Category: 2. World

Six men and three women have died in a blast at an explosives factory near the Brazilian city of Curitiba, in southern Paraná state, emergency officials say.

The explosion happened on Tuesday morning local time when a number of people were on shift in the factory.

Seven people were also injured and emergency personnel with sniffer dogs searched for the nine missing workers, but given the devastating damage at the site, Paraná’s security minister later announced that there was “no longer any hope of finding survivors”.

The company that owns the factory, Enaex, said it was investigating what could have caused the explosion.

The blast in Quatro Barras, near the state capital, Curitiba, happened just before 06:00 local time (09:00 GMT).

Residents from nearby towns reported being woken up by the sound.

“Within a radius of approximately 1.5km (0.9 miles), we have houses that were hit, with broken windows, damaged structures, and a huge shock wave,” a spokeswoman for the fire department said.

She added that the blast had opened up a crater at the site.

Enaex makes explosives for civilian purposes used in construction and mining.

The firm expressed its condolences to the families of the victims and said it would work with the relevant authorities to clarify what had caused the explosion.

The local authorities said that the firm had all the necessary licences to operate at the site, where it had been operating for five decades.

🔊 Listen with AI



Cancel Voice

Updated On: Wed, 13 Aug 2025

15:07:04 PKT

DUBAI (Reuters) – Iran’s parliament is ready to withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) should international sanctions be reimposed by the United Nations, Iranian lawmaker Manouchehr Mottaki told Defa Press on Wednesday.

This comment comes after European countries expressed their will to reimpose international sanctions on Iran to the UN, which they say they can do by invoking the UN snapback mechanism prior to its expiration in October.

On Tuesday, France, Germany and Britain have told the United Nations they are ready to reinstate sanctions on Iran if it does not return to negotiations with the international community over its nuclear programme, the Financial Times reported.

The foreign ministers of the so-called E3 group wrote to the UN to raise the possibility of “snapback” sanctions unless Iran takes action, the report said, citing a letter seen by the newspaper.

“We have made it clear that if Iran is not willing to reach a diplomatic solution before the end of August 2025, or does not seize the opportunity of an extension, E3 are prepared to trigger the snapback mechanism,” the ministers said in the letter, according to the report.

Reuters could not immediately verify the report. The British, French and German governments did not immediately respond to Reuters’ requests for comment.

The three European countries, along with China and Russia, are the remaining parties to a 2015 nuclear deal reached with Iran – from which the United States withdrew in 2018 – that lifted sanctions on the Middle Eastern country in return for restrictions on its nuclear programme.

The E3’s warning comes after “serious, frank and detailed” talks with Iran in Istanbul last month, the first face-to-face meeting since Israeli and US strikes on the country’s nuclear sites in June.

During its 12-day war with Israel in June, Tehran said its lawmakers were preparing a bill that could push it towards exiting the treaty, ratified by Tehran in 1970. The treaty guarantees countries the right to pursue civilian nuclear power in return for requiring them to forego atomic weapons and cooperate with the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA.

Earlier, Iran’s first Vice President Mohammadreza Aref said Tehran could hold direct nuclear talks with the United States if conditions are suitable, state media reported.

But he said US demands for Tehran to drop uranium enrichment entirely were “a joke”.

A sixth round of talks between Tehran and Washington was suspended following Israeli and US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June.

Both powers accuse Iran of seeking nuclear weapons, an accusation Tehran has rejected.

“Iran is ready for negotiations under equal conditions in order to safeguard its interests … The Islamic Republic’s stance is in the direction that people want and, should there be suitable conditions, we are even ready for direct talks,” Aref said.

Previous rounds of negotiations, which started in April, were indirect, mediated by Oman. Washington says uranium enrichment in Iran constitutes a pathway to developing nuclear weapons and should be dropped.

On Sunday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian made a controversial statement in favour of resuming negotiations with the US regardless of current levels of distrust.

“You don’t want to talk? Well then, what do you want to do? Do you want to go to war? … Going to talks does not mean we intend to surrender,” he said, adding that such issues should not be “approached emotionally”.

A senior commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Aziz Ghazanfari, reacting to Pezeshkian’s comments on Monday, said foreign policy requires discretion, and careless statements by authorities can have serious consequences for the country. 

Israel always boasted that it was the only country in the region to support press freedom. That boast rang hollow even before the current war. Now, it’s not even pretending. On Sunday, Israel openly and brazenly killed six journalists as they were sheltering in a tent that housed reporters and media workers.

Israel accuses one of those journalists – Al Jazeera’s Anas al-Sharif – of being a terrorist. It has not said what crime it believes the others have committed that would justify killing them. The laws of war are clear: journalists are civilians. To target them deliberately in war is to commit a war crime.

It is hardly surprising that Israel believes it can get away with murder. In the two decades preceding 7 October, Israeli forces killed 20 journalists. No one has ever been held accountable for any of those deaths, including that of the Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, whose killing in 2022 sent shock waves through the region. Abu Akleh, a dual US-Palestinian citizen, was a household name in the Middle East, just as al-Sharif became a familiar face for audiences for his coverage of Israel’s assault on Gaza.

Israel first began making threats against al-Sharif shortly after the start of the war. The journalist reported receiving multiple phone calls from officers in the Israeli army instructing him to cease coverage and leave northern Gaza, as well as voice notes on WhatsApp disclosing his location. In December 2023, an Israeli airstrike hit his family home, killing the journalist’s 90-year-old father.

A year later, the Israeli army alleged publicly that Anas al-Sharif was a terrorist – claims it repeated last month shortly after Anas al-Sharif exposed the rampant levels of starvation throughout Gaza as a result of Israel’s refusal to allow in sufficient food aid. An Israeli spokesperson accused al-Sharif of lying about the famine – despite corroboration of widespread starvation by independent and international groups.

The Committee to Protect Journalists had seen this playbook from Israel before: a pattern in which journalists are accused by Israel of being terrorists with no credible evidence. Indeed, we were so concerned that al-Sharif was being targeted that we issued a public statement urging his protection.

Instead, al-Sharif was killed alongside his colleagues in an attack that Israel has openly admitted was aimed at killing the journalist. Al-Sharif is the 184th Palestinian journalist to have been killed by Israel since the start of the war and one of at least 26 journalists whom CPJ believes to have been deliberately targeted for their work as journalists. The others have certainly been killed by Israel but whether Israel did so in full knowledge they were journalists we have not been able to determine.

Israel denies it deliberately targets journalists. But the evidence shows otherwise. To date, Israel has provided no independently verifiable evidence that any of the journalists whom it has admitted deliberately targeting were terrorists. In one case, that of the Al Jazeera journalist Ismail al-Ghoul, the documents produced allegedly showed that al-Ghoul became the leader of a Hamas battalion – when he was 10 years old. The documents Israel has shared on al-Sharif, which it posted on X, show al-Sharif as receiving a Hamas salary in 2023. The documents do not provide evidence that he was an active member of the terrorist group although Israel said it had “current intelligence” – which it did not publish – indicating al-Sharif was an active Hamas military wing operative.

It is no wonder that Israel is now so confident about killing journalists that it can admit to killing six journalists and media workers while only one was allegedly its target. The international community has been woeful in its condemnation of Israel’s actions.

And that includes our own journalism community. Whereas the Committee to Protect Journalists received significant offers of support and solidarity when journalists were being killed in Ukraine at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the reaction from international media over the killings of our journalist colleagues in Gaza at the start of the war was muted at best. In some high-profile killings – such as that of the Reuters journalist Issam Abdallah – some governments trotted out well-worn defences of press freedom, but stopped well short of seriously censuring Israel. And few took any concrete steps – such as the halt of arms sales or the suspension of trade agreements – that might have forced Israel to change course.

Now, with more than 192 journalists and media workers killed since the start of the war – the deadliest conflict for journalists that we have ever documented – condemnation from individual journalists and some newsrooms has grown more vocal. But it is hard to see, if Israel can wipe out an entire news crew without the international community so much as batting an eye, what will stop further attacks on reporters.

Already our window into Gaza was becoming more and more limited. As Israel moves into the latest phase of its assault on the territory, it now risks closing altogether.

Their relationship is defined by a bloody border dispute, a vast power imbalance and a fierce contest for influence across Asia. Yet, President Donald Trump’s latest trade war may be achieving the unthinkable: pushing India and China into a wary but tactical embrace.

Trump’s announcement of a new base tariff rate of 25% in India – later set to rise to a staggering 50% as additional punishment for purchasing Russian oil – in some ways mirrors the long pressure campaign he’s waged against China and creates a shared interest between New Delhi and Beijing.

While a thaw in India and China’s fractious relationship was already underway, analysts say Trump’s actions have added to this shift.

New Delhi and Beijing now find themselves navigating a volatile and unpredictable Washington that treats strategic partners and geopolitical rivals with the same transactional disdain, be they in Europe or Asia.

But in chastising India for not having a more open economy and its energy ties to Russia, the Trump administration is punishing the very nation the US has spent years cultivating as a democratic counterweight to China’s power – creating an opening for Beijing.

This tactical realignment is underscored by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s reported plans to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit later this month, which would be his first trip to China in seven years.

When asked to confirm Indian media reports about Modi’s attendance, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said Beijing “welcomes” Modi for the meeting. “We believe that with the concerted effort of all parties, the Tianjin summit will be a gathering of solidarity, friendship and fruitful results,” said spokesperson Guo Jiakun.

Yet, as the niceties play out in public, analysts say this is an alliance of convenience, not conviction.

The deep-seated strategic distrust between Asia’s two giants, born from their border conflict and struggle for regional dominance, remains firmly in place. For now, they are aligned partly not by a shared vision, but by a shared antagonist in the White House.

“We may see a greater thaw in India-China ties in face of a tough United States,” said Farwa Aamer, Director of South Asia Initiatives, Asia Society Policy Institute.

But she warned that New Delhi must not lose sight of Washington and “risk reversing the growth in relations it has long worked hard on to achieve.”

India’s relationship with the US has undergone a dramatic transformation, from Cold War estrangement to crucial partners in the 21st Century.

Since Modi, a right-wing Hindu nationalist, swept to power in 2014, the relationship reached new heights, partly driven by the personal rapport he developed with Trump during his first term, during which the Indian leader cast aside staid diplomatic protocol to campaign for his counterpart’s second term during a rally in Houston.

New Delhi’s growing alignment with Washington became even more critical as its own relationship with Beijing cratered after deadly border clashes in 2020 pushed the two Asian giants further apart than at any time in decades.

The US’ commitment to India deepened under the Biden administration, which identified New Delhi as a vital counterweight to Beijing’s growing influence. President Joe Biden often lavished praise on Modi, while largely setting aside sharp criticism from rights groups over the Modi administration’s alleged democratic backsliding at home.

But then came Trump’s re-election, with a turbocharged “America First” policy that looked far beyond confronting just China on trade.

In a move that threatens to shatter this two-decade consensus, the US president publicly reprimanded New Delhi earlier this month over its Russian oil imports, calling the Indian economy “dead” and singling out India for Washington’s highest global tariff rate.

With his new tariffs, Trump is punishing a country that currently imports 36% of its crude oil from Russia, much of it used to support its booming economy and growing 1.4 billion-strong population.

But by treating New Delhi a transactional adversary to be punished, Washington risks shattering a cornerstone of its Indo-Pacific strategy, said Milan Vaishnav, director and senior fellow, South Asia Program at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Trump’s latest actions, “take us right back to that era of estrangement,” he said. “The US-India relationship is robust enough that it won’t be undone overnight, but these moves have created a massive trust deficit on the Indian side.”

While many nations have rushed to strike trade deals with Trump to lower tariffs, India under Modi has been less willing to cave.

India shot back, calling the tariffs “unfair” and “unjustified,” pointing out the hypocrisy of Trump’s move and noting that the US and Europe still buy Russian fertilizers and chemicals.

Trump has repeatedly called India a “tariff king,” but a senior Indian official said the country is “far from” it, noting that India imposes “zero to low duties on many key US exports” including coal, pharmaceuticals, aircraft parts and machinery.

India imposes some higher tariffs on the US than vice versa, particularly on agricultural imports that attract a simple average tariff of 39% compared to the US’s 5%, according to a report from the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations.

The “mood (toward the US) is hardening in India, partly because of the way Mr. Trump has gone about and played his cards,” said Harsh V. Pant, vice president of foreign policy at the Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation think tank. “The way he does diplomacy through public channels, and the way he seems intent on reducing the space for the Modi government to maneuver.”

Modi, who was under pressure by opposition politicians to stand up to his long-term friend, defended his country at an event last week.

India will never compromise on the interests of farmers, fishermen and dairy farmers,” he said. “I know personally, I will have to pay a heavy price for it, but I am ready for it.”

The unintended consequences of Trump’s policies, analysts say, have the potential to push historic rivals New Delhi and Beijing into a strategic embrace.

There has been a gradual normalization of ties between India and China after Modi met with Chinese leader Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Russia last October. India and China agreed to resume direct commercial flights, Beijing recently agreed to reopen two pilgrimage sites in western Tibet to Indians for the first time in five years, and both started re-issuing tourist visas for each other’s citizens.

“For its own economic reasons, namely a slowdown in growth and a slump in foreign direct investment, India has signaled a greater willingness to entertain warmer trade and investment linkages with China,” said Vaishnav, from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

But this convergence remains limited by the deep-seated mistrust between them, rooted in their deadly border clashes in the Himalayas and China’s strategic entrenchment in Pakistan.

Vaishnav predicted the future would be one of duality: “I expect we will see increasing economic cooperation coupled with strategic rivalry,” he said of the relationship between India and China.

Washington’s willingness to antagonize a key partner like India has also baffled observers.

One view is that the Trump administration lacks a clear, overarching strategy, diminishing India’s crucial role as a democratic counterweight to China.

“There is no coherent China policy in this administration,” said Vaishnav. “Which means India’s role as a bulwark against China is under-emphasized.”

He added that as Trump’s mood on Russia soured, “India’s Russian oil imports became an easy target.”

A more personal motivation may also be at play.

Analysts suggest Trump’s hostility could have been triggered by a bruised ego after India downplayed his alleged role in defusing a major crisis with Pakistan. Trump announced he had brokered a ceasefire following a military escalation between the nuclear-armed neighbors in May.

While Islamabad publicly praised the claim and even nominated Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize, Indian officials refused to credit Washington’s apparent intervention.

“After that, things went belly up,” Pant said. “The (trade) deal which at one point seemed very doable, kept on going. And the more frustrated Mr. Trump has become, the more voluble he has become in terms of his public threats to India.”

Critics say Trump’s policies could be leading to the very outcome some US strategists have long sought to avoid.

“It could be the worst outcome for the United States,” Trump’s former National Security Adviser John Bolton told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins.

“The irony here is that while the secondary tariffs against India are intended to hurt Russia, it could push India back closer to Russia and, ironically, closer to China, perhaps negotiating together against the US tariff efforts.”

Their relationship is defined by a bloody border dispute, a vast power imbalance and a fierce contest for influence across Asia. Yet, President Donald Trump’s latest trade war may be achieving the unthinkable: pushing India and China into a wary but tactical embrace.

Trump’s announcement of a new base tariff rate of 25% in India – later set to rise to a staggering 50% as additional punishment for purchasing Russian oil – in some ways mirrors the long pressure campaign he’s waged against China and creates a shared interest between New Delhi and Beijing.

While a thaw in India and China’s fractious relationship was already underway, analysts say Trump’s actions have added to this shift.

New Delhi and Beijing now find themselves navigating a volatile and unpredictable Washington that treats strategic partners and geopolitical rivals with the same transactional disdain, be they in Europe or Asia.

But in chastising India for not having a more open economy and its energy ties to Russia, the Trump administration is punishing the very nation the US has spent years cultivating as a democratic counterweight to China’s power – creating an opening for Beijing.

This tactical realignment is underscored by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s reported plans to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit later this month, which would be his first trip to China in seven years.

When asked to confirm Indian media reports about Modi’s attendance, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said Beijing “welcomes” Modi for the meeting. “We believe that with the concerted effort of all parties, the Tianjin summit will be a gathering of solidarity, friendship and fruitful results,” said spokesperson Guo Jiakun.

Yet, as the niceties play out in public, analysts say this is an alliance of convenience, not conviction.

The deep-seated strategic distrust between Asia’s two giants, born from their border conflict and struggle for regional dominance, remains firmly in place. For now, they are aligned partly not by a shared vision, but by a shared antagonist in the White House.

“We may see a greater thaw in India-China ties in face of a tough United States,” said Farwa Aamer, Director of South Asia Initiatives, Asia Society Policy Institute.

But she warned that New Delhi must not lose sight of Washington and “risk reversing the growth in relations it has long worked hard on to achieve.”

India’s relationship with the US has undergone a dramatic transformation, from Cold War estrangement to crucial partners in the 21st Century.

Since Modi, a right-wing Hindu nationalist, swept to power in 2014, the relationship reached new heights, partly driven by the personal rapport he developed with Trump during his first term, during which the Indian leader cast aside staid diplomatic protocol to campaign for his counterpart’s second term during a rally in Houston.

New Delhi’s growing alignment with Washington became even more critical as its own relationship with Beijing cratered after deadly border clashes in 2020 pushed the two Asian giants further apart than at any time in decades.

The US’ commitment to India deepened under the Biden administration, which identified New Delhi as a vital counterweight to Beijing’s growing influence. President Joe Biden often lavished praise on Modi, while largely setting aside sharp criticism from rights groups over the Modi administration’s alleged democratic backsliding at home.

But then came Trump’s re-election, with a turbocharged “America First” policy that looked far beyond confronting just China on trade.

In a move that threatens to shatter this two-decade consensus, the US president publicly reprimanded New Delhi earlier this month over its Russian oil imports, calling the Indian economy “dead” and singling out India for Washington’s highest global tariff rate.

With his new tariffs, Trump is punishing a country that currently imports 36% of its crude oil from Russia, much of it used to support its booming economy and growing 1.4 billion-strong population.

But by treating New Delhi as a transactional adversary to be punished, Washington risks shattering a cornerstone of its Indo-Pacific strategy, said Milan Vaishnav, director and senior fellow, South Asia Program at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Trump’s latest actions, “take us right back to that era of estrangement,” he said. “The US-India relationship is robust enough that it won’t be undone overnight, but these moves have created a massive trust deficit on the Indian side.”

While many nations have rushed to strike trade deals with Trump to lower tariffs, India under Modi has been less willing to cave.

India shot back, calling the tariffs “unfair” and “unjustified,” pointing out the hypocrisy of Trump’s move and noting that the US and Europe still buy Russian fertilizers and chemicals.

Trump has repeatedly called India a “tariff king,” but a senior Indian official said the country is “far from” it, noting that India imposes “zero to low duties on many key US exports” including coal, pharmaceuticals, aircraft parts and machinery.

India imposes some higher tariffs on the US than vice versa, particularly on agricultural imports that attract a simple average tariff of 39% compared to the US’s 5%, according to a report from the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations.

The “mood (toward the US) is hardening in India, partly because of the way Mr. Trump has gone about and played his cards,” said Harsh V. Pant, vice president of foreign policy at the Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation think tank. “The way he does diplomacy through public channels, and the way he seems intent on reducing the space for the Modi government to maneuver.”

Modi, who was under pressure by opposition politicians to stand up to his long-term friend, defended his country at an event last week.

“India will never compromise on the interests of farmers, fishermen and dairy farmers,” he said. “I know personally, I will have to pay a heavy price for it, but I am ready for it.”

The unintended consequences of Trump’s policies, analysts say, have the potential to push historic rivals New Delhi and Beijing into a strategic embrace.

There has been a gradual normalization of ties between India and China after Modi met with Chinese leader Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Russia last October. India and China agreed to resume direct commercial flights, Beijing recently agreed to reopen two pilgrimage sites in western Tibet to Indians for the first time in five years, and both started re-issuing tourist visas for each other’s citizens.

“For its own economic reasons, namely a slowdown in growth and a slump in foreign direct investment, India has signaled a greater willingness to entertain warmer trade and investment linkages with China,” said Vaishnav, from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

But this convergence remains limited by the deep-seated mistrust between them, rooted in their deadly border clashes in the Himalayas and China’s strategic entrenchment in Pakistan.

Vaishnav predicted the future would be one of duality: “I expect we will see increasing economic cooperation coupled with strategic rivalry,” he said of the relationship between India and China.

Washington’s willingness to antagonize a key partner like India has also baffled observers.

One view is that the Trump administration lacks a clear, overarching strategy, diminishing India’s crucial role as a democratic counterweight to China.

“There is no coherent China policy in this administration,” said Vaishnav. “Which means India’s role as a bulwark against China is under-emphasized.”

He added that as Trump’s mood on Russia soured, “India’s Russian oil imports became an easy target.”

A more personal motivation may also be at play.

Analysts suggest Trump’s hostility could have been triggered by a bruised ego after India downplayed his alleged role in defusing a major crisis with Pakistan. Trump announced he had brokered a ceasefire following a military escalation between the nuclear-armed neighbors in May.

While Islamabad publicly praised the claim and even nominated Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize, Indian officials refused to credit Washington’s apparent intervention.

“After that, things went belly up,” Pant said. “The (trade) deal which at one point seemed very doable, kept on going. And the more frustrated Mr. Trump has become, the more voluble he has become in terms of his public threats to India.”

Critics say Trump’s policies could be leading to the very outcome some US strategists have long sought to avoid.

“It could be the worst outcome for the United States,” Trump’s former National Security Adviser John Bolton told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins.

“The irony here is that while the secondary tariffs against India are intended to hurt Russia, it could push India back closer to Russia and, ironically, closer to China, perhaps negotiating together against the US tariff efforts.”

In the cholera-stricken refugee camps of western Sudan, every second is infected by fear. Faster than a person can boil water over an open flame, the flies descend, and everything is contaminated once more.

Cholera is ripping through the camps of Tawila in Darfur, where hundreds of thousands of people have been left with nothing but the water they can boil to serve as both disinfectant and medicine.

“We mix lemon in the water when we have it and drink it as medicine,” said Mona Ibrahim, who has been living for two months in a hastily erected camp in Tawila.

“We have no other choice,” she said, seated on the bare ground.

Nearly half a million people sought shelter in and around Tawila from the nearby besieged city of el-Fasher and the Zamzam displacement camp in April, following attacks by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), at war with Sudan’s army since April 2023.

The first cholera cases in Tawila were detected in early June in the village of Tabit, about 25km (16 miles) south, said Sylvain Penicaud, a project coordinator for Doctors Without Borders, known by its French initials MSF.

“After two weeks, we started identifying cases directly in Tawila, particularly in the town’s displacement camps,” said Penicaud.

In the past month, more than 1,500 cases have been treated in Tawila alone, he said, while the United Nations children’s agency says about 300 of the town’s children have contracted the disease since April.

Across North Darfur state, more than 640,000 children under the age of five are at risk, according to UNICEF.

By 30 July, there were 2,140 infections and at least 80 deaths across Darfur, UN figures show.

Cholera is a highly contagious bacterial infection that causes severe diarrhoea and spreads through contaminated water and food.

Causing rapid dehydration, it can kill within hours if left untreated, yet it is preventable and usually easily treatable with oral rehydration solutions.

More severe cases require intravenous fluids and antibiotics.

Ibrahim Adam Mohamed Abdallah, UNICEF’s executive director in Tawila, said his team “advises people to wash their hands with soap, clean the blankets and tarpaulins provided to them, and how to use clean water”. But in the makeshift shelters of Tawila, even those meagre precautions are out of reach.

Water is often fetched from nearby natural sources – often contaminated – or from one of the few remaining shallow, functional wells.

“It is extremely worrying,” said MSF’s Penicaud, but “those people have no (other) choice.”

The UN has repeatedly warned of food shortages in Tawila, where aid has trickled in, but nowhere near enough to feed the hundreds of thousands who go hungry.

Sudan’s conflict, now in its third year, has killed tens of thousands and created the world’s largest displacement and hunger crises, according to the UN.

In Tawila, health workers are trying to contain the cholera outbreak – but resources are stretched thin.

MSF has opened a 160-bed cholera treatment centre in Tawila, with plans to expand to 200 beds, and a second centre in Daba Nyra, one of the most severely affected camps, but both are already overwhelmed, said Penicaud.

Meanwhile, aid convoys remain largely paralysed by the fighting, and humanitarian access has nearly ground to a halt.

Armed groups, particularly the RSF, have blocked convoys from reaching those in need.

The rainy season, which peaks this month, may bring floodwaters that further contaminate water supplies and worsen the crisis.

The UK, France and Germany have told the UN they are ready to reimpose sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme if it fails to resume talks by the end of August.

The three countries, known as the E3, said they were prepared to trigger a “snapback” mechanism – meaning previous sanctions would be reinstated – unless Iran resumes negotiations.

The E3 said they had offered to extend a deadline for negotiations to the end of August, which they said Iran has not replied to.

Iranian lawmaker Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran’s parliament was ready to withdraw from a nuclear deal which restricted its nuclear programme if new sanctions were put in place, the Iranian Defa Press news agency reported.

The E3’s letter comes after initial talks between their delegations and Iranian diplomats took place in Istanbul, Turkey last month.

In the letter to the UN and its chief António Guterres, three foreign ministers – Jean-Noël Barrot from France, David Lammy from the UK and Johann Wadephul from Germany – said they would enforce severe sanctions on Iran unless it agrees to limit its nuclear programme.

The E3 said their offer of an extension to the negotiations “remained unanswered by Iran”.

“We have made it clear that if Iran is not willing to reach a diplomatic solution before the end of August 2025, or does not seize the opportunity of an extension, the E3 are prepared to trigger the snapback mechanism,” the letter said.

They added they were committed to using “all diplomatic tools” to ensure Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon – something Iran has denied intending to do.

Last month, Iran said it was prepared for further talks but only once sanctions already in place were lifted and its right to a civilian nuclear programme was agreed.

Sanctions on Iran’s nuclear programme were previously lifted in 2015 after Iran signed a nuclear deal with the E3, the US, Russia and China, agreeing limits on its nuclear operations and to allow international inspectors entry to its nuclear sites. The deal is due to expire in October.

The US withdrew from the deal in 2018 during President Donald Trump’s first term, with the leader saying it did too little to stop Iran from creating a pathway to a nuclear bomb.

With its withdrawal, all US sanctions were re-imposed on Iran.

Iran retaliated by increasingly breaching the restrictions. In May, the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said it had more than 400kg of uranium enriched to 60% purity – well above the level used for civilian purposes and close to weapons grade.

In June Iran’s parliament suspended cooperation with the IAEA after tensions with Israel and the US came to a head.

Israel launched attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities the same month, triggering a 12-day war.

The US bombed a number of Iran’s nuclear sites, bringing US-Iran talks to an abrupt end.

Following the strikes, the E3 countries stepped up warnings to Iran about its suspension of cooperation with the IAEA.

The BBC has contacted the UK Foreign Office for comment.

The Iranian mission to the UN did not immediately respond to the BBC’s request for comment.