IAEA pulls inspectors from Iran as stand-off drags on
Israel launched its first military strikes on Iran's nuclear sites in a 12-day war with the Islamic Republic three weeks ago. The International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors have not been able to inspect Iran's facilities since then, even though IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said that is his top priority.
Iran's parliament has now passed a law to suspend cooperation with the IAEA until the safety of its nuclear facilities can be guaranteed. While the IAEA says Iran has not yet formally informed it of any suspension, it is unclear when the agency's inspectors will be able to return to Iran.
"An IAEA team of inspectors today safely departed from Iran to return to the Agency headquarters in Vienna, after staying in Tehran throughout the recent military conflict," the IAEA said on X on Friday.
Diplomats said the number of IAEA inspectors in Iran was reduced to a handful after the June 13 start of the war. Some have also expressed concern about the inspectors' safety since the end of the conflict, given fierce criticism of the agency by Iranian officials and Iranian media.
Iran has accused the agency of effectively paving the way for the bombings by issuing a damning report on May 31 that led to a resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation Board of Governors declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations.
IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said he stands by the report. He has denied it provided diplomatic cover for military action.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday Iran remained committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
"(Grossi) reiterated the crucial importance of the IAEA discussing with Iran modalities for resuming its indispensable monitoring and verification activities in Iran as soon as possible," the IAEA said.
The US and Israeli military strikes either destroyed or badly damaged Iran's three uranium enrichment sites. But it was less clear what has happened to much of Iran's nine tonnes of enriched uranium, especially the more than 400kg enriched to up to 60 per cent purity, a short step from weapons grade.
That is enough, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick. Iran says its aims are entirely peaceful but Western powers say there is no civil justification for enriching to such a high level, and the IAEA says no country has done so without developing the atom bomb.
As a party to the NPT, Iran must account for its enriched uranium, which normally is closely monitored by the IAEA, the body that enforces the NPT and verifies countries' declarations. But the bombing of Iran's facilities has now muddied the waters.
"We cannot afford that .... the inspection regime is interrupted," Grossi told a press conference in Vienna last week.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
30 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Leaders of Jewish community have condemned Melbourne's Friday Night attacks
Executive Council of Australian Jewry Co-CEO Alex Ryvchin has spoken out on the attacks on the Jewish community on Friday night. A synagogue in Melbourne's east was hit by an arson attack, as well as pro-Palestine protestors stormed a busy Israeli restaurant, Miznon, in Melbourne's CBD. Mr Ryvchin released a statement saying, 'these events are a severe escalation directed towards our community and clear evidence that the antisemitism crisis is not only continuing, but getting worse'.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Synagogue set alight, protest at Israeli restaurant
An arson attack at a synagogue has forced worshippers to flee, just as protesters descended on an Israeli restaurant nearby shouting "offensive chants". About 20 people at the synagogue fled after a man doused the front of the East Melbourne building in a flammable liquid and set it alight about 8pm on Friday, police said. Everyone inside was able to evacuate through a rear exit and there are no reports of injuries. Firefighters contained blaze to the front of the building. "Police are still working to establish the exact circumstances surrounding the fire including the motivation behind the incident," a Victoria Police spokesperson said. "There is absolutely no place in our society for anti-Semitic or hate-based behaviour." The East Melbourne Synagogue, on of Australia's oldest, is located close to Victoria's parliament in the heart of the city. The suspect was last seen fleeing down Albert Street towards the CBD. A short time later, protesters gathered outside Israeli restaurant Miznon on Hardware Lane in the heart of the city. Police say about 20 demonstrators shouted "offensive chants" and were directed to leave the area. Anti-Defamation Commission chair Dvir Abramovich said diners were terrorised as the group chanted "Death to the IDF". "Melbourne, for one night, stopped being a safe place for Jews," Dr Abramovich said. One person was arrested for hindering police and several others were spoken to by investigators. The force said it supports the right of Victorians to protest peacefully but would not tolerate "anti-social and violent behaviour" witnessed. It comes seven months after a devastating fire at the Adass Israel Synagogue at Ripponlea in the city's south. Two of the synagogue's three buildings were destroyed in the early-morning blaze, which also forced members of the congregation to flee. No charges have been laid however counter-terrorism police have raided multiple properties as part of that investigation. The latest incidents also follow disagreement between Australia's special envoy to combat anti-Semitism and NSW MPs, over a call to ban pro-Palestine protests from city centres. Jillian Segal gave evidence to a parliamentary inquiry examining anti-Semitism in Sydney on Friday and was pressed on previous statements where she labelled the weekly demonstrations as "intimidatory" and "sinister". Labor MP Stephen Lawrence suggested her comments were an "uncivil way to describe them and the people participating". An arson attack at a synagogue has forced worshippers to flee, just as protesters descended on an Israeli restaurant nearby shouting "offensive chants". About 20 people at the synagogue fled after a man doused the front of the East Melbourne building in a flammable liquid and set it alight about 8pm on Friday, police said. Everyone inside was able to evacuate through a rear exit and there are no reports of injuries. Firefighters contained blaze to the front of the building. "Police are still working to establish the exact circumstances surrounding the fire including the motivation behind the incident," a Victoria Police spokesperson said. "There is absolutely no place in our society for anti-Semitic or hate-based behaviour." The East Melbourne Synagogue, on of Australia's oldest, is located close to Victoria's parliament in the heart of the city. The suspect was last seen fleeing down Albert Street towards the CBD. A short time later, protesters gathered outside Israeli restaurant Miznon on Hardware Lane in the heart of the city. Police say about 20 demonstrators shouted "offensive chants" and were directed to leave the area. Anti-Defamation Commission chair Dvir Abramovich said diners were terrorised as the group chanted "Death to the IDF". "Melbourne, for one night, stopped being a safe place for Jews," Dr Abramovich said. One person was arrested for hindering police and several others were spoken to by investigators. The force said it supports the right of Victorians to protest peacefully but would not tolerate "anti-social and violent behaviour" witnessed. It comes seven months after a devastating fire at the Adass Israel Synagogue at Ripponlea in the city's south. Two of the synagogue's three buildings were destroyed in the early-morning blaze, which also forced members of the congregation to flee. No charges have been laid however counter-terrorism police have raided multiple properties as part of that investigation. The latest incidents also follow disagreement between Australia's special envoy to combat anti-Semitism and NSW MPs, over a call to ban pro-Palestine protests from city centres. Jillian Segal gave evidence to a parliamentary inquiry examining anti-Semitism in Sydney on Friday and was pressed on previous statements where she labelled the weekly demonstrations as "intimidatory" and "sinister". Labor MP Stephen Lawrence suggested her comments were an "uncivil way to describe them and the people participating". An arson attack at a synagogue has forced worshippers to flee, just as protesters descended on an Israeli restaurant nearby shouting "offensive chants". About 20 people at the synagogue fled after a man doused the front of the East Melbourne building in a flammable liquid and set it alight about 8pm on Friday, police said. Everyone inside was able to evacuate through a rear exit and there are no reports of injuries. Firefighters contained blaze to the front of the building. "Police are still working to establish the exact circumstances surrounding the fire including the motivation behind the incident," a Victoria Police spokesperson said. "There is absolutely no place in our society for anti-Semitic or hate-based behaviour." The East Melbourne Synagogue, on of Australia's oldest, is located close to Victoria's parliament in the heart of the city. The suspect was last seen fleeing down Albert Street towards the CBD. A short time later, protesters gathered outside Israeli restaurant Miznon on Hardware Lane in the heart of the city. Police say about 20 demonstrators shouted "offensive chants" and were directed to leave the area. Anti-Defamation Commission chair Dvir Abramovich said diners were terrorised as the group chanted "Death to the IDF". "Melbourne, for one night, stopped being a safe place for Jews," Dr Abramovich said. One person was arrested for hindering police and several others were spoken to by investigators. The force said it supports the right of Victorians to protest peacefully but would not tolerate "anti-social and violent behaviour" witnessed. It comes seven months after a devastating fire at the Adass Israel Synagogue at Ripponlea in the city's south. Two of the synagogue's three buildings were destroyed in the early-morning blaze, which also forced members of the congregation to flee. No charges have been laid however counter-terrorism police have raided multiple properties as part of that investigation. The latest incidents also follow disagreement between Australia's special envoy to combat anti-Semitism and NSW MPs, over a call to ban pro-Palestine protests from city centres. Jillian Segal gave evidence to a parliamentary inquiry examining anti-Semitism in Sydney on Friday and was pressed on previous statements where she labelled the weekly demonstrations as "intimidatory" and "sinister". Labor MP Stephen Lawrence suggested her comments were an "uncivil way to describe them and the people participating". An arson attack at a synagogue has forced worshippers to flee, just as protesters descended on an Israeli restaurant nearby shouting "offensive chants". About 20 people at the synagogue fled after a man doused the front of the East Melbourne building in a flammable liquid and set it alight about 8pm on Friday, police said. Everyone inside was able to evacuate through a rear exit and there are no reports of injuries. Firefighters contained blaze to the front of the building. "Police are still working to establish the exact circumstances surrounding the fire including the motivation behind the incident," a Victoria Police spokesperson said. "There is absolutely no place in our society for anti-Semitic or hate-based behaviour." The East Melbourne Synagogue, on of Australia's oldest, is located close to Victoria's parliament in the heart of the city. The suspect was last seen fleeing down Albert Street towards the CBD. A short time later, protesters gathered outside Israeli restaurant Miznon on Hardware Lane in the heart of the city. Police say about 20 demonstrators shouted "offensive chants" and were directed to leave the area. Anti-Defamation Commission chair Dvir Abramovich said diners were terrorised as the group chanted "Death to the IDF". "Melbourne, for one night, stopped being a safe place for Jews," Dr Abramovich said. One person was arrested for hindering police and several others were spoken to by investigators. The force said it supports the right of Victorians to protest peacefully but would not tolerate "anti-social and violent behaviour" witnessed. It comes seven months after a devastating fire at the Adass Israel Synagogue at Ripponlea in the city's south. Two of the synagogue's three buildings were destroyed in the early-morning blaze, which also forced members of the congregation to flee. No charges have been laid however counter-terrorism police have raided multiple properties as part of that investigation. The latest incidents also follow disagreement between Australia's special envoy to combat anti-Semitism and NSW MPs, over a call to ban pro-Palestine protests from city centres. Jillian Segal gave evidence to a parliamentary inquiry examining anti-Semitism in Sydney on Friday and was pressed on previous statements where she labelled the weekly demonstrations as "intimidatory" and "sinister". Labor MP Stephen Lawrence suggested her comments were an "uncivil way to describe them and the people participating".
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Preacher's anti-Jewish sermons put racism in spotlight
Increasingly racist rhetoric and contentious issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have galvanised a surge in racial discrimination cases not expected to ease anytime soon. The increase reflects a rise in public racism in Australia, according to prominent lawyer Michael Bradley. "People have felt a lot more free than they have for a long time to be racist in public and so that requires a response," he said. Mr Bradley acted for Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi during her successful legal fight against fellow senator Pauline Hanson, who told her to "piss off back to Pakistan" in a racist social media post. He believes the dispute was a "turning point" for racial discrimination cases because it provided a "fresh understanding" of the outer limits of acceptable speech. The decision helped inform the Federal Court's ruling on Tuesday against Islamist preacher Wissam Haddad, who called Jewish people "vile" and "treacherous" in a series of sermons. Justice Angus Stewart found the speeches contained "fundamentally racist and anti-Semitic" tropes and made "perverse generalisations" about Jewish people. He ordered they be removed from social media and directed Mr Haddad not to publicly repeat similar statements. The judge's conclusion that criticism of Israel or Zionist ideology is not inherently anti-Semitic was of particular interest to Mr Bradley. "It's an important point given a lot of the campaigning activity going on against people who speak out against Israel's actions or for the Palestinian people," he remarked. "Hopefully it will provide a bit of guidance for other cases or disputes that are brewing." He will be acting in one such case, recently filed against two University of Sydney academics accused of anti-Semitism. Constitutional law expert Murray Wesson agreed the "very difficult boundary" between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism was not fully resolved in the ruling against Mr Haddad. "It's going to be an ongoing matter for discussion," the University of Western Australia associate professor said. The section of the Racial Discrimination Act that prohibits offensive behaviour on the basis of race or ethnicity can be a "lightning rod" for contentious issues. "People tend to talk about the issues of the day and then you're likely to have people who will take that speech a little bit further, or much further," Assoc Prof Wesson said. He predicted more challenges under section 18C, which may have a higher profile due to political controversy. In 2014, Attorney-General George Brandis infamously declared people had "a right to be bigots" amid a later abandoned push to repeal the section. The provision largely lay dormant until "a bit of a flood" of recent discrimination cases, Mr Bradley said. "When a piece of law like this becomes trendy, there's always a risk that it's going to be overdone. "The way the courts have to date interpreted it, it does strike an appropriate balance and one that conforms to constitutional limitations (regarding freedom of speech)." But Assoc Prof Wesson suggested the language could be amended to clarify the threshold for harm is much higher than merely insulting or offending someone. Although the disputes surrounding section 18C appear to have subsided, he suspects there may be further controversy in its future. Increasingly racist rhetoric and contentious issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have galvanised a surge in racial discrimination cases not expected to ease anytime soon. The increase reflects a rise in public racism in Australia, according to prominent lawyer Michael Bradley. "People have felt a lot more free than they have for a long time to be racist in public and so that requires a response," he said. Mr Bradley acted for Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi during her successful legal fight against fellow senator Pauline Hanson, who told her to "piss off back to Pakistan" in a racist social media post. He believes the dispute was a "turning point" for racial discrimination cases because it provided a "fresh understanding" of the outer limits of acceptable speech. The decision helped inform the Federal Court's ruling on Tuesday against Islamist preacher Wissam Haddad, who called Jewish people "vile" and "treacherous" in a series of sermons. Justice Angus Stewart found the speeches contained "fundamentally racist and anti-Semitic" tropes and made "perverse generalisations" about Jewish people. He ordered they be removed from social media and directed Mr Haddad not to publicly repeat similar statements. The judge's conclusion that criticism of Israel or Zionist ideology is not inherently anti-Semitic was of particular interest to Mr Bradley. "It's an important point given a lot of the campaigning activity going on against people who speak out against Israel's actions or for the Palestinian people," he remarked. "Hopefully it will provide a bit of guidance for other cases or disputes that are brewing." He will be acting in one such case, recently filed against two University of Sydney academics accused of anti-Semitism. Constitutional law expert Murray Wesson agreed the "very difficult boundary" between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism was not fully resolved in the ruling against Mr Haddad. "It's going to be an ongoing matter for discussion," the University of Western Australia associate professor said. The section of the Racial Discrimination Act that prohibits offensive behaviour on the basis of race or ethnicity can be a "lightning rod" for contentious issues. "People tend to talk about the issues of the day and then you're likely to have people who will take that speech a little bit further, or much further," Assoc Prof Wesson said. He predicted more challenges under section 18C, which may have a higher profile due to political controversy. In 2014, Attorney-General George Brandis infamously declared people had "a right to be bigots" amid a later abandoned push to repeal the section. The provision largely lay dormant until "a bit of a flood" of recent discrimination cases, Mr Bradley said. "When a piece of law like this becomes trendy, there's always a risk that it's going to be overdone. "The way the courts have to date interpreted it, it does strike an appropriate balance and one that conforms to constitutional limitations (regarding freedom of speech)." But Assoc Prof Wesson suggested the language could be amended to clarify the threshold for harm is much higher than merely insulting or offending someone. Although the disputes surrounding section 18C appear to have subsided, he suspects there may be further controversy in its future. Increasingly racist rhetoric and contentious issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have galvanised a surge in racial discrimination cases not expected to ease anytime soon. The increase reflects a rise in public racism in Australia, according to prominent lawyer Michael Bradley. "People have felt a lot more free than they have for a long time to be racist in public and so that requires a response," he said. Mr Bradley acted for Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi during her successful legal fight against fellow senator Pauline Hanson, who told her to "piss off back to Pakistan" in a racist social media post. He believes the dispute was a "turning point" for racial discrimination cases because it provided a "fresh understanding" of the outer limits of acceptable speech. The decision helped inform the Federal Court's ruling on Tuesday against Islamist preacher Wissam Haddad, who called Jewish people "vile" and "treacherous" in a series of sermons. Justice Angus Stewart found the speeches contained "fundamentally racist and anti-Semitic" tropes and made "perverse generalisations" about Jewish people. He ordered they be removed from social media and directed Mr Haddad not to publicly repeat similar statements. The judge's conclusion that criticism of Israel or Zionist ideology is not inherently anti-Semitic was of particular interest to Mr Bradley. "It's an important point given a lot of the campaigning activity going on against people who speak out against Israel's actions or for the Palestinian people," he remarked. "Hopefully it will provide a bit of guidance for other cases or disputes that are brewing." He will be acting in one such case, recently filed against two University of Sydney academics accused of anti-Semitism. Constitutional law expert Murray Wesson agreed the "very difficult boundary" between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism was not fully resolved in the ruling against Mr Haddad. "It's going to be an ongoing matter for discussion," the University of Western Australia associate professor said. The section of the Racial Discrimination Act that prohibits offensive behaviour on the basis of race or ethnicity can be a "lightning rod" for contentious issues. "People tend to talk about the issues of the day and then you're likely to have people who will take that speech a little bit further, or much further," Assoc Prof Wesson said. He predicted more challenges under section 18C, which may have a higher profile due to political controversy. In 2014, Attorney-General George Brandis infamously declared people had "a right to be bigots" amid a later abandoned push to repeal the section. The provision largely lay dormant until "a bit of a flood" of recent discrimination cases, Mr Bradley said. "When a piece of law like this becomes trendy, there's always a risk that it's going to be overdone. "The way the courts have to date interpreted it, it does strike an appropriate balance and one that conforms to constitutional limitations (regarding freedom of speech)." But Assoc Prof Wesson suggested the language could be amended to clarify the threshold for harm is much higher than merely insulting or offending someone. Although the disputes surrounding section 18C appear to have subsided, he suspects there may be further controversy in its future. Increasingly racist rhetoric and contentious issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have galvanised a surge in racial discrimination cases not expected to ease anytime soon. The increase reflects a rise in public racism in Australia, according to prominent lawyer Michael Bradley. "People have felt a lot more free than they have for a long time to be racist in public and so that requires a response," he said. Mr Bradley acted for Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi during her successful legal fight against fellow senator Pauline Hanson, who told her to "piss off back to Pakistan" in a racist social media post. He believes the dispute was a "turning point" for racial discrimination cases because it provided a "fresh understanding" of the outer limits of acceptable speech. The decision helped inform the Federal Court's ruling on Tuesday against Islamist preacher Wissam Haddad, who called Jewish people "vile" and "treacherous" in a series of sermons. Justice Angus Stewart found the speeches contained "fundamentally racist and anti-Semitic" tropes and made "perverse generalisations" about Jewish people. He ordered they be removed from social media and directed Mr Haddad not to publicly repeat similar statements. The judge's conclusion that criticism of Israel or Zionist ideology is not inherently anti-Semitic was of particular interest to Mr Bradley. "It's an important point given a lot of the campaigning activity going on against people who speak out against Israel's actions or for the Palestinian people," he remarked. "Hopefully it will provide a bit of guidance for other cases or disputes that are brewing." He will be acting in one such case, recently filed against two University of Sydney academics accused of anti-Semitism. Constitutional law expert Murray Wesson agreed the "very difficult boundary" between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism was not fully resolved in the ruling against Mr Haddad. "It's going to be an ongoing matter for discussion," the University of Western Australia associate professor said. The section of the Racial Discrimination Act that prohibits offensive behaviour on the basis of race or ethnicity can be a "lightning rod" for contentious issues. "People tend to talk about the issues of the day and then you're likely to have people who will take that speech a little bit further, or much further," Assoc Prof Wesson said. He predicted more challenges under section 18C, which may have a higher profile due to political controversy. In 2014, Attorney-General George Brandis infamously declared people had "a right to be bigots" amid a later abandoned push to repeal the section. The provision largely lay dormant until "a bit of a flood" of recent discrimination cases, Mr Bradley said. "When a piece of law like this becomes trendy, there's always a risk that it's going to be overdone. "The way the courts have to date interpreted it, it does strike an appropriate balance and one that conforms to constitutional limitations (regarding freedom of speech)." But Assoc Prof Wesson suggested the language could be amended to clarify the threshold for harm is much higher than merely insulting or offending someone. Although the disputes surrounding section 18C appear to have subsided, he suspects there may be further controversy in its future.
