US and NATO allies warn of increasing Iranian threats in Europe, North America
'We are united in our opposition to the attempts of Iranian intelligence services to kill, kidnap, and harass people in Europe and North America in clear violation of our sovereignty,' the joint statement released on Thursday said.
'These services are increasingly collaborating with international criminal organizations to target journalists, dissidents, Jewish citizens, and current and former officials in Europe and North America,' it said. 'This is unacceptable.'
The joint statement was signed by NATO members Albania, Belgium, Britain, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United States. The only non-NATO member to sign was Austria, headquarters of the U.N. nuclear watchdog.
The statement said that any such attacks would be considered 'violations of our sovereignty' and the governments committed to working together to foil any plots while calling on Iran 'to immediately put an end to such illegal activities in our respective territories.'
The statement did not identify any particular attack, although the U.S. and others have warned for many years of Iranian-sponsored plots on European and U.S. soil.
British intelligence officials have repeatedly warned of the growing scale of Tehran-backed plots in Britain. Three alleged Iranian spies currently face charges that they conducted surveillance on and plotted violence against U.K.-based journalists for an Iranian news outlet.
Earlier this month Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee said 'Iran poses a wide-ranging, persistent and unpredictable threat to the U.K.'
In early July, German prosecutors announced that a man suspected of gathering information on 'Jewish locations and people in Berlin for Iranian intelligence, possibly with a view to attacks, had been arrested in Denmark. They didn't elaborate.
Despite the ongoing threat, the Trump administration earlier this year rescinded government-funded protection for several former officials from President Donald Trump's first term.
That protection had been provided and repeatedly extended during the Biden administration due to threats from Iran against former national security adviser John Bolton, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former Iran envoy Brian Hook and a number of military officers.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
34 minutes ago
- CNBC
India to maintain Russian oil imports despite Trump threats, government sources say
India will keep purchasing oil from Russia despite U.S. President Donald Trump's threats of penalties, two Indian government sources told Reuters on Saturday, not wishing to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. On top of a new 25% tariff on India's exports to the U.S., Trump indicated in a Truth Social post last month that India would face additional penalties for purchases of Russian arms and oil. On Friday, Trump told reporters he had heard that India would no longer be buying oil from Russia. But the sources said there would be no immediate changes. "These are long-term oil contracts," one of the sources said. "It is not so simple to just stop buying overnight." Justifying India's oil purchases from Russia, a second source said India's imports of Russian grades had helped avoid a global surge in oil prices, which have remained subdued despite Western curbs on the Russian oil sector. Unlike Iranian and Venezuelan oil, Russian crude is not subject to direct sanctions, and India is buying it below the current price cap fixed by the European Union, the source said. The New York Times also quoted two unnamed senior Indian officials on Saturday as saying there had been no change in Indian government policy. Indian government authorities did not respond to Reuters' request for official comment on its oil purchasing intentions. However, during a regular press briefing on Friday, foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India has a "steady and time-tested partnership" with Russia. "On our energy sourcing requirements ... we look at what is there available in the markets, what is there on offer, and also what is the prevailing global situation or circumstances," he said. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trump, who has made ending Russia's war in Ukraine a priority of his administration since returning to office this year, has expressed growing impatience with Russian President Vladimir Putin in recent weeks. He has threatened 100% tariffs on U.S. imports from countries that buy Russian oil unless Moscow reaches a major peace deal with Ukraine. Russia is the leading supplier to India, the world's third-largest oil importer and consumer, accounting for about 35% of its overall supplies. India imported about 1.75 million barrels per day of Russian oil from January to June this year, up 1% from a year ago, according to data provided to Reuters by sources. But while the Indian government may not be deterred by Trump's threats, sources told Reuters this week that Indian state refiners stopped buying Russian oil after July discounts narrowed to their lowest since 2022 - when sanctions were first imposed on Moscow - due to lower Russian exports and steady demand. Indian Oil Corp, Hindustan Petroleum Corp, Bharat Petroleum Corp and Mangalore Refinery Petrochemical Ltd have not sought Russian crude in the past week or so, four sources told Reuters. Nayara Energy - a refinery majority-owned by Russian entities, including oil major Rosneft, and major buyer of Russian oil - was recently sanctioned by the EU. Nayara's chief executive resigned following the sanctions, and three vessels laden with oil products from Nayara Energy have yet to discharge their cargoes, hindered by the new EU sanctions, Reuters reported last week.
an hour ago
Senate confirms former Fox News host Pirro as top federal prosecutor for the nation's capital
WASHINGTON -- The Senate has confirmed former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro as the top federal prosecutor for the nation's capital, filling the post after President Donald Trump withdrew his controversial first pick, conservative activist Ed Martin Jr. Pirro, a former county prosecutor and elected judge, was confirmed 50-45. Before becoming the acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia in May, she co-hosted the Fox News show 'The Five' on weekday evenings, where she frequently interviewed Trump. Trump yanked Martin's nomination after a key Republican senator said he could not support him due to Martin's outspoken support for rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Martin now serves as the Justice Department's pardon attorney. In 2021, voting technology company Smartmatic USA sued Fox News, Pirro and others for spreading false claims that the company helped 'steal' the 2020 presidential election from Trump. The company's libel suit, filed in a New York state court, sought $2.7 billion from the defendants. Last month, Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to send Pirro's nomination to the Senate floor after Democrats walked out to protest Emil Bove's nomination to become a federal appeals court judge. Pirro, a 1975 graduate of Albany Law School, has significantly more courtroom experience than Martin, who had never served as a prosecutor or tried a case before taking office in January. She was elected as a judge in New York's Westchester County Court in 1990 before serving three terms as the county's elected district attorney. In the final minutes of his first term as president, Trump issued a pardon to Pirro's ex-husband, Albert Pirro, who was convicted in 2000 on conspiracy and tax evasion charges.
Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
Europe's Future Depends on Confrontation, Not Compromise
So far, Europe has not been able to mount an effective response to the threat from Russia, because to do so requires an entirely new, and bold, paradigm for European governance. Instead, we have seen European countries floundering, taking scattershot actions in the direction of their goal, with no real appetite for confrontation. The history of sanctions imposed on the Putin regime over the course of the war in Ukraine is a perfect illustration. Eighteen tranches of sanctions have been signed into law, and yet Putin is still able to wage his war, maintain the offensive on the battlefield, and engage in business with his international cronies. There is still plenty of room to inflict economic damage on the regime, even after all these rounds, because none of the sanctions were designed to deal a decisive financial blow. They are exemplars of the incremental approach to policy-making that the EU embodies, one that aims to nudge the adversary to the negotiating table gently. Of course, this kind of approach does not work on a dictator; indeed, it only feeds their aggression. Another example is the 1 million 155-millimeter artillery shells that were supposed to be sent to Ukraine. Half a year later, Europe had to admit that a union of 27 countries was unable to produce or procure that amount. To add insult to injury, Russia announced that North Korea had provided 1 million shells from its own stockpiles. One of the poorest nations in the world had, apparently, out-performed the most prosperous continent in supplying ammunition to its wartime ally. In the absence of European leaders willing to accept authorship for its new path forward, the continent's future might very well be written in Moscow. If Putin were to attack a NATO country that is also a member of the European Union, that would shake the foundations of European unity like nothing before. And so it is worth asking whether a Europe that is unable to defend its own people can have any meaningful future. A meeting held after the bombing of a European capital to discuss a compromise resolution would serve only as the tombstone for the European project itself. Even if the worst-case scenarios do not materialize, the Union's current ineffectiveness has already become crippling. Could today's Europe have the vision and ability to create something like the Schengen Area or the monetary union? Can it meaningfully enlarge if deadlock eventually reduces it to the status of a mere spectator in the war against Ukraine, the hybrid war against Moldova, or the non-military takeover of Georgia? The inescapable conclusion is that the EU is risking irrelevance and evaporation unless fundamental changes are made to the Treaty itself. This is obviously a monumental task, but after witnessing so many bottlenecks and breakdowns in the current system we at least have a clear picture of what the necessary changes would need to look like. And the basic proposal isn't even new. In 2017, German and French leaders floated the idea of a 'multi-speed Europe,' proposing the most fundamental overhaul of the framework of the EU to date. Had it not been for the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia's war on Ukraine that followed, this proposal could have evolved into a more vocal debate on the regionalization of the Union. This idea still has the potential to make a comeback, particularly in the Nordic-Baltic region, where countries are actively seeking stronger security and defense integration, and where the Russian threat is clearly understood. Meanwhile, parts of Western Europe are already diverging in interests from those in the North. And in the illiberal bloc, Hungary and Slovakia are eagerly awaiting elections in Czechia, hoping a new government will join their anti-European, pro-Russian ranks.
