DOHA, Qatar — Inside the U.S., President Donald Trump is dogged by rising consumer prices, the Epstein files debacle, and Republicans’ newfound willingness to defy him. But go 100 miles, 1,000 miles, or, as I recently did, 7,000 miles past U.S. borders, and Trump’s domestic challenges — and the sinking poll numbers that accompany them — matter little. The U.S. president remains a behemoth in the eyes of the rest of the world. A person who could wreck another country. Or perhaps the only one who can fix another country’s problems. That’s the sense I got this weekend from talking to foreign officials and global elites at this year’s Doha Forum, a major international gathering focused on diplomacy and geopolitics. Over sweets, caffeine and the buzz of nearby conversations, some members of the jet set wondered if Trump’s domestic struggles will lead him to take more risks abroad — and some hope he does. This comes as Trump faces criticism from key MAGA players who say he’s already too focused on foreign policy. “He doesn’t need Capitol Hill to get work done from a foreign policy standpoint,” an Arab official said of Trump, who, let’s face it, has made it abundantly clear he cares little about Congress. Vuk Jeremic, a former Serbian foreign minister, told me that whether people like Trump or not, “I don’t think that there is any doubt that he is a very, very consequential global actor.” He wasn’t the only one who used the term “consequential.” The word doesn’t carry a moral judgment. A person can be consequential whether they save the world or destroy it. What the word does indicate in this context is the power of the U.S. presidency. The weakest U.S. president is still stronger than the strongest leader of most other countries. America’s wealth, weapons and global reach ensure that. U.S. presidents have long had more latitude and ability to take direct action on foreign policy than domestic policy. They also often turn to the global stage when their national influence fades in their final years in office, when they don’t have to worry about reelection. There’s a reason Barack Obama waited until his final two years in office to restore diplomatic ties with Cuba. In the first year of his second term, Trump has stunned the world repeatedly, on everything from gutting U.S. foreign aid to bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. He remains as capricious as ever, shifting sides on everything from Russia’s war on Ukraine to whether he wants to expel Palestinians from Gaza. He seeks a Nobel Peace Prize but is threatening a potential war with Venezuela. Trump managed to jolt the gathering at the glitzy Sheraton resort in Doha by unveiling his National Security Strategy — which astonished foreign onlookers on many levels — in the run-up to the event. The part that left jaws on the floor was its attack on America’s allies in Europe, which it claimed faces “civilizational erasure.” The strategy’s release led one panel moderator to ask the European Union’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, whether Trump sees Europe as “the enemy.” Yet, some foreign officials praised Trump’s disruptive moves and said they hope he will keep shaking up a calcified international order that has left many countries behind. Several African leaders in particular said they wanted Trump to get more involved in ending conflicts on their continent, especially Sudan. They don’t care about the many nasty things Trump has said about Africa, waving that off as irrelevant political rhetoric. Trump claims to have already ended seven or eight wars. It’s a wild assertion, not least because some of the conflicts he’s referring to weren’t wars and some of the truces he’s brokered are shaky. When I pointed this out, foreign officials told me to lower my bar. Peace is a process, they stressed. If Trump can get that process going or rolling faster, it’s a win. Maybe there are still clashes between Rwanda and Congo. But at least Trump is forcing the two sides to talk and agree to framework deals, they suggested. “You should be proud of your president,” one African official said. (I granted him and several others anonymity to candidly discuss sensitive diplomatic issues involving the U.S.) Likewise, there’s an appreciation in many diplomatic corners about the economic lens Trump imposes on the world. Wealthy Arab states, such as Qatar, already are benefiting from such commercial diplomacy. Others want in, too. “He’s been very clear that his Africa policy should focus on doing business with Africa, and to me, that’s very progressive,” said Mthuli Ncube, Zimbabwe’s finance minister. He added that one question in the global diplomatic community is whether the next U.S. president — Democrat or Republican — will adopt Trump’s “creativity.” The diplomats and others gathered in Doha were well-aware that Trump appreciates praise but also sometimes respects those who stand up to him. So one has to tread carefully. Kallas, for instance, downplayed the Trump team’s broadsides against Europe in the National Security Strategy. Intentionally or not, her choice reflected the power differential between the U.S. and the EU. “The U.S. is still our biggest ally,” Kallas insisted. Privately, another European official I spoke to was fuming. The strategy’s accusations were “very disturbing,” they said. The official agreed, nonetheless, that Trump is too powerful for European countries to do much beyond stage some symbolic diplomatic protests. Few Trump administration officials attended the Doha Forum. The top names were Matt Whitaker, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, and Tom Barrack, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey. Donald Trump Jr. — not a U.S. official, but certainly influential — also made an appearance. Several foreign diplomats expressed optimism that Trump’s quest for a Nobel Peace Prize will guide him to take actions on the global stage that will ultimately bring more stability in the world — even if it is a rocky ride. A British diplomat said they were struck by Trump’s musings about gaining entry to heaven. Maybe a nervousness about the afterlife could induce Trump to, say, avoid a conflagration with Venezuela? “He’s thinking about his legacy,” the diplomat said. Even Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of State whom Trump defeated in the 2016 presidential race, was measured in her critiques. Clinton said “there’s something to be said for the dramatic and bold action” Trump takes. But she warned that the Trump team doesn’t do enough to ensure his efforts, including peace deals, have lasting effect. “There has to be so much follow-up,” she said during one forum event. “And there is an aversion within the administration to the kind of work that is done by Foreign Service officers, diplomats, others who are on the front lines trying to fulfill these national security objectives.” Up until the final minute of his presidency, Trump will have extraordinary power that reaches far past America’s shores. That’s likely to be the case even if the entire Republican Party has turned on him. At the moment, he has more than three years to go. Perhaps he will end immigration to the U.S., abandon Ukraine to Russia’s aggression or strike a nuclear deal with Iran. After all, Trump is, as Zimbabwe’s Ncube put it, not lacking in “creativity.”

BRUSSELS ― Belgian police raided the EU’s foreign service and the College of Europe on Tuesday in a bombshell corruption probe — and detained two of the EU’s most powerful officials. Federica Mogherini, who once served as the EU’s top diplomat, and Stefano Sannino, a director-general in the European Commission, were questioned over allegations of fraud in the establishment of a training academy for diplomats. Mogherini was born in Rome, the daughter of a film set designer. She was elected to the Italian parliament in 2008 as an MP with the center-left Democratic Party and became Italy’s foreign minister in 2014, an appointment that, at the time, took many by surprise. The 52-year-old’s tenure was short-lived, as she was made the EU’s high representative — the foreign policy chief — the same year, a position she held until 2019. Her time in the job is perhaps most notable for her work on the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. At the end of her five-year term, she became the rector of the Bruges-based College of Europe, a position she’s been in ever since. But her appointment was mired in claims of cronyism, as professors and EU officials argued that she was not qualified for the post, did not meet the criteria and applied after the deadline. She has also served as the director of the EU Diplomatic Academy, a program for junior diplomats across EU countries that is run by the College of Europe, since August 2022. It’s the academy that is at the center of the probe. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) said it has “strong suspicions” that rules around “fair competition” were breached when the EEAS awarded the tender to set up the academy. Sannino, a career diplomat from Naples with a packed CV including various roles in Rome and Brussels, has served as director-general of DG Enlargement, permanent representative of Italy to the EU, Italian ambassador to Spain and Andorra and secretary-general of the European External Action Service (EEAS). He has championed LGBTQ+ rights and is married to Catalan political adviser Santiago Mondragón. He started his current role as director-general of DG MENA, the EU’s department for the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf, in February. He has lectured at the College of Europe and at the diplomatic academy. None of the people questioned has been charged. An investigative judge has 48 hours to decide on further action.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday ordered top officials to come up with proposals for the potential resumption of nuclear testing for the first time since the end of the Cold War more than three decades ago. Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump instructed the Pentagon to “immediately” start testing nuclear weapons “on an equal basis” with nuclear testing programs in other nations. Putin, speaking at Russia’s Security Council, told the country’s foreign and defense ministers, its special services and the relevant civilian agencies to study the matter and “submit coordinated proposals on the possible commencement of work to prepare for nuclear weapons testing.” Defense Minister Andrei Belousov told Putin at the meeting that it would be “appropriate to immediately begin preparations for full-scale nuclear tests.” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov later clarified that “the president did not give the order to begin preparations for the test” but merely ordered a feasibility study. Russia announced last week that it had successfully tested a nuclear-powered torpedo, dubbed Poseidon, that was capable of damaging entire coastal regions as well as a new cruise missile named the Burevestnik, prompting Trump to respond. The U.S. today launched an intercontinental ballistic missile, Minuteman III, in a routine test. The Cold War was characterized by an intense nuclear arms race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union as the superpowers competed for superiority by stockpiling and developing nuclear weapons. It ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the signing of nuclear treaties such as START, which aimed to reduce and control nuclear arsenals. The Soviet Union conducted its last test in 1990 and the U.S. in 1992. Defense Minister Andrei Belousov told Putin at the meeting that it would be “appropriate to immediately begin preparations for full-scale nuclear tests.” | Contributor/Getty Images A report this year by the SIPRI think tank warned that the global stockpile of nuclear weapons is increasing, with all nine nuclear-armed states — the U.S., U.K., Russia, France, China, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea — upgrading existing weapons and adding new versions to their stockpiles.

NEW YORK  — Last-ditch talks between Europeans and Iranians on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly failed to deliver a breakthrough days before a deadline to avert imposing sanctions on Iran. The foreign ministers of France, the United Kingdom and Germany, as well as the EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas met Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Tuesday to discuss ongoing concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. London, Paris and Berlin had declared on Aug. 28 that Iran wasn’t complying with the terms of its 2015 nuclear deal, opening up a 30-day window for the country to adjust its course. “The chances of reaching a diplomatic solution before the sanctions go into effect are slim,” German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul told reporters on Tuesday. “Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon.” But there was no sign of a compromise after the talks, according to a French diplomat. “Iran has not fulfilled the conditions but the talks will continue to explore all possibilities until the end,” said the French official, who, like others quoted here, was granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue. The same diplomat said the ball was now “in Iran’s court” ahead of a Saturday deadline when “snapback” sanctions will be imposed on the country. According the German foreign ministry, the Europeans urged Iran to “take practical steps within the next days, if not hours” to address concerns about its nuclear program. The foreign ministers of France, the United Kingdom and Germany, as well as the EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas met Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. | Sayed Hassan/Getty Images The U.K., France and Germany, known as the E3, had felt compelled to start the clock ticking due to a sunset clause that would have seen the snapback process expire. However, Iran said on Sept. 19 it would suspend cooperation with the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, citing the E3’s actions as its justification. Iran previously claimed to have reached a deal to allow inspectors back in, following its earlier decision to suspend cooperation after a surprise attack from Israel and the subsequent bombing of nuclear sites by the U.S. in June. The U.N. sanctions that were in place before the 2015 deal include a conventional arms embargo, restrictions on ballistic missile development, asset freezes, travel bans and a ban on the production of nuclear-related technology. According to a European diplomat, Iran may still be able to avert sanctions beyond the Saturday deadline if it agrees to a range of conditions set by the Europeans. French President Emmanuel Macron said Tuesday he would meet Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian the following day to discuss Iran’s nuclear program.

German citizens are being asked to leave Iran and refrain from travelling to the country due to concerns about potential retaliatory actions by Tehran regarding sanctions, the Federal Foreign Office said late Thursday. Germany along with France and the United Kingdom on Thursday triggered the process to reimpose sanctions on Iran at the United Nations Security Council. Those sanctions were lifted in 2015 under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in exchange for Iran agreeing to keep its nuclear program strictly peaceful. “Since Iranian government officials have repeatedly threatened consequences in the past, it cannot be ruled out that German interests and nationals will be affected by countermeasures in Iran,” the Foreign Office said in a statement on its website. The three countries, known as the E3, said they had tried to bring Tehran back to the negotiating table over its nuclear program, but that Iran keeps violating the commitments under the 2015 nuclear deal. Iran has been increasingly breaching the deal since the United States under Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018. Iran’s foreign ministry condemned the move by the E3 countries, calling it a “provocative and unnecessary escalation.” It promised “appropriate responses,” without going into detail. The U.N. sanctions in place before the 2015 deal include a conventional arms embargo, restrictions on ballistic missile development, asset freezes, travel bans and a ban on producing nuclear-related technology.

LONDON — France, Germany and the United Kingdom triggered the process to reimpose sanctions on Iran at the United Nations Security Council on Thursday, according to two senior diplomats. The group of countries — known as the E3 — argued that it has repeatedly tried to bring Tehran back to the negotiating table for talks on its nuclear program but that the Islamic republic continues to breach its obligations under a 2015 nuclear deal. It comes ahead of a deadline mid-October that would see the possibility of imposing United Nations sanctions on Iran expire. The three countries have now notified the presidency of the U.N. Security Council that they intend to activate the “snapback” mechanism in the 2015 agreement over Iran’s nuclear program, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA.) A U.K. official, granted anonymity to speak about sensitive matters, said it was “not a decision that’s been taken at all lightly” and had followed “very intense diplomacy” over the last 12 months. A senior French diplomat said: “Our aim has always been to give a chance to diplomacy… But in the absence of any gesture from [the Iranians], we would have to re-establish sanctions.”  Britain, France and Germany have decided to move due to what they argue is Iran’s non-cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency; current levels of recorded enrichment in Iran; and a lack of engagement from Tehran in trying to reach a diplomatic outcome. The same British official specified that Iran was in “significant” non-compliance with the terms of the JCPOA, with an enriched uranium stockpile of more than 9000 kg, 45 times the prescribed limit.   The three countries will now enter a 30-day process during which they will seek engagement with Iran on the Security Council while the possibility of an extension remains.   However, if the Security Council does not adopt a resolution to continue the lifting of the resolutions on Iran, six previously agreed resolutions will come back into effect. The U.N. sanctions in place before the 2015 deal include a conventional arms embargo, restrictions on ballistic missile development, asset freezes, travel bans and a ban on producing nuclear-related technology. The French official said the IAEA “says it is no longer able to guarantee the peaceful character of the Iranian programme,” and “it is not impossible that there are clandestine [nuclear] sites.” The same diplomat expressed hope that Iran would make concessions and restart negotiations in the 30-day timeframe that now opens at the United Nations. However, Iran has threatened to withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) if snapback sanctions are imposed.  Nette Nöstlinger contributed to this report.

PARIS — Iran has less than three weeks to resume talks on its nuclear program or face the reimposition of sanctions, France, Germany and the U.K. said in a joint letter sent to the United Nations. The so-called E3 countries said they would trigger the “snapback mechanism should no satisfactory solution be reached by the end of August 2025,” in a letter sent last week and shared by French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot on Wednesday. Snapback mechanisms were included in the 2015 Iran nuclear deal — which the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from three years later under Donald Trump’s first presidency. They allow for crippling sanctions against Tehran — which were lifted as part of the agreement — to be automatically reinstated if Iran violates key nuclear commitments. Last month, E3 members warned they could reintroduce sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program, which Tehran is seeking to rebuild following American and Israeli airstrikes in June. The European Commission has, meanwhile, proposed extending the sanction pause to give Iran time to “meet their legal obligations,” without laying out a specific time. “Since 2019, Iran has willfully and publicly departed from its [nuclear deal] commitments, as evidenced by more than 60 [International Atomic Energy Agency] reports over 6 years,” said the E3 letter, which was co-signed by U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy and German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul alongside Barrot. “If Iran continues to violate its international obligations, France and its German and British partners will reimpose global embargoes on arms, nuclear equipment, and banking restrictions at the end of August, which were lifted 10 years ago,” Barrot added in a post on X. Iran severed ties with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, after a 12-day war with Israel, which included U.S. airstrikes on its nuclear facilities. After the strikes, the IAEA’s head said Tehran would be able to resume nuclear enrichment in a matter of months despite the damage. The agency’s deputy director returned to Iran for the first time since the attacks to resume talks this week, Iranian news agency IRNA has reported. In their letter, E3 members call for “direct negotiations between Iran and the U.S.” to “resume urgently.”

Sahil V. Shah is a senior policy advisor at the European Leadership Network and the Institute for Security and Technology. Nathalie Tocci is director of the Istituto Affari Internazionali and professor of practice at Johns Hopkins University’s SAIS Europe. Europe’s leaders are meeting with their Iranian counterparts for nuclear talks in Istanbul today. But with recent Israeli and U.S. military strikes against the country jolting the Middle East into fresh uncertainty and undermining international law, the survival of one of the few diplomatic initiatives to ever successfully constrain a nuclear program without war is now under threat. As the architect and guardian of the landmark 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Europe faces a critical choice: Reassert its role as an honest broker of multilateral diplomacy aimed at nuclear non-proliferation, or follow Israel’s U.S.-backed military revisionism and sleepwalk into a confrontation that will only further fracture global security. The current moment carries great significance, as last week marked a decade since the 2015 deal — a breakthrough agreement that was built under European leadership and remains the most comprehensive non-proliferation accord ever negotiated. The JCPOA proved that when approached with persistence, unity and respect for international law, diplomacy can succeed. And if Western governments are serious about preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, this time around, they must offer more than coercion. They must offer a diplomatic solution that defuses short-term tensions and lays the groundwork for lasting stability. And though we’re in a period marked by the lowest levels of trust in relations between Iran and the West, this moment may paradoxically offer a unique yet narrow opening for such a deal. It is no secret that Israel’s attack, eventually backed by the U.S., occurred just as indirect discussions between the Washington and Tehran were reaching a new stage under Omani mediation. Unlike the JCPOA negotiations, no other nations — including European powers — were involved. Then, rather than give diplomacy a chance to deepen and expand, Israel took matters into its own hands right before negotiations were due to resume. Though this clearly undermined Washington’s diplomatic efforts, the U.S. administration ended up following Israel’s military lead. Even several responses from Europe’s leaders disappointingly signaled approval, invoking Israel’s right to self-defense, calling it useful “dirty work” in a bid to “end” Iran’s nuclear program. But Europe cannot look away from history. Israel’s decision follows a deeply troubling pattern of using ineffective military force to stall nuclear development regardless of international law or ongoing diplomacy. Israel’s 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor, for example, didn’t eliminate the country’s nuclear ambitions. It spurred Saddam Hussein to double down in secret, ultimately drawing the region and the West into decades of instability and war. The parallels with today are stark, with escalating sabotage, sanctions and strikes likely to usher in a permanent “cat-and-mouse” game around Tehran’s nuclear program that risks spiraling out of control. And alarmingly, the marked difference between now and then is that the U.N. Security Council’s (UNSC) unanimous condemnation of Israel in 1981 hasn’t been replicated in the wake of the recent bombings. It is no secret that Israel’s attack, eventually backed by the U.S., occurred just as indirect discussions between the Washington and Tehran were reaching a new stage under Omani mediation. | Abir Sultan/EPA Military strikes on Iran’s nuclear energy facilities under international safeguards, military sites and residential areas, including efforts to assassinate officials, are illegal under the U.N. Charter and international law. The charter prohibits the use of force, except in cases of self-defense in light of an attack or with UNSC authorization. These provisions were put in place for a reason — to ensure that diplomacy is the first resort, not preventive war. The EU has always championed this approach. And abandoning it now, swayed by Israel’s illusion of asserting itself as a regional hegemon, will only fuel further escalation and undermine the international norms that protect us all. The international legal order is unraveling in real time. And if not reversed, it risks normalizing a world where power overrides principle and weakens the West’s ability to credibly challenge other aggressors, starting with Russia in its continued assault on Ukraine. Meanwhile, European governments are busy brandishing the threat of triggering the JCPOA’s “snapback” mechanism to reimpose UNSC sanctions on Iran — a grave and short-sighted mistake. This mechanism was embedded in a deal that’s now effectively defunct, and one that never gave Iran a reciprocal right to challenge Western noncompliance. Lest we forget, Iran upheld its end of the JCPOA for more than a year after the U.S. unilaterally tore it up in 2018 and reimposed sweeping sanctions. And Tehran’s later steps to reduce compliance were to build leverage after remaining partners — namely Europe — couldn’t deliver any economic benefits, and the country’s facilities and scientists were targeted by sabotage attacks and assassinations. Europe’s credibility as a diplomatic actor is on the line here. Today’s snapback threats feel more performative than strategic — an exercise in legal brinkmanship, aimed at maintaining relevance and projecting leverage rather than actually advancing diplomacy. And wielding the mechanism now, after previously blocking Washington from misusing it, would send a dangerous signal: that legal instruments are political weapons to be used selectively, and that agreements are binding only on one side. Even worse, a focus on this mechanism generates arbitrary deadlines that could play into Iran’s hands, lowering the bar for progress by potentially allowing Tehran to slow walk cooperation with U.N. inspectors. It is worth mentioning Iran has agreed to host a delegation of technical experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Tehran within the next few weeks to discuss a possible new inspections modality. And while, on its face, this may seem like a positive diplomatic breakthrough, unless Europe incentivizes Iran to provide clarity on timelines and substance, it risks mistaking process for progress. Until very recently, the IAEA was still inspecting Tehran’s nuclear program — a staggering 493 inspections in 2024, with the same pace continuing until the military strikes this year. However, the agency withdrew its inspectors shortly after Iran’s parliament required all future access requests be routed through its Supreme National Security Council. The idea that Iran’s nuclear program can be annihilated by force deserves closer scrutiny as well. While some physical infrastructure may take time to rebuild, the country’s stockpile of 60-percent highly enriched uranium reportedly remains intact and accessible. And the lack of international oversight means we have no verifiable information on the material’s status or location. The net result of militarism here has been reduced visibility and trust— the predictable consequence of undermining international law. Now, without credible assurances against further military operations, Iran is unlikely to allow inspectors back in, or to participate seriously in any diplomatic process. Yet, unless the inspections resume, the world won’t know the true status of its nuclear program — the baseline for any future agreement. So, Europe has to urgently decide if it will continue following a coercive path or finally reclaim its diplomatic leadership. And if it chooses the path of diplomacy, its governments — particularly the U.K., France and Germany (the E3) — need to champion a phased approach that stabilizes the current ceasefire by providing Iran with security guarantees during negotiations; reestablishes the U.N.’s baseline knowledge of Iran’s nuclear program; and buys time for more substantive negotiations on a long-term diplomatic package. Though this clearly undermined Washington’s diplomatic efforts, the U.S. administration ended up following Israel’s military lead. | Abdein Taherkenareh/EPA Such an approach could potentially surpass what was achieved ten years ago, exchanging transparency and more long-term restrictions on Iran’s nuclear stockpiles, capabilities, research and development, and manufacturing for deeper sanctions relief. It could also lay the groundwork for a regional enrichment consortium that Iran’s nuclear program could directly feed into to build more interdependence under international oversight. The road ahead is uphill — not least because of Washington’s original violation of the 2015 deal and more recent military escalation. And while there’s currently no great power consensus like there was a decade ago, it’s important to remember that amid the transatlantic fracture caused by the Iraq war, there wasn’t one in the early 2000s, when Europe first began its work either. With diplomatic relations hanging by a thread and the risk of war lingering, Europe’s renewed role must be anchored in a rejection of militarism and animated by creative, practical solutions that all sides can accept. Only by summoning such courage, vision and initiative can Europe claw back some of its lost credibility.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas urged Iran to immediately restart negotiations on ending its nuclear program during a Tuesday phone call with the country’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi. “Negotiations on ending Iran’s nuclear program should restart as soon as possible. Cooperation with the IAEA must resume. The EU is ready to facilitate this,” Kallas said following the call, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency. “Any threats to pull out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty don’t help to lower tensions,” she added. Tehran had said on June 17 that its parliament was drafting legislation to withdraw from the NPT. Araghchi reported that he had emphasized Tehran’s deep mistrust of the United States during the call. He also condemned the “destructive approach” that “some European countries” and IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi had taken to the recent conflict between Israel and Iran. Their support for Israel and the United States complicates diplomatic efforts, Araghchi said, although he didn’t specify which countries he meant. The call between Kallas and Araghchi came amid heightened international concern over Iran’s nuclear ambitions following the collapse of its 2015 nuclear deal with the U.S. and Washington’s dramatic June 21 strikes on its nuclear enrichment facilities. That strike snuffed out a nascent effort by European politicians to defuse tensions in talks with Araghchi. Hostilities between Iran and Israel have also escalated over the past fortnight with a series of strikes and counterstrikes, culminating on Tuesday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s declaration of victory in the country’s “Rising Lion” operation to curb Iran’s nuclear capabilities. However, some reports suggest Iran’s nuclear program has been delayed by a few months at most. A ceasefire announced last week by U.S. President Donald Trump appears to be holding. Netanyahu’s office announced on Tuesday that the Israeli leader will visit the U.S. next week to meet with Trump, underscoring ongoing diplomatic efforts to keep the peace.

Iran should immediately resume full cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the foreign ministers of France, Germany and the United Kingdom said in a joint statement Monday.  Iran has decided to remove the IAEA’s surveillance cameras from its nuclear facilities, claiming Israel obtained “sensitive facility data” from them, according to media reports Saturday. The country also barred IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi from visiting the facilities.  Per the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran allowed the IAEA, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, to access and monitor its nuclear facilities. The first Trump administration withdrew from the deal in 2018, and Tehran has gradually rolled back its commitments — especially so after recent Israeli and American airstrikes against Iranian nuclear sites. Now, France, Germany and the U.K. are calling on Iranian authorities to reverse course, refrain from ceasing cooperation with the IAEA and ensure the safety of the agency’s personnel. The three countries also condemned threats against the IAEA’s Grossi. Kayhan, Iran’s hard-line newspaper, recently alleged that Grossi was an Israeli spy and called for his execution. Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, however, said Sunday that Tehran poses no threat to Grossi. After Israel launched strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, prompting retaliation from Tehran, European leaders attempted to broker a peace deal and prevent further escalation in the region, but failed. Their calls for a diplomatic solution were ignored by the Trump administration, which instead chose to join in the military strikes against Iran. Israel and Iran have since agreed on a ceasefire, but negotiations on Iran’s nuclear capabilities are yet to start. Iran could again begin enriching uranium in “a matter of months,” Grossi warned over the weekend.