MI6 infiltrated IAEA
The outlet cited leaked documents describing MI6 agent Nicholas Langman and his role within the UN watchdog.
Langman's resume was reportedly found in a trove of leaked papers detailing the activities of Torchlight, a UK intelligence cutout. He was allegedly linked to covering up British intelligence's role in Princess Diana's death and has been accused by Greek authorities of managing the abduction and torture of Pakistani immigrants in Athens.
His resume reportedly states that Langman also 'led large, inter-agency teams to identify and defeat the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons technology,' including through 'support for the [IAEA] and Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).'
Langman is said to have played a major role in organizing the sanctions imposed on Iran by '[building] highly effective and mutually supportive relations across government and with senior US, European, Middle and Far Eastern colleagues for strategy' between 2010 and 2012. He also claims credit for enabling 'the major diplomatic success of [the] Iranian nuclear and sanctions agreement.'
Langman's tenure at the UK Foreign Office's Counter-Proliferation Centre coincided with a surge in Western sanctions and covert operations against Iranian scientists. During that period, Israeli assassinations and sabotage intensified, while the US and EU imposed sweeping economic penalties.
Iran has long accused the IAEA of colluding with its adversaries. Officials in Tehran have claimed the agency provided Israel with the identities of nuclear scientists and intelligence about key facilities, which were bombed last month by Israeli and US forces.
On June 12, the IAEA accused Iran of violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Despite no evidence being presented that Tehran was pursuing a nuclear weapon, the following day Israel launched strikes targeting Iranian nuclear scientists and uranium enrichment facilities. Iran denied the accusations and retaliated.
The US joined the Israeli operation on June 22. The 12-day war ended last week in a US brokered ceasefire which has so far been upheld.
Tehran has since suspended cooperation with the IAEA, barred Director General Rafael Grossi from entering the country, and voted to end the routine monitoring of its nuclear sites. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei has accused Grossi of issuing a 'biased report' that was used by Israel to justify its 'unlawful' attack.
Russia has also condemned the agency's role. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said IAEA data was used to plan the strikes, calling it 'a colossal blow' to the watchdog's credibility.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Hiroshima mayor scolds Trump
Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui has criticized US President Donald Trump for comments comparing American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites to the atomic bombings of Japan during World War II. Speaking on Wednesday, Matsui claimed Trump 'does not fully understand the reality of the atomic bombings, which, if used, take the lives of many innocent citizens, regardless of whether they were friend or foe, and threaten the survival of the human race,' according to the Japan Times. He invited the US leader to visit the city to learn more. Trump last week defended US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, framing the action as a demonstration of overwhelming military force intended to hasten the resolution of a 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran. The conflict began after an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear program. Israel is broadly believed to lack the capability to destroy Iran's fortified Fordow enrichment site. The US deployed its bunker-buster weapons from strategic bombers to hit the facility. Trump claimed the campaign 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear infrastructure, after which he publicly pressured Israel to cease its military operations. 'I don't want to use an example of Hiroshima. I don't want to use an example of Nagasaki. But that was essentially the same thing. That ended that war,' Trump said during a NATO summit in the Netherlands. The Western narrative maintains that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed an estimated 210,000 people, compelled Japan to surrender, thereby avoiding a prolonged invasion and saving American soldiers' lives. However, historical evidence has challenged that account. A 1946 US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that 'Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.' The Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, and launched a rapid offensive on the Asian mainland. The US dropped nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, respectively, with the missions conducted amid a broader bombing campaign. Japan announced its unconditional surrender on August 15 and signed it on September 23. A pro-American government was later installed in the country.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Can Trump's Gazprombank gesture really change US-Russia relations?
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has announced that US President Donald Trump has lifted financial sanctions on Russia that had blocked Rosatom from continuing construction of the Paks Nuclear Power Plant 2 in Hungary. Although the Biden administration's sanctions late last year were formally directed at Moscow, Budapest arguably suffered the most, since the two new reactor units at Paks were viewed as vital for Hungary's long-term energy independence. (The first four units were built during the Soviet period.) A year ago, Hungary managed to have the Paks-2 project removed from the European Union's sanctions list, but at significant political cost. Nevertheless, the Democratic administration in Washington remained unyielding – which Budapest saw as a political vendetta for its outspoken support of Trump. Against this backdrop, the current US decision to ease sanctions on Gazprombank looks far more like a favor to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban than to Russian President Vladimir Putin. It also indirectly benefits French firms participating in the Paks-2 project. The move has rekindled a faint hope that Russian-US relations might see a thaw. Yet overall, there has been precious little positive news from Washington. The State Department recently postponed a scheduled meeting on removing 'irritants' from bilateral ties. Trump has shown no enthusiasm for Moscow's offer to mediate between Iran and Israel. And American officials continue to criticize Russia's 'hard' stance on a Ukrainian settlement. Could the Gazprombank decision signal a new phase of improvement in Russian-US relations? Might it foreshadow similar easing for other Russian financial institutions? Could there even be a revival of bilateral high-tech cooperation? One would like to answer these questions with optimism – but the evidence simply is not there. Moscow and Washington continue to have fundamentally different approaches to restoring normal relations, and that affects the entire nature of their dialogue. Russia's position could be described as systemic. In Moscow's view, great-power relations must be treated holistically, with progress across political, military, economic, diplomatic, and humanitarian areas all developing in parallel. The Kremlin believes that unless movement happens on all these fronts together, genuine normalization will remain out of reach, even if such an approach takes time and patience. For the 47th president of the United States, foreign policy appears more transactional: A series of short-term deals with everyone from NATO members to Mexico, Canada, Iran, or China. Each partner gets its own checklist – Iran is asked to abandon nuclear ambitions, China to accept trade tariffs, NATO Europeans to raise defense spending. Trump is not a man to wait. He does not want to tout a big deal years down the line, or even by the next midterm elections. He wants results today, or at the latest tomorrow. In Russia's case, Washington is eyeing a single, momentous deal: An agreement to end the armed confrontation with Ukraine. Trump seems to have little concept of what a lasting political settlement would involve, let alone how a future European security system might look. His overriding priority is to secure a temporary ceasefire at all costs, so he can declare victory where his predecessor, Joe Biden, fell short. In Trump's eyes, this historic Ukraine deal would overshadow any long-term, painstaking effort to rebuild a proper Russian-US dialogue. Meanwhile, in other areas, Moscow is simply not ready to engage in the one-sided give-and-take Washington expects. This was underscored by America's European NATO partners, who nearly unanimously agreed to boost their defense spending to an unprecedented 5% of GDP by 2035. Likewise, Kiev has shown willingness to meet US expectations by offering up its natural resources wholesale to American corporations. At the same time, it must be remembered that Trump is almost alone in his desire to reestablish a functional dialogue with Moscow. Most of his own administration views Russia with indifference or hostility, keeping it down on the priority list. Moreover, the deeply entrenched anti-Russian consensus that has dominated Washington for decades remains solidly in place. There is no powerful political or business lobby in the US today pushing for a new reset with Russia. Trump will continue to face pressure from the right. Even as the Gazprombank sanctions decision emerged, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told ABC News that Trump had already given the green light on Capitol Hill to launch a new package of anti-Russian measures – something Graham has been pushing for months. Whether the senator is speaking from fact or wishful thinking, it is far too soon for Moscow to relax. In short, the Russian-US relationship remains a rollercoaster. Occasional encouraging signals – like the easing of sanctions on a single bank – should not be misread as a sea change. One can hope for a broader normalization, but for now the outlook is uncertain. Moscow's systemic, steady approach still clashes with Washington's transactional, headline-driven instincts. Unless both sides find a way to bridge these philosophies, the hope of a truly stable Russian-US partnership will remain fragile at best. This article was first published by Izvestia newspaper, and was translated and edited by the RT team.
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ukraine looking to EU to bypass US weapons freeze
Ukraine wants its EU backers to purchase American-made weapons on its behalf in order to offset the suspension of key US arms deliveries to Kiev, Politico reported on Wednesday. US media outlets reported earlier this week that supplies of Patriot missile interceptors – touted as important in repelling Russian strikes – as well as GMLRS rockets, Hellfire missiles, and thousands of 155mm artillery shells have been put on hold. NBC noted that some US cargo had already reached Europe but was being withheld from transfer to Ukrainian forces. US officials later confirmed the development, portraying it as part of the 'America first' policy and stating that the country must maintain its weapons stockpiles to ensure 'our own success on the battlefield.' The freeze 'blindsided top Ukrainian officials' and has prompted Kiev to ask Washington 'to let Europe purchase US weapons for Ukraine,' several Politico sources claimed. 'We don't have a choice,' an unnamed Ukrainian official added. Several European countries are reportedly reviewing potential purchases. However, the weapons transfers would still require US approval, one person told Politico, indicating that Ukraine's attempts to keep weapons flowing could become mired in additional negotiations. Part of the push involves overcoming export restrictions that Washington typically imposes on foreign use of its arms. Under the administration of former US President Joe Biden, even British deliveries of Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine were initially delayed because the systems contained American components, Politico noted. A Ukrainian official told the outlet that similar hurdles could be addressed during the talks, although it remains unclear whether the US would sign off on deliveries. The administration of US President Donald Trump appears to be warming up to the idea of direct military sales to Kiev, according to the magazine. Politico in particular cited a recent meeting between Trump and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky on the sidelines of the NATO summit in the Netherlands, with one person briefed on the talks claiming that Trump seemed 'compassionate' and 'understanding,' although no specific commitments were detailed. The US weapons freeze has caused frustration in Kiev, with Ukrainian MP Mariana Bezuglaya proclaiming that the country 'is no longer our ally.' The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry also summoned US chargé d'affaires John Ginkel to underscore 'the critical importance' of deliveries and warn against any 'delay or procrastination.' Russia has consistently denounced Western arms deliveries to Ukraine, insisting they will only drag out the conflict without changing its eventual outcome.
