I hate Khamenei's regime. But I love Iran even more.
Arash Azizi is a contributing writer at the Atlantic and author of 'What Iranians Want: Women, Life, Freedom.'
I've loathed the dictatorship of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for as long as I can remember. As a kid, I'd roll my eyes every morning during the obligatory salute to our supreme leader in the schoolyard. I resented the strictures, the atmosphere of moral probity the man in robes presided over.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
37 minutes ago
- CNN
Tens of thousands of protesters at Hostages Square call for an end to the Gaza war
CNN's Nic Robertson reports from Tel Aviv where tens of thousands of anti-war protesters packed Hostages Square to call for an end to the Gaza war and the return of the remaining hostages.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Transcript: Rafael Mariano Grossi, IAEA director general, on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," June 28, 2025
The following is the transcript of an interview with Rafael Mariano Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that will air on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on June 28, 2025 MARGARET BRENNAN: And we go now to the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or the IAEA. Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi, welcome to the program. DIRECTOR GENERAL RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: Thank you very much, Margaret. Good to talk to you again. MARGARET BRENNAN: Director General, there is so much happening. I'm hoping you can walk us through what you know. Iran's foreign minister has said that the damage to their nuclear facilities from the U.S. bombing is significant and serious. We know Israel has also killed a number of top Iranian nuclear scientists. What exactly is Iran's capability at this moment? DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: Well, yes, and I think you can pick and choose any adjective to characterize this, but you will see that there is an agreement in describing this as a very serious level of damage. It can be, you know, described in different ways, but it's clear that what happened in particular in Fordo, Natanz, Isfahan, where Iran used to have and still has, to some degree, capabilities in terms of treatment, conversion and enrichment of uranium have been destroyed to an important degree. Some is still standing. So there is, of course, an important setback in terms of those- of those capabilities. This is- this is clear. And now the important issue- the important thing is, what are the next steps? Now the characterization of the damage, I think we can, you know, speculate, and still, until, of course, the Iranians themselves will have to go there and sift through the, you know, rubble and look at what is the exact degree of the damage. At some point, the IAEA will have to return. Although our job is not to assess damage, but to re-establish the knowledge of the activities that take place there, and the access to the material, which is very, very important, the material that they will be producing if they continue with this activity. This is contingent on other, you see, everything is connected. This is- this is contingent on negotiations which may or may not restart, so- so what we see this here, I think we have a snapshot of- of- of a program which has been very seriously damaged, to quote Dr. Araghchi. And now what we need to focus on is on the next steps. MARGARET BRENNAN: You mentioned there diplomacy. President Trump has been calling for diplomatic talks with Iran to settle all the issues around the nuclear program. I know you were in regular contact with envoy Steve Witkoff. Are you talking to him now? Will the IAEA be involved in any agreement? DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: Well, at some point we will have to be, because if his efforts, which I support wholeheartedly, succeed, this will come to a point where there is some agreement, some understanding on things that Iran will continue doing, and some things where there could be an agreement on certain restrictions. And of course, who is going to verify that is the IAEA so this is why we're in constant contact. Now they need to reconnect. And it's not going to be easy, one can imagine, after the traumatic events that took place. Even for us, you may have seen that I wrote to Foreign Minister Araghchi a few days ago, immediately, I would say, after the cease-fire was considered to be holding, and I said to him that we should perhaps sit down and analyze in a gradual way the reconnection, the modalities for the inspectors to go- to go back. So there is a level where the IAEA is not involved, and this is the direct conversation. What is the deal? And then, of course, we will be connecting to make sure that that deal stands and it's verifiable. MARGARET BRENNAN: But to that point, Tehran just passed a law saying they want to suspend cooperation with the IAEA inspectors. The foreign minister said he had no plans to let you personally, Mr. Director General, into the country. Does that mean Iran will completely block all inspectors? Do those you already have in the country have any access? GROSSI: Well, certainly I hope this is not the case. I think that what the foreign minister said is that they were looking into this law and how this law would impact our activities. I think it's time- this is why it's so important that we sit down around the table and we look into this. Iran- and I think nobody has put that in question, and I hope nobody will, is a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, like more than 190 countries in the world. So- so, that implies that they have to work with the- with the agency. So we have to go- we have been going through this law that they have, that the Majles approved, and we see that they are talking about cooperation on the basis of- of the security and the safety of their sites. I think that is not incompatible with the inspection work that needs to take place. But of course, it's not Rafael Grossi and Margaret Brennan discussing this that we are going to solve it. I think we- I have to sit down with- with- with Iran and look into this, because at the end of the day, this whole thing, after the military strikes, will have to have a long lasting solution, which cannot be but a diplomatic one. MARGARET BRENNAN: So they're not kicking- they're not kicking out your inspectors at this point? 6:23 DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: Not in this sense. I would not say that I am looking with interest and with some concern what they have approved. But of course, it's their law. It is their parliament. But you know, here there are legal implications. An international treaty, of course, takes precedence. You cannot invoke an internal law not to abide with an international treaty. But Iran is not saying that at the moment, and I think this is constructive. So this is why I think we have to go down into the details, because the work will have to continue, otherwise nobody will have an idea of what is happening in Iran. Iran will continue with a nuclear program, the contours of which are still to be seen and will be I am sure, part of these negotiations, which I hope, will be resuming soon. MARGARET BRENNAN: Iran officially reported weeks ago that they were going to take measures in advance of these strikes to try to protect their nuclear assets. Did they share with the IAEA what those plans were? Where they were going to stash things like centrifuges, the machines that help enrich fuel? Where they were going to put the gas canisters that have enriched uranium? DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: No, no, they did not inform that- that to us, but at the same time, there was no physical time, perhaps, to do it. Iran, for example, had announced to us that they had a new enrichment facility in Isfahan, and we were going to go on the 13th of June to- to check on that facility so that- and the site has been severely damaged and hit. So this is why I say it is indispensable. We will have to, aggravation or not, feelings and emotions or not, there has to come a point with- with cool heads. We sit around the table and- and see what- I mean, these protective measures, of course, it's their right to protect their assets, like any other sovereign nation. They can, of course, protect- but they know and there are, I don't want to get too technical or legalese here in this conversation, but there are provisions in the agreements we have, not only with Iran, with any- with any country. If a country at a- at a moment, feels that some of the things we inspect must be protected or whatever, they have to tell us, and we have to go, etc., etc., as you can imagine. So, this could not happen because of the unfolding of the circumstances, of a military conflict where, of course, you know, decisions are taken and this is not planned or announced, obviously. So now- now it's the time to reconnect and to talk and to talk to each other. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah, but there was roughly 400 kilograms, which is just under 900 pounds, of highly enriched uranium, before the attacks. I know these are in small canisters and relatively easy to move. Do you have any idea where that was moved, and if it was moved before the attack? DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: We presume, and I think it's- it's logical to presume that when they announce that they are going to be taking protective measures, this could be part of it. But, as I said, we don't know where this material could be, or if part of it could have been, you know, under the attack during those 12 days. So some could have been destroyed as part of the attack, but some could have been moved. So there has to be at some point a clarification. If we don't get that clarification, this will continue to be hanging, you know, over our heads as- as a potential problem. So this is why I say it's so important, first of all, for Iran to allow our inspectors to continue their indispensable work as soon as possible. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I ask you about what things might still remain, because there's that open question of could Iran sprint towards a bomb even now, if they wanted to. If we don't know where the highly enriched uranium is and cannot account for all the centrifuges, is that still a risk that they could be rushing towards a bomb? DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: Well, you know, I- we don't want to be alarmists here, and I don't want to be part of, you know, a messaging that would be spreading, as I say, alarm. But we need to be in a position to ascertain, to confirm what is there, and where is it and what happened. Iran had a very vast ambitious program, and part of it may still be there, and if not, there is also the self-evident truth that the knowledge is there. The industrial capacity is there. Iran is a very sophisticated country in terms of nuclear technology, as is obvious. So you cannot disinvent this. You cannot undo the knowledge that you have or the capacities that you have. It's a huge country, isn't it? So I think this should be the incentive that we all must have to understand that military operations or not, you are not going to solve this in a definitive way militarily. You are going to have an agreement. You are going to have an inspection system that will give everybody, everybody in the region and- and- and elsewhere, the assurances that we can- we can definitely turn the page. MARGARET BRENNAN: So up until right before the strikes, the IAEA still had inspectors, as I understand it, going to some of these sites. There's been a lot of focus here in America on the trucks and satellite images of them outside of Fordo. What was happening in those days before the strike? DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: Well, as- as you were pointing out there were- there was an announcement of protective measures that could have included moving equipment and material. We don't know. We saw the same images that the whole world has seen of these trucks, and we don't want to get into any rush conclusion about it, but it is, it is clear that we need the things that we ignore, okay. And after a reasonable period, after the war, there has to be a process that needs to continue. Otherwise the uncertainties will continue, will continue to linger on. And this is, you know, in a final analysis, not good, and perhaps even preventing a good agreement, because who is going to have an agreement where you don't know what the counterpart really has? What are the assets that they really have after the- after this- this- this military campaign that took place. MARGARET BRENNAN: So up until these strikes Iran- Iran was still disclosing information to the IAEA-- DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: --Well yes, yes, yes, yes-- MARGARET BRENNAN: –-In certain amounts-- DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: There were deficits. There were deficits, and we were referring to those in the- in the sense that there were some things that they were not clarifying to us. But our inspection work was- was constant. In particular, in this sensitive area of the number of centrifuges and the amount of material, we had perfect view. We didn't have view on other things that we wanted to have. But on this one, it was- it was complete. It was comprehensive. And, of course, at the moment, there is- there is nothing. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, Iran wasn't keeping its stockpile of enriched uranium secret. The world was concerned-- DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: --No-- MARGARET BRENNAN: --You said you were concerned about it. What do you think it was intended for? And did you see anything that suggested they were looking to weaponize? DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: They- let me be clear here, because we said, first of all, something very, very important. They have all these capabilities, but for the agency, they- first of all, they didn't have nuclear weapons. Okay? This needs to be said. One can have an assessment nationally that they were close, okay? And I don't get into that, because we, the IAEA, does not judge intentions. The IAEA looks at the activities of a country and reports it to the world. So it is countries that- that say, well, this is of concern or not. What we were concerning- what- what I was concerned about is that there were other things that were not clear. For example, we had found traces of uranium in some places in Iran, which were not the normal declared facilities. And we were asking for years, why did we find these traces of enriched uranium in place x, y or z? And we were simply not getting credible answers. If there was material- where is this material? So there could be even more. We don't know. This is why it is, I'm sorry I'm repeating it for the third time, I think we need to go back. MARGARET BRENNAN: Understood, understood. But your statement and that report that you gave about some of these open questions or unanswered questions, the Iranians are pointing to it now, and the foreign minister seems to be sort of blaming you for the military strikes. He said it wasn't honest and fair, your report. He said, after the facilities, you didn't even condemn the strikes- after the strikes, I should say. What do you make of those criticisms? DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: Well- I, to an extent, I understand. They have been under attack. But, really, who can believe that this conflict happened because of a report of the IAEA? And, by the way, what was- what was in that report was not new, Margaret. We have been saying that for a long time, and in previous reports as well. So, this- maybe it's because it's easier, maybe, to criticize an international organization or a director general, I don't know, but it's not reasonable to say that. And, if anything, the IAEA, as always, has had a very honest assessment of the situation. And there were many, I can assure you, there were many that- that were saying in your report, you must say that they have nuclear weapons, or they are very close to have nuclear weapons. And we didn't. We simply didn't, because this was not what we were seeing. MARGARET BRENNAN: But you also said you couldn't verify that it was a peaceful program. DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: Absolutely, because we have to see everything. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah. DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: They did- we didn't see them. We didn't see a program that was aiming in that direction, but at the same time, they were not answering very, very important questions that were pending. So this is- this is the truth. MARGARET BRENNAN: And I appreciate the nuance here, because there's so much gray. People here are looking for clarity, and there's confusion in the United States. CBS is reporting that the Defense Intelligence Agency assesses Iran's program was set back a few months, but once they dig out, they could resume in a number of months. They have to rebuild electrical and water supplies. The CIA and the National Intelligence directors say the facilities were destroyed, and it would take years to rebuild. Israel says the military program is set back many years. What's the truth here? What do you make of these assessments? DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: You know- you know what, this hourglass approach in weapons of mass destruction is- is not a good idea. Remember, we had cases 45 minutes and so on, which were quite- quite off spot. All of that depends on your metrics, Margaret. If you tell me it will take them two months or three months, for what? MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: The capacities they have are there. They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium, or less than that. But as I said, frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there. Because, first of all, as I- and I think the intelligence- we are not there making any military evaluations, first of all, but, out of the logic of our conversation, it is clear that there has been severe damage, but it's not total damage, first of all. And secondly, Iran has the capacities there; industrial and technological capacities. So if they so wish, they will be able to start doing this again. This is again- and I'm sorry, fourth time, we have to go back to the table and have a technically sound solution to this. Otherwise, this will come hit us again, in terms of a situation which is not well clarified. And this is an opportunity. We do have an opportunity now. MARGARET BRENNAN: Understood, and we will see if that opportunity is picked up by either side. Director General, thank you for your time today. DIRECTOR GENERAL GROSSI: Thank you, as always, a pleasure. Thank you very much.
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump doesn't have to grab power; Republicans are giving it to him
Republican majorities in the Congress and conservatives on the Supreme Court are ceding power instead of protecting it, giving President Donald Trump more and more control over what the Constitution separated in three. But Republican lawmakers cheered when Trump launched an air offensive against Iran rather than balking that many were kept out of the loop. House Speaker Mike Johnson didn't seem to mind reports that the White House would be limiting its information-sharing with lawmakers. His response suggested concern about leaks than about guarding lawmakers' duty to oversee the executive. Regulating international trade is something the Constitution puts on lawmakers' plates. A series of laws over the past hundred years slowly gave power over tariffs to the president, but Trump has taken that authority and weaponized it to make demands of other countries, as he did Friday when he cut off trade talks with Canada, the latest twist in a trade war he engineered and is scripting like a reality show. Conservative justices limited the ability of district court justices to issue nationwide injunctions against executive policies. 'This really brings back the Constitution,' President Donald Trump said without a whiff of irony at the White House on Friday. The decision also literally lets him ignore the plain language of the 14th Amendment, at least for now. 'This is a fundamental shift in the balance between the powers of the presidency and the powers of the courts,' said Elie Honig, CNN's senior legal analyst. 'This ruling that we just got impacts everything about the way that the presidency exercises power.' Justice Amy Coney Barrett said there is no precedent in US law for nationwide injunctions. She harked back to English law and the 'judicial prerogative of the King' in a very technical and history-based decision that, she said intentionally 'does not address' the issue of birthright citizenship in either the 14th Amendment or the Immigration and Nationality Act. 'This is as clear as the Constitution gets about questions,' said Deborah Pearlstein, a constitutional law professor at Princeton, appearing on CNN Friday. But the case won't get to the court this year. The short-term result of the decision could well be that at least some babies born in the US may not have US citizenship, despite the very clear language in the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court told lower courts to take another look at the cases and reassess their injunctions. The court also seemed to invite class action lawsuits against Trump's executive order. Nationwide injunctions from district court judges have bedeviled presidents of both parties, but Trump's brash view of his power has made for a record number of actions by lower courts. Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi framed the decision as a reclaiming of power from lower court judges in liberal districts. 'They turned district courts into the imperial judiciary,' she said. But the liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that this is the type of slippery slope that puts the entire US system of government at risk. 'I have no doubt that, if judges must allow the executive to act unlawfully in some circumstances, as the court concludes today, executive lawlessness will flourish, and from there, it is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' she wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional republic will be no more.' Conservative justices last year bought into Trump's argument that presidents should be afforded a kind of super immunity from prosecution for nearly any action they take while in office. Chief Justice John Roberts said the court 'cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies.' Rather, it had something larger in mind. 'Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case,' he wrote. That decision all but ended Trump's prosecution during the Biden administration for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election. He subsequently won the 2024 presidential election. If granting Trump immunity was meant to preserve separation of powers, it was a whiff, since, as CNN's Joan Biskupic has written, Trump is using that decision almost as a blank check. He 'boasts of his ability to define the law,' she wrote. 'That was meant for the babies of slaves; it wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation,' Trump said of the 14th Amendment at the White House on Friday. The 14th Amendment was actually enacted after the Civil War as an answer to the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision of 1857, an ugly blot on the court's history that declared Black people ineligible for citizenship. By not addressing the issue, the court at least seems open to allowing Trump to change the amendment's meaning, for now, without going through the process of changing the Constitution or passing legislation through Congress — which is a hard thing to square with Roberts' idea of separation of powers principles. In part because Trump does things like issue executive orders that plainly seem to violate a constitutional amendment and intentionally sets up court clashes over laws like the Impoundment Act, which are designed to limit presidents' ability to ignore Congress, his actions have led to a record number of nationwide injunctions. Now, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, he will try to move forward with a laundry list of stalled agenda items he read off at the White House Friday: 'Including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries, and numerous other priorities of the American people,' he said. If the Supreme Court gives him power, he'll use it.
