Iran: Return To Inspections Top Priority For UN Nuclear Agency
25 June 2025
Rafael Mariano Grossi was speaking to reporters in Austria following a briefing to the Government in Vienna.
Israel began launching air and missile strikes against Iranian military and nuclear sites nearly two weeks ago, and the United States carried out surprise bombing raids on three Iranian uranium enrichment facilities this past weekend.
A ceasefire between Iran and Israel, announced on social media by US President Donald Trump on Monday night, is fragile but holding.
However, the extent of damage to Iran's enriched uranium stockpile remains unclear.
Iran says protective measures taken
Following the initial attacks, Iran informed the IAEA that it would take 'special measures' to protect its nuclear materials and equipment.
Mr. Grossi told journalists that he has received a letter from the Iranian Foreign Minister which said protective measures have been taken.
'They did not get into details into what that meant, but clearly that was the implicit meaning of that. So, we can imagine that this material is there,' he said. To confirm this, and to evaluate the situation, 'we need to return,' he added.
Inspections vital
On Wednesday, Iran's parliament approved a bill to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, according to media reports, which has to be approved by the executive branch of the Government.
Mr. Grossi said he wrote to Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Tuesday requesting that they meet 'to analyze the modalities' for inspections to continue.
He stressed that the international community 'cannot afford' for the inspection regime to be interrupted.
The IAEA chief was also asked about Iran's plans to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a key international accord aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.
The move would be 'very regrettable,' he said. 'I hope this is not the case. I don't think this would help anybody, starting with Iran. This would lead to isolation, all sorts of problems.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
Government Restores Real Consequences For Crime
Minister of Justice Today the Government's sentencing reforms take effect, restoring real consequences for crime, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says. 'Communities and hardworking New Zealanders should not be made to live and work in fear of criminals who clearly have a flagrant disregard for the law, corrections officers and the general public. 'We know that undue leniency has resulted in a loss of public confidence in sentencing, and our justice system as a whole. We had developed a culture of excuses. 'This Government promised to restore real consequences for crime. That's exactly what we're delivering. It's part of our plan to restore law and order, which we know is working. 'This is a significant milestone in this Government's mission to restore law and order. It signals to victims that they deserve justice, and that they are our priority.' The reforms strengthen the criminal justice system by: Capping the sentence discounts that judges can apply at 40 per cent when considering mitigating factors unless it would result in manifestly unjust sentencing outcomes. Preventing repeat discounts for youth and remorse. Lenient sentences are failing to deter offenders who continue to rely on their youth or expressions of remorse without making serious efforts to reform their behaviour. Responding to serious retail crime by introducing a new aggravating factor to address offences against sole charge workers and those whose home and business are interconnected, as committed to in the National-Act coalition agreement. Encouraging the use of cumulative sentencing for offences committed while on bail, in custody, or on parole to denounce behaviour that indicates a disregard for the criminal justice system, as committed to in the National-New Zealand First coalition agreement. Implementing a sliding scale for early guilty pleas with a maximum sentence discount of 25 per cent, reducing to a maximum of 5 per cent for a guilty plea entered during the trial. This will prevent undue discounts for late-stage guilty pleas and avoid unnecessary trials that are costly and stressful for victims. Amending the principles of sentencing to include requirement to take into account any information provided to the court about victims' interests, as committed to in both coalition agreements. Two aggravating factors are also included. These respond to:
NZ Herald
6 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Never mind the swear words, politicians need to raise debate quality
I don't believe people are genuinely shocked by the language we're all hearing every night on our streaming TV shows. What is shocking is the standard of argument being employed by politicians and parties as they seek to score points with silly populist arguments. On my Facebook and Instagram feeds, the Labour Party has been trying to tell me that the Government is to blame for soaring butter prices. It has posted a chart of butter prices pointing out that they have doubled since the National-led coalition came to power. That's annoyed me on a number of levels. Despite the fact it seems to enrage many Kiwis, soaring dairy prices are clearly a net gain for the economy. We sell a lot more internationally than we consume locally and the current dairy price spike is expected to bring in an additional $10 billion in export revenue over this year and next. It's exactly what our economy needed. The impact on consumers is overstated. Butter prices have doubled in two years. You used to be able to get a 500g block for about $4.50 now it's about $8.50. That's an extra $4 a week, far less than petrol prices fluctuate on a regular basis. Also, there are numerous butter substitutes and blends that haven't risen nearly that much. I understand why someone on the Labour Party team has tried to milk the dairy price story (sorry for the pun). It is a headline grabber and an easy online meme. I bet the analytics on it look great. But it makes no sense in the real world. The Government has no control over international dairy prices. There are things a government could do to reduce the cost of butter for local consumers. They could subsidise the price with taxpayer money. Or they could impose price controls on farmers and force them to sell a certain amount locally. These would be terrible policies, and there is no chance Labour is about to adopt them. So butter prices would be exactly the same right now if they had won the last election. More broadly, inflation is running rampant like it was throughout 2021 and 2022. It has edged up to 2.5% but remains within the Reserve Bank's 1-3% target band. The same Stats NZ release that included the butter price graph also pointed out that annual rent price increases haven't been below 2.8% since 2011. Of course, much lower inflation isn't all good news. The fact it is underperforming so badly is giving economists confidence that inflation will stay subdued. The economy is struggling to get any momentum and there is no doubt a lot of people are doing it tough. There's no shortage of real issues with this recovery, which the current Government ought to take some responsibility for. Labour could legitimately be attacking the Government on unemployment and job security. There are tens of thousands more people on the Jobseeker benefit now than there were when Labour was in power. I don't mean to single out Labour either. The National Party spent a lot of time in opposition attacking Labour for letting those Jobseeker numbers rise. It also drives me crazy when the Government holds press conferences after the Official Cash Rate announcement to take credit for falling interest rates. Interest rates are falling because inflation is under control and the economy is underperforming. If they go much lower, it will be because things are getting worse, not better. Meanwhile, in the past week, we've had David Seymour running 'victim of the day' social media attacks on opponents of his regulatory standards bill. Seymour says he is being 'playful' and having 'fun' with his line, suggesting opponents are suffering from 'Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome'. Surely if the bill is worth putting before Parliament, then it must have been aimed at delivering some sort of meaningful change to the status quo. Let's have a grown-up debate about what that intended change is. What's frustrating about political debate in 2025 is that politicians are so quick to build 'straw man' arguments because they seem easy to sell as memes and headlines. A 'straw man', for the record, is where you present a weak version or flawed version of your opponent's argument so you can easily dismiss it. It's lazy and doesn't do anything to boost the quality of policy-making in this country. It's probably too much to ask, but wouldn't it be nice if our politicians were confident enough in their view to employ the opposite of a 'straw man' argument? That's called a 'steel-man' argument. It requires you to consciously present the strongest and most charitable version of your opponent's argument. Then you explain why it still doesn't stack up. It requires you to do a bit of homework and think through the logical basis for your argument. I'm pretty sure all the leaders of our political parties are smart enough to do that. But we seem to be following a depressing international trend which sees social media debate reduce everything to simplistic points which appeal to an increasingly tribal political base. New Zealand has a cyclical recovery underway that would have happened, at a greater or lesser pace, regardless of who was in power. Scrapping over that is pointless. We need to be looking ahead to how we lift the economy at a structural level and enable higher levels of cyclical growth. That requires some serious work and will need a higher quality of debate than what we've been seeing this year. This column will take a two-week break as the author is on holiday with his family. Liam Dann is business editor-at-large for theNew Zealand Herald. He is a senior writer and columnist and also presents and produces videos and podcasts. He joined theHeraldin 2003.
Scoop
13 hours ago
- Scoop
UN Experts Condemn United States Attack On Iran And Demand Permanent End To Hostilities
GENEVA (26 June 2025) – UN experts* today unequivocally condemned the recent United States military attack against three nuclear facilities in Iran. 'These attacks violate the most fundamental rules of world order since 1945 – the prohibition on the aggressive use of military force and the duties to respect sovereignty and not to coercively intervene in another country,' the experts said. 'The responsible U.S. political and military leaders may also be liable for the international crime of aggression.' 'The attacks also seriously threatened human rights, including the rights to life, security of the person, health, a clean environment and self-determination of the people of Iran,' they said. The U.S. launched 75 munitions by air and sea against the facilities at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan, causing extensive damage. Iran retaliated against a U.S. base in Qatar, causing no injuries or damage. A fragile ceasefire now appears to be in place. Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations prohibits the threat or use of force against any state, except in self-defence or if the Security Council approves. Self-defence is only available in response to an actual or imminent armed attack by another country. 'Iran has not attacked the U.S. or Israel with a nuclear weapon. There is no evidence whatsoever that Iran intends to imminently attack the U.S. or Israel with a nuclear weapon.' 'Preventive' or 'anticipatory' self-defence against speculative future threats, such as nuclear proliferation or terrorism, has not been permitted by international law since the United Nations Charter was adopted 80 years ago. 'Accepting preventive self-defence would unleash a catastrophic era of 'might is right', where powerful countries could bomb others to advance their security or foreign policy interests. This would fuel corrosive suspicion, 'arms races' and destabilising 'balance of power' alliances – precisely what the post-1945 order, out of the ashes of a world war, aimed to avoid,' they said. 'It would further destabilise the Middle East region and increase the risk to human rights everywhere.' The experts affirmed the view of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that nuclear facilities must never be attacked as doing so could cause the release of radioactive material with devastating impacts on the environment and human rights, including the rights to life, personal security, health, protection against arbitrary displacement and the rights of the most vulnerable and marginalised communities. International humanitarian law generally prohibits attacks on nuclear facilities. 'We urge all parties to refrain from further uses of force and to commit to the peaceful settlement of international disputes in accordance with the United Nations Charter, including through the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the IAEA and with respect for the human rights of all people,' they said. 'The timing of the strikes undermined peaceful diplomatic efforts to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as well as peace and security in the region and beyond,' the experts noted. 'In a world experiencing deep economic crisis, and as members of an international community that is committed to peace, we believe that financial resources mobilised for military aggression should be utilised to foster peace-making and development,' they said. 'These attacks by the U.S., a permanent member of the Security Council responsible for maintaining international peace and security, normalises violent aggression and 'gunboat diplomacy' as a tool of statecraft and severely undermines the international rule of law,' the experts warned. 'At a time of crisis for multilateralism, all countries should oppose such lawlessness and pressure the U.S. and Israel to respect the universal rules of humanity.' *The experts: Ben Saul, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; Morris Tidball-Binz, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; Mai Sato, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic republic of Iran; Siobhán Mullally, Special Rapporteur on trafficking in person, especially women and children; Tomoya Obokata, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery; Laura Nyirinkindi (Chair), Claudia Flores (Vice-Chair), Dorothy Estrada Tanck, Ivana Krstić, and Haina Lu, Working group on discrimination against women and girls; George Katrougalos, Independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order; Marcos A. Orellana, Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes; Attiya Waris, Independent Expert on foreign debt, other international financial obligations and human rights; Gina Romero, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Farida Shaheed, Special Rapporteur on the right to education; Paula Gaviria Betancur, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons; Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967; Gabriella Citroni, (Chair-Rapporteur), Grażyna Baranowska (Vice-Chair), Aua Baldé, Ana Lorena Delgadillo Pérez, Mohammed Al-Obaidi, Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances; Margaret Satterthwaite, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; Richard Bennett, Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan; Bina D'Costa (Chair), Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent; Ashwini, K.P., Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; Elizabeth Salmón, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; Reem Alsalem, Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences; Alena Douhan, Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of the unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights; Nicolas Levrat, Special Rapporteur on minority issues; Cecilia M. Bailliet, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity; Surya Deva, ; Heba Hagrass, .
