Sanctions

The UN has reimposed sanctions on Iran, a decade after they were lifted as part of the nuclear agreement called the JCPOA. European powers led the move, accusing Iran of non-compliance with the deal.

New York City – Thousands of New Yorkers joined world diplomats in giving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the cold shoulder as he spoke at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA).

Protesters on Friday morning rallied against the Israeli prime minister on the streets of New York City as dozens of delegates marched out of the UN Assembly hall when he began his speech on the fourth day of the General Debate.

And blocks away, diplomats representing countries across the world were meeting as part of the Hague Group to discuss taking concrete measures against Israel, including sanctions, for its nearly two-year assault on Gaza.

Al-Sharif Nassef, who was participating in the New York protest, said it was a “shame” that Netanyahu was in the city instead of The Hague to answer to his alleged war crimes at the International Criminal Court (ICC), which issued an arrest warrant for him last year.

“All the New Yorkers who are here today support his arrest. He is not welcome here,” Nassef told Al Jazeera.

“And Inshallah [God willing], under the new mayorship, he will be arrested as soon as he steps forward in New York City.”

Earlier this month, New York Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamadani promised to enforce the ICC’s arrest warrant against Netanyahu. But the US is not a party to the tribunal, so it is not clear whether the New York Police Department has the legal power to detain the Israeli prime minister.

‘Is baby formula Hamas?’

After Netanyahu finished his speech, protesters marched from Times Square to a park near the UN complex on the East River.

They waved Palestinian flags and chanted “free Palestine” and “arms embargo now” as the demonstration snaked through the streets amid heavy police presence.

Some demonstrators also displayed the flags of Colombia and Ireland – two countries that have been vocal in their support for Palestinians.

Nasreen Issa, a member of the Palestine Youth Movement – NYC, which helped organise the march, said the large turnout sends a message that it is “unacceptable” for the US to roll out the red carpet for Netanyahu.

Issa said that demonstrations work even if their effects are not immediately felt.

“Protests play an important role in generating the political will that can make real change happen,” the activist told Al Jazeera.

Meagan Fredette held a cardboard sign that said, “Is baby formula Hamas???” to highlight the Israeli restrictions on basic food items in Gaza, which have plunged the territory into deadly famine, according to a UN-backed monitor.

Fredette said she feels “disgusted” as a New Yorker that Netanyahu is in her city.

“I feel angry. It’s embarrassing that he’s here. He doesn’t deserve to be here,” she told Al Jazeera. “He’s a literal, wanted criminal. New Yorkers were not happy that he’s here.”

As the demonstrators arrived outside the security perimeter at the UN, they encountered about a dozen counterprotesters waving Israeli flags.

But law enforcement officers separated the two sets of protesters and confined the small pro-Israel rally to a barricaded area.

When a man with an Israeli flag started shouting obscenities at the anti-Netanyahu demonstrators, the police quickly intervened and ordered him to move away from the protest.

Broadcasting Netanyahu’s speech through Palestinian phones

Inside the UN General Assembly hall earlier, Netanyahu addressed a room that was partly emptied by the walkout, and he received applause that came only from one area on the upper level of the room.

Asked whether the people clapping for Netanyahu were guests of the Israeli mission, Stephane Dujarric, the spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, only said, “Every delegation is allowed to bring in guests.”

Netanyahu’s office said on X that the prime minister had ordered the hacking of the phones of Palestinians in Gaza to stream his speech on the devices.

“In an unprecedented action, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu … has announced that the [Israeli military] took control of the telephones of Gaza residents and Hamas members, and that his speech is now being broadcast live via the telephones,” the post said.

His office also posted on social media that the Israeli military broadcast the address on a loudspeaker to the starving and beleaguered population of the territory.

Al Jazeera asked Dujarric for a reaction to a UN function being used as a tool to taunt an entire population, but he declined to respond.

“I have no specific comment on that,” the spokesperson said.

“I think the focus should be on alleviating the suffering of the Palestinian people, getting more humanitarian aid in, and getting the hostages out,” Dujarric added.

Israel has killed more than 65,500 people in Gaza, including approximately 20,000 children, and turned nearly the entire territory into rubble.

The UNGA is meeting this year amid growing international anger at Israel’s conduct. Several Western countries that are traditionally allied with Israel recognised the state of Palestine during the assembly.

Hague group meeting

On Friday, diplomats from 24 countries – part of the Hague Group, which aims to halt the war on Gaza – called for action to stop the atrocities beyond statements and symbolism.

Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian ambassador to the UN, urged tangible moves against Israel, including sanctions.

“We are out of time because if we fail to act, children are killed,” Mansour told a Hague Group meeting.

“Palestinian children are killed, starved, orphaned, burned and traumatised, families are shattered, life is destroyed, lands are stolen and territories are annexed.”

Mansour also called for international support for South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

The meeting included representatives from Colombia, South Africa, Qatar, Turkiye, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Ireland, Spain and Uruguay.

Israel’s Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira warned against failing to stop Israeli atrocities.

“International law requires states not only to refrain from committing genocide, but also to prevent it. Failure to do so may give rise to state responsibility, including for complicity in genocide,” he said.

“Time has come for States to fulfil their obligations under the Genocide Convention by adopting effective measures to ensure that they do not, directly or indirectly, collaborate with its perpetrators.”

UNSC resolution to delay action likely to fail; Iran warns deal with IAEA will be “terminated” if sanctions, due at midnight GMT, are reinstated.

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is set for a vote that could open the way for the revival of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme.

The UNSC will vote on Friday on a resolution proposed by Russia and China seeking a delay to reimposing the penalties. UN “snapback” sanctions are set to be triggered at 00:00 GMT on Saturday, after the United Kingdom, France and Germany accused Tehran of violating a 2015 deal aimed at preventing it from developing a nuclear weapon.

Should the council not approve the resolution, which seeks a six-month delay to allow for further talks, it will pave the way for the international community to reimpose an arms embargo against Tehran and a punishing global asset freeze.

The sanctions also ban the sale of materials that could be used in uranium enrichment and reprocessing, as well as ballistic missile development and travel of Iranian individuals and entities.

Diplomats have suggested that the UNSC is unlikely to pass the Russian/Chinese resolution.

‘Hostile actions’

The UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), had been trying to rebuild cooperation with Tehran and resume inspections of its nuclear facilities after Israel and the United States bombed the sites in June.

Before the vote, Iran has threatened to retaliate by ending its cooperation with the IAEA should sanctions be imposed.

In a post on Telegram, Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi said Tehran’s agreement forged earlier this month with the IAEA on inspection of its nuclear sites would remain in effect only if no hostile actions are taken against his country, including any move to reinstate snapback sanctions.

“Otherwise, the Islamic Republic of Iran will consider its practical commitments terminated,” he added.

The Iranian Students’ News Agency also quoted him as criticising the “European Troika”, composed of France, Germany and the UK, for pushing for the reimposition of sanctions.

The three countries have been pressing Iran to allow full access to its nuclear sites for UN nuclear inspectors.

On Thursday, Araghchi met his British counterpart, Yvette Cooper, to discuss the dispute, during which he “strongly criticised the position of the three European countries as unjustified, illegal and irresponsible”, according to the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

China and Russia are expected to put forward the resolution that would delay the reimposition of sanctions until April 18 next year in front of the UNSC later on Friday.

The draft resolution would call on all initial parties to the deal, including the US, to “immediately resume negotiations”.

Diplomats told the AFP news agency that they did not expect the 15-member UNSC to hand the resolution the nine votes needed to pass.

In a meeting with Bolivian President Luis Arce Catacora on Thursday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reiterated his statement, saying Tehran is “fully prepared for any scenario” in case the UN sanctions are reimposed.

In his first UN address on Wednesday, Pezeshkian also reiterated that Tehran will “never seek to build a nuclear bomb”.

Iran has long contended that it is not seeking nuclear weapons, pointing to an edict by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and US intelligence has not concluded that the country has decided to build a nuclear weapon.

But Israel, the US and European countries have long been sceptical due to the country’s advanced nuclear work, believing it could quickly pursue a bomb if it so decided.

Sudan’s transitional Prime Minister Kamil Idris told the 80th United Nations General Assembly Sudan’s civil war has killed 150,000 and displaced 12 million. He urged lifting chemical weapons sanctions he called “political,” condemned foreign mercenaries, and demanded an end to the siege of el-Fasher.

Sept. 25 (UPI) — The United States on Thursday sanctioned one person and five entities for their role in generating money for North Korea and its weapons programs.

“This action aims to disrupt illicit networks that facilitate these attacks and simultaneously cutting off funding for the DPRK unlawful weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missile programs,” the State Department said in a statement.

DPRK are the initials of North Korea’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The department accused those blacklisted Thursday of generating revenue for Pyongyang by conducting arms deals with Myanmar’s military regime, which has been fighting a brutal civil war — resulting in civilian deaths and the destruction of civilian infrastructure — since its coup of February 2021.

Myanmar-based Royal Shune Lei Co. Limited and key personnel, including Kyaw Thu Myo Myint and Tin Myo Aung, who assisted in arms deals for the Myanmar Air Force with Kim Jong Ju, a Beijing-based deputy representative of the Korean Mining Development Trading Co., were sanctioned Thursday.

“Also known as the 221 General Bureau, KOMID serves as the DPRK’s primary arms dealer and exporter of ballistic missile-related equipment,” the State Department said.

The designations also sanction Aung Ko Ko Oo, director of Royal Shune Lei. The State Department also named Nam Chol Ung, a North Korean national who laundered foreign earnings through a network of businesses in Southeast Asia. Nam is a representative of the Pyongyang’s Reconnaissance General Bureau.

“These actions underscore the United States’ commitment to disrupting the networks that support DPRK’s destabilizing activities and to promoting accountability for those who enable Burma’s military regime,” the State Department release said.

Sept. 25 (UPI) — U.S. President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will discuss a potential arms deal, lifting sanctions against Turkey and Middle East peace while meeting on Thursday.

Trump and Erdogan are meeting in the Oval Office of the White House, which will include discussions regarding Erdogan’s desire to purchase F-16 and F-35 fighter aircraft and Patriot surface-to-air missile systems, they told media before their closed-door meeting.

“We do a lot of trade with Turkey, and we’re going to do some more,” Trump told media.

He said a deal for F-16s is likely and a deal for F-35s and the Patriot missiles could be made.

“I think he’ll be successful,” Trump said of Erdogan’s effort to secure a deal for F-35 fighters.

Turkey also wants to buy 200 commercial aircraft, the BBC reported.

The presidents said they are friends and highly respectful of one another, which should make it easier to reach agreements on the many issues that they will discuss.

They also will discuss matters in Gaza and the Middle East, potential assistance for the Greek Orthodox Church and ending the war in Ukraine.

Trump said he wants Turkey to stop buying Russian oil and is prepared to lift existing sanctions against Turkey for that nation’s past purchase of Russian arms.

The president also said they will discuss tariffs and securing the release of remaining hostages held by Hamas in Gaza.

Trump said about 20 hostages likely are living and estimated about 38 likely are dead, many of them young boys.

Following his meeting with Erdogan, the president also is scheduled to meet with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Thursday.

U.S. and Pakistani officials in July secured a trade agreement to lower tariffs between the two nations.

The U.S. also agreed to help Pakistan develop its oil reserves.

Agreement between Rosatom and Iran targets energy expansion with eight new nuclear plants planned by 2040.

Russia and Iran have signed a memorandum of understanding on the construction of small nuclear power plants in Iran, according the Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom, as Tehran has been engaged in a diplomatic push to avert new sanctions over its nuclear programme.

The agreement was signed by Rosatom chief Alexei Likhachev and Iran’s top nuclear official, Mohammad Eslami, on Wednesday at a meeting in Moscow. Rosatom described it as a “strategic project”.

Eslami, who is also Iran’s vice president, told Iranian state media earlier this week that the plan was to construct eight nuclear power plants as Tehran seeks to reach 20GW of nuclear energy capacity by 2040.

Iran, which suffers from electricity shortages during high-demand months, has only one operating nuclear power plant, in the southern city of Bushehr. It was built by Russia and has a capacity of approximately 1GW.

The development comes amid looming sanctions on Iran, after the United Nations Security Council voted on Friday not to permanently lift economic sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme, meaning sanctions will return by September 28 if no significant deal is reached beforehand.

Russia was among four nations that voted to stop the sanctions from being reintroduced.

Iran pushed back against the UNSC vote, saying the resumption of sanctions would “effectively suspend” the country’s cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN watchdog.

The vote followed a 30-day process launched in late August by the United Kingdom, France and Germany – known as the E3 – to reinstate sanctions unless Tehran meets their demands.

The E3 have accused Tehran of breaching its nuclear commitments, including by building up a uranium stockpile of more than 40 times the level permitted under a 2015 nuclear deal, from which Trump unilaterally withdrew in 2018, during his first term. The deal allowed Iran to enrich uranium up to 3.67 percent purity.

In its defence, Iran says it boosted its nuclear enrichment only after Trump withdrew from the deal and reimposed sanctions on the country. Tehran deems the US action a violation of the 2015 deal.

Iranian officials have accused the European trio of abusing the dispute mechanism contained in the 2015 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which allows for the application of sanctions under a “snapback mechanism”.

New sanctions would result in freezing of Iranian assets abroad, a halt in arms deals with Tehran, and penalise the development of ballistic missile programme, among other measures.

Iran has repeatedly denied pursuing nuclear weapons but affirmed its right to peacefully pursue nuclear energy. Addressing the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian said Tehran would never seek a nuclear bomb.

On Tuesday, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Tehran will not directly negotiate with the United States over Iran’s nuclear programme, calling talks with the US “a sheer dead end”.

Tensions escalated this June, when Israel launched a 12-day war on Iran, with Israeli and US forces striking several nuclear facilities.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has presented a 19th package of sanctions on Russia, urging members of the European Union to adopt new sanctions on Russia’s exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in an attempt to push Moscow to end its “brutal” war in Ukraine.

“Russia’s war economy is sustained by revenues from fossil fuels,” von der Leyen said on Friday. “We want to cut these revenues. So we are banning imports of Russian LNG into European markets.”

The sanctions must be endorsed by all 27 EU member countries before they can enter into force.

“It is time to turn off the tap,” von der Leyen said, calling on members to quickly endorse the move.

“We want Russia to leave the battlefield and come to the negotiation table, and this is the way to give peace a real chance,” she added.

Russia is showing the full extent of its contempt for diplomacy and international law.

So we’re increasing the pressure.

With our 19th package of sanctions covering energy, financial services and trade restrictions ↓ https://t.co/uW7HuZp3br

— Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) September 19, 2025

EU sanctions have already targeted more than 2,500 entities, including banks, ministries, energy companies and officials.

Those being sanctioned include President Vladimir Putin, his close associates, dozens of Russian lawmakers and several oligarchs. The measures largely consist of travel bans and asset freezes.

Von der Leyen said the bloc’s existing sanctions are having an effect.

“Russia’s overheated war economy is coming to its limit,” she said, pointing to persistently high inflation in the country.

The EU has so far adopted 18 sanction packages against Moscow, though reaching agreement on new targets often takes weeks.

Russian LNG accounted for roughly 16 percent of the bloc’s total imports last year, with Europe being Russia’s largest buyer of LNG.

Hungary and Slovakia have opposed any phase-out of Russian LNG, creating potential obstacles to further action, and they have been known to use their veto power to gain concessions.

Moscow to ‘pay the price’

In a separate statement, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said the bloc was moving up a previous pledge to end all imports of LNG before the end of 2027 by 12 months.

“Our aim is to speed up the phase-out of Russian liquefied natural gas by 1 Jan 2027,” she posted on X.

“Moscow thinks it can keep its war going. We are making sure it pays the price for it.”

Tearing children from their families and deporting them to re-education camps is beyond description.
We will not let Russia weaponize childhood itself.

We are also going to make is easier to sanction individuals involved in the abduction and indoctrination of Ukrainian children.

— Kaja Kallas (@kajakallas) September 19, 2025

Kallas said the bloc was also looking to “make it easier” to sanction individuals involved in abducting Ukrainian children.

Since 2022, Russia has faced global criticism over the deportation of Ukrainian families, many of them with children.

“Tearing children from their families and deporting them to re-education camps is beyond description,” Kallas posted on social media. “We will not let Russia weaponise childhood itself.”

UK sanctions target Georgian businessmen

Meanwhile, the UK announced sanctions on Friday against two Georgian businessmen over their support for Russia’s war in Ukraine, as well as two tankers carrying Russian oil.

“The UK has announced new sanctions targeting Georgia-linked supporters of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine,” the UK foreign ministry said in a statement.

“As Russia’s war footing weakens, the Kremlin is increasingly looking to proxies in third countries to support its war and propaganda operations, including in Georgia,” the ministry’s statement said.

Among the individuals sanctioned are Georgian media mogul and politician Levan Vasadze, whom the UK accuses of putting out pro-Russian disinformation.

Otar Partskhaladze, former prosecutor general of Georgia and someone London said had “extensive links to Russia,” was also sanctioned.

In addition, two tankers were sanctioned for carrying Russian oil to the Georgian port in Batumi in violation of Western restrictions.

“Putin’s war machine relies on an international web to spread lies and fund this network,” Minister of State Stephen Doughty said, according to the statement.

“We’re cutting off another lifeline by targeting and deterring those in Georgia who provide support for Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine.”

Four countries vote to stop sanctions from being reintroduced, while nine vote against sanctions relief.

The United Nations Security Council has voted not to permanently lift economic sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme, delivering a major economic blow that Tehran claims is “politically biased”.

A resolution on Friday to block the sanctions fell in the Security Council by a vote of four to nine, meaning European sanctions will return by September 28 if no significant deal is reached beforehand.

Russia, China, Pakistan and Algeria voted to stop the sanctions from being reintroduced, while nine UNSC members voted against sanctions relief. Two countries abstained.

The vote follows a 30-day process launched in late August by Britain, France and Germany – known as the E3 – to reinstate sanctions unless Tehran meets their demands.

Iran says Europeans ‘misusing JCPOA mechanism’

Iranian officials have accused the European trio of abusing the dispute mechanism contained in the 2015 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which allows for the application of sanctions under a “snapback mechanism”.

“What Europeans are doing is politically biased and politically motivated … They are wrong on different levels by trying to misuse the mechanism embedded in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),” Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh said.

The Europeans offered to delay the snapback for up to six months if Iran restored access for UN nuclear inspectors and engaged in talks with the US.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi claimed that Tehran had presented a “reasonable and actionable plan” and insisted Iran remains committed to the NPT.

But the E3 accuse Tehran of breaching their nuclear commitments, including by building up a uranium stockpile of more than 40 times the level permitted under the JCPOA. The UN’s nuclear watchdog board also ruled back in June that Iran was not respecting international nuclear safeguards.

‘Clock is ticking for high-level diplomacy’

The UNSC vote allowing sanctions to snap back is not the complete “end of negotiations,” as the parties have just over a week to come up with a last-ditch deal, said Al Jazeera’s Diplomatic Editor James Bays, reporting from the UN.

“It’s the week where world leaders are all here in New York for the high-level meeting of the UN General Assembly, so it sets the stage for high-level diplomacy between Iran and particularly the three European countries,” said Bays. But “we’re reaching the end of this high-stakes diplomacy, and the clock really is ticking.”

Under the JCPOA – signed by Iran, the United States, China, Russia and the EU – Tehran agreed to curb its nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief. But the agreement unravelled in 2018 after then-US President Donald Trump pulled out and reimposed unilateral sanctions.

Tensions escalated further earlier this summer, when Israel launched a 12-day war on Iran, with Israeli and US forces striking several nuclear facilities.

Iran has repeatedly denied pursuing nuclear weapons but affirmed its right to peacefully pursue nuclear energy.

The European Union says the humanitarian situation in Gaza is untenable.

The bloc proposes a suspension of its trade agreement with Israel.

And it wants to impose sanctions on two ministers as well as settlers in the occupied West Bank.

The change would make trade between the EU and Israel more costly for Israel.

The proposal needs the approval of the European Council and may face a veto from some countries, including Germany.

So will these financial measures pressure Israel to scale back its war?

Presenter: Folly Bah Thibault

Guests:

Yannis Koutsomitis – European affairs analyst

Akiva Eldar – Israeli political analyst

Ulrich Bruckner – Jean Monnet professor for European Studies

United States President Donald Trump has said he is ready to sanction Russia, but only if all NATO allies agree to completely halt buying oil from Moscow and impose their own sanctions on Russia to pressure it to end its more than three-year war in Ukraine.

“I am ready to do major Sanctions on Russia when all NATO Nations have agreed, and started, to do the same thing, and when all NATO Nations STOP BUYING OIL FROM RUSSIA,” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform on Saturday, which he described as a letter to all NATO nations and the world.

Trump proposed that NATO, as a group, place 50-100 percent tariffs on China to weaken its economic grip over Russia.

Trump also wrote that NATO’s commitment “to WIN” the war “has been far less than 100%” and that it was “shocking” that some members of the alliance continued to buy Russian oil. As if speaking to them, he said, “It greatly weakens your negotiating position, and bargaining power, over Russia.”

NATO member Turkiye has been the third-largest buyer of Russian oil, after China and India. Other members of the 32-state alliance involved in buying Russian oil include Hungary and Slovakia, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.

If NATO “does as I say, the WAR will end quickly”, Trump wrote. “If not, you are just wasting my time.”

As he struggles to deliver on promises to end the war quickly, Trump has repeatedly threatened to increase pressure on Russia. Last month, he slapped a 50 percent tariff on India over its continued buying of Russian oil, though he has not yet taken similar actions against China.

Trump’s social media post comes days after Polish and NATO forces shot down drones violating Polish airspace during Russia’s biggest-ever aerial barrage against Ukraine.

Poland and Romania scramble aircraft

Polish airspace has been violated many times since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, but never on this scale anywhere in NATO territory.

Wednesday’s incident was the first time a NATO member is known to have fired shots during Russia’s war in Ukraine.

On Saturday, Poland said it and its NATO allies had deployed helicopters and aircraft as Russian drones struck Ukraine, not far from its border.

Poland’s military command said on X that “ground-based air defence and radar reconnaissance systems have reached their highest level of alert”, adding that the actions were “preventative”.

Also on Saturday, Romania’s Ministry of National Defence said that the country’s airspace had been breached by a drone during a Russian attack on infrastructure in neighbouring Ukraine.

The country scrambled two F-16 fighter jets to monitor the situation, tracking the drone until it disappeared from the radar” near the Romanian village of Chilia Veche, said the ministry in a statement.

Little sign of peace

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has welcomed the prospect of penalties on states still doing business with Moscow.

In an interview with the US media outlet ABC News last week, Zelenskyy said, “I’m very thankful to all the partners, but some of them, I mean, they continue [to] buy oil and Russian gas, and this is not fair… I think the idea to put tariffs on the countries that continue to make deals with Russia, I think this is the right idea.”

Last month, the US president hosted Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, to discuss an end to the war, in their first face-to-face meeting since Trump’s return to the White House.

Shortly afterwards, he hosted Zelenskyy and European leaders in Washington, DC, for discussions on a settlement.

Despite the diplomatic blitz, there has been little progress towards a peace deal, with Moscow and Kyiv remaining far apart on key issues and Russia persisting in its bombardment of Ukrainian cities.

Russia claims advances

Russia on Saturday said it had captured a new village in Ukraine’s central Dnipropetrovsk region, which Moscow’s forces say they reached at the beginning of July.

The Russian Ministry of Defence said its troops had seized the village of Novomykolaivka near the border with the Donetsk region – the epicentre of fighting on the front. The AFP news agency was unable to confirm this claim.

DeepState, an online battlefield map run by Ukrainian military analysts, said the village was still under Kyiv’s control.

At the end of August, Ukraine had for the first time acknowledged that Russian soldiers had entered the Dnipropetrovsk region, where Moscow had claimed advances at the start of the month.

The Russian army currently controls about a fifth of Ukrainian territory.

The Kremlin is demanding that Ukraine withdraw from its eastern Donbas region, comprised of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, as a condition for halting hostilities, something that Kyiv has rejected.

The Dnipropetrovsk region is not one of the five Ukrainian regions – Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, Zaporizhia and Crimea – that Moscow has publicly claimed as Russian territory.

On Friday, Zelenskyy said that Putin wanted to “occupy all of Ukraine” and would not stop until his goal was achieved, even if Kyiv agreed to cede territory.

Sept. 13 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Saturday outlined the road to new sanctions against Russia in an effort to stop that country’s war in Ukraine.

“I am ready to do major Sanctions on Russia when all NATO Nations have agreed, and started, to do the same thing, and when all NATO Nations STOP BUYING OIL FROM RUSSIA,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

“The purchase of Russian Oil, by some, has been shocking! It greatly weakens your negotiating position, and bargaining power, over Russia.”

Trump earlier in the week reportedly delivered the same message to European Union countries, urging them to enact new 100% tariffs on China and India for their purchases of Russian oil.

“Just say when? I believe that this, plus NATO, as a group, placing 50% to 100% TARIFFS ON CHINA, to be fully withdrawn after the WAR with Russia and Ukraine is ended, will also be of great help in ENDING this deadly, but RIDICULOUS, WAR,” Trump wrote Saturday.

“China has a strong control, and even grip, over Russia, and these powerful Tariffs will break that grip.”

U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright this week called on EU countries still buying oil and gas from Russia to shift their business to the United States.

“We want to displace all Russian gas. President Trump, America, and all the nations of the EU, we want to end the Russian-Ukraine war,” Wright said this week.

“The more we can strangle Russia’s ability to fund this murderous war, the better for all of us. So the answer to your question is absolutely.”

Dutch broadcaster AVROTROS says it would not take part in next year’s competition given the ‘severe human suffering in Gaza’.

The Netherlands has announced it will boycott the 2026 Eurovision in Vienna if Israel participates, joining other European countries that have threatened to withdraw from the song contest over Israel’s war on Gaza.

Dutch broadcaster AVROTROS, one of dozens of public broadcasters that collectively fund and broadcast the contest, on Friday said it would not take part in next year’s competition in Vienna if Israel participates, “given the ongoing and severe human suffering in Gaza”.

“The broadcaster also expresses deep concern about the serious erosion of press freedom: the deliberate exclusion of independent international reporting and the many casualties among journalists,” it said in a statement.

Irish broadcaster RTE released a similar statement on Thursday, saying participating would be “unconscionable” as a result of Israel’s war on Gaza. Iceland said it may withdraw from the contest, and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has called for Israel to be booted from the competition.

AVROTROS said it had also taken into account the high number of journalists who have died in Gaza.

The European Broadcasting Union, which runs the contest, said it was consulting its members on how to “manage participation and geopolitical tensions” around the contest and would give them until mid-December to decide if they want to participate.

“We understand the concerns and deeply held views around the ongoing conflict in the Middle East,” said Martin Green, director of Eurovision. “It is up to each member to decide if they want to take part in the contest, and we would respect any decision broadcasters make.”

The organisation said in July it was launching a consultation with all members of the EEBU, which organises the song contest over the issue.

The Dutch broadcaster said it will continue preparing for the contest — which was watched by 166 million people on television this year — until it receives a decision from organisers about whether it will include Israel.

Calls to boycott Israel grow

The boycott threat is part of a campaign by arts organisations and figures to pressure Israel to end its war on Gaza.

Earlier this week, Hollywood stars including Emma Stone, Ayo Edebiri, Ava DuVernay and Olivia Colman joined 3,000 other industry figures in signing a pledge to boycott Israeli film institutions “implicated in genocide and apartheid against the Palestinian people,” according to the group Film Workers for Palestine.

Russia has been banned from Eurovision since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, but Israel has continued to compete in the past two years despite disputes over its participation.

Dozens of former participants, including 2024 winner Nemo of Switzerland, have called for Israel to be excluded over its conduct in Gaza. Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel protests took place around this year’s contest in Basel, Switzerland, though on a much smaller scale than the 2024 event in Sweden.

Eurovision’s finale is scheduled for May 16 after semifinals on May 12 and 14, 2026.

Sept. 8 (UPI) — The Trump administration has floated the idea of a second round of sanctions on Russia after its largest aerial attack on Ukraine‘s capital since the start of the war.

Speaking to reporters Sunday at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, President Donald Trump decried the attacks on Kyiv, which killed four people, including a mother and her baby, the BBC reported. Trump said he was “not happy with the whole situation.”

Asked by a reporter whether he was considering a second round of sanctions on Russia in response to Sunday’s attacks, Trump said, “Yeah, I am.”

He declined to give further details, but Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told NBC on Sunday that the United States must partner with Europe to “collapse” Russia’s economy. He called on European countries to impose sanctions on other nations that purchase oil from Russia.

“We are prepared to increase pressure on Russia, but we need our European partners to follow us,” Bessent said during an appearance on Meet the Press.

He said the race now is between how long the Ukrainian military can hold off Russia and how long Moscow’s economy can last. Collapsing Russia’s economy, Bessent said, “will bring [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin to the table.”

Bessent is expected to meet Monday with economic representatives from multiple European countries, according to NBC News.

Trump suggested a second and third phase of sanctions on Russia on Wednesday, The Hill reported. At the time, a reporter asked him why he hadn’t taken action against Putin.

“How do you know there’s no action?” Trump responded. “Would you say that putting secondary sanctions on India — the largest purchaser [of Russian oil] outside of China, they’re almost equal — would you say there’s no action?

“That cost hundreds of billions of dollars to Russia. You call that no action? And I haven’t done Phase 2 yet or Phase 3.”

Al-Haq, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) and Al-Mezan targeted for engaging with ICC, state department says.

The United States has added three prominent Palestinian rights groups, Al-Haq, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) and Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights to its sanctions list.

The groups were added to the Department of the Treasury’s “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List” on Thursday.

In a subsequent statement, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the rights groups were targeted for having “directly engaged in efforts by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute Israeli nationals, without Israel’s consent”.

The Trump administration had previously sanctioned the ICC in response to its investigation and subsequent arrest warrants issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes committed in Gaza.

All three groups had provided evidence on Israeli abuses in the case.

“The United States will continue to respond with significant and tangible consequences to protect our troops, our sovereignty, and our allies from the ICC’s disregard for sovereignty, and to punish entities that are complicit in its overreach,” Rubio said.

We condemn in the strongest terms the draconian sanctions imposed by The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on our organisations: @alhaq_org , @AlMezanCenter & @pchrgaza/1

— Al-Haq الحق (@alhaq_org) September 4, 2025

The Ramallah-based Al-Haq has been a leading organisation both in the occupied Palestinian territory and internationally seeking accountability for Israeli abuses, while leading litigation in several countries.

The Gaza City-based Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and the Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights have been leading independent organisation that have documented Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza.

In a statement shared by all three organisations, they condemned “in the strongest terms the draconian sanctions” imposed by the Trump administration.

“These measures in times of live genocide against our People, is a coward[ly], immoral, illegal and undemocratic act,” the statement said.

“Only states with complete disregard to international law and our shared humanity can take such heinous measures against human rights orgs working to end a genocide,” the statement said.

The U.S. just sanctioned three of the most prominent Palestinian human rights groups: @alhaq_org, @pchrgaza, and @AlMezanCenter.

Shameful but not surprising.

This administration bends over backwards to put Israel First every time. pic.twitter.com/ocXBYJllki

— Mohsen Farshneshani (@mFarshneshani) September 4, 2025

In a post on the social media platform X, Mohsen Farshneshani, a sanctions lawyer and advisor at Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), described the organisations as “three of the most prominent Palestinian human rights groups”.

“Shameful but not surprising,” Farshneshani wrote. “This administration bends over backwards to put Israel First every time.”

The US previously sanctioned the Ramallah-based Addameer, a human rights organisation focused on Palestinian prisoners and detainees, in June.

At the time, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which both work closely with the group, said the sanctions “would make day-to-day operations harder and harder, including for their employees, assisted communities and service suppliers. This will also negatively affect their engagement with their partner organizations, locally and internationally, including US-based groups”.

“The US is using its sanctions regime to do the bidding of the Israeli government, which has long systematically sought to muzzle human rights reporting and advocacy,” it added.

In July, the Trump administration also sanctioned the Palestinian Authority (PA), which administers the occupied West Bank, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which represents Palestinians internationally.

At the same time, the Trump administration has revoked sanctions imposed under former US President Joe Biden on Israelis from illegal settlements and organisations accused of violence.

The United States and Europe have long used unilateral sanctions as a tool of imperial power, to discipline and even destroy Global South governments that seek to shake off Western domination, chart an independent path, and establish any kind of meaningful sovereignty.

During the 1970s, there were, on average, about 15 countries under Western unilateral sanctions in any given year. In many cases, these sanctions sought to strangle access to finance and international trade, destabilise industries, and inflame crises to provoke state collapse.

For instance, when the popular socialist Salvador Allende was elected to power in Chile in 1970, the US government imposed brutal sanctions on the country. At a September 1970 meeting at the White House, US President Richard Nixon explained the objective was to “make [Chile’s] economy scream”. The historian Peter Kornbluh describes the sanctions as an “invisible blockade” that cut Chile off from international finance, created social unrest, and paved the way for the US-backed coup that installed the brutal right-wing dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet.

Since then, the US and Europe have dramatically increased their use of sanctions. During the 1990s and 2000s, an average of 30 countries were under Western unilateral sanctions in any given year.  And now, as of the 2020s, it is more than 60 – a strikingly high proportion of the countries of the Global South.

Sanctions often have a huge human toll.  Scholars have demonstrated this in several well-known cases, such as the US sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s that led to widespread malnutrition, lack of clean water, and shortages of medicine and electricity. More recently, US economic warfare against Venezuela has resulted in a severe economic crisis, with one study estimating that sanctions caused 40,000 excess deaths in just one year, from 2017 to 2018.

Until now, researchers have sought to understand the human toll of sanctions on a case-by-case basis. This is difficult work and can only ever give us a partial picture. But that has changed with new research published this year in The Lancet Global Health, which gives us a global view for the first time. Led by the economist Francisco Rodriguez at the University of Denver, the study calculates the total number of excess deaths associated with international sanctions from 1970 to 2021.

The results are staggering. In their central estimate, the authors find that unilateral sanctions imposed by the US and EU since 1970 are associated with 38 million deaths. In some years, during the 1990s, more than a million people were killed. In 2021, the most recent year of data, sanctions caused more than 800,000 deaths.

According to these results, several times more people are killed by sanctions each year than are killed as direct casualties of war (on average, about 100,000 people per year). More than half of the victims are children and the elderly, people who are most vulnerable to malnutrition. The study finds that, since 2012 alone, sanctions have killed more than one million children.

Hunger and deprivation are not an accidental by-product of Western sanctions; they are a key objective. This is clear from a State Department memo written in April 1960, which explains the purpose of US sanctions against Cuba. The memo noted that Fidel Castro – and the revolution more broadly – enjoyed widespread popularity in Cuba. It argued that “every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba,” by “denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government”.

The power of Western sanctions hinges on their control over the world’s reserve currencies (the US dollar and the Euro), their control over international payment systems (SWIFT), and their monopoly over essential technologies (eg satellites, cloud computation, software). If countries in the Global South wish to chart a more independent path towards a multipolar world, they will need to take steps to limit their dependence in these respects and thus insulate themselves from backlash. The recent experience of Russia shows that such an approach can succeed.

Governments can achieve greater independence by building South-South trade and swap lines outside the core currencies, using regional planning to develop necessary technologies, and establishing new payment systems outside Western control. Indeed, several countries are already taking steps in this direction. Importantly, new systems that have been developed in China (eg CIPS for international payments, BeiDou for satellites, Huawei for telecom) now provide other global South countries alternative options that can become a pathway out of Western dependence and the sanctions net.

These steps are necessary for countries that wish to achieve sovereign development, but they are also a moral imperative. We cannot accept a world where half a million people are killed each year to prop up Western hegemony. An international order that relies on this kind of violence must be dismantled and replaced.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

FM Maxime Prevot says his country will recognise Palestine this month and impose 12 ‘firm sanctions’ on Israel.

Belgium will recognise the State of Palestine at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) later this month, Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs Maxime Prevot has announced.

“Palestine will be recognised by Belgium at the UN session! And firm sanctions will be imposed against the Israeli government,” Prevot, who is also the deputy prime minister, wrote on the social media platform X early on Tuesday.

Prevot said Belgium would also impose 12 “firm sanctions” on Israel, including a ban on importing products from the settlements, and “a review of public procurement policies with Israeli companies”.

He added that the announcement was made “in light of the humanitarian tragedy unfolding in Palestine, particularly in Gaza”.

At the end of July, President Emmanuel Macron announced that France would recognise Palestine at the UNGA, which will be held from September 9 to 23 in New York.

Following this, several other countries have announced that they will do the same, although some have said they intend to place conditions on their recognition.

As of April this year, some 147 countries, representing 75 percent of UN members, have already recognised Palestinian statehood.

Belgium’s announcement comes as Israel’s war on Gaza has killed at least 63,459 people and wounded 160,256 more.

In July, Belgian prosecutors referred a war crimes complaint against two Israeli soldiers to the International Criminal Court (ICC), following allegations that they participated in atrocities in Gaza.

This is a breaking news story. More soon.

The two foreign ministers presented their argument in the letter directed at EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas. They contended that the EU should impose carefully planned sanctions on Israeli government ministers and settlers of the West Bank. In addition, they demanded simultaneously new sanctions against the Hamas leadership in Gaza. The letter was dated August 27. It called on the EU to act fast. The ministers emphasized that restrictions should be imposed on those people who will encourage illegal settlement activity. Moreover, they further cautioned that ministers who act against a two-state solution need to be held answerable.

The West Bank, which is left in a state of occupation, has seen Israelis perpetrating recurrent incursions against the Palestinians. Maria Malmer Stenergard, the Swedish Foreign Minister, has been talking about it for months. She has called for sanctions on far-right Israeli cabinet officials since May. A big number of them advocate apparent annexation of Palestinian territory. This was announced by Stenergard on Thursday in Swedish public radio:sanctions need to cause such ministers to face difficulties. Her words emphasize an augmented annoyance of the situation in Europe as Israel continues to advance settlements.

The Dutch standing too has become hard. But action was postponed by internal quibbling. Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp quit last week. He was unable to give national sanctions against Israel through his cabinet. He was recently superseded by Ruben Brekelmans, who co-signed the new letter.

The ministers went further. They insisted on cessation of the commercial part of the EU-Israel association deal. However, free trade in many areas such as agriculture and industry is allowed in this agreement. Falling victim to cutting off this benefit would cost Israel extremely economically. Over the years, opponents have claimed that Israel cannot be provided with preferential trade access as it continues to expand settlements on the occupied territory. Conserving this, the Swedish and Dutch ministers now want to make that argument into policy.

In the letter, the focus is not solely on Israel. The EU foreign services are required to present additional propositions to pressurize Hamas. The organization already managing the Gaza Strip is declared as a terrorist organization by the EU and a few of the Western states.

Nevertheless, the ministers insist there is still a need for further sanctions. They are worried that Hamas continues being an important factor in the struggle. They would like to add an additional stress layer by attacking the political hierarchy of Hamas.

Furthermore, the position adopted by Pakistan is unambiguous. Pakistan identifies with the entire community of states that champion humanity, justice, and long-term peace. The foreign policy has stood firmly behind the Palestinian cause, and the country has made numerous demands for a fair and peaceful resolution of the conflict. It is the country’s position that all countries should respect international law as well as humanitarianism. Besides, to assert this is the moral duty of the world community to act firmly for the innocent civilians that are being killed and starved.

The appeal of Pakistan to the EU to act immediately and in unison is by itself essential. It is said to be essential to this move to prevent constantly recurring atrocities and implement international humanitarian law. Pakistan also sincerely requests the EU to follow the appeal concerted by Sweden and the Netherlands. The era of contemplation is over; the call to act is on.

The timing of the letter is not random. There was an official announcement of famine in Gaza by the United Nations on Friday. The UN accuses Israel of what it terms systematic defiance on the facilitation of aid. The crisis is the result of over 22 months of war that led to considerable loss of civilian lives and the destruction of many properties.

The humanitarian catastrophe has brought the appeal for more forceful steps in Europe. It has been said that assistance cannot be delivered to the needy without pressure on Israel by the politicians. Others think that the strategies of Hamas also extend the suffering.

The problem this time will be brought to the EU foreign ministers on Saturday. Proposals will be debated there by the member states. The extent to which Sweden and the Netherlands will collect support is not certain. There are those governments in the EU that like conservative diplomacy. Others fear that quotas might carve up relationships with Israel or with the United States. Yet momentum is building. Notably, the urgency has been introduced through the famine declaration.

In the EU, Sweden and the Netherlands have frequently been active participants in Middle East debates. Their last move indicates that they are ready to go to greater extremes. Accountability of settlement expansion, in the case of Stenergard, is the question. In the case of Brekelmans, it is the policies of Israel as well as the activities of Hamas.

The way they did things reflects a broader European trend. Greater information is frustrating governments that the peace process is not forthcoming. Settlement expansion is seen by many as the greatest barrier to a two-state solution. It is also claimed by others that diplomacy is compromised by the constant attacks by Hamas.

Despite these cries, the EU has internal cracks. Such nations as Germany and Hungary have always feared sanctioning Israel. France and Spain have assumed more hardline stances, but they are also wary of trade measures. Getting consensus will not come easy.

Nevertheless, the Swedish Akademisk holändsk Bulletin is a telling sign. The pressure on Israel no longer remains a fringe concept in the EU. It is entering into mainstream debate. This is in the wake of United States and Israel negotiations on post-war Gaza. Washington has called on restraint, yet it is on the side of Israel militarily. On the same day, Tel Aviv reported that a complete evacuation of Gaza City is inevitable. These trends make EU decisions more important. The sanctions would become a landmark should they be passed. The Israeli settlement policy has received many criticisms from the EU, but very few measures have been taken by the body. The most powerful thing that could be done, however, is to suspend the trade deal.

The Netherlands and Sweden have gone bold. Their open letter to Kaja Kallas asks to target sanctions against violent settlers and monopolist Israeli ministers. It also requires additional actions against the political leadership of Hamas. Also, they desire that the EU-Israel trade agreement be suspended.

The proposals come at a time when Gaza struggles with famine and when the war will turn 23 months old. The EU foreign ministers meeting in Copenhagen will debate the issue. The result may remodel the policy of Europe in the Middle East. Somehow the sanctions may pass or not pass, but one thing is evident. Increasing pressure is within the EU. The humanitarian crisis and the continuing conflict are moving governments to action. With the strikes by Sweden and the Netherlands, the issue of sanctions now rests squarely on the European stage.

Washington, DC – The decision by European countries to impose “snapback” sanctions against Iran may further exacerbate international tensions, experts say, as fears of a regional war loom over the Middle East.

On Thursday, Germany, France and the United Kingdom – Europe’s largest economies – triggered a 30-day process to reimpose sanctions over what they called “significant” violations of a 2015 agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear programme.

“What we’re heading toward is the snapback scenario where the sanctions come back and Iran is likely to retaliate in some way that’s unhelpful,” said Ryan Costello, the policy director at the National Iranian American Council (NIAC).

And the tensions could escalate into renewed violence after the Israeli attacks on Iran earlier this year. “It’s another kind of domino falling on the way toward the June war reigniting,” Costello said.

The United States, which bombed three nuclear facilities in June as part of an Israeli assault on Iran, has welcomed the European countries’ move.

But the administration of US President Donald Trump has also kept the door open for talks with Iran.

“The United States remains available for direct engagement with Iran – in furtherance of a peaceful, enduring resolution to the Iran nuclear issue,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement. “Snapback does not contradict our earnest readiness for diplomacy, it only enhances it.”

Costello, however, underscored that Iran was at the table before Israel launched its 12-day war.

A round of nuclear talks between US and Iranian officials was set to take place on June 15. But Israeli bombs started falling on Tehran two days before the scheduled negotiations, postponing them indefinitely.

Costello said that, in order to return to the nuclear discussions, the US and Europe first have to rebuild trust with Iran.

“The overwhelming sentiment in Iran is that those talks were all a ruse – that Israel was going to attack Iran with US support to some degree regardless of what they did at the negotiating table,” he told Al Jazeera. “So both the Europeans and the US have to reflect that reality.”

What is snapback?

The current crisis can be traced back to Trump’s decision to pull the US out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal during his first term in 2018.

The 2015 accord – formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – compelled Iran to curb its nuclear programme in exchange for lifting international sanctions against its economy.

But to ensure that Iran can be penalised quickly if it violates the agreement, the deal included a “snapback” mechanism to reimpose a series of United Nations sanctions.

The mechanism gave any signatory to the agreement – the US, UK, Germany, France, Russia or China – the power to kickstart a process to revive six UN Security Council sanctions resolutions.

And the snapback is veto-proof, meaning Russia and China, both allies of Iran, cannot block the restoration of the sanctions.

In 2020, the US tried to activate the snapback clause of the JCPOA, but the effort failed because Washington was no longer a party in the agreement.

Since the US exit in 2018, Iran has been gradually escalating its nuclear programme, but Iranian officials insist that the country is not seeking a nuclear weapon.

Thursday’s decision to reimpose UN sanctions on Iran appears to be timed against the expiration of the snapback provision in October, which marks 10 years after the nuclear deal came into effect.

Experts say the governments in Paris, London and Berlin are essentially invoking a provision from a long-abandoned agreement to secure UN sanctions against Iran.

Sina Toossi, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, said the snapback was included in the JCPOA to ensure that all sides abide by the deal, but European powers are using it to further pressure Iran.

“The overall US and European approach to Iran has been just brute power – like might is right,” Toossi told Al Jazeera.

“Anything about legal contacts and history and international norms doesn’t matter. They just want to use this instrument to unilaterally reimpose sanctions on Iran.”

What does Europe want?

France, Germany and the UK, however, have outlined three conditions to delay the snapback sanctions by six months.

The demands are for Iran to resume direct talks with the US, restore full cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, and disclose the new location for its heavily enriched uranium after the US and Israeli strikes.

Some US reports have suggested that the uranium stockpiles are buried under the now-damaged nuclear facilities, but Iran may have also moved the material before the US bombed its nuclear sites.

Analysts say that, while the European conditions may seem reasonable on the surface, they are challenging for the Iranian leadership to agree to.

The European powers want Tehran to recommit to negotiations with Washington, without assurances from the US and Israel that they wouldn’t attack again.

Tehran had also suspended full cooperation with the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) after the watchdog failed to condemn the US and Israeli attacks, which it said breached international law.

Earlier this month, Iran allowed some IAEA inspectors back into the country, but the UN agency still has not accessed or assessed the damage at Iran’s enrichment facilities.

As for the uranium, Iran fears that disclosing the location of the stockpiles will only invite Israel or the US to bomb them.

“If they make the location of that enriched uranium very clearly known to the wider world, including US and Israel, then it’s a blinking target for follow-up US or Israeli strikes on those facilities to set Iran’s programme back further,” Costello told Al Jazeera.

“So because that hasn’t been ruled out, it becomes very difficult for Iran to strike such an agreement.”

Impact of snapback

But the three European powers argued that the demands are necessary because Iran’s nuclear programme constitutes a “clear threat to international peace and security”.

“Today, Iran’s non-compliance with the JCPOA is clear and deliberate, and sites of major proliferation concern in Iran are outside of IAEA monitoring,” the countries said in a statement.

“Iran has no civilian justification for its high enriched uranium stockpile … which is also unaccounted for by the IAEA.”

Tehran has rejected that argument, saying that European powers had breached the 2015 agreement first by accepting the US’s 2018 decision to restore secondary sanctions on Iran’s economy.

Most countries and businesses around the world enforce US sanctions out of fear of being sanctioned themselves.

The Iranian economy is already reeling under heavy US sanctions with global implications.

But the UN sanctions – which include an arms embargo – could enable unilateral sanctions by other countries. They may also further undermine trust in the Iranian economy. Already, the Iranian rial fell sharply after Thursday’s announcement.

“There is more currency depreciation because of the snapback; it’s another psychological shock to the economy,” said Toossi.

Europe goes hawkish

Since the turn of the 21st century, European countries have been seen as a moderating influence on Washington’s hawkish impulses towards Iran.

Despite abiding by the US sanctions, European leaders had vocally opposed Trump’s exit from the JCPOA in 2018.

But since Trump returned to office in January, France, Germany and the UK appear to have taken a harder line against Tehran.

In June, European powers not only failed to condemn Israel’s unprovoked war on Iran, but they also seemed to endorse it. Chancellor Friedrich Merz even suggested Germany and the West are benefitting from the assault.

“This is dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us,” he said.

Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, a think tank that promotes diplomacy, said Europe’s new posture towards Iran is linked to its broader relationship with the US.

Iran has been accused of supplying Russia with drones to use in its war against Ukraine, so now Europe sees Tehran as a threat, Parsi said.

He also noted that nearly all trade between Europe and Iran has been destroyed by US sanctions.

“Iran simply does not matter that much for Europeans,” he told Al Jazeera in a TV interview.

“So doing something that endears Europe with the hardline elements in the Trump administration, I think, is something that is seen as valuable in Europe … given how tremendously strained the current transatlantic relationship is right now.”

For now, the nuclear tensions continue to grind on. The US continues to demand that Iran dismantle its nuclear programme, while Tehran insists on maintaining uranium enrichment domestically.

Toossi said there’s an irony in the whole affair: The three European powers are invoking a provision of the JCPOA that grants Iran the right to uranium enrichment, but they are using it to align with the US demand for no more enrichment.

“The hypocrisies and contradictions are just immense in all of this,” he said.

Three European powers are expected to reimpose punishing United Nations sanctions on Iran for ostensibly not engaging with the international community to reach a deal on its nuclear programme.

Known as the E3, France, Germany and the United Kingdom have given Iran until August 31 to make some tough decisions.

As the deadline looms, observers and analysts fear that reimposing UN sanctions will significantly escalate regional tensions and embolden Israel and the United States to attack Iran again.

Standoff

While the stakes are high, the demands by the E3 –  three of the six remaining signatories to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal – aren’t so easy to meet, experts told Al Jazeera.

They want Iran to resume negotiations with the US over its nuclear programme and allow international inspectors back in to monitor sites and stockpiles of highly enriched uranium.

The US quit the nuclear deal in 2018 and reimposed its own sanctions on Iran.

In April and May this year, it entered nuclear talks with Iran, demanding that Iran give up its centrifuges – needed to highly enrich uranium – and “downblend” its current nuclear programme.

Downblending is a process where highly enriched uranium is diluted with low-enriched uranium.

But in June, the US changed its position and demanded that Iran give up its entire nuclear programme, a suggestion Iran rejected outright.

The US suspended talks, and Israel attacked Iran in June, in an apparent attempt to dismember the ruling government.  The “12-day war” saw the US join in to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites.

Since then, the US has maintained that Iran must give up its nuclear programme as a precondition for new talks.

Iran has long stated that it has no interest in pursuing a nuclear bomb and that its programme is for civilian purposes.

Moreover, as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is entitled to enrich uranium for civilian sectors such as energy, cancer research, and other scientific research.

Trita Parsi, Iran expert and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, told Al Jazeera the E3’s demands risk accelerating another round of regional conflict.

“If you restart talks at a moment when you know that talks will fail, then you ensure that military attacks will happen sooner rather than later,” Parsi told Al Jazeera.

Remnants of the JCPOA

The JCPOA was signed between Iran and the members of the UN Security Council (UNSC), plus Germany and the European Union.

The deal stipulated that Iran must not enrich uranium above 3.67 percent, far below weaponisation.

In return, the parties agreed to lift debilitating UN sanctions, yet any one of the signatories could reimpose sanctions unilaterally if they found Iran was not complying with the JCPOA.

When US President Donald Trump pulled his country out of the JCPOA in 2018, Iran accused the US of violating the deal and the Europeans of “indirectly” violating it by not providing options for Iran to avoid US sanctions.

Iran also notified the Europeans and the US that it would increase enrichment levels beyond JCPOA limits.

Experts believe Iran was increasing enrichment to gain leverage with Western states for a future deal, as Al Jazeera previously reported.

And after the 12-day war, Iran denied access to the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is tasked with monitoring Iran’s nuclear sites under the NPT and the JCPOA.

Along with resuming talks with the US, the E3 requires Iran to grant access to IAEA inspectors in return for delaying the triggering of snapback sanctions for another six months.

Some within Iran’s leadership believe the IAEA leaked sensitive information to the US.

“One position coming out of Tehran is that their cooperation with the IAEA over the years prepared the ground for the [US] attacks…because the US and Israel had very clear mapping and info of the programme,” Negar Mortazavi, an expert on Iran with the Center for International Policy (CIP), said.

“There is now a big view in Iran’s domestic political space that maybe we should stop cooperating with the IAEA,” she added.

Iran is reportedly hiding some 400kg (880lb) of 60 percent enriched uranium, a level just below weapons-grade.

Iran views the 60 percent stockpile as its last bargaining chip vis-a-vis Washington, according to Hamidreza Azizi, an expert on Iran and visiting fellow with the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWB).

He added that Iran is, therefore, reluctant to disclose the whereabouts of that uranium out of fear of giving up its last source of leverage in future negotiations.

“[The E3] wants complete transparency that removes the ambiguity around Iran’s most sensitive nuclear activities. From their perspective, only this would justify extending the snapback deadline,” Azizi told Al Jazeera.

Zero-sum game

Iran has reached out to the US to resume talks since June, according to CIP’s Mortazavi.

She added that, on the one hand, Iran refuses to project weakness after the war for fear of signalling that it will make concessions if attacked by the US and Israel, while, on the other hand, the US refuses to engage until Iran agrees to “zero enrichment”.

The US is also struggling to save face after Trump declared that Iran’s nuclear programme had been completely destroyed in June, an assessment quickly contradicted by US intelligence.

Yet any resumption of talks would be a clear admission that Iran’s nuclear programme is still very much functional, said Parsi.

Azizi, from SWB, believes that the E3 and Iran should consider reaching a limited and more flexible arrangement to avoid snapback sanctions.

This could entail resuming limited and reversible cooperation with the IAEA and establishing a roadmap for future talks with the US.

However, he’s not optimistic that the E3 will extend such an offer because it would like to locate the stockpile of 60 percent enriched uranium, which, in their view, is a serious nuclear proliferation threat.

Iran, for its part, seems ready to accept a deal that grants partial access to the IAEA. Inspectors from the agency reportedly arrived in Tehran on August 27, although the Iranian government said no deal had been reached with the IAEA as of yet.

Effect of sanctions?

If Iran doesn’t meet the E3’s demands, it will come under a conventional arms embargo, face restrictions on its ballistic missile development, and its top officials will have their assets frozen and travel bans issued for them.

Most notably, Iran will be ordered by the UNSC to stop uranium enrichment, as per the JCPOA. This could give Israel and the US the legitimacy of international law to try and “enforce” this order by attacking Iran again, argues Parsi.

“When you have a demand by the UN Security Council [saying] Iran should stop uranium enrichment, it means the US/Israel demand will suddenly have the force of international law behind it,” he told Al Jazeera.

Azizi believes the combination of snapback sanctions, Iran’s hidden stockpiles of enriched uranium and lack of IAEA inspections could lead to renewed conflict.

“Israel has already demonstrated its willingness to use force again … If Iran were to resume enrichment at scale or show signs of moving toward weaponisation under the cover of opacity, the risk of another Israeli attack would rise sharply,” he told Al Jazeera.

What’s more, Iran would be prohibited under UN resolutions from importing weapons from Russia or China, which, in theory, would make the government and its people more vulnerable to external threats.

China and Russia could ignore the sanctions, arguing they were an abusive attempt to force Iran to give up its nuclear programme.

UN resolutions are often ignored by the US, its allies, and other world powers to protect their interests.

Parsi argues that the E3’s threat of restoring UN sanctions is driven more by wanting to curry favour with the Trump administration than by any real concern for de-escalating tensions in the Middle East.

“Europeans want to get themselves on the same page with the US,” he told Al Jazeera.

“At the end of the day, what’s far more important to the Europeans is that they maintain good relations with the US, not work [to deescalate the situation] with Iran.”