Iran denies threatening UN nuclear chief after media execution demand
Iran on Sunday denied posing any threat to the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog or its inspectors, following growing international concern over a hardline Iranian newspaper's call for the execution of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi.
'There is not any threat,' said Amir Saeid Iravani, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, in an interview with US broadcaster CBS. He was responding to calls by Kayhan, a state-affiliated ultra-conservative newspaper in Iran, which accused Grossi of spying for Israel and demanded he be executed.
The ambassador added that IAEA inspectors working in Iran are 'in safe conditions.'
The Kayhan editorial triggered international outrage. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned the remarks, writing on X that the calls for Grossi's 'arrest and execution' were 'unacceptable and must be condemned.' The newspaper is known as a mouthpiece for Iran's hardline establishment, and its editor, Hossein Shariatmadari, is a close advisor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
The controversy comes amid rising tensions between Iran and the IAEA, following a recent resolution passed by the agency's board of governors accusing Tehran of failing to fully disclose its past nuclear activities. The resolution further strained relations, especially as Iran accuses the IAEA report of paving the way for 'Israel's' recent military strikes and a 12-day conflict between the two countries.
Iran's parliament recently voted to suspend cooperation with the IAEA until the agency formally condemns 'Israeli' and US attacks on its nuclear sites and acknowledges Iran's nuclear program.
Despite accumulating over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched up to 60 percent purity, just short of weapons-grade level, Iran maintains that its nuclear program is strictly peaceful. Western governments and 'Israel', however, view the enrichment as a sign of possible military intentions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Ammon
42 minutes ago
- Ammon
UK, France, Germany condemn threats against IAEA head
Ammon News - Britain, France and Germany denounced threats against the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog on Monday, after a hardline Iranian newspaper said IAEA boss Rafael Grossi should be tried and executed as an Israeli agent. "France, Germany and the United Kingdom condemn threats against the Director General of the IAEA Rafael Grossi and reiterate our full support to the Agency and the DG in carrying out their mandate," said a statement from the three countries' foreign ministries. "We call on Iranian authorities to refrain from any steps to cease cooperation with the IAEA. We urge Iran to immediately resume full cooperation in line with its legally binding obligations, and to take all necessary steps to ensure the safety and security of IAEA personnel," they added. The statement did not specify what threats had been made against Grossi, but it follows an article in Iran's hardline Kayhan newspaper, closely associated with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which accused Grossi of ties to Israel's Mossad intelligence agency. Should Grossi enter Iran, he should be tried and sentenced to death, it said. Grossi has not directly responded to the newspaper's allegations. He has said his top priority is ensuring IAEA inspectors can return to nuclear sites in Iran as soon as possible. Iranian officials have not publicly endorsed the newspaper article. Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, denied that there was any threat against Grossi. But Iran has increasingly criticised Grossi and threatened to halt cooperation with the IAEA, which Tehran blames for providing a justification for Israel's bombing, which began the day after the IAEA board voted to declare Iran in violation of obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian told French President Emmanuel Macron in a phone call on Monday that the IAEA's "double standards" had created problems for regional and global security, Iranian state media reported. "The view of the Iranian government, parliament, and people is that the IAEA director has not acted impartially in relation to our country's nuclear file, despite all the cooperation and interactions that have taken place, and this behaviour is in no way acceptable to us," the reports quote Pezeshkian as saying. Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi has said Grossi is not welcome in Iran, having carried out "malign action" and played a "regrettable role". Iran also said on Monday it could not yet be expected to guarantee the safety of IAEA inspectors. "How can they expect us to ensure the safety and security of the agency's inspectors when Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities were attacked a few days ago?" Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei told a news conference. Baghaei said an Iranian parliamentary bill calling for the government to withdraw cooperation with the IAEA had been approved by the Guardian Council, a security body controlled by appointees of the supreme leader, and was now mandatory. "Iran shouldn't be expected to accept its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty when the U.N. nuclear watchdog has stopped short of condemning the attacks on Iran's nuclear sites," Baghaei said. Reuters
Ammon
an hour ago
- Ammon
From missiles to deals
Whatever the definition of victory or defeat in the recent Iranian-Israeli war may be, the fact remains that Iranian influence has significantly faded over the past two years in Syria, Lebanon, and even Iraq. The latest developments are expected to deepen internal debate in these countries, with growing division over Tehran's role. More significantly, the regime of "Wilayat al-Faqih" will face fundamental questions about political legitimacy, and internal political and social fragmentation is likely to become more entrenched. In sum, Iran will likely cease to be a key regional actor in the coming phase, as it once was over the past two decades. On the other side, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will attempt to translate these wars and military operations into "political gains," both regionally and domestically. However, his agenda clashes with U.S. President Donald Trump for the next phase. According to credible and realistic leaks reported in Israeli media, active backchannel negotiations are underway to end the war in Gaza, resolve remaining issues, and reach a permanent ceasefire, including the release of prisoners in exchange for a temporary administrative commission to govern Gaza with the presence of Arab forces to ensure security and stability. Regionally, the political "cash-out" that both Trump and Netanyahu seek is to link the end of the Gaza war with the broader Saudi-Israeli normalization project. This would pave the way for wider Arab-Islamic normalization with Israel and its full integration into the region. Yet that grand prize is contingent, from the Saudi perspective, on the establishment of a Palestinian state—something Netanyahu vehemently opposes. For him, such a step would fracture his right-wing coalition. Should he agree, the alliance would likely collapse. Trump's reported insistence on shielding Netanyahu from prosecution could be a lifeline for the Israeli PM, enabling him to recalculate his political alliances and find new partners more aligned with advancing normalization, while softening Israeli resistance to the Palestinian state and even the Palestinian Authority itself. Israel's current political setup is not ideal for advancing regional normalization, true. But what would a Palestinian state even look like? Where would its borders be? What about the fate of Jerusalem? These are unresolved, difficult, and complex questions. No Palestinian leader dares to concede on these issues—particularly the demand for East Jerusalem as the capital. Meanwhile, would Saudi Arabia be willing to proceed with normalization without clear, specific, and time-bound commitments to establishing a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders? That scenario is not a viable option for the Israeli leadership—not Netanyahu, nor Yair Lapid, Naftali Bennett, or others. So what is the "magic formula" that would make the Saudi demand acceptable or achievable? Will the term 'state' be rebranded or watered down? Or will it be mentioned only with delayed implementation? Leaks suggest Trump may grant Israel control over portions of the West Bank in exchange for agreement on a Palestinian state—conditional on reforming the Palestinian Authority (with "reform" being a loaded and ambiguous concept). Trump is pushing hard for a new Middle Eastern order, one in which Israel is fully embedded, along with Saudi Arabia and other regional states. Even Syria could potentially be part of this, despite its unresolved dispute with Israel over the Golan Heights. What price would be acceptable for normalization in that case? Can historical impasses be temporarily bypassed to push this new vision forward? Will Trump succeed in imposing his terms and vision on all parties after the Iranian-Israeli war? Many questions remain unanswered—but what is certain is that the coming phase will be crucial in reshaping the Middle East and redefining regional politics.
Ammon
an hour ago
- Ammon
Post-War pressure: Iran faces a new phase of internal confrontation
The 12-day war between Israel and Iran came to a halt without any written agreements or clear outlines for ending hostilities. While there were objective circumstances that forced both sides to stop the fighting—most notably the intervention of U.S. President Donald Trump—the manner in which the war ended clearly suggests that Israel has now added the Iranian front to its list of open arenas in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, where it reserves the right to strike whenever it deems necessary. This is reflected in the statements made by Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, who outlined a permanent plan to counter Iranian threats. This means that Israel has no intention of abandoning its strategy of dominating Iranian airspace or conducting ground operations, especially after the exposure of the extent of Israeli intelligence penetration into Iran. In practice, the war has ushered in a broader Iranian withdrawal from the areas surrounding Israel. Israel has managed to isolate the bordering fronts, dismantle the capabilities of affiliated groups, and contain the immediate threat posed by Iran. However, with the battlefield shifting into Iranian territory itself, it is fair to say that the corridor between Beirut and Tehran has effectively been severed. This also explains the immediate resumption of Israeli strikes against Hezbollah on the Lebanese front as soon as the fighting with Iran paused—a consistent Israeli approach throughout this conflict: reverting to other active fronts whenever one front is de-escalated. Now that direct hostilities with Iran have stopped, Tehran faces an uncomfortable reality: internal confrontation. Israel's apparent goal is to redirect Iran's focus inward, pushing it to grapple with its domestic crises, thereby accelerating its strategic withdrawal. Iran, which long sought to transfer the crisis into Israel, now finds itself confronting a multifaceted internal battle that spans political, security, economic, and social fronts. Politically, the crisis is becoming more evident with the absence of a clear strategy around the current impasse or return to the negotiating table. The scale of concessions Iran might need to make highlights a deep internal dilemma that may not be resolved without sweeping reforms to the structure of political representation. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's recent speech underscored the severity of this crisis. Directed only at one domestic faction 'the hardliners', it sought to boost morale and frame the outcome as a 'victory,' yet it also revealed just how detached this faction has become from reality—evident in inflated claims such as the destruction of Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, among others. Such statements triggered a harsh and humiliating response from President Trump, who reminded Khamenei that he was the one who prevented his assassination. Trump also reaffirmed that sanctions on Iran would remain in place, effectively shutting the door to any immediate diplomatic resolution and deepening the country's internal crisis. Even the European position—once supportive of reviving the nuclear deal or a similar framework—has become far more cautious. The stance of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) toward Iran's nuclear program could lay the groundwork for a more forceful international consensus, making Iran's exit from the current crisis much more complicated and contingent on fundamental internal changes. With no prospect for lifting sanctions or resuming negotiations, pressure on Iran's regime is reaching unprecedented levels. Exiting a war of this magnitude—one that targeted the regime's core institutions—requires broad internal consensus and a clear economic breakthrough, neither of which seems likely at this point. This raises the possibility of large-scale domestic unrest, potentially of a nature and scale that the regime has not previously faced and may struggle to contain. It is now evident that the crisis has shifted firmly into Iranian territory. The war that erupted on Iranian soil is just one facet of this transformation. Yet the bigger challenge that remains is Iran's ability to navigate its internal landscape and move toward viable international understandings that ease tensions. Failing that, the current crisis could quickly evolve into a complex political breakdown—one that the regime may find increasingly difficult to contain.
