Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks during a meeting in Tehran, Iran, May 20, 2025. Photo: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS

Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator has warned that Tehran may withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), an international accord meant to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, if European countries move forward with reinstating international sanctions.

On Wednesday, Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister and a key figure in the nuclear talks, cited a previous decision by former Iranian President Hassan Rouhani that Tehran would withdraw from the nuclear accord if UN sanctions were reinstated.

“There was a communication by President Rouhani to his counterparts that if the snapback is triggered, what would be the response of Iran at that time, he wrote that Iran would withdraw from the NPT,” Gharibabadi said during a press conference.

Iran’s threats came just days ahead of the upcoming nuclear talks with the United Kingdom, France, and Germany — collectively known as the E3 — after the trio warned they would reinstate UN sanctions on Tehran if no new agreement is reached by the end of August.

The sanctions were originally lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal — known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — which imposed temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for large-scale sanctions relief.

Although the United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018 under President Donald Trump’s first administration, Iran and the three European nations have continued to uphold the deal.

Under the terms of the UN Security Council resolution enshrining the 2015 accord, international sanctions could be reimposed on Iran, restoring all previous UN economic penalties including those targeting Iran’s oil, banking, and defense sectors, through a “snapback” mechanism that would take about 30 days. France, Britain, and Germany have indicated the latest time to reactivate the sanctions would be the end of August, with Russia, a close partner of Iran, assuming the Security Council presidency in October.

Many Western governments believe the ultimate purpose of Iran’s nuclear program is to build nuclear weapons. Tehran claims its nuclear activities are for peaceful, civilian purposes.

During this week’s press conference, Gharibabadi emphasized the regime’s commitment to the NPT, even amid “huge pressure at the domestic level” to exit, particularly after the recent 12-day war with Israel.

“After this aggression, the people, parliamentarians, journalists, politicians — they were of the view that now is the time to withdraw from the NPT, because the aggression was worse than the snapback,” Gharibabadi said. “But Iran decided to stay in the NPT.”

“But I’m quite confident that if the snapback is triggered, Iran will not show more restraint in this regard,” the Iranian diplomat said.

He also described Friday’s upcoming meeting with Western powers as highly significant, but warned that its outcome will largely depend on the approach the Europeans take toward Iran.

“We have always valued our meetings with the European countries. But there is an important issue — I think we have always told them that the policies of the European countries should be independent,” Gharibabadi said.

“They should not coordinate their positions with the Americans,” he continued.

Iran has previously warned it will take action if sanctions over its nuclear program are reinstated, without specifying what those measures might be.

“The snapback mechanism is meaningless, unjustifiable, unethical, and illegal,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said during a press conference on Tuesday.

Baghaei also reaffirmed that the Islamist regime has “no plans to hold talks with the US in the current situation.”

In a Fox News interview aired Monday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reaffirmed that Iran will not abandon its uranium enrichment program, despite recent Israeli and US strikes on its nuclear facilities.

“We cannot give up enrichment because it is an achievement of our own scientists. And now, more than that, it is a question of national pride,” the top Iranian diplomat said. “Our enrichment is so dear to us.”

On Thursday, Gharibabadi said nuclear talks with the US could resume as long as Tehran’s rights under the NPT are recognized and Washington both builds trust with Tehran and guarantees that negotiations will not lead to renewed military action against Iran.

The US and Iran had conducted five rounds of diplomatic talks over Iran’s nuclear program before Israel and the US bombed Iranian nuclear facilities last month.

The post Iran Threatens to Quit Nuclear Treaty if Europe Reinstates Sanctions Ahead of High-Stakes Talks first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

People attend the funeral procession of Iranian military commanders, nuclear scientists and others killed in Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 28, 2025. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS

One of the consolations of an ancient society is that it provides long memories. For authoritarian leaders, that means the ability to patiently nurse old grudges and mete out revenge when the time is right.

After declaring victory in the 12 Day War with Iran, it would be wise for the US not to make the mistakes it made in dealing with China and post-Soviet Russia. That means working with Israel and other allies to do whatever can be done to help the Iranian people topple the Ayatollah and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-led regime from within.

Until very recently, American policymakers badly misread the intentions of China’s leaders. The American side assumed that a prosperous China would become a kind of Belgium at scale — a good global citizen, reliable ally, and trading partner. For the Americans, that idea seemed reasonable. After all, that’s what happened with post-Imperial Japan, South Korea, and Singapore.

But the Chinese had learned different lessons from their much-longer history.

China boasted a massive navy in the early 15th century, and then inexplicably dismantled it. European powers filled the vacuum by taking much smaller ships across the Atlantic, colonizing the Americas, and prospering. For China, what came next was a series of humiliations that reduced them from accounting for one-third of the global economy in 1820, to the Opium Wars, to the poverty that plagued the country throughout the 20th century.

The lesson the Chinese learned from all this? Become an outward-looking superpower, dominate other countries that are resource-rich and institution-poor, and the bad times will be a minor blip in a long story of global hegemony.

Having spent decades helping China’s authoritarian leaders pursue their dream, the US is now scrambling to contain it.

Similarly, when Vladimir Putin emerged from the wreckage of Russia’s debt default in 1998, Western leaders assumed he wanted to make Russia a normal country and bring back foreign investment. As it turned out, what Putin really wanted was to be a Tsar.

History may not be destiny, but it certainly informs an adversary’s perception of itself.

There’s no question that Israel and the United States achieved impressive results in their brief war with Iran. The IRGC knows that it has been infiltrated by the Mossad, and the costs of the regime’s bad behavior have been personalized rather than imposed on the wider Iranian public.

No number of hasty executions of alleged Israeli spies will change the reality that the Israelis have freedom to operate, not just in Iranian skies, but in the highest reaches of Iranian society.

The physical infrastructure and human resources associated with Iran’s nuclear program have also been badly degraded, with promises for more of the same if there are signs that the program is starting up again. Top nuclear scientists have options, including emigration, and tend to prefer to stay alive. They are not like the suicidal membership of the terror proxies that Iran has nurtured in Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen.

As long as the Americans and Israelis maintain credible deterrence, pursuing nuclear weapons will remain dangerous work.

But Iran’s leadership has signaled that their ambitions remain what they were before the defeats of the past year, and it would be a mistake not to take them at their word.

To convince themselves that they’re merely down but not out, they will likely look back to the first time their country warred with a stubborn democracy – 2,500 years ago.

In 490 BCE, Darius I hoped to subjugate the burgeoning democracies of Greece to Persian rule and punish the Athenians for supporting the Ionians in their revolt against him. Darius had superior numbers, but the Greeks had a better strategy and managed to encircle the Persians in the Battle of Marathon. The Persians suffered more than 6,400 casualties against just over 200 Greek dead, and promptly retreated back to Asia.

Marathon may have been a decisive Persian defeat, but the loss of blood and treasure was relatively small, and as a result, the loss did little to undermine Persia’s ability to wage war in the future.

War came soon enough.

In 480 BCE, Xerxes I, Darius’ son, brought an obscenely large army — estimated to be between 70,000 and 300,000 troops — to ensure that he could overwhelm the Greek defenses. A heroic army, led by King Leonidas and 300 Spartans, held off the invading Persians at Thermopylae in order to give the Greeks time to plan their next move.

After much debate, it was agreed that Themistocles would lead the Athenian fleet to a decisive battle off the island of Salamis. It was a risky move, and the future of what subsequently came to be known as Western civilization hung in the balance.

The outnumbered Greeks prevailed once again, largely due to superior tactics and an ability to swim. Salamis was the beginning of the end for the Persian campaign in Greece, and the following year, they were pushed out entirely.

The lessons of prior millennia have their limits. But there’s no question that the leaders of today’s Iran have broad regional ambitions, and they intend to pursue them with the unyielding resolve of the emperors who came before them.

We are now very likely in something akin to the period between Marathon and Salamis, in which a dented but not broken Iran will decide when, where, and how to attack next.

Fortunately, the regime is despised by its people, and that remains its Achilles’ heel. If Israel and the US don’t wish to be at war with Iran again, they shouldn’t proclaim victory too soon and ought to do everything they can to help the Iranian people topple the regime.

Ian Cooper is a Toronto-based lawyer.

The post After Going to War with Iran, the US Must Keep Up the Pressure to Achieve Its Goals first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

People wave Israeli flags following the release of hostages who were seized during the Oct. 7 attack by Palestinian terrorist group Hamas and held in the Gaza Strip, in Ofakim, Israel, Nov. 30, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Alexander Ermochenko

In an era where propaganda often shouts louder than truth, where emotions replace facts, and where fear overrides reason, one country continues to stand firm in the face of global hypocrisy — the State of Israel. Its unwavering stance against terror, and its moral clarity in a confused world, deserve attention and admiration, especially at a time when so many powerful nations have chosen silence over action.

Over the past 25 years, Europe has been the target of a relentless series of terrorist attacks, nearly all committed by Islamist extremists. Cities like Madrid, London, Paris, Nice, Berlin, Stockholm, and Brussels have suffered horrifying tragedies at the hands of individuals radicalized by a violent strain of Islam, one that rejects Western values and democracy.

These attacks weren’t random acts of madness. They were part of a well-established pattern: suicide bombings on trains, mass shootings in concert halls, trucks used as weapons in public spaces. These were targeted assaults on freedom, modernity, and everything the West claims to represent.

Yet somehow, as the list of victims grows, the outrage fades. Western governments issue bland statements, lay flowers, light candles, and move on. Even worse, many of these same governments channel their energy not into confronting radicalization, but into condemning Israel, a country that is actively fighting this very ideology.

Who’s Really Fighting for Human Rights?

Israel is regularly accused of war crimes and even genocide, a term that is increasingly misused by activists and institutions who either don’t understand its historical weight or weaponize it for political gain.

Let’s be clear: genocide is not a tragic byproduct of conflict. It is the systematic extermination of a people. The Jewish people endured it, within living memory, under the Nazi regime. And now, while the world recycles the empty phrase “Never Again,” Israel is the one country acting to prevent a similar fate for others.

Take the Druze community in Syria. This minority group is under brutal attack by Islamist militias abducted, tortured, humiliated, and executed. Their only protection? Israel. While international organizations hold press conferences, issue non-binding resolutions, and express “deep concern,” Israel has stepped in with real action. Because Israel understands the cost of indifference.

What makes Israel different is not its strength, but its moral compass. Despite global criticism, sanctions threats, and relentless smear campaigns, it continues to act on principles—protecting life, upholding freedom, and defending the weak. These are not easy decisions. Israel pays a diplomatic and public relations price for every operation it launches to stop terror or defend minorities. But it chooses to act regardless.

Compare this to the so-called “enlightened” West: the UN, the EU, and major European nations. They have the resources, the platforms, and the military might but not the will. Their inaction in the face of rising extremism is not neutrality. It’s surrender.

Why is Israel punished for its moral clarity? Because it reminds the world of its failures. It exposes the cowardice of international bodies that stand idly by. It challenges the dominant narrative that appeasement leads to peace. And it rejects the twisted logic that labels self-defense as aggression.

But for those who still care about facts, justice, and moral responsibility, Israel remains a symbol of hope. Not because it is flawless — no country is — but because it dares to confront the evil others tolerate. It refuses to accept that terrorism is inevitable. And it will never stand by while minorities like the Druze are massacred.

The international community may continue to betray its own values. The media may distort the truth. Activists may chant slogans without understanding the consequences. But history will remember who stood up when others sat down. Who acted when others watched. Who protected the vulnerable when others turned away.

That country is Israel.

The post The Last Guardian of Morality in a Broken World first appeared on Algemeiner.com.