Iranian president announces order to end cooperation with IAEA
Iran's nuclear program damaged, not 'obliterated': Former IAEA inspector
Pezeshkian, Macron discuss IAEA oversight, Tehran's return to nuclear talks
Families of prisoners left in the dark after Israeli strike kills 71 at Iran's Evin prison
Khamenei adviser rumored killed by Israel makes first public appearance at funeral
A+ A-
ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Wednesday announced his country's decision to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The move comes days after a deadly war between Iran and Israel ended with a US-brokered ceasefire.
Last Wednesday, Iran's parliament approved a bill suspending cooperation with the IAEA. Under the new legislation, the UN-affiliated agency's inspectors will be barred from entering the country unless Tehran receives guarantees for the safety and integrity of its nuclear infrastructure and activities. The law was ratified by Iran's Guardian Council on Thursday.
Iranian state media reported on Wednesday that Pezeshkian has announced the decision.
During a phone call with his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron on Monday condemned the IAEA for issuing 'inaccurate reports' and for failing to explicitly condemn recent US and Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, according to Iran's state-owned IRNA news agency. He claimed the attacks violated international law and resulted in 'the martyrdom of a number of our compatriots, scientists, and military commanders.'
On June 13, Israel launched airstrikes on Iranian territory, targeting nuclear facilities and killing senior military officials and nuclear scientists. Iran responded with missile and drone attacks on Israeli targets.
Tensions escalated further when, on June 16, the United States carried out airstrikes on three key Iranian nuclear sites - Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz. In retaliation, Iran launched ballistic missiles at al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the largest US military installation in the region. A US-brokered ceasefire took effect on June 18.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rudaw Net
2 minutes ago
- Rudaw Net
French FM speaks with SDF chief, expresses support for Syrian Kurds
Also in World KRG requested defence system from US: Official Paris to host next round of SDF-Damascus talks Israeli, Syrian officials meet in Paris US must pressure Syria to protect minority rights: USCRIF A+ A- ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot spoke with Mazloum Abdi, commander-in-chief of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), on Friday to confirm that Paris will host the next round of talks between the SDF and Damascus. Barrot also reiterated France's support for Syrian Kurds, according to the French foreign ministry. 'This exchange provided an opportunity to confirm the upcoming holding in Paris of a negotiation session between the Syrian transitional authorities and the Syrian Democratic Forces with a view to implement the March 10 agreement, under the auspices of France and the United States,' read a statement from the ministry. 'The minister reiterated France's support for defining a negotiated and peaceful solution for the unification of Syria, the integration of the population of northeastern Syria into the political transition process, and the guarantee of Kurdish rights,' said the statement from the French foreign ministry. Earlier in the day, Barrot met with US Special Envoy for Syria Tom Barrack and Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani. The meeting, in which they discussed negotiations between the SDF and Damascus, was 'very frank and productive,' according to the French ministry. Abdi and Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa on March 10 signed an agreement that outlines the future of the SDF and Rojava. While parts of the agreement have been implemented, key provisions - such as integrating the US-backed SDF into Syrian state forces - remain contested. Kurdish leaders have voiced concern over the centralization of power and the prominence of Islamic law in the transitional constitution adopted by Syria's interim government. They have repeatedly denied accusations of separatism and have called instead for federalism. Kurds held a national conference earlier this year, calling for decentralization. Following the conversation between Barrot and Abdi, an official from the Syrian foreign ministry told the state-run TV channel al-Ikhbariya that France has agreed to 'pressure the SDF to reach the solution desired by Syrians.' Qutaiba Idlibi, director of the American Affairs Department at the ministry, said that the scheduled meeting between the SDF and Damascus in Paris is the continuation of talks with the Kurdish-led force about their 'full integration.' In recent interviews, SDF representatives have said the force must retain its own weapons and join the Syrian army as a block. 'Handing over weapons is a red line. It is not possible to hand over weapons,' Farhad Shami, head of SDF media centre, told Syria's Alyaum TV on Wednesday. SDF spokesperson Abjar Dawoud told Saudi-based Asharq Al-Awsat on Tuesday that the SDF could join the Syrian army 'through a constitutional and legal agreement that recognizes the specificity of our forces,' adding that they refuse to 'surrender' their weapons 'in light of the increase in the pace of violence' in Suwayda province, where at least 1,300 people were killed in a week of clashes. He said it is also 'impossible' for the SDF to hand over its weapons while the Islamic State (ISIS) remains a threat to northeast Syria. An unnamed senior official from the Syrian government told al-Ikhbariya on Thursday that the SDF's demands are not acceptable.
Shafaq News
2 minutes ago
- Shafaq News
Tehran presses Europe to revise nuclear stance amid rising tensions
Shafaq News – Tehran Iran has pressed European powers to revise their approach to nuclear negotiations, following a new round of deputy-level talks in Istanbul with the so-called E3—Britain, France, and Germany—amid heightened tensions over recent Israeli and American military strikes on Iranian territory. Speaking on Friday, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Majid Takht-Ravanchi said the meeting aimed to continue discussions on the future of the nuclear deal and address what he described as serious violations of international law by Israel and the United States. 'The recent aggression against Iran was a key point of contention,' he noted, adding that Tehran accused the West of failing to condemn the strikes, which it views as breaches of the UN Charter. The talks also touched on the controversial reactivation of sanctions mechanisms. According to Takht-Ravanchi, Iran firmly rejected any moves by the European trio to reimpose penalties, asserting that such steps lack legal foundation. He emphasized that Iran considers its uranium enrichment rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to be 'inalienable' and insisted that sanctions be lifted without delay. Takht-Ravanchi also disclosed that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi recently sent a formal letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, detailing Tehran's legal position regarding the nuclear file. The letter has been officially recorded with the United Nations, he said. In a separate statement ahead of the meeting, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei described the Istanbul talks as a chance for European governments to 'correct their course' and take a more pragmatic stance. He warned that Europe's prior conduct had eroded its credibility and weakened its role at the negotiating table.
Memri
6 minutes ago
- Memri
Pakistan Considers Gilgit-Baltistan A Burdensome Part Of Its Periphery – The Enduring Fallout Of The Karachi Agreement
For the people of Gilgit-Baltistan (GB), existence has unfolded as a relentless chronicle of adversity and marginalization. Officially labeled the "Northern Areas," the region has long been regarded by Pakistan not as a cherished part of the federation, but as a distant and burdensome periphery. Successive governments have turned a blind eye to the fundamental needs of the humble inhabitants of Gilgit-Baltistan, relegating the region to an ad hoc governance framework administered from afar governed not by participatory laws, but by decrees handed down from Islamabad. (Source: X) Pakistani Magazine "Herald" Described Gilgit-Baltistan As "The Last Colony" GB has been governed through decrees and presidential orders, denied representation in the National Assembly, and excluded from the constitutional framework that defines the rest of the country. This legal ambiguity stems from the Karachi Agreement of 1949,[1] a document signed in secrecy between Pakistan and Azad Kashmir, which transferred control of Gilgit-Baltistan to Islamabad without a single representative from the region present. In just one line, the fate of an entire people was sealed: "All affairs of the Gilgit and Ladakh areas under the control of the Political Agent at Gilgit." That line, devoid of consultation or consent, plunged Gilgit-Baltistan into decades of administrative neglect and political invisibility. GB was subjected to the colonial-era Frontier Crimes Regulation, a draconian legal framework that denied basic civil liberties. The Pakistani state, viewing Gilgit-Baltistan as a strategic asset rather than a community of citizens, tethered it to the Kashmir dispute for geopolitical leverage. As expert Nosheen Ali argues in the book "Delusional States: Feeling Rule and Development in Pakistan's Northern Frontier,"[2] this linkage was a calculated move to bolster Pakistan's position in a potential UN plebiscite, not a reflection of the region's identity or aspirations. The governance model imposed by Islamabad has consistently reflected a colonial mindset, prioritizing central control over participatory development. This sentiment was poignantly captured by the Pakistani magazine "Herald," which once described Gilgit-Baltistan as "the last colony," a haunting label that continues to echo in the collective memory of its people.[3] Even as early as August 14, 1964, the publication "Karachi Outlook" observed with striking clarity that the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs had entrenched itself with vested interests, treating Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan not as partners in governance but as subordinates in a dominion.[4] The ministry's preference, as the article noted, was for compliant figureheads, "puppets" rather than leaders who dared to interpret their roles with independence or purpose. Such revelations underscore a longstanding pattern of administrative manipulation and exclusion that has defined Gilgit-Baltistan's fraught relationship with the Pakistani state and perpetuated its constitutional obscurity. This disconnect has fostered a deeply flawed administrative framework, characterized by fragmentation and inefficiency. Today, Gilgit-Baltistan suffers from chronic underdevelopment, inadequate infrastructure, and a lack of basic services. Pakistan's mainstream political parties, continue to sideline the pressing needs of Gilgit-Baltistan's local communities. The proliferation of ten miniature districts for a population scarcely exceeding two million has stunted the evolution of robust local governance, diluting institutional capacity and cohesion. Alarmingly, the federal government now contemplates adding more revenue districts, an extension of this unsustainable administrative experimentation. In their effort to uphold this bureaucratic distortion, authorities risk resorting to taxation bereft of any representative mandate, thereby deepening public disenfranchisement and fueling resentment across the region. Gilgit-Baltistan Remains Under The Thumb Of Islamabad's Self-Governance Orders In Skardu, the largest city, residents endure up to 22 hours of load shedding in winter, relying on underperforming hydroelectric projects like the Satpara Dam, which was meant to power 40,000 homes but delivers only a fraction of its promise. The region remains disconnected from the national grid, a stark symbol of its isolation. Protests erupt regularly, with citizens braving freezing temperatures to demand land rights, oppose unjust taxation, and resist the encroachment of federal projects like CPEC that seize local land without compensation. The GB Revenue Authority Bill, which imposes taxes without offering representation, has become a flashpoint for public outrage. The people of Gilgit-Baltistan cannot vote in national elections, nor do they have a voice in shaping the policies that govern their lives. Gilgit-Baltistan remains under the thumb of Islamabad's self-governance orders, that consolidate power in the federal government and leave local institutions toothless. This has fueled a growing demand for constitutional rights, political recognition, and genuine autonomy. Activists like Shabir Choudhry continue to raise the alarm, warning that the region is teetering on the edge of chaos. With each passing year, the protests grow louder, the grievances deeper, and the urgency more palpable. Gilgit-Baltistan is not merely a disputed territory, it is a community yearning for justice, dignity, and the right to determine its own future. When Pakistan entered into a border agreement with China 1963, it ceded a portion of territory south of the Mintaka Pass, land historically belonging to Hunza to Beijing. This realignment of the boundary between China's Xinjiang province and Pakistan-administered territory was executed without any consultation with the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. The absence of local representation in such a consequential decision underscores the region's disenfranchisement and the extent to which its fate has been shaped by external interests. The construction of the Karakoram Highway (KKH). linking Pakistan with China through Gilgit-Baltistan, further entrenched this dynamic. The highway has facilitated the unchecked influx of weapons, narcotics, and religious militias into the region. These developments have not only destabilized the social fabric but have also precipitated a dramatic shift in the region's demographic. Historically, Shias and Ismailis comprised approximately 85 percent of the population. Today, that figure has dwindled to nearly half, a transformation driven in part by the systematic settlement of outsiders, an act widely perceived as an attempt to dilute the indigenous identity and alter the sectarian balance. Gilgit-Baltistan Stands Not Only As A Disputed Territory But As A Testament To The Enduring Consequences Of Governance Divorced From Representation And Accountability Successive governments have consistently failed to demonstrate genuine commitment to addressing the economic and political aspirations of Gilgit-Baltistan's people. Instead, the region has been subjected to chronic neglect, its strategic value prioritized over the welfare of its inhabitants. The demographic engineering and administrative marginalization reflect a broader pattern of exploitation, where the voices of the local population are silenced in favor of geopolitical maneuvering. In this context, Gilgit-Baltistan stands not only as a disputed territory but as a testament to the enduring consequences of governance divorced from representation and accountability. Over the years, the Karachi Agreement has emerged as a crucible of contention and reflection, reverberating through the intellectual corridors of constitutional debate and the impassioned narratives of Gilgit-Baltistan's political conscience. Legal minds, regional leaders, and activist voices alike have cast a critical eye upon the circumstances under which the agreement came into being, lamenting the stark absence of representation from those whose futures it reshaped so profoundly. Its signing, executed without consultation or consent, has stirred enduring questions about the legitimacy of governance imposed in silence. Can a pact that determines the course of a people's destiny be just if they were denied a seat at the table? Will it be treated at par with the other provinces, and if not, does Pakistan accept that it remains a disputed province?
