IAEA: Return of Inspectors to Iran's Nuclear Sites ‘Number One Priority'
Israel repeatedly struck Iranian nuclear facilities during its 12-day-war with Tehran, and US forces bombed Iran's underground nuclear facilities at the weekend, but the extent of the damage to its stocks of enriched uranium is unclear.
'So for that, to confirm, for the whole situation, evaluation, we need to return (IAEA inspectors to Iran's nuclear facilities),' UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi told reporters in Austria following a briefing to the Government in Vienna.
Grossi said there is a chance that much of Iran's highly enriched uranium survived the Israeli and US attacks because it may have been moved by Tehran soon after the first strikes.
Earlier this week, Grossi said Iran had informed the IAEA on June 13 - the first day of Israeli strikes - that it would take 'special measures' to protect its nuclear materials and equipment.
'They did not get into details as to what that meant but clearly that was the implicit meaning of that, so we can imagine that this material is there,' Grossi told a press conference on Wednesday with members of the Austrian government.
Meanwhile, Iran's parliament approved a bill on Wednesday on suspending cooperation with the IAEA and stipulating that any future IAEA inspection would need approval by Iran's Supreme National Security Council.
The IAEA needs to determine how much remains of Iran's stock of uranium enriched to up to 60% purity - a level that is close to the roughly 90% of weapons grade.
On Tuesday, three sources with knowledge of the matter told Reuters that a preliminary US intelligence assessment determined that the US strikes at the weekend set back Tehran's program by only a matter of months, meaning Iran could restart its nuclear program in that time.
'This hourglass approach is something I do not like ... It's in the eye of the beholder,' Grossi said.
'When you look at the ... reconstruction of the infrastructure, it's not impossible. First, there has been some that survived the attacks, and then this is work that Iran knows how to do. It would take some time,' he added.
Asked about Iran's threat to withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Grossi said, 'This would be, of course, very regrettable.'
He added, 'I hope this is not the case. I don't think this would help anybody, starting with Iran. This would lead to isolation and all sorts of problems and, why not, perhaps, if not the unravelling a very, very, very serious erosion in the NPT structure.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
a few seconds ago
- Arab News
South Sudan hosts Israeli deputy FM but denies Gaza relocation reports
JUBA: South Sudan on Wednesday said that Israel's deputy foreign minister had visited for talks, after reports of plans to relocate Palestinians from the war-torn Gaza Strip. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that he would permit Palestinians from Gaza to emigrate voluntarily and that his government was talking to a number of potential host countries. South Sudan, which is said to be one of the host countries, announced that Sharren Haskel had visited, in what it called 'the highest-level engagement from an Israeli official to South Sudan thus far.' According to a statement, Foreign Minister Semaya Kumba held 'a fruitful bilateral dialogue' with Haskel that touched on 'the evolving circumstances within the State of Israel,' without elaborating. 'Both parties expressed a resolute commitment to advancing stronger bilateral and multilateral cooperation moving forward,' it added. A previous statement from the government in Juba refuted media reports that it was in discussion with Israel about relocating Palestinians from Gaza to South Sudan, calling the claims 'baseless.' The potential arrival of Palestinians from Gaza in South Sudan has sparked intense controversy both on social media and on the streets of the capital. 'We don't accept this because these are criminals they are bringing to us. Also we don't have land that can accommodate the Palestinians from Gaza to South Sudan,' Juba resident James Lomederi told AFP. Another local, who asked not to be identified, said: 'We will welcome them with open arms. Our borders need heavy deployment of troops, and they will help us fight anyone who wants to annex our land into their territory.' Impoverished South Sudan has been plagued by insecurity and instability since its independence in 2011. This year, the country saw months of clashes between forces loyal to President Salva Kiir and those backing First Vice President Riek Machar. The arrest of Machar in March fueled fears of a return to civil war, nearly seven years after the end of bloody fighting between supporters of the two men that led to around 400,000 deaths between 2013 and 2018.
Arab News
a few seconds ago
- Arab News
S.Sudan hosts Israeli deputy FM but denies Gaza relocation reports
JUBA: South Sudan on Wednesday said that Israel's deputy foreign minister had visited for talks, after reports of plans to relocate Palestinians from the war-torn Gaza Strip. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that he would permit Palestinians from Gaza to emigrate voluntarily and that his government was talking to a number of potential host countries. South Sudan, which is said to be one of the host countries, announced that Sharren Haskel had visited, in what it called 'the highest-level engagement from an Israeli official to South Sudan thus far.' According to a statement, Foreign Minister Semaya Kumba held 'a fruitful bilateral dialogue' with Haskel that touched on 'the evolving circumstances within the State of Israel,' without elaborating. 'Both parties expressed a resolute commitment to advancing stronger bilateral and multilateral cooperation moving forward,' it added. A previous statement from the government in Juba refuted media reports that it was in discussion with Israel about relocating Palestinians from Gaza to South Sudan, calling the claims 'baseless.' The potential arrival of Palestinians from Gaza in South Sudan has sparked intense controversy both on social media and on the streets of the capital. 'We don't accept this because these are criminals they are bringing to us. Also we don't have land that can accommodate the Palestinians from Gaza to South Sudan,' Juba resident James Lomederi told AFP. Another local, who asked not to be identified, said: 'We will welcome them with open arms. Our borders need heavy deployment of troops, and they will help us fight anyone who wants to annex our land into their territory.' Impoverished South Sudan has been plagued by insecurity and instability since its independence in 2011. This year, the country saw months of clashes between forces loyal to President Salva Kiir and those backing First Vice President Riek Machar. The arrest of Machar in March fueled fears of a return to civil war, nearly seven years after the end of bloody fighting between supporters of the two men that led to around 400,000 deaths between 2013 and 2018.
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
How can we understand Hezbollah's intransigence over its weapons?
The fate of Hezbollah's arms is no longer a domestic dispute between advocates of sovereignty and supporters of the 'resistance.' Since the 2023-2024 war with Israel, this question has been distilling into an existential crisis facing the party. The slogan raised by the leader of Hezbollah's parliamentary bloc, Mohammed Raad — 'we will die before surrendering the weapons' — reflects his awareness that his camp has no other option but to cling to what remains of its arsenal. Abandoning its arms would break Hezbollah's political and ideological foundations. These actions are not mere reflections of political intransigence. Given its rigid ideology and uncompromising idealism, and because Iran's regional project is in its DNA, Hezbollah is not an agile actor with the capacity to fundamentally change in nature. Moreover, it has built its power around the notion that weapons are an identity, not merely a means to an end. In truth, the Lebanese have never associated Hezbollah with a domestic political or economic project. Its engagement in public affairs has always revolved around the 'resistance' and the imperatives of regional conflicts. Thus, surrendering its arms would entail redefining the party from scratch and sacrificing its raison d'etre. Operating within these restrictive parameters, Hezbollah has dragged its feet. Its bets verge on wishful thinking: that the Lebanese state will remain too weak to follow through on its commitment to disarm the party; that a new episode of regional chaos will destabilize Syria's emerging political authorities; and that the high-level assurances it has received from Tehran's top brass regarding its survival and armament will materialize. Hezbollah has built its power around the notion that weapons are an identity, not merely a means to an end. Nadim Koteich That is, Hezbollah is betting that it will get lucky — or even await miracles. The fate of these matters is totally beyond Hezbollah's control and external factors (that are consistently going against it) will determine how things play out. After years of collapse, Lebanon's state institutions are steadily, albeit slowly, consolidating and enhancing their credibility in the eyes of a broadening segment of the population. This trajectory undermines the slander and vilification of the state that Hezbollah has long used to challenge the state's legitimacy and justify its own existence. As for its wager on vacuums emerging in Syria that will grant it more room for maneuver, current developments point in the opposite direction. The political and military situation in Syria suggests that the weight of open-ended geopolitical conflicts and regional actors is declining, consolidating the new regime in Damascus. Even Iranian support, which constituted the cornerstone of Hezbollah's existence for decades, is increasingly constrained. Tehran is grappling with a severe economic crisis amid volatile shifts in the internal balance of power between the different wings of the regime. Iran is preparing for a new phase, all while trying to put the military and security apparatus (that was battered by deep Israeli strikes during the 12-day war in June) back together. These considerations have compelled Iran to prioritize its military and financial needs over coming to the aid of its allies, foremost among them Hezbollah. All this means the party is fighting for its very survival. However, while turning to politics has offered armed movements elsewhere in the world a lifeline, allowing them to maintain some influence, material conditions have left Hezbollah hostage to its weapons. The group has never pursued a genuine domestic cause that could underpin a shift toward politics. Nadim Koteich The Irish Republican Army, despite being deeply rooted in the conflict with Britain, pursued a clear, localized national cause: unifying Ireland and defending the rights of nationalist Catholics. That is why it managed to survive the shift from armed struggle to a political course that culminated in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which left Sinn Fein in a strong position politically. Colombia's Revolutionary Armed Forces, known as FARC, despite becoming involved in the drug trade and losing some of its legitimacy as result, was nonetheless pursuing a domestic agenda to a social and economic struggle in Colombia. FARC thereby managed to conclude a peace agreement that, despite only being partially implemented, granted it a political foothold. Hezbollah, in contrast, has never pursued a genuine domestic cause that could underpin a shift toward politics. Even its claims of defending Lebanon's sovereignty and confronting occupation were never presented as ultimate, final objectives. These goals were presented as a means to further its regional ambitions. Its ideological link to its axis, as well as its intrinsic role in the regional power struggle, make any fundamental change to its nature nearly impossible. To give up its arms would not be to adjust its strategy; it would be to abandon the reason for its existence. Thus, the party appears bound to keep behaving this way. It will continue to vie to maintain its weapons and transnational function. Even after being put out of action, it will continue to wait for gradual decline. Its intransigence could, in turn, perpetuate the decay of Lebanon's state institutions. If it does so, the country would go from being a political battleground to being home to a failed state, with the Lebanese people paying the price many times over. • Nadim Koteich is the general manager of Sky News Arabia. X: @NadimKoteich
