Iran decries 'destructive' conduct by IAEA chief
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron that Tehran halted cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog due to what he called the agency chief's "destructive" behaviour towards the Islamic republic, his office said on Monday (June 30, 2025).
"The action taken by parliament members... is a natural response to the unjustified, unconstructive, and destructive conduct of the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency," Mr. Pezeshkian told Mr. Macron in a phone call late on Sunday, according to a presidency statement.
On Wednesday (June 25, 2025), Iranian lawmakers voted in favour of a Bill to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, citing Israel's June 13 attack on the Islamic republic and later strikes by the United States on nuclear facilities.
A ceasefire between Iran and Israel took hold on June 24.
Since the start of the war with Israel, Iranian officials have sharply criticised the agency for failing to condemn the strikes.
Iran has also criticised the watchdog for passing a resolution on June 12 accusing it of non-compliance with its nuclear obligations.
In a Sunday (June 29, 2025) post on X, Mr. Macron said he called for "respect for the ceasefire" and a return to negotiations to address "ballistic and nuclear issues."
He further called for "the swift resumption of the IAEA's work in Iran to ensure full transparency."
On Monday, France, Germany, and Britain condemned what they called "threats" against the IAEA chief Rafael Grossi after Iran rejected its request to visit nuclear facilities bombed during the war.
None specified which threats they were referring to, but Iran's ultra-conservative Kayhan newspaper recently claimed documents showed Grossi was an Israeli spy and should be executed.
Iran has said Mr. Grossi's request to visit bombed sites signalled "malign intent" but insisted that no threats were posed against Grossi or the agency's inspectors.
On Monday (June 30, 2025), Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said the Iranian parliament's decision to halt cooperation with the IAEA reflected the "concern and anger of the Iranian public opinion."
He further criticised the United States and European powers for maintaining what he described as a "political approach" toward Iran's nuclear programme during his weekly press conference.
Baqaei also questioned how the safety of IAEA inspectors could be ensured while the extent of the damage to Iran's nuclear facilities -- targeted by Israel and the United States during the 12-day war -- remains unknown.
"One aspect of this issue is how to ensure the safety and security of the agency's inspectors, in a situation where there is still no accurate assessment of the severity of the damage," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
39 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Harvard 'violated' civil-rights law on Jewish students' safety: Trump admin
The Trump administration has found Harvard University in violation of federal civil-rights law for "failing to protect" Jewish and Israeli students, escalating a battle that could cost the university its federal funding. In a letter sent to Harvard President Alan Garber and viewed by The Wall Street Journal, federal attorneys said the university had acted with 'deliberate indifference' to concerns raised by Jewish and Israeli students who reported feeling unsafe on campus. The letter warned that failure to implement 'adequate changes immediately' would result in the loss of all federal financial support and affect Harvard's relationship with the federal government. 'Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges,' it stated, 'and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.' Harvard denies govt findings While the Ivy League university has not publicly commented on the latest development, a spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal that the university had taken substantive steps to combat antisemitism and foster civil discourse. 'Harvard is far from indifferent on this issue and strongly disagrees with the government's findings,' the spokesperson said. The university, they added, had strengthened policies, enforced disciplinary measures, and promoted respectful dialogue. The letter also detailed reports of assaults, harassment and antisemitic imagery on campus, such as a dollar sign inside a Star of David and a defaced Israeli flag featuring a swastika. It also accused Harvard of failing to take action over a two-year period. Donald Trump vs Ivy League universities In May, the Trump administration issued a similar notice of violation to Columbia University following an investigation into the alleged harassment of Jewish students. Columbia, like Harvard, is now in negotiations with the federal government over its funding and governance. The accusation follows earlier moves by the administration, including freezing $2.3 billion in research funding and demanding federal oversight of admissions, hiring, and campus speech. Harvard rejected those demands and sued, citing violations of free speech and due process. Talks between White House and Harvard stalled Despite the escalating tensions, Trump signalled earlier this month that progress might be possible, posting on social media that Harvard had acted 'extremely appropriately' during negotiations and appeared committed to 'doing what is right'. However, the latest reports indicate that for now, talks between the White House and Harvard have stalled.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Why a nuclear-armed Iran doesn't spell doom for Israel or the West
The West claims that Iran's nuclear weapons pose an existential threat to Israel and possibly the United States. However, if and when Tehran develops a nuclear weapon, this may not be the case. The reason? Nuclear deterrence read more There is a strong likelihood that Iran's nuclear programme is on course. Representational Image - Reuters Benjamin Zala, Monash University As the ceasefire between Israel and Iran seems to be holding for now, it is important to reflect on whether this whole episode was worth the risks. Wider escalation was (and remains) possible, and we do not know whether Iran will seek a nuclear weapon with renewed vigour in the future. So, could we live with a nuclear-armed Iran, if it does indeed continue to pursue a bomb? Why does the West worry The conventional wisdom, at least in the Western world, is that an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose an existential threat to Israel, and possibly the United States as well. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his country's strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were aimed at rolling back 'the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt described an Iranian bomb as 'an existential threat, not just to Israel, but to the United States, and to the entire world'. The same mantra has been repeated by leaders in Europe, at the G7 meeting, and in Australia. Iran, of course, did not yet possess a nuclear weapon when the strikes occurred, as the UN nuclear watchdog attested. The strikes were aimed at preventing Iran from being able to do so in the future – a prospect seen by Israel and the US as simply ' unthinkable'. But if Iran had built a nuclear weapon before the Israeli and US strikes – or manages to do so in the future – would this pose an existential threat to Israel or the US? The answer is no. And for a very simple reason: nuclear deterrence works. How does nuclear deterrence work? If Iran had a monopoly on nuclear weapons, it would be different. But it does not. Israel has maintained a robust nuclear arsenal for more than half a century. Every authoritative assessment of global nuclear weapons stockpiles includes Israel's roughly 90 nuclear warheads. The Israeli government officially neither confirms nor denies the existence of its nuclear arsenal. But thanks to leaks from inside the Israeli nuclear program – as well as the best assessments from around the world – we can be quite sure they exist. It also explains why Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty – it can't without giving up this stockpile. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The US, of course, has been nuclear-armed since 1945 and openly maintains an inventory of thousands of nuclear warheads. These provide a deterrent against nuclear attacks on the United States. Washington also provides extended nuclear deterrence guarantees to over 30 states, including members of Nato, Japan, South Korea and Australia. It does not need to provide this for Israel, given the Israeli arsenal. But if there was ever any doubt about Israel's stockpile, it certainly could. After 80 years of living with nuclear weapons, we know the deterrent effect of assured nuclear retaliation is very powerful. It deterred both the Soviets and Americans from using nuclear weapons against each other through multiple Cold War crises. It has deterred both India and Pakistan from using them in multiple standoffs, including quite recently. It has deterred both North Korea and the US from striking each other. Similarly, Iran would no doubt be deterred from using a nuclear weapon by a certain Israeli or American response. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If Iran had built a nuclear weapon before the Israeli and US strikes – or manages to do so in the future – this would not pose an existential threat to Israel or the US because of nuclear deterrence. File image/Reuters Iranian leaders have called for the destruction of Israel, and the chants of 'death to Israel' and 'death to America' are a common occurrence at rallies held by supporters of the regime. But beneath the fiery rhetoric lies a truism: no Iranian leader would destroy Israel with a nuclear weapon if it came at the expense of the destruction of Iran. In the history of the nation-state, not a single one has ever knowingly committed suicide. Not for any reason – ideological, religious, political or any other. All nations value survival over everything else because this allows for the achievement of other goals, such as power and prosperity. Further, Iran is ruled by a brutally authoritarian, theocratic regime. And for authoritarian regimes, staying in power is the number one priority. There is no staying in power the day after a nuclear exchange. A risky business This does not mean an Iranian nuclear weapon would be a welcome development. Far from it. Every new nuclear-armed state provides another opportunity for miscalculation or accident. It adds extra stress to an already fragile non-proliferation regime. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In addition, nuclear deterrence is not just and can be considered ethically questionable. It may not even be sustainable over the longer term. There is no doubt the existence of over 12,000 nuclear weapons globally poses a potentially existential risk to all of humanity. But the idea that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a unique risk to Israel or the United States simply does not stand up to scrutiny. If we can live with a nuclear-armed North Korea, nuclear-armed Pakistan, and for that matter, a nuclear-armed Israel, we can live, however reluctantly, with a nuclear-armed Iran. Regardless of whether the current proposed ceasefire between Israel and Iran holds, the military operation initiated by Israel and bolstered by the United States was extremely dangerous and unnecessary, based on both countries' justification. The regime in Tehran is brutal, authoritarian, openly antisemitic and worthy of our disdain. But there is no evidence it is suicidal. The claim an Iranian nuclear bomb would pose an existential threat to Israel or the United States and justifies unilateral, preventive military attacks makes no sense. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It is time to stop repeating it. Benjamin Zala, Senior Lecturer, Politics & International Relations, Monash University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
For Iran's nuclear program, a month is longer than it sounds
The furious debate over whether U.S. strikes obliterated Iran's nuclear program or only delayed its progress toward being able to build a nuclear weapon by a few months skips over a key component in the equation: Iran's political calculation. If Iran were to make the decision to build a nuclear weapon, it would be betting that it can complete the job and establish deterrence before the U.S. and Israel intervene—through military action, economic pressure or diplomacy—to stop it. A longer timeline increases the risk of being spotted or struck again, which could dissuade Iran from taking such a gamble in the first place. So measured on the Iranian nuclear clock, a delay of a few months could translate into a lot longer than it sounds if it keeps Tehran from moving ahead. 'If they start their breakout effort, and it takes them three more months, that's a lot of time to respond. It gives you time to detect it. It gives you time to mount a response," said Michael Singh, managing director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former senior official at the National Security Council. 'It's not nothing." The 2015 international nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration, which granted Iran sanctions relief in exchange for limits on its nuclear program, was designed to keep Iran a year away from being able to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. President Trump pulled the U.S. out of that agreement in his first term. Iran scaled up its nuclear work a year later and by May this year, it was producing enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon every month. Before the war, the general assumption was it would take Iran a few months to make a crude weapon as powerful as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima and deliverable by truck or ship, and one to three years to make a warhead that could be fit atop a missile. Some analysts are concerned thatthe attacks by Israel and the U.S. may have convinced hard-liners in Tehran that the only way to preserve the regime is to make a run at developing nuclear weapons. 'If Iran decides to weaponize, it will take more time than it would have otherwise," said Alan Eyre, a former State Department official and member of the U.S. negotiating team under the Obama administration that worked on the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. 'But, paradoxically, we might have strengthened their resolve to seek a nuclear weapon now." 'They're going to be figuring out how to reconstitute some sort of defensive strategy, or at least create a new one, because the one they had doesn't work anymore," he said. Nuclear experts and U.S. officials say Iran could have stashed away enough centrifuges and material to race for a bomb. Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in an interview with CBS's 'Face the Nation" on Sunday, said Iran has the industrial and technological wherewithal to resume enriching uranium in a few months. U.N. atomic energy agency chief Rafael Grossi said Iran can resume enriching uranium in a few months if it wants. 'The capacities they have are there," Grossi said. '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." Grossi's agency is responsible for inspecting Iran's nuclear sites but hasn't been able to visit the sites since the Israeli strikes on Iran began June 13. Iran's options now include trying to reconstitute a covert nuclear program and produce a bomb as fast as possible. A second option would be to agree to a diplomatic path that limits their ability to build a weapon by ending its enrichment of uranium, which the Trump administration has pushed. Iran could also try to split the difference: engage in nuclear diplomacy while quietly advancing its nuclear program. That would mean working in secret at sites hidden from international inspectors, which would make the task more cumbersome. Trump and his administration say the U.S. airstrikes using 14 30,000-pound bombs and a salvo of cruise missiles have destroyed the facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. If so, Iran would need new, hidden enrichment sites, as well as facilities to turn enriched uranium into metal for a bomb core and manage a covert program that can get nuclear scientists to the site without being spotted. 'Iran will never obtain a nuclear bomb, because Operation Midnight Hammer obliterated their nuclear capabilities," White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said when asked about Iran's prospects for rebuilding its nuclear program. Iran has worked for decades on know-how relevant to developing nuclear weapons and has mastered most of the aspects of building a bomb, according to the IAEA and Iranian and Israeli officials. The Trump administration says it destroyed Iran's nuclear facilities at Fordow. Before the war, Iran had amassed a large stockpile of highly enriched uranium large enough for 10 nuclear bombs if further enriched. It would have taken about a week to convert enough of the 60% material into 90% weapons-grade enriched uranium for one nuclear weapon, according to the IAEA. Iran had also tested out many of the components needed to build a bomb and kept that knowledge alive for a new generation of scientists through experiments and studies ostensibly designed for peaceful purposes. The fate of the fissile material stockpile and how many centrifuges Iran still has remain unclear. Some may have been moved from Iran's nuclear sites before the U.S. attack. The IAEA's inspectors lost the ability to track Iran's manufacturing of centrifuges due to restrictions Iran imposed in response to Trump's withdrawal from the 2015 deal. Inspectors have also spent six years seeking the whereabouts of a vast array of equipment from Iran's decades-old nuclear weapons program that Tehran dispersed in 2018. It could include lines for making uranium metal and equipment for testing high explosives and other key equipment for making a bomb. Iran's pre-2003 nuclear program aimed to produce a small arsenal of nuclear weapons deliverable by missile. Experts believe Iran has yet to seriously work on miniaturizing a nuclear weapon and integrating it onto a missile, which could take one to three years. 'This process of actually making a warhead is not just a physical process. It also comes down to the engineering," the Washington Institute's Singh said. 'There's a little bit more art, rather than just science, to that part of it." The office of the U.S. Director of National Intelligence assessed in March that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hadn't reauthorized the program to develop a nuclear weapon he suspended in 2003. What Khamenei decides in the wake of the attacks is now the biggest consideration in any timeline. 'We don't know if that is an actively running clock," said Eric Brewer, a deputy vice president at the Nuclear Threat Initiative and a former senior official at the White House National Security Council and National Intelligence Council. 'These timelines are in some ways evolving, and they depend upon what choices Iran makes next." Write to Jared Malsin at and Laurence Norman at
