U.N. nuclear watchdog chief says Iran ready to restart technical conversations
The International Atomic Energy Agency has said it must be allowed to resume inspections after Israeli and U.S. airstrikes last month that aimed to destroy Iran's nuclear programme and deny it the capacity to build a nuclear weapon.
Rafael Grossi said in Singapore that Iran must be transparent about its facilities and activities.
He told reporters alongside a public lecture that the IAEA had proposed that Iran start discussions on "the modalities as to how to restart or begin (inspections) again".
"So this is what we are planning to do, perhaps starting on technical details and, later on, moving on to high level consultations," Grossi said, adding that technical teams sent to Iran for talks will not include inspectors yet.
On Wednesday, Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said Iran had agreed to allow a technical team from the IAEA to visit in the coming weeks, but not to go to the nuclear sites.
Tehran, which denies seeking to build a nuclear weapon, has said access to the bombed sites poses security and safety risks.
Grossi said he had no further information from Iran on the status and whereabouts of its stock of some 400 kg of highly enriched uranium.
"This is why it is so important that we engage as soon as possible and that we can start our inspection," he said.
(This story has been corrected to remove the attribution of the phrase 'So this will not include inspections yet' to Grossi in paragraph 6)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Saudi Arabia and France to lead UN push for recognising Palestinian statehood
Saudi Arabia and France have opened a three-day conference at the United Nations with the goal of recognising Palestinian statehood as part of a peaceful settlement to end the war in Gaza. The conference began on Monday, just days after the French president, Emmanuel Macron, said Paris would officially recognise the Palestinian government in September in an effort to reinvigorate peace talks around a two-state solution that have all but been written off since the deadly Hamas raid and ensuing Israeli military operation that began in 2023. The French foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, has said that the conference would also serve as a platform for other European countries to recognise Palestinian statehood. While Barrot did not specify which countries he meant, speculation has focused on the United Kingdom, where Keir Starmer is under increasing pressure from Labour MPs to put pressure on Israel to end the war. 'Only a political, two-state solution will help respond to the legitimate aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security,' Barrot said at the opening of the talks on Monday. 'There is no alternative.' Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, said that the kingdom was seeking World Bank approval to transfer $300m to Gaza and the West Bank to counter the dire humanitarian crisis in the territory. He said that Palestinians had a 'legitimate right' to the establishment of an independent state along the borders delineated in 1967 'with East Jerusalem as its capital'. 'This is not merely a political stance, but a firm conviction that an independent Palestinian state is the true key to peace in the region,' he said. The talks are being co-chaired by 16 other countries and delegations, including the United Kingdom, Ireland and the European Union. The UK does not currently recognise Palestine, but Starmer has come under increasing pressure within Labour to help achieve a diplomatic solution. More than 220 MPs, a third of parliament, signed a letter addressed to Starmer on Friday calling for the UK to recognise a Palestinian state. 'We are expectant that the outcome of the conference will be the UK Government outlining when and how it will act on its long-standing commitment on a two-state solution; as well as how it will work with international partners to make this a reality,' the MPs wrote in the letter. Starmer will recall his cabinet from their summer break for an emergency meeting on the Gaza crisis this week and government sources have said that formal recognition of Palestinian statehood was a matter of 'when, not if' under the Labour government. He was also expected to push Donald Trump on the issue of humanitarian aid and a growing crisis of malnourishment and starvation in Gaza. On Monday, two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, were reported to say that Israel was committing a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country's western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it. 'We need to galvanize other countries in support of getting that aid in, and yes, that does involve putting pressure on Israel, because it absolutely is a humanitarian catastrophe,' said Starmer in remarks alongside the US president on Monday as the two leaders met at Trump's Turnberry golf resort in Scotland to discuss trade and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The talks begin just days after Macron said that France would recognise Palestinian statehood in September, saying that the decision would 'ensure its viability, and ensure that by accepting its demilitarisation and fully recognising Israel, it contributes to the security of all in the Middle East'. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, condemned Macron's decision, saying that it 'rewards terror' and that a Palestinian state would be a 'launchpad to annihilate Israel'. Israel also criticised the Saudi-French-led conference on Monday. 'This conference does not promote a solution, but rather deepens the illusion. Instead of demanding the release of the hostages and working to dismantle Hamas's reign of terror, the conference organizers are engaging in discussions and plenaries that are disconnected from reality,' said Danny Damon, the Israeli ambassador to the UN.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Finally, Trump has made an important break with the Israeli government
By now, we're used to Donald Trump expediting some dramatic changes in policy in an almost casual manner. But in giving the British government the green light to recognise Palestine as an independent sovereign state, the president has sprung one of his more significant surprises. It follows very closely after his rejection of Benjamin Netanyahu's grotesque claim that there is no starvation in Gaza. It opens up policy options for Sir Keir Starmer that previously seemed off-limits if the prime minister were to preserve his special personal rapport with Mr Trump. It means that, at the cabinet meeting this week, the British government could take a historic step comparable to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 that recognised the case for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Obviously, the British government, then an imperial power, had incomparably greater means to set the course of events in the region. Sir Keir has also formally stated that Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, can never form part of an administration in Gaza; that is not part of the recognition process. Nonetheless, it would see the UK follow France in making that move, even if Sir Keir keeps the emphasis on recognition forming part of the two-state solution. Without the effective consent of the United States, the indisputable leading Western power in the region, to make such a move, recognition of Palestine by the UK might have squandered influence and proved irrelevant or even counterproductive. Now, it will actually carry with it the suggestion of American neutrality or acquiescence. That makes a difference. In terms of domestic policy, Sir Keir need no longer necessarily fear another parliamentary rebellion by his backbenchers, nor ministerial resignations, nor a hostile party conference session. There's no doubt that Israel has been losing significant ground in diplomatic terms and with world opinion in recent weeks. When as loyal an ally as Mr Trump cannot bring himself to endorse Mr Netanyahu's astonishing – indeed, shaming – claim that 'there is no policy of starvation in Gaza and there is no starvation', then there is not much the Israeli prime minister can hope for from international sympathy. Even if the first part of that statement could, by some feat of sophistry, be justified, the second certainly cannot. The images of emaciated, suffering babies and children that are coming out of Gaza are, as Sir Keir says, 'revolting'. So is the attitude of those who have allowed this to happen. As the occupying power, Israel has a solemn obligation under international law to protect the civilian population. Demonstrably, that has not been discharged. Gaza's health ministry, which is Hamas-controlled, says some 14 people have died in the past 24 hours of starvation and malnutrition, making a total of 147, including 89 children, most in just the last few weeks. Whether this is all the fault of Israel – or, as Mr Netanyahu (and sometimes Mr Trump) asserts, of Hamas stealing supplies and money – the horrendous facts on the ground, verified by the world's news outlets, are not in doubt. The UNRWA relief body warns that one in five infants is acutely malnourished and at risk. This is what has to be stopped now; blame can be ascribed later. As has long been evident, President Trump has an unparalleled ability to make extravagant claims in the face of contradictory facts, and has himself proposed outlandish plans for the future of the Gaza Strip; but, answering reporters' questions, he bluntly rejected the Israeli prime minister's statement: 'That's real starvation […] They have to get food and safety right now. ' That is an important break with the Israeli government. Mr Netanyahu has developed a habit of annoying Mr Trump by saying and doing things without consulting Washington, including bombing Israel's neighbours, and the very real incidence of hunger in Gaza, apparent enough to Mr Trump, seems to be the latest cause of friction. It has seemingly provoked President Trump into taking a more relaxed attitude towards Palestinian statehood. Continuing intense pressure from the international community, and particularly the United States, has also resulted in a resumption of aid supplies through traditional land routes. Certainly, there seems to be no other reason, aside from that global disgust at what's happening, and President Trump's personal revulsion, why Israel would voluntarily pause its military activities, albeit temporarily, to allow more humanitarian aid to flow into the area. President Trump says Mr Netanyahu has to make sure the Palestinians get the food. The Gaza Humanitarian Fund (GHF), which is backed by Israel and the US, has proved ineffective, at best, while the latest air drops could never address the scale of the approaching famine. For the moment, the very worst consequences of the shortages of food, water and shelter may be averted, provided that the UN and others are permitted to do what they, in contrast to the GHF, are well suited to doing: relieving desperate suffering and saving lives in the most efficient ways available. That will certainly help, but it is obviously only a temporary solution to a much wider challenge, and one that may yet overwhelm the various agencies doing their best to make a difference. This is a population of 2 million people squeezed into a few square miles, where almost all economic activity, infrastructure, housing, medical and sanitary systems have been destroyed. There are few, if any, comparable situations anywhere since the devastation of the Second World War. The basic means of sustaining life in Gaza are disappearing; the results can be seen across the world's media. Even Mr Trump believes Israel bears a lot of responsibility to ameliorate the situation. The immediate task for America's allies – and that also means Israel's friends and partners – is to continue to act on that shift in sentiment towards the Netanyahu government, and leverage whatever influence that can be brought to be bear on Mr Trump to keep up the pressure on the man he still sees as his friend and he calls Bibi. In Britain, as in many other Western nations, . Indeed, it is becoming irresistible. Even so, for the moment, the primary goal of this global diplomatic effort must be focused on immediate humanitarian aid, a lengthy ceasefire, and a peace process. The Palestinians in Gaza need food, water, shelter and medicines. The people of Gaza have been suffering such limitless agonies for so long. Right now, while the merits and the technicalities of recognising the state of Palestine are being debated, nothing else matters.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Trump just exposed how irrelevant the Europeans have now become
Time was when Britain and France's words carried weight. During the pomp and power of empire, when they declared their intentions for Palestine, or the rest of the Middle East, or for the Indian subcontinent, or Africa, for that matter, the world straightened its back and listened. The Balfour Declaration mattered. The Slavery Abolition Act mattered. The Napoleonic Code left a potent legacy, as did the Sykes-Picot Agreement. For better or worse, Europeans shaped the world. No longer. Have Emmanuel Macron and Sir Keir Starmer failed to get the memo? Or are they continuing to strut their stuff out of domestic political concerns? Or out of vanity? Either way, these small men are determined to keep invoking former glories even though their moment has passed. Before flying to Scotland on Friday, Donald Trump subjected the preening French president to his worst humiliation: that of irrelevance. Macron's geopolitically illiterate announcement on recognising Palestine 'doesn't matter', Trump said. 'He's a very good guy. I like him, but that statement doesn't carry weight,' he added, bringing to mind Jon Snow's observation in season seven of Game of Thrones that 'everything before the word 'but' is horse s—'. As if that wasn't bad enough, then came the real twist of the knife. 'Here's the good news,' Trump concluded. 'What he says doesn't matter. It's not going to change anything.' You could almost hear the Élysée Palace rock on its foundations. Sir Keir at least appears instinctively to understand his own irrelevance. His body language at the Trump press conference in Scotland on Monday told its own story; his pathetic attempt to defend London's mayor Sadiq Khan – 'he's a friend of mine' – was the bleating of a eunuch. When Israel and America so magnificently bombed Iran last month, Starmer took care to pay lip service to supporting the campaign while also appearing to condemn it. Hardly the decisiveness of an assured leader. It is in this spirit that he continues to keen over a Palestinian state without committing to recognise one. Both betrayal and the betrayal of that betrayal, in one inconsequential prime minister. The Jupiterian Macron, by contrast, has been expending much energy upon drumming up support for a state of Palestine, based on the most fallacious of arguments. His motivation has been opaque, given that he has previously been eloquent in insisting that 'we don't recognise a state based on indignation'. Given the Israelophobic climate, however, nobody has worried about that. The United States, meanwhile, has been substituting words for actions. While the world united in a propaganda campaign, accusing Israel of starving Gaza based on a wilful misreading of the facts, the US and Israel pulled out of talks in Qatar and began to form a new plan. What that will constitute remains to be seen. But the virtue-signalling Europeans are blind to the fact that the only effect of the pressure they have been so unjustly heaping upon Israel may have been to embolden Hamas, causing it to harden its negotiating position and blow up the talks. In other words, the act of vilifying Israel might well have ripped up the very prospects of a ceasefire for which the Europeans claim to be desperate. This was the only way in which Macron's empty words could have exerted any influence on the region, by achieving the precise opposite of their goals. What will be the result? Over the weekend, Senator Lindsey Graham told NBC News that Hamas had effectively signed its own death warrant, arguing that 'there's no way you're going to negotiate an end of this war with Hamas'. 'They're going to do in Gaza what we did in Tokyo and Berlin, take the place by force and start over again, presenting a better future for the Palestinians, hopefully having the Arabs take over the West Bank and Gaza,' Senator Graham added. So there we have it. The depravity of the thing. In seeking for so long to demonise Israel and undermine a democratic ally in favour of the forces of jihad, Europeans are likely to have prolonged the war. Slow. Hand. Clap. It is true that France has joined with Saudi Arabia, a far more consequential power, in convening a conference at the United Nations in New York this week to push for a two-state solution. But the Saudis are adept at playing a multi-level game. In the Middle East, what you say publicly, what you say privately, and what you really think are usually three different things. Saudi leaders have little real concern for the Palestinians; their interests remain aligned with a closer alliance with Israel. After a diet of Al Jazeera propaganda, however, their subjects are in no mood to accept the expansion of the Abraham Accords, at least until the Gaza conflict ends. That, perhaps, is the context in which to view the Saudi participation in Macron's vanity project. Either way, there will be no Palestinian state unless the Americans and Israelis agree to one. And that ain't going to happen while the Palestinians are led by regimes that support terrorism and refuse to recognise Israel's existence. The Palestinian leadership don't even want a state themselves, for heaven's sake. They have rejected one on numerous occasions, not least in 2008 when they were offered almost all of what they claimed to want. Or rather: they want a state of their own, but only if it replaces Israel rather than sits alongside it. There is a silver lining, I suppose. Perhaps it's a good thing that Macron and Starmer have far less power than they seem to think. Imagine how the world would look if they were really as influential as they imagined.
