iranian oil sales to circumvent U.S. sanctions, Treasury said.
The money funds Iran's weapons programs and proxy groups across the region, according to the Treasury Department, which has imposed waves of sanctions targeting such activities.
"The Iranian regime relies heavily on its shadow banking system to fund its destabilizing nuclear and ballistic missile weapons programs, rather than for the benefit of the Iranian people," said Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
'Putin tells Iran to accept US nuclear deal supporting zero enrichment'
Vladimir Putin has allegedly told Iran to accept a US nuclear deal in which they would be unable to enrich uranium. The Russian President is said to have told both Donald Trump and Iranian officials that he supports the deal, despite Russia being one of the Middle Eastern country's key allies. American news site, Axios, claim three European officials and one Israeli official, who have knowledge of the discussions, have said that Moscow has encouraged the stance and that Putin also informed French President Emmanuel Macron. A European official reportedly told the site: 'Putin would support zero enrichment. He encouraged the Iranians to work towards that in order to make negotiations with the Americans more favorable. The Iranians said they won't consider it.' And an Israeli official allegedly added: 'We know this is what Putin told the Iranians.' However, Iran's semi-official news agency, Tasnim, denied the report, quoting an 'informed source' as saying Putin had not sent any message to Iran in this regard. The US have been trying to broker a deal with Iran after Trump said they 'cannot have a nuclear weapon' and launched strikes on three of the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities. However, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said last month that the country not having the ability to enrich uranium - used to fuel nuclear power plants and atomic warheads - was '100 per cent' against their best interests. Axios claim their sources close to the negotiations have said that Russia would supply Iran with 3.67 per cent of its uranium, which it would remove, for nuclear power, if a deal is brokered. It is also alleged that they would provide Iran with 'small quantities' of 20 per cent enriched uranium for their Tehran research reactor and the 'production of nuclear isotopes'. They additionally reported that US envoy Steve Witkoff has been in discussions about resuming nuclear negotiations in the coming days, after plans to meet Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in the Norwegian capital of Oslo were scrapped. The reports about Putin's new stance come just weeks after the Russian President vowed to back Iran and condemned 'groundless' aggression against its ally after the US joined Israel in striking nuclear facilities last month. 'This is an absolutely unprovoked aggression against Iran,' Putin told Araghchi, who travelled to Moscow seeking support in mediation. Putin called the strikes 'unjustified' and added that Russia was ' making efforts to provide assistance to the Iranian people.' The Russian President did not single out the US attacks, talking instead broadly of 'strikes' against Iran, though the Kremlin had earlier said it condemned and regretted the US strikes. 'There has been a new escalation of tensions in the region, and, of course, we condemn this and express our deep regret in this regard,' Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters, shortly before Putin met Araghchi in the Kremlin. Araghchi thanked Putin for condemning the US strikes on Iran, telling him Russia stood on 'the right side of history'. The crisis violently escalated last month when the United States sent a fleet of stealth bombers to attack nuclear facilities across Iran. Israel initiated the conflict with unilateral strikes against Iran, citing concerns the regime was trying to build a nuclear bomb, which Iran has consistently denied.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Why any ceasefire in Gaza will not hold
Could there be a temporary Gaza ceasefire and partial hostage deal in the next days or weeks? Yes. Would it lead to the end of the war and a ' postwar Gaza ' structure? No. Why? For a multitude of of reasons, but the one overarching and overriding reason is that prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not want to end the war. He is infatuated with his 'wartime leader' status, convinced that he is drastically remodelling the Middle East geopolitical landscape in Gaza, Iran and elsewhere. And for his political interests and expediency, he needs to perpetuate a war and emergency atmosphere. The New York Times Magazine just published a comprehensive and detailed account of how Netanyahu has been prolonging the war since early 2024. By all indications, this policy trajectory continues and applies to both Gaza and to a future, second strike against Iran, as Netanyahu himself attested during his visit to Washington during the past week. How does this affect the chances of a ceasefire? The endless talk and abundant speculation of an imminent Gaza ceasefire has become tragically tedious and predictable, with each day bringing a combination of reasons why a deal is just around the corner and the caveat that it won't last. There's an explanation for that: the deal that is being negotiated at varying pace – which includes a 60-day ceasefire, a partial exchange of 10 live Israeli hostages and 18 deceased hostages, in exchange for an undisclosed (but large) number of Palestinian prisoners, some convicted of terrorism and murder – is partial. It is supposed to lead to a bigger agreement, and thus its principles, tenets and stages are derived from that 'postwar Gaza' framework. On that framework the sides are not even close. In fact, it is safe to assume that even if a ceasefire deal is struck in the next days or weeks, its durability is highly questionable. It is almost inevitably doomed to be violated just like the almost identical truce agreement that was in place in January, lasted for 58 days and was then breached by Israel in mid-March. The reasons for this realistic but patently pessimistic outlook are both substantive and political and are manifest in glaring inner contradictions between the two phases. There is a series of unanswered questions underlining the current negotiations, with a short answer to each: will Hamas stay in power? De facto yes, according to the current deal. No, according to the postwar plans that Israel, the US and some Arab countries are considering. Will Israel redeploy and gradually withdraw from the Gaza Strip? Yes, according to the agreement. No, according to Israel, which insists on large and wide buffer zones and total control over Rafah, in the southern part of the Gaza Strip. Are these reconcilable? Of course not. Then comes the question of what guarantees exactly did the US provide Hamas that Israel will not resume the war after 60 days? Unclear. How are those assurances consistent with a postwar plan that disposes of Hamas? They are not. Who is in charge of humanitarian aid and the supply of food and medicine to Gaza? Not clear. What is included in the so-called 'postwar Gaza' political plan and power structure? The US is favorably considering a primarily Emirati plan, which others, but not Israel, have contributed to. The plan has five main principles, all based on the successful implementation of the 60-day cessation of hostilities: A gradual transition to governance by 'non-Hamas Palestinians״ backed by five Arab countries: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. A security force will be drawn from some of those countries, backed by US private contractors and possibly a US Command and Control center, situated outside Gaza. The plan will be launched after the Palestinian Authority invited those countries to execute the plan. That way, the Palestinian Authority is involved, but Israel could credibly claim that it is not a part of the governing structure. The Arab partners will vet, recruit and train a new security force and raise the necessary funds (estimated in excess of $60bn) for Gaza rebuilding. This plan will impel the Palestinian Authority to reform and become a reliable interlocutor. Does Israel agree to such a plan? No. Does it have an alternative plan? Not really. And that brings us to the second paradox that dooms a long-term agreement: the so-called ' humanitarian city '. The term is morally depraved Orwellian 'Newspeak' likely borrowed from some third-rate dystopian sci-fi movie and the would-be place has been described as a location for ethnic cleansing and forcible displacement. Clearly, in order to advance this patently unviable objective (which the Israeli military opposes vehemently) Israel needs to maintain vast military presence in Gaza. So yes, a temporary ceasefire agreement is possible and should be welcomed given the alternative. But no, this does not portend any permanent agreement as long as Mr Netanyahu believes the war must continue.
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Iran says it would resume nuclear talks if US guaranteed no further attacks – Middle East crisis live
Update: Date: 2025-07-13T09:25:45.000Z Title: Abbas Araghchi Content: June attacks by the US and Israel on Iran struck but did not fully destroy nuclear facilities Yohannes Lowe Sun 13 Jul 2025 11.25 CEST First published on Sun 13 Jul 2025 10.03 CEST From 10.03am CEST 10:03 Welcome to our live coverage of the Middle East, with a focus on the prospect of US-Iran nuclear talks restarting. According to state media, Iran's foreign minister, , said on Saturday that his country would be willing to re-engage in nuclear talks with Washington if there were assurances of no more attacks against it. Araghchi served as lead negotiator in the strained nuclear talks with the US over the summer, which collapsed after Israel launched a surprise attack on Iran's nuclear sites on 13 June, including at the key Natanz nuclear site as well as at ballistic missile sites. Referring to the subsequent 12-day Israeli bombardment of Iran's nuclear and military sites, and the US airstrike on 22 June, Araghchi said that if the US and others wish to resume talks with Iran, then: First of all, there should be a firm guarantee that such actions will not be repeated. The attack on Iran's nuclear facilities has made it more difficult and complicated to achieve a solution based on negotiations. Both Iran and the US struck Iranian nuclear facilities in June but did not destroy the Iranian nuclear programme, likely setting it back by a couple of months, according to an early Pentagon intelligence assessment of the attack. The Trump administration, which claims that Iranian nuclear facilities were completely destroyed in the attacks, insists that Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Following the airstrikes, Iran suspended cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which led to the departure of inspectors. Iran says it is not developing nuclear weapons and that its enrichment of uranium is for peaceful purposes. Iran is maintaining a fragile ceasefire with the US and Israel but the risk exists of the crisis flaring up into further warfare unless a diplomatic agreement is found soon. We'll continue to bring you the latest developments and analysis throughout the day, stay with us. 11.25am CEST 11:25 Patrick Wintour The Guardian's diplomatic editor, Patrick Wintour, filed this report last week: European nations will act to impose 'dramatic sanctions' on Iran in the coming weeks if it does not end the uncertainty about its nuclear programme, including by allowing the return of UN inspectors, the UK foreign secretary, David Lammy, has warned. He also told the Commons that Iran could not assume Israel would not strike its nuclear sites again. His tough warning was echoed by the French foreign ministry, which is working closely with the UK in an attempt to persuade Iran to end its new ambiguity about its nuclear intentions and re-engage in talks with the US. The UK, France and Germany – the E3 – signed the original nuclear deal with Iran in 2015 and according to its terms can impose 'snapback' UN sanctions without the risk of a security council veto, so long as they act by its expiry in October. Alternatively, they could table a UN resolution to delay the snapback by some months if Iran shows a willingness to negotiate. The three countries are also using their power to reimpose UN sanctions as a lever to persuade the US to join the talks with the Iranians, but have so far had no success. You can read the full story here: 10.47am CEST 10:47 Israel claims it acted because Tehran was within reach of a nuclear weapon. US intelligence agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency had assessed Iran last had an organised 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%. 10.38am CEST 10:38 During the 12-day war, Israeli airstrikes killed hundreds of people, including civilians, and injured thousands of others in Iran, according to official figures. As we have already mentioned, the war on Iran – cast as a preemptive attack for self-defence – was launched by Israel and later joined in by the US. Israel claimed the attacks were necessary before its adversary got any closer to building an atomic weapon, although experts and the US government had assessed that Iran was not actively working on such a weapon before the strikes. Israel has acknowledged being hit by more than 50 missiles during its war with Iran, resulting in at least 28 deaths, but the true extent of the damage may never be known due to stringent media restrictions. 10.20am CEST 10:20 The Iranian foreign minister's comments about the possibility of restarting nuclear talks follow Donald Trump's Monday meeting with his Israeli counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu, where he reportedly said he was open to lifting sanctions on Iran. Earlier this month, the US issued a new wave of sanctions against Iranian oil exports. 'I would love to be able to, at the right time, take those sanctions off,' Trump told a journalist at the White House on Monday night. During the meeting with Netanyahu, Trump also said he 'hoped' that the US would not strike Iran again. 'They want to work something out,' he said. 'They're very different now than they were two weeks ago.' Updated at 10.24am CEST 10.03am CEST 10:03 Welcome to our live coverage of the Middle East, with a focus on the prospect of US-Iran nuclear talks restarting. According to state media, Iran's foreign minister, , said on Saturday that his country would be willing to re-engage in nuclear talks with Washington if there were assurances of no more attacks against it. Araghchi served as lead negotiator in the strained nuclear talks with the US over the summer, which collapsed after Israel launched a surprise attack on Iran's nuclear sites on 13 June, including at the key Natanz nuclear site as well as at ballistic missile sites. Referring to the subsequent 12-day Israeli bombardment of Iran's nuclear and military sites, and the US airstrike on 22 June, Araghchi said that if the US and others wish to resume talks with Iran, then: First of all, there should be a firm guarantee that such actions will not be repeated. The attack on Iran's nuclear facilities has made it more difficult and complicated to achieve a solution based on negotiations. Both Iran and the US struck Iranian nuclear facilities in June but did not destroy the Iranian nuclear programme, likely setting it back by a couple of months, according to an early Pentagon intelligence assessment of the attack. The Trump administration, which claims that Iranian nuclear facilities were completely destroyed in the attacks, insists that Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Following the airstrikes, Iran suspended cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which led to the departure of inspectors. Iran says it is not developing nuclear weapons and that its enrichment of uranium is for peaceful purposes. Iran is maintaining a fragile ceasefire with the US and Israel but the risk exists of the crisis flaring up into further warfare unless a diplomatic agreement is found soon. We'll continue to bring you the latest developments and analysis throughout the day, stay with us.
