Chilling warning Iran won't ditch plans to become nuclear state
Iran won't give up its ambitions to become a nuclear state despite its president pleading for talks with the US, a Middle East expert has warned.Masoud Pezeshkian, President of Iran, said his country has 'no problem' restarting nuclear talks with Donald Trump despite the US bombing its nuclear facilities last month.
But Pezeshkian, who claimed the Israelis tried to assassinate him during the recent conflict, said a condition for reentering talks would be a guarantee that Israel would not attack them without warning.Despite appearing to strike a conciliatory tone, former French intelligence agent Claude Moniquet believes the Iranians are being disingenuous.The Middle East expert said: 'I don't think Iran is going to give up its military nuclear programme or uranium enrichment. The mullahs will try to gain time. They will pretend to give in on certain points but they will continue.
'It is in their deepest nature and one of the lessons they have no doubt learned from the strikes is precisely that if they had had nuclear weapons, no one would have attacked them. So they will continue because they think it's the only way to keep their regime safe and stay in power forever.'Mr Moniquet - who worked undercover as a field agent for the French foreign intelligence in the Soviet bloc, Russia, the Balkans and Middle-East for 20 years - also claimed the Iranians view Europe as irrelevant in the Middle East, regardless of French president Emmanuel Macron's attempts to gain influence.'If they think that Paris could prevent, slow down or limit future Israeli or American strikes, they are mistaken. France's influence in the Middle East is now close to zero and Macron certainly has no influence over Donald Trump.'France has a long relationship with Iran's Islamist regime and gave asylum to Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and founder of the current Islamist regime, when he lived in exile.He later coordinated the uprising from the outskirts of Paris and returned to Tehran aboard a specially arranged Air France flight after the collapse of the pro-Western government.
Despite these ties, France and other European countries like the UK have next to no influence in the region, according to Mr Moniquet. He also attacked the French president for holding talks with Russian president Vladmir Putin about Iran recently despite repeatedly condemning him for invading Ukraine in 2022."For years, France's voice, which was once important in the region, no longer carries weight in the Middle East,' he said.
"France, like other European countries, is excluded from the game that is now being played between Israel, the United States, Iran and the Arab countries of the Gulf.'Paris is desperately trying to get back into the game and is therefore playing the diplomatic card to the hilt. Even to the point of talking to Russia to find a balanced solution, given that Moscow is allied to Tehran.'This month Emmanuel Macron telephoned Vladimir Putin for the first time since 2022 to discuss Ukraine (on which the two men have totally antagonistic positions) and Iran (on which Macron wants a "joint" approach).'It's totally surreal, but it shows just how far France's foreign policy has fallen. Effectively, on Iran, Macron, by phoning Putin, has sided with the Beijing-Moscow-Pyongyang axis, playing into Tehran's hands. If the mullahs drank Champagne, they would have opened a bottle.'
France has a long relationship with Iran's Islamist regime and gave asylum to Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and founder of the current Islamist regime, when he lived in exile.He later coordinated the uprising from the outskirts of Paris and returned to Tehran aboard a specially arranged Air France flight after the collapse of the pro-Western government.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Immigration officials can't detain people based on race, speaking Spanish in Los Angeles, judge rules
A federal judge on Friday ruled that immigration officers in southern California can't rely solely on someone's race or speaking Spanish to stop and detain people. Magistrate Judge Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order after a lawsuit was filed by three men who were arrested as they waited to be picked at a Pasadena bus stop for a job on June 18. Frimpong's order bars the detention of people unless the officer or agent "has reasonable suspicion that the person to be stopped is within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law." It says they may not base that suspicion solely on apparent race or ethnicity; speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; presence at a particular location like a bus stop or day laborer pick-up site; or the type of work one does. The lawsuit, against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the head of Immigration and Customs and Enforcement, was filed as the federal government under President Donald Trump has aggressively made immigration arrests in Los Angeles and other parts of Southern California. The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California called the restraining order a victory for rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. 'No matter the color of their skin, what language they speak, or where they work, everyone is guaranteed constitutional rights to protect them from unlawful stops," Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, said in a statement. "While it does not take a federal judge to recognize that marauding bands of masked, rifle-toting goons have been violating ordinary people's rights throughout Southern California, we are hopeful that today's ruling will be a step toward accountability for the federal government's flagrant lawlessness that we have all been witnessing," Tajsar said. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats, have objected to the federal immigration actions in Southern California. Bass has said they are they are motivated by a political agenda 'of provoking fear and terror.' The Trump administration has defended the crackdown on people in the country without authorization. President Donald Trump ran on a campaign that promised deportations.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
US Justice fires nine more employees from Jack Smith's team, sources say
WASHINGTON, July 11 (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi on Friday fired at least nine more Justice Department employees who worked for Special Counsel Jack Smith to investigate President Donald Trump's retention of classified records and efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to five people familiar with the matter. At least two of the people fired were prosecutors who most recently worked in other U.S. Attorney's offices in Florida and North Carolina, three of the sources told Reuters. The other seven people served as support staff to Smith's team, two other sources said. The Justice Department since January has been purging employees who worked on matters involving President Donald Trump or his supporters. Fourteen attorneys who worked on Smith's team were fired on January 27 because of work on cases against Trump, becoming some of the department's earliest casualties in the purge. Including the people fired on Friday, at least 26 people who worked on Smith's team have been terminated since Trump took office on January 20. The Justice Department in recent months has also fired people who handled casework involving defendants who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, in an attempt to block Congress from certifying President Joe Biden's 2020 election win. In late June, two prosecutors and a supervisor, one of whom had worked on cases involving the Proud Boys, were fired. Earlier this month, Bondi also fired a career veteran of the department who served as a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington. In late January, the Justice Department also fired probationary prosecutors who had worked on January 6 cases.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
US government sues California over egg prices
NEW YORK, July 9 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration on Wednesday sued California over its regulation of eggs and chicken farms, saying that the state's anti-animal cruelty laws created "unnecessary red tape" that had raised egg prices throughout the U.S. The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles federal court, argues that the federal Egg Products Inspection Act of 1970 pre-empts state laws related to eggs. The federal law authorizes the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services to regulate eggs in order to protect consumers' health and welfare, and it also requires "national uniformity" in egg safety standards, according to the Trump administration's lawsuit. The California attorney general's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Since the federal law's enactment, California has passed several laws to regulate eggs and chicken farms, including voter initiatives passed in 2008 and 2018 that prevent farmers from packing chickens together so tightly that a hen is unable to "lie down, stand up, fully extend its limbs, and turn around freely." Those state laws aimed to reduce both animal cruelty and the risk of foodborne illness, but the U.S. government said in its lawsuit that only the federal government can regulate egg safety. California can regulate chicken farms within the state, but it cannot impose additional requirements on eggs from other states that are sold within California, according to the lawsuit. The California voter initiatives have survived previous challenges from farmers and other states. Six states – Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky and Iowa – sued California over its egg regulations in 2014. The states who sued also argued that the federal law preempted California's laws, and they lost in both a federal district court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 preserved one of the California voter initiatives, which was challenged in a lawsuit by pig farmers. The pig farmers had argued that California's 2018 ballot measure, which creates minimum space requirements for pigs and cows as well as chickens, impermissibly regulated out-of-state farmers.
