Trump betrayed the diplomatic effort, says Iranian FM
Tehran: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has dismissed US President Donald Trump's declaration that their countries would re-engage in nuclear negotiations in the coming week. 'If our interests require a return to negotiations, we will consider it. But at this time, no agreement or promise has been made, and no talks have taken place.' Araghchi made the point that they were negotiating when Israel launched its June 13th unprovoked attack on Iran. Trump followed up last weekend by striking three Iranian nuclear sites with bunker buster bombs with the intention of finishing off Iran's nuclear programme. Araghchi accused Trump of betraying the diplomatic effort to resolve differences. While Trump claimed the US had "obliterated" Iran's main nuclear sites, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi said the sites had been seriously damaged but suggested that Iran should be able to enrich uranium "in a matter of months."
According to CNN, the Trump administration could encourage Iran to resume talks by offering $20-30 billion to establish a civilian nuclear energy programme without Iranian enrichment of its own nuclear fuel. The finance, it is said, could be provided by the Gulf countries, naturally not the US. The administration would also ease sanctions and unfreeze Iranian assets in foreign banks. While such a speculative deal has been deliberately leaked and widely reported, it is unlikely to materialise. It looks like "pie in the sky," as the saying goes.
Tehran is unlikely to reject a return to talks, but Iran is still assessing its military, political, and diplomatic losses from Israel's 12-day war and US strikes on its nuclear sites. Iran has to lay down its own conditions and decide when the atmosphere is propitious before re-engaging. Iran has laid down two red lines: low level uranium enrichment must continue on Iranian soil and Iran will not discuss its ballistic missile programme which Iran argues is essential for self-defence. Trump seeks to cross these red lines by eliminating both domestic enrichment and missiles.
Trust has not characterised Iranian-US relations since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini over-threw Washington's ally Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in early 1979 and, radical "students" seized control of the US embassy in Tehran and held staff for 444 days. They were not freed until Ronald Regan had taken over the US presidency from Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately, this gesture did not clear the way for the restoration of relations due to US rejectionism. The blow of losing the Shah, compounded by the humiliation of the embassy occupation made the US, particularly Congress, testy and unforgiving and easily influenced by domestic and Israeli anti-Iran hawks.
Iranian popular trust in the US was undermined during the decades-long the rule of the shah who developed Iran's economy and carried out modernising social reforms but ruled with an iron fist. His tool was his intelligence agency Savak which allied with the US Central Intelligence Agency and Israel's Mossad. The shah put Iran firmly in the Western camp during the Cold War with the Soviet Union and adopted pro-Israel policies.
Iranian resentment continues over the 1953 US-British coup against popularly elected Prime Minister Mossadegh who nationalised the Anglo-Iranian oil company. Resentment intensified when in 1954, the shah reached a deal giving Western countries control of Iran's oil industry. He also allowed US companies to play a dominant role in trade and Iran's domestic markets. This was exploited by the Iranian opposition, especially Khomeini who mounted his "revolution" from exile in France. He returned to Tehran in early 1979 after the shah had fled to the US. After several years of turmoil, Khomeini installed the cleric-dominated model of governance
A decade after the fall of Shah, Iran's President Hashemi Rafsanjani (1989-1997) tried and failed to reconcile with the US and the West. He was followed by Mohammed Khatami (1997-2005) who in 1999 launched his "Dialogue of Civilisations" which he hoped would achieve this end. One effort in this campaign was a Cyprus conference attended by US scholars, policy makers, influential Iranians, and foreign correspondents. While Khatami's call for dialogue failed to change Washington, one result of this conference was the creation of the website Gulf 2000 which continues to provide platform for information and comment on Iran, the Gulf and the region.
Khatami was succeeded by erratic hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005-2013). His hostile attitude toward the US and the West gave a boost to the powerful anti-Iran lobby in Washington, which was heavily influenced by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who had tried for three decades to drag the US into a war with Iran.
The landmark 2015 agreement limiting Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for lifting sanctions was negotiated during the presidency of reformist Hassan Rouhani (2013-2021). Iran carried out its commitments under the Obama administration deal and secured some relief from sanctions which had crippled its economy. At that time, IAEA chief Grossi said Iran's nuclear programme was "primitive." The deal restricted enrichment to 3.67 per cent for civilian power plants, reduced its stockpile, compelled Iran to export enriched uranium above the limit, and compelled Iran to use old model centrifuges for enrichment.
Iran was subjected to the most stringent and invasive regime of monitoring and inspections ever imposed on any country. However, in 2018, Trump aborted the deal and proclaimed1,500 sanctions, disrupting the process of reconstituting US-Iran relations. Iran responded in 2019 by enriching uranium to 20 and 60 per cent, amassing a large stockpile, building advanced centrifuges, and curbing IAEA monitoring, Hardliners in the Iranian clerical establishment engineered the 2021 election of Ebrahim Raisi who reverted to an anti-US stance until he died in a helicopter crash in 2024. Iran again swung to the reformist faction by electing Masoud Pezeshkian as president who had pledged to clinch a new nuclear agreement.
Having failed to restore relations with the US, which remains Iran's chief antagonist on the global scene, Tehran has cultivated ties within the region. This process was expanded by the 2023 restoration of Saudi Iranian relations and promised the stability Gulf countries require to pursue economic and social advancement. This has been jeopardised by Israel's war on Iran and US military and political intervention.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Has the oil and gas industry learnt the right lessons from the Israel-Iran conflict?
Open fighting between Israel and Iran, and missile and drone strikes on oil and gas facilities would once have triggered crisis in energy markets. Yet after the 12-day war between Israel and Iran, joined by the US, oil prices are lower than when it started. Has the oil and gas industry learnt lessons from this brief conflict? More importantly, has it learnt the right lessons? First, the market is not worried about disruption to energy supplies from the Gulf. Despite two of the Middle East's key military and political powers lobbing missiles at each other, despite the US directly bombing Iran for the first time ever and Tehran also countering for the first time by attacking the territory of a Gulf state, oil prices are lower now than before the conflict broke out. After a brief 20 per cent rise, gas prices in Europe have also dropped to below their pre-June 12 levels, even though the continent needs Gulf liquefied natural gas (LNG) to make up for the loss of Russian imports. Following much more nervous periods in the early 2000s, when a whiff of gunpowder could put $10 on the oil price, four factors are at play. The rise of the US's shale oil and gas output has diversified supplies, and it could increase output further in the case of a prolonged disruption and price spike. Opec members hold major spare capacity in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Iraq, while Iran's own output has stagnated. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have built or expanded pipelines that bypass the Strait of Hormuz. And the world economy is less oil-dependent – a barrel of oil generates $2,500 of world gross domestic product today, up from $1,725 in 2000. Renewable energy and electric vehicles are now genuine alternatives at commercial scale to oil and gas. But perhaps all these factors are secondary to the fable of the 'boy who cried wolf'. Iranian politicos and military officials have often threatened to 'close the Strait of Hormuz' at times of geopolitical tension and analysts have studied the possible threats, implications and countermeasures to exhaustion. Yet nothing has happened, beyond in the past few years some minor and deniable explosions, and harassment of vessels by Iranian naval forces. This time, there was not even that, just some spoofing of GPS signals. Iran depends on the strait itself; interrupting transit would cut off its own exports and imports, and invite devastating retaliation. It is only likely to be attempted if the regime in Tehran has its back to the wall. Of course, the fighting had some impacts on specific parts of the energy business, sharply pushing up diesel and jet fuel prices, tanker hire rates and insurance. But overall, the oil market appears to have decided that it will wait to see real physical disruption or destruction before reacting dramatically. Second, there is still restraint in targeting energy sites. Probably not wanting to be blamed for causing a global energy crisis, Israel did not attack Iran's oil export capacities. Its strikes against domestic oil depots and gas processing plants appear more in the nature of a warning and have not caused long-lasting disruption. Iranian missiles did damage facilities at the Bazan plant in Haifa, one of Israel's two oil refineries. But Israel's three offshore gasfields have avoided damage, even though since October 2023, they have seemed like obvious, critical and hard-to-defend targets for missiles or drones from Iran or its allies, notably Hezbollah. Third, the Gulf countries' outreach to Iran, and the assistance of China in mediating the Saudi-Iran normalisation of March 2023, has been helpful in keeping them out of conflict. Doha was certainly not happy to have Iranian missiles targeted at the US's Al Udeid base on its soil, but no serious damage was done and the Iranians were quick to make it clear that the nation of Qatar was not their target. But what if these lessons are false? Or, at least, not teaching us what we think? Complacency in such critical matters could be catastrophic. Restraint tends to fall away as conflicts draw on. Weapons are used with greater ingenuity and desperation. Ukraine has showed that well with its increasingly sophisticated penetration of Russian defences, its strikes against oil refineries, key bridges and rail lines, and bomber bases. Iran and, before it, Hezbollah were taken aback by the elimination of so many key commanders early in the conflict. That may have limited their ability to execute more damaging retaliation this time. Aerial and maritime drones give capacity for much more precise strikes than were possible in previous periods of panic in the early 2000s. Israel and the US have given mixed messages on whether their goal was the elimination or setback of Iran's nuclear programme, or regime change. If the Islamic Republic were seriously in danger of destruction, though, it would become far more likely to use whatever remaining leverage over world energy supplies it had. The boy who cried wolf, of course, was eventually eaten by a wolf. The region and the key external players need to move beyond fragile ceasefires, containment and the rule of the gun, to multilateral peacebuilding In some ways, the global energy system is more robust than in the early 2000s. In others, it has become more vulnerable – because of the loss of Russian gas to Europe, the much greater reliance globally on Gulf LNG, and the disruption of shipping through the southern Red Sea. As former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat used to say, 'the US holds 99 per cent of the cards in the Middle East'. It may not be so high these days, and Sadat himself admitted in private, 'The United States actually holds only 60 per cent'. But neither of Iran's backers, China or Russia, seem to hold even 10 per cent, nor were of any obvious use in halting the Israeli or American attacks. Concern for what Beijing thinks might hold back Tehran from attacking its Gulf neighbours, but the fear of US retaliation remains a bigger restraining factor. We have, so far, got away with an exceptionally dangerous situation. The solutions are threefold. First, regional states including the Gulf should continue building energy security and resilience, including better defences, and diversified infrastructure. Second, energy importers should accelerate their efforts on non-petroleum technologies, bringing environmental as well as security gains. Third, the region and the key external players need to move beyond fragile ceasefires, containment and the rule of the gun, to multilateral peacebuilding.
Middle East Eye
6 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Western media enabling Gaza genocide and rewriting history, say experts
As Israel's war on Gaza intensifies and expands across the Middle East, media analysts and human rights advocates are raising concerns over the lack of international accountability and the role of Western news outlets in shaping public perception of the conflict. At a panel hosted by the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) in London on Saturday, experts accused mainstream Western media of contributing to the denial and distortion of atrocities unfolding in Gaza. The Centre for Media Monitoring (CFMM) presented findings highlighting how often leading media organisations downplay or dismiss claims of genocide. Faisal Hanif, a media analyst at CFMM, said the BBC had shut down references to genocide in its Gaza coverage more than 100 times over the past year. Omar al-Ghazzi, Associate Professor of Media and Communications at the London School of Economics, called the trend 'a war on history.' He warned that the use of media narratives as future historical sources could shape how upcoming generations understand the events in Gaza. The panel also pointed to specific language patterns in coverage. Hanif noted that the term 'massacre' appeared 18 times more often when referring to Hamas attacks than to Israeli attacks on Palestinians. He said this imbalance reflected a wider rhetorical bias and an uncritical acceptance of Israeli government claims—particularly those targeting local journalists in Gaza. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters British-Israeli journalist Rachel Shabi said Israel has consistently framed its ban on international reporters entering Gaza as a safety measure, while accusing Palestinian journalists of links to Hamas. She criticised international media outlets for accepting these narratives without challenge. 'Israeli society has taken a genocidal turn,' says Daniel Levy. Speaking at the Genocide in Gaza conference in London, he warns that Israel's war on Gaza marks a new phase of settler colonial overreach, backed by Western complicity. — Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) June 29, 2025 'They fall for the trap without calling it out,' Shabi told the audience. She added that even when Palestinian voices are included, their suffering is often discredited or doubted. 'The media has not only excluded Palestinian voices conveyed through local journalists' reports, but, at times when it has included them, it has effectively put Palestinian victims 'on trial,' portraying them as unreliable narrators of their own stories and suffering.' 'A new dark age' Historian Avi Shlaim described Israel's media strategy as an aggressive propaganda campaign designed to suppress criticism by labelling opponents as antisemitic. Professor Martin Shaw, a leading scholar on war and genocide, said such tactics amounted to a third form of genocide denial—'implicatory denial'—where actors acknowledge atrocities but take no meaningful action. 'The media is starting to shift, but it still lags behind the reality,' Shaw said. 'Even when governments and media recognise genocide is taking place in Gaza, they don't act to stop it.' He argued that the era of rhetorical devices such as 'responsibility to protect' and 'humanitarian intervention' had ended. 'The powerful do what they want without dressing it up,' he added. Al-Ghazzi agreed, saying the West continues to control language and historical narrative, positioning itself as the sole 'moral arbitrator.' Speaking to Middle East Eye at the panel 'Genocide in Gaza, War on Iran: What's Next for Palestine?' part of the Genocide in Gaza conference organised by the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) in London, Wadah Khanfar, founder and executive director of the… — Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) June 29, 2025 The panel also connected media complicity to broader geopolitical ambitions. Wadah Khanfar, president of Al-Sharq Forum and former director general of Al Jazeera, said the West remains determined to engineer a 'new Middle East' and marginalise Arab voices in shaping the region's future. He singled out Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, calling him 'truly arrogant' for believing he can design that future alone. The panel agreed that Israel's impunity could further destabilise the region. Khanfar warned that the ongoing war may plunge the world into 'a new dark age.' He cited Israel's strikes on Iran as an example of escalating risk, arguing they push the Middle East towards either a nuclear-free zone or widespread nuclear deterrence. Broad disillusionment in Israel Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, questioned the viability of Israel's long-term strategy, suggesting it may be driving the country toward collapse. 'Is this the third Jewish kingdom?' he asked. Channel 4 to show Gaza war crimes documentary rejected by BBC Read More » Speakers warned that Israel's actions were eroding the foundations of the international legal system. Tayab Ali, director of the ICJP, said international legal frameworks remain 'excellent in theory' but are selectively applied in practice. 'This selectivity reinforces Israel's belief that its rights will be protected—even in the face of violations targeting Palestinians,' Ali said. Levy criticised the Western defence narrative that assumes peace will follow Iran's elimination, calling it legally flawed and strategically naive. Ali added that Israel's strikes on Iran violate international law under the principle of self-defence. He said growing public scepticism—even within Israel—shows that official justifications for military actions are becoming harder to sustain. Levy pointed to a rising reluctance among Israelis to report for military reserve duty. 'There's a broader disillusionment,' he said. 'More and more Israelis see these campaigns as leading the country toward a place of no return.'
Middle East Eye
7 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Netanyahu claims Iran war opened door to free Gaza captives
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes, said on Sunday that Israel's recent war with Iran had created new 'opportunities'—including a chance to free captives held in Gaza. 'Many opportunities have opened up now following this victory. First of all, to rescue the hostages,' Netanyahu told senior security officials. He added that Israel must still 'solve the Gaza issue' and defeat Hamas, expressing confidence both goals could be achieved. The ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant in 2024, accusing them of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Gaza. Both men have dismissed the charges as 'anti-Semitic'.
