Iran Says Talks with IAEA Will Be ‘Technical' and ‘Complicated' Ahead of Agency's Planned Visit
Relations between the two soured after a 12-day air war was waged by Israel and the US in June, which saw key Iranian nuclear facilities bombed. The IAEA board said on June 12 Iran had breached its non-proliferation obligations, a day before Israel's airstrikes over Iran that sparked the war.
The IAEA did not immediately issue a statement about the visit by the agency's deputy head, which will not include any planned access to Iranian nuclear sites.
Esmail Baghaei, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson, told reporters there could be a meeting with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, "but it is a bit soon to predict what the talks will result since these are technical talks, complicated talks."
Baghaei also criticized the IAEA's "unique situation" during the June war with Israel.
"Peaceful facilities of a country that was under 24-hour monitoring were the target of strikes and the agency refrained from showing a wise and rational reaction and did not condemn it as it was required," he said.
Araghchi had previously said that cooperation with the agency, which will now require approval by Iran's highest security body, the Supreme National Security Council, would be about redefining how both sides cooperate. The decision will likely further limit inspectors' ability to track Tehran's program that had been enriching uranium to near weapons-grade levels.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on July 3 ordered the country to suspend its cooperation with the IAEA, after the US bombed three major Iranian nuclear sites as Israel waged an air war with Iran, killing nearly 1,100 people, including many military commanders. Retaliatory Iranian strikes killed 28 in Israel.
Iran has had limited IAEA inspections in the past as a pressure tactic in negotiating with the West, and it is unclear how soon talks between Tehran and Washington for a deal over its nuclear program will resume.
US intelligence agencies and the IAEA had assessed Iran last had an organized nuclear weapons program in 2003, though Tehran had been enriching uranium up to 60% — a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
4 hours ago
- Arab News
Arab, Islamic foreign ministers condemn Netanyahu's ‘Greater Israel' remark
RIYADH: The foreign ministers of Arab and Muslim nations on Saturday denounced statements about a "Greater Israel" that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was reported to have made in the wake of pronouncements by his far-right allies to annex Palestinian territories. In a joint statement, the ministers said the pronouncements by Netanyahu and his ministers were "a blatant and dangerous violation" of international law. "They also constitute a direct threat to Arab national security, to the sovereignty of states, and to regional and international peace and security," said the statement carried by the Saudi Press Agency, or SPA. (Developing story)
Arab News
11 hours ago
- Arab News
Microsoft launches probe after Israeli mass surveillance claims
LONDON: Microsoft has opened an external investigation into allegations that a top Israeli military intelligence unit used its cloud technology to carry out mass surveillance of Palestinians. The probe follows a joint report by The Guardian, +972 Magazine, and Hebrew-language outlet Local Call. According to the report, Israel's Unit 8200 spy agency, the rough equivalent of the US National Security Agency, used Microsoft's Azure cloud service to store a vast archive of phone calls intercepted and recorded from Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. The joint media report also revealed extensive ties between Microsoft's Israel office and the spy unit — a finding that prompted alarm among the tech giant's US executives who feared that Israel-based employees might have concealed information about the nature of their work with Unit 8200. Microsoft's Israel office, as part of its work with the unit, created a custom, segregated suite within the Azure platform in order to store the archive of intercepted phone calls. Unit 8200 chiefs aimed to use the surveillance project to record 'millions of calls per hour' across the Palestinian territories. In a statement, Microsoft said 'using Azure for the storage of data files of phone calls obtained through broad or mass surveillance of civilians in Gaza and the West Bank' would be prohibited under its terms of service. The tech giant appointed lawyers from US firm Covington & Burling to oversee the inquiry. It is the second external probe initiated by Microsoft in relation to its ties with the Israeli military. The first, conducted earlier this year, found 'no evidence to date' that the Israel Defense Forces had broken Microsoft's terms of service or used the Azure cloud service 'to target or harm people' in Gaza. However, the latest investigation will expand on the previous one, with Microsoft agreeing 'that The Guardian's recent report raises additional and precise allegations that merit a full and urgent review.' Pressure is also mounting within Microsoft through an employee-led campaign group, No Azure for Apartheid. The group, which is accusing the tech giant of 'complicity in genocide and apartheid,' has called for Microsoft to cut all ties with the Israeli military. Sources within Microsoft told The Guardian that the company's leadership was scrambling to assess Azure data. They are reportedly concerned about information revealed by Unit 8200 sources for the joint media report, which alleged that the data was used to identify targets for strikes in Gaza. Microsoft pledged to 'share with the public the factual findings that result from' the external review, a statement said.
Arab News
12 hours ago
- Arab News
All at sea: UK sends wrong signal on Gulf naval role
The British government recently announced that HMS Lancaster, a Royal Navy frigate permanently based in the Gulf, will return to the UK for scrapping by the end of the year. This will leave the UK without a permanent forward-based destroyer or frigate in the Gulf for the first time in many years. The decision comes at a bad time, given the fragile state of maritime security in the region. The removal of Britain's last warship from the Gulf, despite these realities, is reminiscent of US President Joe Biden's 2013 decision to withdraw all American tanks from Europe for the first time since the Second World War — only to see Russia invade Ukraine the following year. The Gulf region matters to the UK for many reasons. Britain's ties with the Gulf states stretch back decades, and in some cases centuries. The first recorded instance of the Royal Navy entering the Gulf occurred in 1620, when the East India Company sought to dislodge Portuguese influence from the region. Economically, the Gulf is one of the UK's most important trading regions outside Europe and North America, with billions in goods and services exchanged each year. British companies are heavily involved in the energy, finance, and defense sectors, while Gulf investment plays a major role in the UK economy, from infrastructure projects to property and technology ventures. Security cooperation has been just as important. Many Gulf countries have served alongside British forces in joint operations, whether in counter-piracy patrols off the Horn of Africa, counter-terrorism missions in the wider Middle East, or maritime security cooperation in the Gulf itself. These shared missions have built strong operational ties and mutual trust between the UK and its Gulf partners, strengthening both regional stability and the global commons. Gulf investment plays a major role in the British economy Luke Coffey The UK military continues to play a significant role in training and, in some cases, equipping the armed forces of the region, fostering close professional bonds among senior officers. The Royal Navy, in particular, holds a special place, with the UK ranking second only to the US in terms of foreign naval influence in the Gulf. The UK has also reduced its mine countermeasures vessels in the region, a vital asset given Iran's repeated threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. A Royal Fleet Auxiliary support ship traditionally stationed in the Gulf has also been brought home, with no plans for its return. The Labour government's own 2025 Strategic Defense Review, a document it describes as a 'root-and-branch' analysis of Britain's national security and armed forces, runs to 144 pages, but devotes only about half a page to the Gulf. It does highlight, though concisely, the importance of the region, stating: 'The Middle East is significant to UK security and prosperity due to its position as an artery of global trade and its role in global energy supplies. The UK's footprint in the region and increased investment in strategic defense partnerships supports the government's economic growth agenda.' If Prime Minister Keir Starmer truly sees the Gulf as a geopolitical priority, his first year in government has done little to prove it. By contrast, when the Conservatives returned to power in 2010 after 13 years in opposition, David Cameron moved quickly to elevate relations with the region. He immediately launched the Gulf Initiative, a cross-government effort to deepen relationships with the Gulf Cooperation Council states. This paid off handsomely. In 2011 alone, UK exports to Gulf countries exceeded those to India, Russia, and Mexico combined. By contrast, under Starmer there has been no comparable deepening of relations, apart from the approaching completion of a GCC–UK free trade agreement — an effort that began under the previous Conservative government. The removal of HMS Lancaster from the Gulf and its scrapping by the end of this year is part of a wider maritime crunch facing the Royal Navy. Once Lancaster leaves service, the fleet will be reduced to just six destroyers and six frigates — the lowest number in modern history. This downsizing comes at a time when global shipping volumes are increasing and the threats to maritime trade are growing. For a globally engaged, free-trading island nation such as Britain, these choices are difficult to reconcile with its strategic posture. Under Starmer there has been no deepening of relations Luke Coffey In the 2025 Strategic Defense Review, Starmer reaffirmed that the UK would pursue a 'NATO-first' policy — an approach that makes sense. Yet this does not mean Britain can neglect other key regions, particularly the Middle East. In recent years, NATO has moved to strengthen ties with the Gulf states and expand cooperation on issues such as maritime security, counter-terrorism, and regional stability. One of NATO's strengths is that different member states bring different contributions to the table. Since Britain is a global power with global interests, its reach and capabilities help NATO act more effectively beyond the Euro-Atlantic area. The UK's decision to scale back its naval presence in the Gulf runs counter to this dynamic, undermining one of the most significant ways Britain can contribute to NATO's efforts in the Middle East. Britain cannot afford to send the wrong message to friends or foes about its staying power in strategically vital regions. The Gulf is not only a hub of global commerce and energy but also a testing ground for Britain's ability to project influence and safeguard the rules-based order beyond Europe. If the UK truly intends to be a global power with global interests, then maintaining a credible, visible, and capable naval presence in the Gulf must remain a priority — not an afterthought. • Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. X: @LukeDCoffey
