France says Iran sanctions decision depends on detainees' release
"Freeing Cecile Kohler and Jacques Paris is an absolute priority for us," Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said.
"We have always told our interlocutors from the Iranian regime that any decisions on sanctions will be conditional on resolving this issue."
Iran officially suspended its cooperation with the United Nations nuclear watchdog on Wednesday.
The move came after a 12-day conflict last month between Iran and Israel, which saw unprecedented Israeli and US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and sharply escalated tensions between Tehran and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The United States and other Western countries, along with Israel, accuse Iran of seeking a nuclear weapon.
Tehran denies that, but has gradually broken away from its commitments under a 2015 nuclear deal it struck with world powers, after the United States pulled out of it in 2018.
Israel has maintained ambiguity about its own atomic arsenal, neither officially confirming nor denying it exists, but the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates its arsenal amounts to 90 nuclear warheads.
The landmark 2015 Iran nuclear deal provided Tehran with sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on its atomic programme to be monitored by the UN nuclear watchdog.
The deal included the possibility of UN sanctions being reimposed through a mechanism called "snapback" if Iran failed to fulfil its commitments, an option that expires in October.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar has urged European signatories of the 2015 deal to trigger the "snapback" mechanism and reinstate all UN sanctions on Iran.
Kohler, 40, and Paris, her 72-year-old partner, have been held in Iran since May 2022 on espionage charges their families reject.
But Iran has now charged the pair with spying for Israel's intelligence agency Mossad, diplomatic and family sources told AFP on Wednesday.
They were also accused of "corruption of Earth" and "plotting to overthrow the regime", the sources said. All three charges carry the death penalty.
Tehran has not confirmed the new charges.
A French diplomatic source described the allegations as "completely unfounded".
Iran is believed to hold around 20 European nationals, many of whose cases have never been publicised, in what some Western governments including France describe as a strategy of hostage-taking aimed at extracting concessions from the West.
Three other Europeans, who have not been identified, have also been arrested in the wake of the current conflict, two of whom are accused of spying for Israel, according to the authorities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
34 minutes ago
- Hans India
We'll cross the bridge when we get there
Washington: India is engaging with American lawmakers over concerns surrounding a new Russia sanctions bill introduced in the US Congress, Foreign Minister S Jaishankar said on Wednesday. The bill, backed by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, seeks to impose 500 per cent tariffs on countries-- including India and China-- that continue to trade with Moscow even after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago. When asked about potential implications of the bill, Jaishankar said, India will "cross that bridge when we come to it." "Regarding Senator Lindsey Graham's bill, any development which is happening in the US Congress is of interest to us if it impacts our interest or could impact our interest," the minister said in a press conference in Washington. "Our concerns and our interests on energy, security have been made conversant to him (Lindsey Graham). So, we'll then have to cross that bridge when we come to it. If we come to it," he added. Graham, who is sponsoring a tough new sanctions bill on Russia, said the legislation aims to pressure countries like India and China into buying Russian oil and other goods to weaken Moscow's war economy and push Russian President Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table on Ukraine and give Trump "a tool" to bring that about. Amid Western sanctions, countries like India and China have continued buying discounted Russian oil, making them targets of the proposed legislation. India, the world's third-largest oil-importing and consuming nation, traditionally sourced its oil from the Middle East. However, it began importing a large volume of oil from Russia soon after the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. This was primarily because Russian oil was available at a significant discount to other international benchmarks due to Western sanctions and some European countries shunning purchases.
Indian Express
43 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Nuclear Iran is best bet for peace
The proliferation of nuclear arms is a net loss for global peace and security. It raises the risks of accidental war, empowers authoritarian regimes and undermines decades of nonproliferation efforts. From both a moral and strategic standpoint, it is better for Iran not to get the bomb. But what if it does? This is not a prediction nor a policy endorsement. It is a hypothesis grounded in the counterintuitive logic of deterrence theory and shaped by the failures of decades-long Western policy that have prioritised sanctions, limited engagement, covert sabotage and containment over comprehensive security guarantees to the Islamic Republic. In entertaining this possibility, I want to raise the uncomfortable but necessary question: Might Iran's acquisition of a nuclear deterrent actually lead to more stability in the Middle East? At the heart of this question lies a paradox as old as the nuclear age. Scholars and strategists alike — from Kenneth Waltz to Bernard Brodie — have pointed out that the sheer destructiveness of nuclear weapons creates powerful incentives for restraint. States that possess nuclear weapons are often more cautious, not less. Deterrence, for all its risks, has worked. The Cold War did not turn hot, despite multiple crises. India and Pakistan, bitter adversaries with a history of war, have avoided full-scale conflict since both became nuclear powers. And North Korea, for all its volatility, has managed to deter external intervention while pursuing strategic bargains with the outside world. Iran today is boxed in strategically — militarily inferior to Israel, diplomatically isolated from the West, and economically devastated by a combination of chronic internal mismanagement and severe international sanctions. Its regional ambitions are checked not only by rival Sunni states like Saudi Arabia (as in Yemen) but also by an emboldened Israel (since October 7, 2023) that now conducts military strikes and assassination campaigns on Iranian targets with near impunity. The result is a hyper-militarised deterrence environment, but one that is asymmetrical and unstable. Israel enjoys nuclear superiority; Iran relies on proxies and grey-zone tactics to exert influence and respond to threats. This imbalance has produced endless escalation cycles — from Syria to Gaza to the Persian Gulf — where miscalculations could spiral into full-blown war. The recent 12-day war between Iran and Israel is the perfect case in point. A nuclear Iran would alter this dynamic. First, it would constrain Israel's freedom of military action. The assumption that Israeli or US strikes will go unpunished — or that Iran will absorb blows without escalating — would no longer hold. A credible Iranian deterrent would inject caution into Israeli planning, especially in moments of political recklessness or brinkmanship. It would make the cost of war explicit. And history suggests that when adversaries both possess nuclear weapons, they become more risk-averse, not less. Second, a nuclear weapon could moderate Iran's behaviour. This may sound counterintuitive, but again, history offers precedent. Once a state has secured a nuclear deterrent, its need to rely on destabilising asymmetric tactics — proxies, insurgencies, covert operations — tends to decrease. Nuclear security allows for strategic maturity. India after 1998, China after 1964, and even the Soviet Union in the late Cold War period — all became more status quo-oriented and less revisionist after going nuclear. Possession of the bomb doesn't make a state benevolent, but it does force it to act like a state: Accountable, strategic, and aware of its own vulnerability. Would Iran follow this pattern? It's impossible to say. The regime is ideologically driven and repressive. But it is also calculating. Its leaders have repeatedly shown a capacity for pragmatism when the survival of the regime is at stake, as evidenced by the ceasefire that ended the Iran-Iraq War in 1988, the nuclear deal in 2015, and the most recent ceasefire with Israel. A nuclear deterrent might compel the Islamic Republic to moderate from within, as ideological paranoia gives way to pragmatic coexistence. The Middle East is already a nuclearised environment. Israel has the bomb. The US has military assets in the region capable of delivering nuclear strikes. Iran operates under constant existential threat. The question is not whether a nuclear Middle East is ideal — it is not — but whether it would be more stable if Iran, too, had the kind of deterrent that forces enemies to think twice before acting. This hypothesis is not an argument for acquiescence. The goal should still be diplomatic engagement, arms control, and regional dialogue. But if those efforts fail — and they are failing — then we should at least ask: Would a nuclear Iran be less dangerous than a cornered, insecure, and conventionally belligerent one? A nuclear Iran may well freeze the battlefield rather than ignite it, and that may be the best peace the region can hope for. The writer is associate professor of International Studies at the Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies, Indiana University, and the author of several books on Iran's political development and US-Iran relations
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
MAGA backers hail Trump for Ukraine arms pause after rebuke of Iran strikes
President Donald Trump is getting praise from his most ardent supporters for withholding some weapons from Ukraine after they recently questioned the Republican leader's commitment to keeping the US out of foreign conflicts. This week's announcement pausing deliveries of key air defence missiles, precision-guided artillery and other equipment to Ukraine comes just a few weeks after Trump ordered the US military to carry out strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Bombing those sites in Iran had some hardcore supporters of the "Make America Great Again" movement openly questioning whether Trump was betraying his vow to keep America out of stupid wars" as he inserted the US military into Israel's conflict with Tehran. With the Ukraine pause, which affects a crucial resupply of Patriot missiles, Trump is sending the message to his most enthusiastic backers that he is committed to following through on his campaign pledge to wind down American support for Ukraine's efforts to repel Russia, a conflict he has repeatedly described as a costly boondoggle for US taxpayers. The choice was this: either prioritize equipping our own troops with a munition in short supply (and which was used to defend US troops last week) or provide them to a country where there are limited US interests, Dan Caldwell, who was ousted as a senior adviser to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, posted on X. Caldwell publicly worried before the Iran strikes that US involvement could incite a major war and ultimately cost American lives. Far-right influencer Jack Posobiec, another ardent MAGA backer, warned as Trump weighed whether to carry out strikes on Iran last month that such a move would disastrously split the Trump coalition." He was quick to cheer the news about pausing some weapons deliveries to Ukraine: America FIRST," Posobiec posted on X. Trump weighed in on the pause for the first time Thursday, justifying the move as necessary. He said former President Joe Biden emptied out our whole country giving them weapons, and we have to make sure that we have enough for ourselves. We've given so many weapons, Trump told reporters before boarding Air Force One for a flight to Iowa. He added that we are working with them and trying to help them. Meanwhile, White House and the Pentagon officials said the move is consistent with Trump's campaign pledge to limit US involvement in foreign wars. The president was elected on an America first platform to put America first, Pentagon chief spokesman Sean Parnell said. At the same time, the decision is stirring anxiety among those in the more hawkish wing of the Republican Party. Many are flummoxed by Trump's halting the flow of US arms just as Russia accelerates its unrelenting assault on Ukraine. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican who hails from a district that former Vice President Kamala Harris won in 2024, wrote to Trump and the Pentagon on Wednesday expressing serious concern about the decision and requesting an emergency briefing. We can't let (Russian President Vladimir) Putin prevail now. President Trump knows that too and it's why he's been advocating for peace, Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, wrote on X. Now is the time to show Putin we mean business. And that starts with ensuring Ukraine has the weapons Congress authorized to pressure Putin to the negotiating table. Trump spoke by phone with Putin on Thursday, the sixth call between the leaders since Trump's return to office. The leaders discussed Iran, Ukraine and other issues but did not specifically address the suspension of some US weapons shipments to Ukraine, according to Yuri Ushakov, Putin's foreign affairs adviser. Zelenskyy said in Denmark after meeting with major European Union backers that he hopes to talk to Trump in the coming days about the suspension. The administration says it is part of global review of the US stockpile and is a necessary audit after sending nearly USD 70 billion in arms to Ukraine since Putin launched the war on Ukraine in February 2022. The pause was coordinated by Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby. Colby, before taking his position, spoke publicly about the need to focus US strategy more on China, widely seen as the United States' biggest economic and military competitor. At his Senate confirmation hearing in March, he said the US doesn't have a multi-war military. This is the restrainers like Colby flexing their muscle and saying, Hey, the Pacific is more important,' said retired Navy Adm. Mark Montgomery, an analyst at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Backers of a more restrained US foreign policy say the move is necessary, given an unsettled Middle East, rising challenges in Asia and the stress placed on the US defence industrial complex after more than three years of war in Ukraine. You're really coming up to the point where continuing to provide aid to Ukraine is putting at risk the US ability to operate in future crises, said Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities. And you don't know when those crises are going to happen." "So you have to be a little bit cautious, she added. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
