Iran is breaking rules on nuclear activity, UN watchdog says
The statement added that Iran will 'launch a new enrichment center in a secure location and replace the first-generation machines' at another site with more modern equipment.
Advertisement
The agency's resolution was put forward by the United States, Britain, France, and Germany, and passed easily, with 19 votes of the 35-nation board. Russia, China, and Burkina Faso voted against, and 11 other countries abstained, while two did not vote.
The agency also said Iran consistently failed to provide information about undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple locations.
Iran had reacted angrily to the prospect of the vote and threatened to leave the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which came into force in 1970. Iran is a signatory but has not ratified a section that would allow inspectors to search areas of the country where they suspect nuclear activity. But the vote was also seen as part of the diplomacy around the negotiations on Iran's nuclear program between the United States and Iran.
Advertisement
Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said Wednesday that a move to censure the country would 'compel Iran to react STRONGLY. Blame will lie solely and FULLY with malign actors who shatter their own relevance.'
After the vote, Araghchi confirmed that he will attend a sixth round of talks Sunday in Oman but cautioned that the censure added complexity to already-delicate negotiations. He will meet President Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, according to an American with knowledge of the talks.
Araghchi and others have warned that any military action against Iran by the United States or by Israel would produce severe consequences, potentially including strikes on US military bases.
Trump sought to play down Iran's warnings. 'I would love to avoid a conflict,' he told reporters at the White House on Thursday. But, he added, 'They're going to have to be willing to give us some things that they're not willing to give us right now.'
He also acknowledged the chances of an Israeli strike on Iran but warned that such an attack could 'blow it,' in reference to a US-Iran deal, which he called 'fairly close.'
The diplomatic effort is aimed at ensuring that Iran stops or sharply reduces uranium enrichment, which is needed for a nuclear weapon. Iran has said its nuclear program is for civilian use, not to develop weapons.
The Trump administration has proposed an arrangement that would provide Iran with fuel for reactors but prevent it from building a nuclear weapon or enriching uranium. Iran has said it will never give up the right to enrichment.
The nuclear agency vote was another indication that American and European patience is wearing thin. But the resolution did not immediately refer Iran's noncompliance to the Security Council to consider more sanctions on Iran. It is an effort to get Iran to comply, said a senior European diplomat who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
Advertisement
Any Iranian move to increase nuclear activity would probably increase Israel's belief that a military attack is the only way to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Iran already has enough highly enriched uranium at near weapons-grade to build 10 bombs in less than a year, according to the IAEA.
Iran's continued failure to comply with the nuclear watchdog's requirements could be grounds for the Security Council to restore, or 'snap back,' heavy economic sanctions on Iran that were lifted as part of the 2015 deal that was agreed with the Obama administration, the five permanent members of the Security Council, the European Union, and Germany. Trump withdrew the United States from that agreement in 2018, a move that Iran says gave it license to abandon its commitments to limit nuclear activity.
Under the 2015 deal, which expires Oct. 18, any participant can trigger the snapback sanctions, which would reinstate the multinational and UN sanctions lifted under the Obama-era agreement.
Those sanctions are in addition to US ones and are severe. They include an embargo on selling conventional weapons to Iran, asset freezes, banking restrictions, and various restrictions on uranium enrichment and nuclear-related trade.
If those sanctions were reinstated, the restrictions would come back into force after 30 days unless the Security Council passed a resolution to continue sanctions relief.
That threat is also intended to push Iran toward a diplomatic resolution. But the snapback can only be used before the 2015 deal expires.
Advertisement
This article originally appeared in
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive: Trump's tariff deal ‘quietly' added 10% raise which nobody is complaining about anymore, says his former commerce secretary
Wilbur Ross, former Commerce Secretary and a key architect of Trump's first-term trade policy, describes Trump's current tariff strategy as a deliberate evolution: moving faster, hitting harder, and using broader executive powers to impose tariffs for both economic and diplomatic leverage. The Trump administration's use of tariffs has sparked debate over the ultimate goals of its economic strategy. However, a former Cabinet member and key trade advisor to the President has suggested there is an underlying logic to the approach. Since winning the Oval Office, President Trump has announced an evolving range of policies. with economic sanctions spinning higher on some trade partners while others have been granted pauses. Many of the announcements have not come through official White House channels; for example, Trump threatened a 50% tariff on the EU in April in a bid to get European negotiators to the table—by posting on his social media site, Truth Social. Indeed, Trump has come under scrutiny from Beijing, arguably the most critical region for the U.S. to make a deal, who claim America's tariff tactics have been 'coercion and blackmail' when instead it should 'convey information to the Chinese side…through relevant parties.' But Wilbur Ross, Trump's Commerce Secretary in his first administration, says there's a clear tactic at play beneath Trump's bluster. The 87-year-old banker turned D.C. power player said there is an 'art' to Trump's dealmaking, as White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has suggested; Ross told Fortune in an exclusive interview: 'Well, everybody's reaction to [tariffs] was first shock and amazement, but the actual retaliatory measures that they put in were fairly modest—even China didn't match in dollar for dollar. 'There's a real reason for that, I think the other countries, as they've thought about it, have recognized that while they have to talk very bravely for their domestic political constituencies… They also recognize that at the end of the day, they can't afford a tit-for-tat escalating trade war with us.' And this was a fact Trump was relying on, continued Ross: 'One of the earliest things he put in was that 10% tariff on everything from everywhere. 'Nobody is even complaining about that anymore. When you think about it, in the normal course, getting quietly to do a 10% tariff on everything from everywhere was a huge achievement, even if he didn't get anything else. But because he followed it with these much more extreme things, it makes the 10% look like it's not such a big bother. 'But it's a huge number, and he's been collecting it every day.' Indeed, imported goods alone into the U.S. in 2024 stood at $3.36 trillion—even before tax, duties, and levies were collected (worth $82 billion) and before imported services are added to those figures. Even 10% of near-$3.4 trillion is an eye-watering sum to add to federal budgets, though some items like autos and steel are even higher. Indeed nations like China, Canada, and Mexico are all already subject to more than the baseline 10% universal tariff. When Ross spoke to Fortune in a previous exclusive interview earlier this year, he said President Trump would be all the more confident in his second term because he now better understands the inner workings of Washington, D.C., and has a stronger mandate courtesy of a solid election sweep. And President Trump's tactics, which have included everything from threatening a 25% hike on Apple's iPhones specifically to raising sanctions to more than 150% on China at some points, reflect the path Ross expected. After all, as Secretary, Ross was one of the key allies in Trump's team when renegotiating America's position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). At the time, Trump was a fierce critic of the deal with Mexico and Canada and wanted to withdraw from the agreement and begin negotiating from there. Ross felt the better tactic was to threaten such action and keep an exit as a last resort, an opinion that Trump eventually came around to agreeing with. Likewise, having been appointed in 2017 Ross oversaw the tariff action in the first Trump administration which included sanctions on Chinese goods as well as aluminum and steel more widely. 'He has started out on a much more adventurous path than last time,' Ross told Fortune this week. 'Broader in scope and more extreme in terms of the numbers themselves.' Trump has three objectives, he adds: shrinking trade deficits, producing revenue to offset his 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' and achieving other diplomatic purposes such as the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. and global defense spending. 'He has a much more fulsome, much more complicated agenda than before,' Ross explains. 'It's also different in…that last time I was very careful to set the groundwork to do public hearings, stakeholder meetings, to do written reports, to set a whole record so that under the Administrative Procedures Act we would be relatively safe from people trying to knock it out in court. 'This time, they did a very different thing. They went in mostly just by his say so using the IFA, the Emergency Powers Act, and they ran into a snag at the Court for International Trade.' This snag may alter the course of tariff reaction on the account of businesses, he added, because their investment timelines may shift based on when the tariffs are legally approved. But Ross added: 'Most people are operating under the assumption that sooner or later, he'll get something like what he was looking for…and therefore, while it's slowed down a bit, [I] don't think it will derail [trade talks] because [foreign governments] also know there are other ways he could punish them rather than just the tariffs. 'So it's a bump in the road, but I don't think it's a huge pothole that would wreck the car.' This story was originally featured on
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil prices jump after Israel's attack on Iran and it could lead to higher gas costs
Oil prices have jumped following Israel's attack on Iran as experts warn the conflict could lead to higher gas costs. The price of a barrel of benchmark U.S. crude jumped 6.8 percent to $72.65 Friday. Brent crude, the international standard, rose 7.1 percent to $74.30 a barrel. 'Gas prices will likely start to rise across much of the country later this evening in response to Israel's attacks on Iran, which have caused oil prices to surge. For now, I expect the rise to be noticable, but limited. Approx 10-25c/gal thus far, but this could change,' industry expert Patrick De Haan wrote on X. Iran is one of the world's major producers of oil and if a wider war escalates, it could slow the flow of Iranian oil to U.S. customers and elsewhere. 'Iran knows full well that Trump is focused on lower energy prices and actions by Iran that impact Middle East supply and consequently raise oil prices damage Trump politically,' Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates consulting firm, told CNN. Past attacks involving Iran and Israel have seen prices for oil spike initially, only to fall later 'once it became clear that the situation was not escalating and there was no impact on oil supply,' said Richard Joswick, head of near-term oil at S&P Global Commodity Insights. The Secretary of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries warned industry executives not to 'raise false alarms.' 'There are currently no developments in supply or market dynamics that warrant unnecessary measures,' the organization said on X. Israel said 200 fighter jets took part in strikes on more than 100 targets in Iran overnight in an escalation that threatens to spark a wider conflict in the Middle East. Israel said Iran has launched more than 100 drones towards Israel in response - but Tehran has denied these reports, according to Iranian media. Trump firmly put the U.S. in Israel's corner after the attacks. The president said he'd given Tehran 'chance after chance to make a deal' that would have headed off the strikes by putting restrictions on the country's nuclear weapons program and complained that Iranian negotiators had never been able to come to an agreement. 'I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to 'just do it,' but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn't get it done,' he wrote on Truth Social. Trump also said he'd warned Iran that Israel 'has a lot' of American-made military hardware — 'the best and most lethal' — and is quite proficient in using it. 'Certain Iranian hardliner's spoke bravely, but they didn't know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse!' he added. 'Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE,' the president wrote. The Associated Press contributed reporting Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Wall Street Journal
16 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
If Not Washington, Who Will Fund Harvard?
Jason Riley describes how Harvard has become a punching bag for political grandstanding ('Does the President Want to Fix Harvard or Destroy It?,'Upward Mobility, May 28). Yet the Trump administration swings at its peril. Harvard isn't a delicate orchid that will fold under political heat. It's a $53 billion juggernaut with labs, patents and partnerships that span the globe. If Washington starts revoking grants, threatening tax status or chilling academic freedom to score points with the base, Harvard isn't going to sit tight until President Trump is over. It's going to pivot—aggressively. Someone else, be it Berlin, Seoul or Abu Dhabi, will fund it. The idea that the greatest minds in medicine, energy and artificial intelligence will suddenly transfer their breakthroughs to a U.S. government-licensed trade school is laughable. In a century where data, biotech and artificial intelligence are the new oil, dismantling our own research powerhouse is like banning railroads in 1900 because the engineers read Karl Marx.
