France, Germany reach deal on arms maker KNDS, opening door to stock market

France and Germany announced Monday a deal for the joint governance of Amsterdam-headquartered arms maker KNDS, paving the way for a blockbuster share offering as they seek to boost faltering European defence cooperation.


Issued on: 22/06/2026 - RFI

A view of a Leopard 2 tank at a production line in Unterluess, Germany, 12 February, 2024. AP - Fabian Bimmer

The deal envisages Paris and Berlin holding equal stakes in the maker of tanks and other military gear, at a time when the continent is contending with a hostile Russia and worsening US ties.

KNDS has a portfolio ranging from Leopard 2 and Leclerc tanks to artillery and armoured vehicles, and is a key supplier to European militaries.

The announcement comes just weeks after the collapse of the Franco-German FCAS project to build a next-generation fighter jet, which dealt a severe setback to efforts to strengthen Europe-wide defence initiatives.

The KNDS deal "reflects the shared determination of France and Germany to strengthen Europe's industrial and defence capabilities, to support their armed forces, and to reinforce European sovereignty in an enduring fashion," according to a joint statement issued by the French presidency.
The German government also said the deal would bolster Europe's defence capabilities.

"The government aims in particular to strengthen bilateral and European armaments cooperation. Cooperation with France plays a key role in this regard," it said in a statement.

Leclerc tanks drive down the Champs-Elysees avenue during the Bastille Day parade, Monday, July 14, 2025 in Paris AP - Christophe Ena

Strategic importance

KNDS, created in 2015 through a merger of French and German companies, is currently half-owned by the French government via a holding company, with the rest of the shares owned by the Wegmann family of Germany.

The German owners are seeking to sell their stake and have been negotiating with the German government.

After much internal wrangling, Berlin announced in May that it would seek to acquire a 40-percent holding when the company goes public.

In Monday's announcement Berlin and Paris said they were aiming to become shareholders in KNDS, with equal stakes.

Merz and Macron agree to scrap FCAS joint fighter jet programme

KNDS chief executive Jean-Paul Alary said the agreement "confirms the strategic importance of KNDS for Europe's defence capability, industrial base and technological sovereignty".

The deal would allow KNDS to move forward with a dual stock market listing in Paris and Frankfurt, in one of Europe's most hotly anticipated IPOs of the year.

The company has previously voiced frustration at alleged foot-dragging by the German government, which reports say has threatened to delay a listing that could value the company at 15 to 20 billion euros ($17 to $23 billion).
Tight timeline

KNDS is a key player in a joint Franco-German project to develop a new battle tank, dubbed the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) initiative.

The agreement Monday and subsequent IPO boosts the chances that this delayed programme might go ahead, after the FCAS failure fuelled fears it might also be scrapped.

But the timeline is tight if KNDS wants to launch its IPO in July as hoped, according to a confidential German defence ministry document outlining the latest details of the deal, circulated to lawmakers and seen by French news agency AFP.

'Under destruction': Europe's future security in question at Munich conference

The ministry said parliament's budget committee would have to approve Berlin's stake acquisition when it meets on Wednesday for the IPO to proceed next month.

The committee has to sign off on any substantial defence procurements.

The ministry acknowledged the "tight schedule" and also noted that "agreement with the Wegmann family on the purchase contract must be reached".

Multiple regulatory approvals for the IPO are also needed and there is a risk they might not be ready in time, it said.

(with AFP)

Rheinmetall sinks as Germany axes mega-warship project after spending €2.3bn

Copyright AP Photo

By Kirsten Ripper & Euronews, SPIEGEL

Published on 24/06/2026 - 

Rheinmetall shares fell sharply after Berlin scrapped its F126 frigate programme, a project that has already cost taxpayers around €2.3bn.

Rheinmetall shares fell as much as 13% after the German government scrapped plans for a major warship order from the firm, which would have been the biggest warship commission since the Second World War.

The news magazine "Der Spiegel" reported on Tuesday that the multi-billion-euro project to build six of the world’s largest frigates, the F126, had been cancelled.

The ministry in Berlin said the decision was a response to significant delays, foreseeable cost increases and other risks. However, cancelling the contract could prove costly for taxpayers.

At the same time, Defence Minister Boris Pistorius wants to procure eight smaller frigates instead. To that end, Berlin awarded new contracts to defence contractor TKMS, whose shares rose about 10% in early trading on Wednesday.

According to the newspaper, the warship project was first launched by Ursula von der Leyen (CDU) when she was defence minister. In 2020, her successor, Boris Pistorius (SPD) ordered the super-frigate F-126 in the Netherlands from the Damen shipyard.

However, because of delays and other problems, German shipbuilder Lürssen Naval Vessels – since taken over by Rheinmetall in March 2026– was put in charge of the project.

In March 2026, Berlin approved the procurement of four TKMS-built MEKO A-200 frigates, estimated to cost about €1bn each, according to FT reporting, amid mounting concerns over delays to the six-vessel F126 programme.

Related

• German XXL frigate on the horizon - but when will the super warship arrive?

More than €2bn already invested in the project

According to reporting by Die Welt, citing the German Defence Ministry, the F126 programme had already incurred around €2.3bn in costs before its cancellation. These costs include design work, software development, construction activities and payments to contractors.

The ministry says that continuing the programme would have pushed total costs above €18bn, compared with an original programme value of roughly €10bn for six frigates.

Instead of the F126 frigates, which were most recently scheduled for delivery in 2029, a total of eight smaller MEKO A-200-class frigates are now expected to be ordered from TKMS, extending the original order for four vessels placed in March.

The warships now being considered, at around 120 metres in length and with a displacement of 4,200 tonnes, are much smaller than the F126, which was designed to be 166 metres long with a displacement of 10,500 tonnes. Originally, six warships were to be procured; now there could be eight.

The navy's top brass has reportedly backed the defence minister's decision to revise the frigate plans.

Will the Bundeswehr be deployed in the Strait of Hormuz?

Most recently, Germany, the United Kingdom and France have discussed whether and how they could take part in clearing mines in the Strait of Hormuz, so that this vital global shipping lane can once again be used without hindrance after the Iran war.

Related

How important the German navy could become in future is also evident from the fact that the frigate "Fulda" and the support vessel "Mosel" were dispatched towards the Middle East weeks ago. On board are around 140 Bundeswehr soldiers. Off the Iranian coast, the German navy would receive support, among others, from the French aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle".

In the event of a lasting ceasefire, 57% of respondents in the ZDF Politbarometer poll said they were in favour of deploying the Bundeswehr in the Strait of Hormuz, while 38% opposed such a mission.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for permanent arms economy

 

UT San Antonio's Center for Military Affiliated Students receives enhanced technology support through T-Mobile partnership

New investment will expand student services and long-term infrastructure for the Center for Military Affiliated Students

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY

University of Texas at San Antonio

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

The University of Texas at San Antonio has announced a new collaboration with T-Mobile to bring advanced 5G infrastructure to the university’s Center for Military Affiliated Students (CMAS), strengthening digital services and expanding support. The enhanced infrastructure will support high-capacity connectivity for up to 1,000 students and 50 staff members and will help power key CMAS functions, including academic advising, virtual mental health services, hybrid programming and career development.

Military-affiliated students often balance their education with other demands including service commitments, career transitions and family responsibilities. Expanding digital infrastructure at CMAS will help UT San Antonio deliver more flexible, responsive and secure support for a student population that is central to the university’s mission and community impact.

Through a five-year agreement, T-Mobile will deploy a hybrid network from the Advanced Network Solution portfolio at the CMAS facility, providing dedicated, licensed-spectrum connectivity, secure backhaul and Secure Access Service Edge architecture to support critical student services. The investment, valued at approximately $1.69 million, includes equipment, software and support services, along with subsidized connectivity, cybersecurity and managed network services.

“UT San Antonio is committed to expanding opportunity, removing barriers and providing all students with the support they need to succeed,” said UT San Antonio President Taylor Eighmy. “This collaboration not only allows us to achieve critical accessibility for our military population by strengthening the infrastructure but also creates new possibilities for connection, care, and student success. By addressing the unique challenges often faced by military-affiliated students and their families, we can ensure they have the support and resources necessary to thrive in both their academic and personal journeys.”

San Antonio is recognized nationally as Military City USA. UT San Antonio and its CMAS serve the largest military population of any university within The University of Texas System with over 6,300 enrolled service members, veterans, and military-affiliated family members and dependents. Beyond academic services, the CMAS provides wraparound support through dedicated benefits certification, tailored advising, mental health partnerships, priority registration, peer support initiatives, and innovative programming that sets the standard for veteran service in higher education. As a result, UT San Antonio has been consistently recognized as a “Best for Vets” university by the Military Times.

In addition to the multitude of services offered through the CMAS, the university’s academic health center, UT Health San Antonio, provides a comprehensive network of health, wellness and support services for veterans, active-duty service members, military-affiliated students and the broader military community. Together, these resources reflect UT San Antonio’s commitment to addressing the unique educational, health and well-being needs of those who have served, are currently serving, and the families who support them.

“Our students often carry a great deal as they work toward their degrees, and our role is to make sure they have the support and flexibility they need to thrive,” said Michael Logan, senior director for veteran and military affairs at UT San Antonio. “This technology will strengthen how we deliver advising, connect students to services and create more consistent access to programs that support their academic progress, well-being and career development.”

The relationship with T-Mobile marks an important early milestone in a broader, multiyear effort to strengthen the infrastructure and services that support military affiliated students at UT San Antonio.

“Connectivity plays a critical role in expanding access to opportunity,” said David Bezzant, vice president at the T-Mobile Business Group. “Through this collaboration with UT San Antonio, T-Mobile’s hybrid network is helping build a stronger digital foundation for the Center for Military Affiliated Students so veterans, service members and military families can stay connected to the support systems that help them succeed.”

By securing enterprise-grade connectivity and long-term operational support through this agreement, UT San Antonio is expanding its ability to serve military-affiliated students with the tools, resources and flexibility needed to support their academic and personal success.

Trump May Be Drawing Down Iran War, But He’s Demanding Billions More for Bombs

The GOP is souring on Trump’s $1.5 trillion military budget as the president pushes for yet another reconciliation bill.

By Mike Ludwig ,

Truthout

June 20, 2026

Donald Trump leaves after announcing the U.S. Navy's new Golden Fleet initiative, unveiling a new class of warships, at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, on December 22, 2025.ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP via Getty Images

The day before he signed a memorandum of understanding with Iranian leaders, President Donald Trump said he wants to put the joint U.S.-Israeli war on Iran in the “rearview mirror.” But even if the memorandum — which puts an end to the war for at least the next 60 days — holds, the enormous costs of the war itself will not disappear with the next news cycle.

In Iran, at least 3,468 people were killed over several weeks of U.S.-Israeli strikes. Recovery for Iran is expected to be costly after the strikes hit critical infrastructure like bridges, manufacturing, and oil depots, as well as civilian infrastructure like hospitals and schools. As part of the agreement signed this week, the U.S. has said it would work with regional partners create a $300 billion reconstruction fund.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., as Trump seeks nearly $1.5 trillion in military spending and puts pressure on military contractors to rapidly replenish depleted weapons stockpiles, critics say Congress must reject funding for more wars and reverse harmful cuts to the social safety net.

While the memorandum puts the U.S. and Iran on a path toward more substantive diplomatic negotiations, Trump suggested that bombing could resume if the Iranians “don’t behave.” Meanwhile, the White House is quietly scrambling to replenish stockpiles of high-tech missiles and interceptors after expending massive resources bombing Iran and defending Israel from retaliatory strikes in a bloody war that even some Republicans openly call a foreign policy blunder.

To speed up weapons manufacturing, Trump has reportedly repeatedly summoned military contractors to the White House. On June 11, Trump invoked the Defense Production Act of 1950, a law that gives the president broad authority to compel private companies to produce goods for the government in emergency situations. In the order, Trump declared that “conditions exist which may pose a direct threat to the national defense or its preparedness programs,” including fragile supply chains and limited manufacturing capacity for replacing “munitions, missiles, and equipment.”

However, as many analysts have pointed out, Iran poses no direct threat to the U.S. homeland. The invocation of the Defense Production Act was the latest sign that the Iran’s military capabilities surprised Trump as the war unfolded — and also yet another sign that private military firms could continue to make excessive profits, even as the war draws down.

The same day Trump invoked the Defense Production Act, the Republican-led Senate Armed Service Committee vote 18-9 to advance a $1.2 trillion budget for the Pentagon in 2027, with multiple Democrats voting against the legislation. Companion legislation advanced in the House on June 5. But to pay for the war on Iran, Trump is demanding Republicans pass an additional $350 billion budget reconciliation package on a party-line vote.

Since the president unilaterally decided to launch the all-out assault on Iran with Israel in February without seeking congressional approval, his request for an additional $350 billion is being met with skepticism by some members of the Senate GOP majority, which faces an angry electorate in the November midterm elections.

Under Trump’s direction, the Republican-led Congress slashed budgets in 2025 for health care, food assistance, and international aid while pumping the administration with increased funding for foreign wars and a dramatically increased budget for immigration policing and his deadly mass deportation campaign. Now Trump is asking Congress for a “spending bonanza” on weapons that he can use to start more wars overseas, according to Lindsay Koshgarian, the program director of the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and an expert of military spending.

“Just one short year ago, Trump and his friends in Congress cut food stamps and Medicaid for millions of Americans,” Koshgarian said in an email. “Just weeks ago, Trump bragged about not thinking of Americans’ financial struggles in his decisions about whether or not to stop the war on Iran.”

Where an Additional $350 Million Could Be Spent by the Military

On February 28, a U.S.-made ballistic missile was used in an attack that struck a gym and adjacent elementary school near a military facility in Lamerd in southern Iran, according to a visual analysis by The New York Times. A women’s volleyball team was using the sports facility at the time, and more than 20 people, including children, were killed in the strike.

With help from munitions efforts, the Times determined the attack was conducted with a short-range ballistic missile designed by military contractor Lockheed Martin and known as a Precision Strike Missile, or PrSM. The missile is designed to explode above the target and spray small tungsten pellets as deadly shrapnel. A single PRsM missile costs $1.6 million. Trump’s military budget request for 2027 includes $95 billion to buy more bombs and missiles, according to the National Priorities Project.

The attack on the gym occurred on the first day of the war, the same day that a long-range U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile struck a school in the city of Minab, killing more than 150 people, most of them children.

Secretary of “War” Pete Hegseth disbanded internal military watchdogs that worked to prevent civilian casualties, and the U.S. has not taken publicly responsibility for the civilian massacres. However, Hegseth and his underlings are keenly focused on producing more of the high-tech missiles used in attacks like the one on Lamerd. Trump has “expressed anger” about weapons stockpiles running low as cheap Iranian drones evaded U.S. defense systems across the Persian Gulf, according to NBC News.

In May, Lockheed Martin announced monthly, direct discussions with the Department of “War” as part of a broader effort among military suppliers to significantly increase productions of PrSM missiles and other high-tech weapons. One of five major defense contractors that dominate Pentagon contracts, Lockheed Martin alone plans to spend up to $9 billion building precision missiles and interceptors by 2030. The White House’s proposed budget for the Department of “War” includes $2.2 billion for PrSM missiles and $5.8 billion for Tomahawks.

Between 2020 and 2024, $771 billion in Pentagon contracts went to the top five firms: Lockheed Martin ($313 billion), RTX (formerly Raytheon, $145 billion), Boeing ($115 billion), General Dynamics ($116 billion), and Northrop Grumman ($81 billion), according to the Costs of War project at Brown University. In comparison, the U.S. spent $356 billion during the same period of time on foreign policy initiatives devoted to diplomacy, development, and humanitarian aid. Shortly after taking power, the Trump administration dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and cut humanitarian aid programs by 85 percent.

The push for an additional supplemental budget to cover the cost of the war on Iran comes as U.S. consumers face rising war-related inflation over things like food and fuel. For several weeks, the U.S. and Iran held dueling blockades of the Strait of Hormuz, a major shipping artery for fossil fuels and agricultural fertilizer. Since the start of the war, additional fuel costs to consumers have topped $40 billion, or more than $300 per household, according to Costs of War. That’s more money than is needed to completely redo the U.S. air traffic control system after recent deadly accidents.

“Americans need health care, child care, affordable food, and a roof over their heads,” Koshgarian said. “No one should have to give those things up so that Trump can fight more wars.”

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY

Iran’s War: A Pyrrhic Victory

Cesar Chelala

 June 19, 2026

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Illustration by Paola Bilancieri.

History gave us the term “Pyrrhic victory” to describe triumphs so costly they hollow out the very meaning of success. King Pyrrhus of Epirus learned this the hard way. After defeating the Romans at Heraclea and Asculum in the third century BC, he surveyed his decimated forces and reportedly declared, “One more victory over the Romans and we are completely done for.” His words endure because they capture a truth that transcends eras: a victory that destroys the victor is no victory at all.

Today, that ancient warning echoes with painful clarity in the aftermath of the war in Iran. Some leaders insist on calling the outcome a victory, but the landscape they leave behind tells a different story — one of immense civilian loss, environmental devastation, and a profound erosion of moral and political credibility. If this is victory, it resembles defeat in every meaningful sense.

The U.S.–Israel strikes on oil facilities, water infrastructure, and industrial sites have caused profound environmental damage. As a result, civilians of all ages — especially children, the elderly, people with chronic illnesses, and those displaced from their homes — bear the greatest suffering.

UNICEF has issued increasingly stark warnings that Iran’s children are paying the highest price for the violence unleashed in the country. In some of its latest statements, the agency condemns the strikes that have leveled schools and hospitals, including the attack in Minab that killed 168 girls between the ages of seven and twelve. UNICEF calls these deaths “a brutality measured in children’s lives” and insists that classrooms and clinics are protected spaces under international law. With strikes reported across eighteen provinces and families describing widespread trauma, the agency urges all parties to protect civilians, safeguard essential infrastructure, and prevent a generation from being shaped by unrelenting fear.

The human toll is immeasurable. Beyond those killed directly by bombs and missiles are the millions whose lives have been upended by displacement, hunger, disease, and the collapse of essential services.

Hospitals and medical services are under increasing strain, with disruptions affecting the delivery of critical health care. Damage to 442 health facilities across the country is disrupting access to essential services for an estimated 10 million people, according to Iran’s Ministry of Health and the Iranian Red Crescent Society (IRCS). Save the Children reports that pregnant women across the region are being forced to give birth in unsafe conditions, without essential supplies and sometimes without electricity.

Schools, hospitals, homes, bridges — the architecture of everyday life — have been reduced to rubble. These are not the trophies of victory; they are unmistakable signs of a society’s future being dismantled. In the name of victory, justice has been sidelined. Accountability has evaporated, and the international norms meant to restrain the powerful have been treated as optional. When nations abandon the principles they once pledged to uphold, the world becomes more dangerous for everyone, not only those living in the conflict zone.

Pope Leo XIV, addressing bishops of the Chaldean Catholic Church, condemned the war unequivocally. He reminded them — and the world — that no cause can justify the spilling of innocent blood. He urged them to proclaim that God does not bless conflict, and that disciples of peace cannot stand with those who wield the sword one day and drop bombs the next.

The economic costs of the attack on Iran are staggering. University of Michigan professor Justin Wolfers casts serious doubt on the Pentagon’s estimates. He argues that when all factors are considered — the Tomahawk and Patriot missiles fired, the warplanes flown and, in some cases, lost, and the rest of the gear consumed — the costs are far higher.

Only in Iran, the US and Israel bombings have killed more than 3,000 people, and injured more than ten times that number. To these must be added the medical care of all those injured and in need of permanent rehabilitation. His estimate is that the war will ultimately cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

As in all wars, arms manufacturers and dealers gain is humanity’s loss. Arms manufacturers are experiencing significant profit surges from the Iran war, driven by rising stock prices tied to new Pentagon contracts. In addition, the near shutdown in oil and gas deliveries has led some countries, like South Korea and Japan, to an increased use of dirtier fuels like coal.

The war has not resulted in almost any of the objectives set by the US and Israel. The Iranian regime has not been eliminated, just replaced by even more aggressive leaders, and there has not been a total destruction of Iran’s capacity to build missiles, which are able to reach Israeli main urban areas.

What remains after this confrontation is a landscape of ruins — quiet, but deeply incriminating. They reveal a truth that official narratives cannot conceal: when victory is measured in poisoned rivers, shattered homes, grieving families, and the collapse of justice, what has been achieved is not victory at all. It is a defeat — not only of human rights and international law, but of the very spirit that makes us

Dr. Cesar Chelala is a co-winner of the 1979 Overseas Press Club of America award for the article “Missing or Disappeared in Argentina: The Desperate Search for Thousands of Abducted Victims.”

Dissecting the US-Iran Agreement

Mel Gurtov

 June 19, 2026

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

The US-Iran memorandum of understanding (MOU) has now been revealed, and it is clear why it took days before a US official read it out to reporters in advance of the signing ceremony. The deal commits the US to steps Trump vowed never to take, while for Iran there is much to celebrate despite the scale of destruction by US bombs. In a word, Iran retains the leverage it discovered it has always had—closure of the Strait of Hormuz—plus future economic benefits that will strengthen the regime.

Trump’s Shallow Defense

Trump’s defense of the deal with Iran comes down to two points.

First, the world would have faced “economic catastrophe” if the war had continued. “If we didn’t do this deal, we could have dropped more bombs for another three weeks . . . four weeks . . . two years . . . you would never have the Hormuz strait open.”

Second, he had to do something about Iran’s nuclear capability, since “If they had a nuclear weapon, they would have used it within moments.” Utter nonsense: He caused the economic crisis, dropped bombs for over three months nevertheless, and is still threatening to resume bombing if Iran doesn’t abide by the deal. (“If I don’t like it, if they don’t behave, we’ll go right back to dropping bombs right smack in the middle of their head,” Trump said.) His real worry is that the stock market kept going down—“at levels that nobody ever saw before, maybe, except for 1929,” he said at a press briefing after the G7 meeting in Paris. Trump said he didn’t want to be the next Herbert Hoover.

As for Iran having and using a nuclear weapon, well, we know—and US intelligence has concluded several times since 2003—that Iran was not close to having a nuclear weapon. Even if it had one, using it would, like North Korea, risk regime elimination.

The MOU repeats Iran’s pledge of 2015 that it “shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons.” Both sides also commit to “resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon.” That translates to allowing Iran’s nuclear establishment—the facilities, the expertise, the nuclear stockpile—to remain in place, with Iran committed only to diluting its enriched uranium.

Moreover, Iran’s ballistic missiles are fine with Trump. The 2015 agreement concluded under Barack Obama was roundly criticized for not including limits on Iran’s ballistic missiles. Now Trump has agreed that Iran can have “some” missiles, since others in the region have missiles. Such generosity will not sit well with the Saudis and other Gulf governments, not to mention Israel, where the US-Iran agreement is being attacked from all sides as a Trump sellout of Israel.

So Much for Red Lines

It’s impossible to believe what Trump and other US officials say. Consider the red line that once existed on providing financial and economic benefits to Iran. Under the MOU, Iran is free to export its oil without hindrance. A $300 billion fund for reconstruction of Iran has been set up in lieu of war reparations.

Trump called it an investment fund, one in which the US would not contribute “ten cents.” Actually, it’s a reconstruction fund that supposedly will rely on private money. Yet it allows for contributions by governments from the Gulf and elsewhere. You can bet that US corporations will jump at the chance to invest in rebuilding the Iranian economy. Trump even commits the US to “terminate all types of sanctions” on Iran, though Trump later said that sanctions relief depended on whether or not Iran “behaved well.”

Trump will also have some explaining to do on returning frozen assets to Iran. His most important reason for terminating the Obama administration’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015 was that it had rewarded Iran with the return of over $1.7 billion in funds that had been intended for the purchase of US weapons. Now Trump says: “We have taken a lot of their money. It’s not our money, it’s their money, and we froze it at a certain point in time. I guess we’re going to have to give it back, you know, if we didn’t give it back, nobody would ever invest in the dollar again.” Strange that he didn’t think of that in 2018 or in February of this year.

In summary, all the red lines have been disregarded in favor of doing business with Iran, which will put the regime in a much stronger situation than before the war. Its oil economy will be back up; roads, bridges, and other infrastructure will have money to rebuild. Sometime in the future, if the Iranian leadership judges that the country’s security is threatened, it may finally take the plunge and seek to produce a nuclear weapon.

On the political side, there’s the matter of regime change. Where once Trump & Co. were looking for a more “pragmatic” Iranian leader, under the new agreement the US accepts the regime’s legitimacy and security. The two sides now agree to “respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.” That’s an extraordinary—and welcome—step back from a longstanding US policy, carried out by Trump himself in his first term, to destabilize Iran’s economy and undermine its repressive regime.

The Devil is in the Details

Donald Trump deserves vigorous criticism and even impeachment for illegally starting a war, for causing immense and needless destruction in human life and property (including the as yet unexplained bombing of a school that killed over 100 children), and for conniving with Israel at the expense of real US security.

Yet if the agreement with Iran is followed through, it would be largely favorable to Middle East peace and to the world economy. It would mean an end to US threats to Iran, a return to safe passage in the Strait of Hormuz, Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, and a non-nuclear Iran. On the other hand, this agreement does not disempower the repressive regime in Iran, change the calculations of militant groups in the region, or provide security and justice for the Palestinian people.

As always, however, the devil is in the details. The MOU contains the seeds of future disagreements and confrontations, as a US official made plain when he said the MOU “commits us to quite literally nothing, but of course, if Iranians do a lot of good, then we want to reward that good behavior and transform their relationship with the Middle East and the world.”

That arrogance bodes ill. Sixty days from now, it is highly likely that the far right in Israel will still be ascendant, with dire consequences for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank; that the US will still be providing Israel with bombs and other military aid; that Israeli forces will still be in Lebanon (Netanyahu responded to the US-Iran agreement by saying that it “requires maintaining the security zone in southern Lebanon, and it requires that we not withdraw from it as long as Israel’s security needs demand it”); that Iran’s nuclear establishment will still be functioning; that Iran will be demanding sanctions relief, payment for passage in the Strait, and fulfillment of the $300 billion reconstruction bill; and that Iran will be jailing and executing dissidents.

Mel Gurtov is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University, Editor-in-Chief of Asian Perspective, an international affairs quarterly and blogs at In the Human Interest.

No lifting of UN sanctions on Iran without France's approval, FM says

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot says France will not agree to lift United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iran unless it is satisfied by the terms of a final accord on Tehran’s nuclear programme.


Issued on: 19/06/2026 - RFI

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, has welcomed a US-Iran deal to end the Middle East war that requires Tehran to dilute its enriched uranium. © REUTERS - Dado Ruvic

Barrot said that the region will not achieve stability unless US talks with Iran address Tehran's ballistic missile programme and its support for allied groups.

"We need a radical change in Iran’s stance," he said in an interview with broadcaster franceinfo.

His comments followed a US-Iran pact signed electronically on Tuesday to end four months of hostilities across all fronts, including Lebanon. Under the text, Washington commits to immediately waive oil sanctions that are crippling Iran's economy.

"The return for major concessions that will be ⁠asked of Iran is the lifting of sanctions, sanctions that were taken at the United Nations," Barrot said, referring to a vote in September last year.

As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, France holds the power to veto any accords.

"So, as was the case 10 years ‌ago, France will have to give its approval for the sanctions to be lifted," Barrot declared, a reference to the landmark nuclear deal that suspended international sanctions on Iran in January 2016.

IAEA ready to help define 'concrete steps' to implement US-Iran deal

France seeks greater role

The agreement reached between the United States and Iran this week calls for negotiations over Teheran's nuclear programme to take place over the next 60 days, with a final deal to be endorsed by the ​Security Council.

The agreement, due to be signed on Friday in Switzerland, has been postponed, Swiss authorities announced.

It followed the announcement late Thursday from the White House that US Vice President JD Vance's trip was cancelled, with a spokesperson saying the "logistics of these negotiations have never been simple or predictable".

European powers fear an inexperienced US negotiating team may fail to secure a robust nuclear agreement or address Iran’s ballistic missile programme in the next phase, ​risking a prolonged standoff.

A still from a broadcast on Iran's state-run TV shows three versions of domestically built centrifuges at Natanz, a uranium enrichment plant, on 6 June 2018. © AP

After being sidelined in recent months, France, the UK and Germany now want a role in shaping the ​coming talks.

The three countries ​first engaged Iran on its nuclear programme in 2003 and later worked with then US president Barack Obama to secure the ​2015 deal to curb Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for relief on sanctions.

US President Donald Trump has been disparaging of that accord, pulling the US out during his first presidency.

France's diplomatic chief also said Israel must stop its hostilities in Lebanon and the US must put pressure on Israel.

Israel on Thursday said it would not rule out carrying out attacks targeting Hezbollah beyond a military control zone in southern Lebanon, challenging the terms of the US-Iran pact that called for the respect of Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Barrot said France was still working to hold an international conference to mobilise support for the Lebanese army.

(with newswires)