Only a few days ago, President Donald Trump lashed out at Europe in an interview with POLITICO as a “decaying” group of countries with “weak” leaders. In public at least, it didn’t ruffle European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. “I have always had a very good working relationship with the presidents of the United States, and this is also the case today,” von der Leyen said in an interview at this year’s POLITICO 28 event. “From the bottom of my heart, I’m a convinced transatlanticist.” Now in her second term leading the EU’s lawmaking body, von der Leyen also acknowledged that Europe’s relationship with the United States is in flux, and not just because of Trump. “Of course, our relationship to the United States has changed. Why? Because we are changing,” she said. “And this is so important that we keep in mind: What is our position? What is our strength? Let’s work on these. Let’s take pride in that. Let’s stand up for a unified Europe.” The question of European unity is front of mind as Russia’s war on Ukraine grinds on and Trump pushes harder for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to accept a peace deal. In her interview with POLITICO, von der Leyen emphasized the need for a “just and lasting peace” with real security guarantees. “This peace agreement should be such a solid peace agreement that it does not sow the seeds for the next conflict immediately,” she said. The Russian threat also goes beyond Ukraine, of course. How long until Europe is fully able to defend itself? “That’s a good question,” von der Leyen said. “We have not the luxury of time.” This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. I want to start with a question very much on the minds of the people in this room: Will there be a funding agreement by next week for Ukraine to keep the fight up against Russia? We’re working intensively towards a just and lasting peace. And I emphasize “just and lasting” because this peace agreement should be such a solid peace agreement that it does not sow the seeds for the next conflict immediately. In a new interview, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen discusses Russia’s war on Ukraine and Trump’s challenge to Europe. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen gestures as she delivers a major state of the union speech at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, earlier this month. Only a few days ago, President Donald Trump lashed out at Europe in an interview with POLITICO as a “decaying” group of countries with “weak” leaders. In public at least, it didn’t ruffle European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. “I have always had a very good working relationship with the presidents of the United States, and this is also the case today,” von der Leyen said in an interview at this year’s POLITICO 28 event. “From the bottom of my heart, I’m a convinced transatlanticist.” Now in her second term leading the EU’s lawmaking body, von der Leyen also acknowledged that Europe’s relationship with the United States is in flux, and not just because of Trump. “Of course, our relationship to the United States has changed. Why? Because we are changing,” she said. “And this is so important that we keep in mind: What is our position? What is our strength? Let’s work on these. Let’s take pride in that. Let’s stand up for a unified Europe.” The question of European unity is front of mind as Russia’s war on Ukraine grinds on and Trump pushes harder for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to accept a peace deal. In her interview with POLITICO, von der Leyen emphasized the need for a “just and lasting peace” with real security guarantees. “This peace agreement should be such a solid peace agreement that it does not sow the seeds for the next conflict immediately,” she said. The Russian threat also goes beyond Ukraine, of course. How long until Europe is fully able to defend itself? “That’s a good question,” von der Leyen said. “We have not the luxury of time.” This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. I want to start with a question very much on the minds of the people in this room: Will there be a funding agreement by next week for Ukraine to keep the fight up against Russia? We’re working intensively towards a just and lasting peace. And I emphasize “just and lasting” because this peace agreement should be such a solid peace agreement that it does not sow the seeds for the next conflict immediately.

Crops tailor-made using new gene-splicing techniques should face fewer regulations than genetically modified organisms, EU negotiators agreed Thursday.  Critics are calling it a GMO rebrand; proponents say they are bringing science back in style. The late-night negotiations — dragged across the finish line with the help of the European Parliament’s far right — capped years of haggling over how to ease the path for a new generation of gene-editing technologies developed since 2001, when the EU’s notoriously strict regulations on GMOs were adopted. The deal’s backers tout NGT’s potential to breed climate-resilient plants that need less space and fertilizers to grow, and they argue the EU is already behind global competitors using the technology. But critics fear the EU is opening the door to GMOs and giving too much power to major seed corporations.   The agreement opens the door to “unlabelled — yet patented — GM crops and foods, boosting corporate market power while undermining the rights of farmers and consumers,” warned Franziska Achterberg of Save Our Seeds, an NGO opposing GMOs, calling the deal a “complete sell-out.” INNOVATION VS. CAPITULATION European lawmakers, however, were responding to fears that outdated GMO rules were holding back progress on more recent genomic tweaks with a lighter touch — and throttling innovations worth trillions of euros.  Currently, most plants edited using new precision breeding technology — which can involve reordering their DNA, or inserting genes from the same plant or species — are covered by the same strict rules governing GMOs that contain foreign DNA.  The deal struck by the EU’s co-legislators creates two classes for these more recent techniques. “NGT1” crops — plants that have only been modified using new tech to a limited extent and are thus considered equivalent to naturally occurring strains — would be eligible for less stringent regulations. In contrast, “NGT2” plants, which have had more genetic changes and traditional GMOs will continue to face the same rules that have been in place for over 20 years.  Speaking before the final round of negotiations, Danish Agriculture Minister Jacob Jensen argued that the bloc needs to have NGTs in its toolbox if it wants to compete with China and the U.S., which are already making use of the new tech.  The deal “is about giving European farmers a fair chance to keep up” echoed center-right MEP Jessica Polfjärd, the lead negotiator on the Parliament’s side of the deal. She added that the technology will allow for the bloc to “produce more yield on less land, reduce the use of pesticides, and plant crops that can resist climate change.” Polfjärd had struggled to keep MEPs on the same page even as the bill advanced into interinstitutional negotiations. Persistent objections from left-wing lawmakers, including a key Socialist, forced her to embrace support of lawmakers from the far-right Patriots for Europe, breaking the cordon sanitaire.  Martin Häusling, the Green parliamentary negotiator, called the result miserable, saying it gives a “carte blanche for the use of new genetic engineering in plants” that threatens GMO-free agriculture.  DAVID AND GOLIATH In a hard-won victory for industry, the final legislation allows for NGT crops to be patented.  For Matthias Berninger, executive vice president at the global biotech giant Bayer, it’s just good business. “When we talk about startup culture in Europe … we also need to provide reasonable intellectual property protections,” he said in an interview. Yet safeguards meant to prevent patent-holders from accumulating too much market power don’t go far enough for Arche Noah. The NGO advocating for seed diversity in Europe, warned of a “slow-motion collapse of independent breeding, seed-diversity and farmer autonomy” if the deal makes it to law as is. They have MEP Christophe Clergeau, the Parliament’s Social-Democrat negotiator who led the last-ditch resistance.  In an interview on Thursday morning, he gave it five to 10 years before small breeders have disappeared from the bloc and farmers are “totally dependent” on the likes of Bayer and other huge companies. (Berninger said Bayer doesn’t want to inhibit small breeders by enforcing patents on them.) The deal now needs to be endorsed by the Parliament and the Council of the EU before the new rules are adopted. At the end of the day, it’s up to consumers to pass judgment, DG SANTE’s food safety and innovation chief Klaus Berend said Thursday, appearing at the POLITICO Sustainable Future Summit directly before the late-night negotiations began.  “We know that in Europe, the general attitude toward genetically modified organisms and anything around it is rather negative,” he cautioned. The key question for new genomic techniques is “how will they be accepted by consumers?” Their acceptance, Berend added, “is not a given.” Rebecca Holland contributed to this report.

A U.S. framework aimed at ending the war in Ukraine would leave the country more vulnerable to Russian aggression in the long term if it imposes limits on Kyiv’s armed forces, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warned on Sunday. In a statement following talks on the sidelines of a G20 summit of major economies in South Africa, von der Leyen laid out a series of red lines in response to proposals being put forward by President Donald Trump’s White House. The American blueprint suggests Ukraine should make territorial concessions to Moscow, halve the size of its military and give Washington a 50 percent cut on profits from reconstruction. “Any credible and sustainable peace plan should first and foremost stop the killing and end the war, while not sowing the seeds for a future conflict,” von der Leyen said in the statement. According to the Commission president, the EU has three key criteria for any peace deal: “First, borders cannot be changed by force. Second, as a sovereign nation there cannot be limitations on Ukraine’s armed forces that would leave the country vulnerable to future attack and thereby also undermining European security,” she said. “Third, the centrality of the European Union in securing peace for Ukraine must be fully reflected,” said von der Leyen. “Ukraine must have the freedom and sovereign right to choose its own destiny. They have chosen a European destiny.” Allies have held crisis talks during the summit in South Africa and EU leaders are due to hold further discussions on Monday during a joint visit to Angola. European Council President António Costa has welcomed U.S. efforts to end the war but warned the current proposal is merely “a basis which will require additional work.” European capitals and Ukraine say they were effectively cut out of the development of the 28-point plan, which critics say rewards Russian aggression and would leave the door open to future invasions. Trump, meanwhile, appears to have backed away from a Thursday deadline for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to accept the terms of the U.S. proposal, saying the deal is “not my final offer.”

Europe’s draft gene-editing law may only survive thanks to the far right. The new law would determine whether Europe opens the door to a new generation of gene-edited plants, an innovation boon worth trillions of euros. But after months of hours-long meetings, fraying tempers and déjà-vu debates, the small circle of officials trying to hammer out the legislation know they’ve hit a wall. Now, inside the negotiation rooms, a taboo is starting to look like a safety valve. Two right-wing MEPs — allies of Giorgia Meloni and Matteo Salvini — look ready to break the impasse. “The left is blocking negotiations,” said Silvia Sardone, a rising star in Italy’s far-right Lega party. “Their demands are impossible to meet.” Though they would never put it so bluntly, other negotiators on the New Genomic Techniques file agree with her. Week in, week out, European Commission officials, national diplomats and Parliament representatives lean over annotated printouts that, by now, feel more familiar than their own phones. Supporters say the technology could help develop crops that cope with drought and cut chemical use. Critics fear it would strengthen big seed companies through patents and squeeze out smaller breeders. But whenever talks resume, they fall apart immediately — not over objections from governments or the Commission, but because the Parliament’s own voices are pulling in opposite directions.  French Socialist Christophe Clergeau, backed by Greens and the The Left, is holding the line on stronger protections for small companies, consumers and the environment. Swedish conservative Jessica Polfjärd, playing the role of the Parliament’s broker, is struggling to keep her camp together. Meanwhile, two members of the group — previously ignored — are quietly indicating they’re ready to settle. It’s in that vacuum that a once-taboo idea has crept into the conversation: What if the far right is now the only way to get this done? THE NEW ARITHMETIC Just a few months ago, that would have been dismissed outright. But after last week’s raucous vote in the Parliament chamber — when the center right openly teamed up with far-right groups to bulldoze a deregulation package through a booing hemicycle — it no longer sounds so outlandish. The Commission says it cannot concede more changes. Governments say they have already gone as far as they can. The text bounces back to the table, unchanged. French Socialist Christophe Clergeau, backed by Greens and the The Left, is holding the line on stronger protections for small companies, consumers and the environment. | Fred Marvaux/European Parliament “We are circling the same paragraphs every week,” said one diplomat, who like others in this story was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive matters. That’s where two unlikely figures hover at the edge of the impasse. One is Pietro Fiocchi, an Italian heir to a historic ammunition dynasty, a hunting evangelist who addresses “dear hunters and fishermen friends” in Facebook videos, and a man known for once appearing on a campaign poster pointing a gun. The other is Sardone, a combative hardliner who rails against “green follies,” edible insects and electric cars. She has made headlines for social media posts warning of “Islamization,” alleging ties between far-left activists and Islamic extremists, and attacking the Romani community. Neither is anyone’s idea of a biotech champion. But both have indicated they’re willing to accept the slimmed-down deal governments say is the only realistic option. And the pair’s readiness has changed the mood. The threat of the far right stepping in could force Clergeau to accept a weaker compromise — a centrist move which is in vogue in the Parliament — according to a Parliament official close to the talks. This is only to avoid an even weaker, far-right-backed deal being pushed through without him, the official added. Swedish conservative Jessica Polfjärd, playing the role of the Parliament’s broker, is struggling to keep her camp together. | Fred Marvaux/European Parliament Clergeau flatly rejected that scenario, saying the talks hadn’t reached that point and that nothing new had emerged to warrant further comment. He previously said he is pressing for proof that new genomic techniques actually deliver benefits, not just promises on paper. The deal, he argued, must not accelerate the concentration of the seed market in the hands of a few multinational companies, at the expense of smaller breeders and farmers. Polfjärd declined to comment for this story, pointing to the sensitivity of the ongoing talks. Last year, MEPs overwhelmingly backed a ban on patents for gene-edited plants, in a rare show of unity from the far right to the far left. This time, a majority — including a sizeable chunk of Clergeau’s own Socialists — is expected to support whatever deal the negotiators manage to hammer out if that’s what it takes to get the regulation into law. That’s one reason EU diplomats argue Clergeau is no longer reflecting the balance inside the Parliament. But before any of that matters, negotiators still have to break the deadlock inside the room. A fresh round of technical meetings is scheduled for Thursday and next week, before what is expected to be a decisive political-level session in early December. Few around the table believe the remaining disagreements will magically resolve themselves before then. Which leaves one uncomfortable calculation hanging over every meeting. As another diplomat put it: “If that’s what it takes to get the deal through, then why not?”

LONDON — Prime Minister Keir Starmer will meet India’s Narendra Modi in Mumbai next week to drive forward their tech and security partnership, multiple people familiar with the planning told POLITICO. It is Starmer’s first visit to the country as prime minister and comes just months after the U.K. and India finally closed their long-desired trade deal under the shadow of Donald Trump’s tariff war. The focus of the visit will be on fintech, “tech-related partnerships” and the “great trade deal that we’ve finally signed,” said an Indian official, granted anonymity to discuss the plans. In India’s financial capital, Starmer and Modi will speak at the world’s largest fintech festival, before joining senior ministers and officials to advance the 2024 U.K.-India Technology Security Initiative (TSI). The pact covers co-operation on telecoms, critical minerals, artificial intelligence, quantum, bio-tech, advanced materials and semiconductors. “Both sides are trying to lean in to try and figure out: How do we bring business into it? How do we bring seed capital in to support it? And what are the specifics that we can get as early harvest wins?” said a person close to the planning, also granted anonymity. Starmer and Modi will look at the seven pillars of the TSI and see “which are the ones that can move fastest,” they said. MOONSHOTS In May, researchers at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, an international think tank, called for “a greater dose of ambition and creative thinking” in the TSI with a focus on “moonshot projects.”  They call for marrying India’s manufacturing strengths with Britain’s R&D work, including in graphene semiconductors, and a joint quantum lab. During Modi’s July visit, the U.K. government said the TSI partnership would lead to the creation of a joint center on AI. Collaboration on graphene and critical minerals is also underway with the second phase of the UK-India Critical Minerals Supply Chain Observatory due to begin. Starmer will bring business delegations in tow, including ones focused on education and critical minerals. The TSI is overseen by the national security advisers in each country and is reviewed every six months. One of Starmer’s deputy national security advisers was in India last week “for a conversation on some of the outcomes that they think are moving,” according to the person close to the planning cited above. Collaboration on critical minerals is one of the workstreams that is “moving quickly,” the person added, saying the conversations could lead to “a good set of outcomes and announcements.” Britain and India will also hold a joint economic trade council meeting, a ministerial process with business, to look at how to leverage the trade deal Modi and Starmer struck in July. “Different sectors will have different opinions of what might be a problem, what is still a problem, or what could be improved in a regulatory way,” they said, noting that while not every will get resolved immediately, that the process provides “clarity” that will allow both sides to ensure the trade deal provides value immediately when it enters into force.

LONDON — Much like cricket, trade talks with India have been a long game, with plenty of sticky wickets along the way. As India’s cricket team goes head-to-head with England at Old Trafford on Thursday, Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi flaunted their newly inked free trade agreement at Chequers, Starmer’s country residence. The parallel did not go unnoticed by the two leaders. “For both of us cricket is not just a game but a passion — and also a great metaphor for our partnership,” Modi told reporters shortly after the deal was signed. “There may be a swing and a miss at times, but we always play with a straight bat. We are committed to building a high-scoring, solid partnership.” The ceremony marked the symbolic end to three years of sometimes fraught head-to-head negotiations between India and Britain’s trade teams. While far from what British negotiators envisaged when they began the talks, the U.K. has managed to chalk up a fair few wins, with some stand-out sectors emerging triumphant. Indian negotiators can also boast of a few victories. From Scotch whisky to business mobility, we’ve set out the biggest wins on either side in our FTA scoreboard. UK WINNERS Scotch whisky producers One of the biggest wins on the U.K. side is reduced tariffs for Scotch whisky. Under the FTA, Indian tariffs on the tipple will be slashed in half, from 150 percent to 75 percent, then dropped even further to 40 percent over the next decade.  India is the world’s biggest whisky market by volume and the tariff reduction has been described as a “game changer” by the industry. Announcing the deal, Starmer said it would give U.K. whisky producers “an advantage over international competitors in reaching the Indian market.” India is the world’s biggest whisky market by volume and the tariff reduction has been described as a “game changer” by the industry. | Neil Hall/EPA “The deal will support long term investment and jobs in our distilleries in Speyside and our bottling plant at Kilmalid and help deliver growth in both Scotland and India over the next decade,” said Jean-Etienne Gourgues, CEO at Chivas Brothers.  Automakers There’s also good news for British automakers — which have had quite a ride over the past few months thanks to U.S. President Donald Trump’s punitive tariff regime. Tariffs of up to 110 percent on British cars will drop to 10 percent after five or ten years depending on the type of car. As a result, the government expects exports of U.K. motor vehicles to increase by 310 percent — or £890 million — in the long run.  Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders (SMMT), which represents the British automotive industry, said the deal represented a “significant achievement, partially liberalising the Indian automotive market for the first time.”   He called for rapid ratification of the deal and renewed efforts to agree “fair and workable solutions” on the administration of the tariff rate quotas. Lawyers Just days after the deal was first struck on May 6, India’s legal regulator approved new rules permitting foreign legal firms and lawyers to practise there on a reciprocal basis. It was seen by the sector as a key win coming in parallel with the deal.  The Bar Council of India first signaled the move in 2023, but received fierce opposition from domestic legal firms. “This is an important development for our two professions,” said Richard Atkinson, president of the U.K.’s Law Society at the time, although some strict conditions still apply.  Services firms  The deal’s financial services chapter is a first for India. New Delhi promises that Britain’s financial and business services firms can’t be treated differently to Indian companies. It guarantees India cannot impose limitations on investment or the number of British financial services firms that can operate in the country. India’s penchant for data localization — meaning services firms like banks and consultancies need to set up servers in India if they’re processing Indian nationals’ info — isn’t addressed in the deal since the country’s parliament is still working through new data privacy and security laws. Yet there are provisions to allow further negotiations with the U.K. if India moves to liberalize the flow of data in the future. INDIAN WINNERS Workers on secondment to the UK One of the most contentious areas of the trade deal — and most sought after on the Indian side — are new provisions on business mobility. The U.K. has promised that an existing visa route for some temporary workers that’s not currently available to India — and capped at 1,800 people — will now be open to Indian employees (although the cap won’t be lifted). Most controversially for some, the U.K. and India have separately agreed to negotiate a Double Contributions Convention, which means that neither Indian nor British workers will be required to pay national insurance contributions in both their home country and the one they are working in. Details of the agreement are still being ironed out but both sides have agreed to strike the deal in side letters. In promotional material published alongside the deal, the U.K. government insists the measures will have no impact on immigration. “All visa routes that have been locked in through the agreement are only available for temporary stays, and none of the routes provide a path to permanent settlement,” it notes. Farmers The U.K. has agreed to remove tariffs on imports of Indian food, with the exception of sugar, milled rice, pork, chicken and eggs, which will continue to be subject to the current duties in place. In its impact assessment, the government notes that food imports will still have to comply with U.K. food and animal welfare standards. The U.K. has agreed to remove tariffs on imports of Indian food, with the exception of sugar, milled rice, pork, chicken and eggs, which will continue to be subject to the current duties in place. | Farooq Khan/EPA Meanwhile, campaigners welcomed the absence of any intellectual property clause in the agreement that would have limited Indian farmers’ ability to save and exchange their seeds.  Patented, genetically modified seeds and restrictions on their use have been identified as a one of several factors contributing to the high level of farmer suicides in the country. “We hope that following this deal, the U.K. government will commit to safeguarding farmers’ rights in all future trade agreements, as farmer seed systems are vital for smallholder farmers in India and in many other countries across the world,” said Hannah Conway, trade and agriculture policy adviser at Transform Trade. Drugmakers Under the deal, Indian generic medicines and medical devices can be exported duty free to the U.K., in a move welcomed by the country’s officials. Last year the U.K. imported medicinal and pharmaceutical products worth around £667.4 million from India. “Given the U.K.’s shift away from reliance on Chinese imports post-Brexit and Covid-19, Indian manufacturers are poised to emerge as a favoured, cost-effective alternative, especially with zero-duty pricing for medical devices,” a commerce ministry official told the Indian news agency PTI. Meanwhile, India will also welcome the absence of any data exclusivity clauses related to pharmaceuticals in the deal’s intellectual property chapter, which could have posed a threat to the country’s generic drugs sector, the world’s largest by volume. Textiles manufacturers The trade deal removes tariffs on Indian textiles exported to the U.K., with imports expected to rise by around 85 percent to £2.9 billion, according to the government’s impact assessment. The U.K. imported Indian clothing worth £877.3 million last year. As a result, the government projects that the U.K. textiles, apparel and leather goods industry is expected to lose £114 million — the biggest projected decline of any industry. “This in turn is projected to lead to resources shifting away from adversely affected sectors to other sectors that exhibit a larger increase in exports,” it said. 

BRUSSELS — While the EU’s latest U.S. retaliatory tariff proposal hits aircraft, vehicles and medical appliances hardest, health care, transport and agri-food lobbyists have secured a few wins. Having already agreed on an initial tariff package affecting around €21 billion in U.S. goods, set to come into force Aug. 6, the EU has been haggling over the details of a second retaliatory package for months. The second list, seen by POLITICO, would affect €72 billion worth of imports. That’s down from an initial proposal, published in May, that would have hit an estimated €95 billion worth of U.S. goods. Lobbying around the lists has been intense, as national and sectoral representatives scramble to get key goods they need from the U.S. scrubbed from the lineup of negotiating chips. We crunched the numbers on the goods most likely to get caught in the crossfire and which sectors may manage to escape unscathed. THE BIG PICTURE According to the latest EU plan, tariffs on industrial goods would hurt U.S. imports the most, to the tune of almost €66 billion. The remainder of the pain, €6 billion in affected goods, would come from tariffs on agricultural and food products. Aircraft products top the tariff impact charts by miles, with over €10 billion goods potentially affected.  Passenger vehicles and medical appliances round out the top three largest product categories hit in both the May and July versions of the tariff list.  BIGGEST WINNERS Diagnostic or laboratory reagents — i.e., chemicals used for medical testing — and gas turbines were set to be among the top 10 most affected product groups in the first version of the tariff list. They have been scrubbed from the latest version seen by POLITICO.  They are not the only products that managed to escape the fray.  Several goods related to health care appear to no longer be under threat, such as X-ray apparatus, thread for stitches, and materials used for surgery to separate tissue, as well as wheelchairs and scooters for people with disabilities. In the world of agriculture and food, soybean seeds also disappeared from the document. MAKING GAINS While unsuccessful in totally dodging tariffs, some key goods for large product categories have been removed from the firing line.  For instance, several data processing machines, i.e., computers, have been removed from the list. As have machines used to make semiconductors.  With U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest 30 percent tariff threat and the Aug. 1 deal deadline looming, European producers reliant on products still on the list will be bracing for impact or praying for a deal. Hanne Cokelaere contributed to this report.

DOUBLE MURDER IN TEHRAN EXPOSES GROWING ANGER OVER IRAN’S BRUTAL JUDICIARY Washington’s track record suggests it’s better at fighting wars than dealing with what follows. By KOUROSH ZIABARI Illustration by Maksym Filipenko for POLITICO Many of the closest allies of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have met violent deaths in the past months. While international observers have focused on Israel’s assassinations of Tehran’s top commanders and nuclear scientists in airstrikes in June, the murders of two — or possibly three — prominent judges early this year have attracted much less attention, even though they lay bare a significant swell of popular discontent in the Islamic Republic. On Jan. 18, Farshad Assadi, a junior employee in Tehran’s vast neoclassical Palace of Justice, described in some accounts as a “tea server,” shot dead two senior judges: Mohammad Moghiseh and Ali Razini, both of them high-ranking Shia clerics. Advertisement A third judge, Hossein-Ali Nayeri, died on April 3. The judiciary said he succumbed to underlying health issues, but initial accounts of the Jan. 18 attack had pointed to Nayeri as a third target. Speculation over Assadi’s motives ranged from theories that he was a politically active kitchen-worker through to suggestions he was simply furious over his salary. It is unlikely we will ever know, as he killed himself before he could be arrested. Whatever his reasons, it was a killing that immediately exposed a fundamental fault line. A NATION DIVIDED For many Iranians, the country’s often coarse and brutal judiciary has come to epitomize the rot at the the heart of the ruling system, while Iran’s leadership has to defend the judges for holding the fabric of the Islamic Republic together. While the head of the Supreme Court Mohammad Jafar Montazeri described the deaths of the two judges as the “price the establishment pays for its survival,” many Iranians on social media such as Instagram and X rushed to praise Assadi under the Persian hashtag of “heroic tea attendant.” There was no question about the importance of Moghiseh and Razini to the clerical elite. Khamenei himself presided over their funeral — delivering a eulogy over their caskets, which were wrapped in the Iranian flag, with white turbans placed on top. A coffin containing the body Mohammad Moghiseh is carried out of the Iranian judiciary headquarters in Tehran on January 20. | Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images “O God, if they were benefactors, multiply their benevolence, and if they were sinners, please forgive them. O God, we know nothing about them except for good deeds,” Khamenei whispered, flanked by two bodyguards. Other Iranians, however, quickly came forward with very different recollections of those so-called “good deeds,” excoriating the unprofessionalism of a vulgar, often poorly educated judicial class that issues arbitrary rulings. INSULTS AND HARSH SENTENCES Atena Daemi, a civil rights activist was tried in a 15-minute hearing convened by Moghiseh in April 2015. In an Instagram post in January, she reflected on his draconian dispensation of justice. After Moghiseh issued her a 14-year prison sentence and slammed her opposition to the death penalty as inadmissible, he branded her a “prostitute.” “God willing, someone will kill your father, and then we’ll see what you’ll do. Will you sentence the murderer or not?” the seminarian fulminated. Daemi fled Iran in May 2023 and eventually flew to Toronto. Advertisement In addition to their role in a mass execution of political prisoners in 1988, the three judges also presided over high-profile trials of dissidents. Moghiseh sentenced the human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh to seven years in prison in 2018. Often referred to as Iran’s Nelson Mandela, Sotoudeh has spent a significant portion of her adult life behind bars, and is the recipient of the European Parliament’s 2012 Sakharov Prize. Razini adjudicated the case of dissident journalist and theologian Hassan Yousefi Eshkavari whose participation in a conference in 2000 hosted by the Heinrich Böll Foundation in Berlin had infuriated the Iranian government. In a first hearing, Eshkavari was sentenced to death for making “paganistic” statements, such as arguing that hijab dress codes cannot be compulsory. In a retrial in 2002, Razini handed him a seven-year prison term. Protestors stand on an image of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei outside the Iranian embassy in London. | Alishia Abodunde/Getty Images A defector from the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization opposition — previously listed as a terror group by the U.S. and EU — told Deutsche Welle Persian in a 2020 interview he remembered Moghiseh instructing prison staff to hand out pastries after each execution was carried out in the summer of 1988. Journalists and students who were put on trial following the 2009 pro-democracy Green Movement, have also shared anecdotes of being verbally abused by the judges. It is little surprise, then, that many Iranians reacted viscerally to the judges’ deaths. One day after the twin assassinations, an Iranian X user named “ThatsEnough” wrote: “I must say precisely that I hate whoever is not happy with the elimination of Moghiseh.” In a January 26 post, another X user, identifying as “the girl on the sixth floor,” echoed the sentiments of a larger cohort of Iranians. “We rejoice at the death of any judge who becomes the killing machine of the Islamic Republic,” she wrote. POLITICAL CAPTURE Some participants in the debate promptly called for sober heads, arguing that any glorification of violence contradicted the very principles that Iranian human rights’ campaigners have been espousing. All in all, though, the popular reaction showed that frustration with the failings of the judiciary is a core component of broader discontent with the regime. It is no coincidence that the Iranian film “The Seed of the Sacred Fig,” winner of the 2024 Prix Spécial in Cannes, is centered around the story of a flawed investigative judge as a paradigm of the national malaise. The figurative title of the film derives from a species of tree — a metaphor for the governing system — that ultimately strangles its host, in this case the Iranian people. In Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index 2024, Iran ranked 151 in a listing of 180 countries assessed for public views on the reliability of governance and law enforcement in each jurisdiction. Advertisement Atieh Babakhani, an assistant professor of law and society at Ramapo College of New Jersey, said the essential problem was that Iran’s judiciary was not politically independent. “I think the broader issue here is that these actions clearly violate the law, including Article 39 of the Constitution, which explicitly states that violating the dignity and honor of anyone who has been legally detained, imprisoned, or exiled is prohibited under any circumstance,” she said. “These individuals are part of the system, and they know that as long as they protect the interests of the state, they’re unlikely to face any consequences,” she added. ARBITRARY RULINGS The arbitrariness of judicial authorities has been very much on display in the way the judges have approached dual nationals and journalists arrested for the purposes of hostage diplomacy or intimidation.   During the turmoil that followed the disputed reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009, several foreign correspondents and academics were detained. Iason Athanasiadis, a Greek-British journalist was arrested as he was about to board a flight to Istanbul. He was released 20 days later under mounting international pressure, but the charges leveled against him were never made public. Advertisement Athanasiadis said he believed his arrest was motivated by Iranian officials seeking “to create an information operation to convince their citizens that what was happening on the street was not just indignation and outrage at perceived election irregularities, but in fact an organized plan involving foreign powers and their agents on the ground.” Ana Diamond, an author and Oxford University scholar, was imprisoned in Tehran between 2014 and 2018, and her plight has been cited in United Nations proceedings. The senior prosecutor in Diamond’s case was Ebrahim Raisi, the late president of Iran who hailed from the judicial branch. “He would nod along as I spoke, giving the impression of listening, but never once met my eyes,” Diamond said of her experience of twice being cross-examined by Raisi. “That absence of acknowledgment, in a conversation about my possible death or lifelong imprisonment, really stripped me of dignity.” Portraits of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, during a religious procession in Karachi. | Asif Hassan/AFP via Getty Images Diamond said Raisi didn’t address her directly. “But once he spoke, his power became chillingly clear. It reminded me of the stylized cruelty of Soviet-era show trials where the outcome was predetermined,” she said. As confirmed by Diamond and others, Iran’s judiciary secures its convictions through a full gamut of tricks and strongarm tactics, ranging from extended interrogations in solitary confinement to defendants being compelled to sign documents that they are not allowed to review properly. “I was held in solitary confinement for months without my family being told where I was, and vice versa. I was repeatedly threatened with death, starvation, forced medication, and subjected to invasive and degrading procedures like a virginity test,” she said, lamenting that such practices were often bundled up in “Islamic moralism,” and delivered with “a tone of sanctity.” Advertisement Milad Poureisa, a student activist currently in exile, was one of several people arrested in front of the presidential office for protesting against a series of brutal assaults on political prisoners in Evin Prison in 2014 that has come to be known as Black Thursday. The judiciary didn’t allow an investigation, even though the head of the Prisons’ Organization Gholam-Hossein Esmaili was removed. He was offered a promotion and later became the chief of staff to President Raisi. In a summary trial conducted by Judge Abolghassem Salavati, Poureisa was sentenced to six years and three months in prison. He wasn’t given the chance to appeal. “The court of appeals is premised on the idea that a session isn’t mandatory and isn’t supposed to be held to begin with, and we only showed up to receive our sentences,” he said. There was no question about the importance of Moghiseh and Razini to the clerical elite. | Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images Everything was sewn up in advance. “Even in the primary court session, I didn’t have the chance to present a defense argument. I only appeared to rewrite a copy of the verdict that had been prepared.” It’s a way of doing business that explains why so many furious Iranians were willing to praise the “heroic tea attendant.” Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian journalist based in the United States. Advertisement