Iran Says It's Not After Nuclear Bombs as It Rejects IAEA Report
(Bloomberg) -- Iran criticized a new report by the UN nuclear watchdog accusing it of nuclear violations, claiming the agency is motivated by politics and reiterating it isn't seeking atomic weapons.
The International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report released Saturday that Iran has significantly expanded its stockpile of near weapons-grade uranium over the past three months, enough to fuel about 10 nuclear bombs. It also said Tehran failed to report nuclear material and activities at three undeclared locations, concluding it couldn't 'provide assurance that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively peaceful.'
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi rejected the agency's findings in a detailed letter on Sunday, saying they were based on 'fabricated data provided by the Zionist regime' and describing them as 'unsubstantiated allegations' intended for 'political exploitation against Iran.'
'Iran is neither pursuing nuclear weapons nor does it possess any undeclared nuclear materials or activities,' Gharibabadi said. 'So long as a country's nuclear activities are under the IAEA's monitoring, there is no cause for concern.'
Following the report, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi spoke with IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi on Saturday, urging him to 'reflect the realities.' Araghchi also warned that Tehran would 'respond appropriately to any improper actions by European parties.'
The UN's board of governors are set to meet later this month, where the report could serve as the basis for a resolution accusing Iran of breaching its nuclear obligations.
The dispute comes as Oman-mediated talks between Tehran and Washington continue in hopes of reaching a new agreement over Iran's nuclear program.
Araghchi said his Omani counterpart, Badr Albusaidi, made a brief stop in Tehran on Saturday to deliver a US proposal, though he didn't provide details. Last month, US President Donald Trump said his administration had sent Iran a proposal on its nuclear program, warning that 'something bad' would happen if Tehran hesitated to accept it, without offering specifics.
--With assistance from Jonathan Tirone.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Standard
22 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Union Commerce Minister to Lead Indian Business Delegation at India-Italy Growth Forum
Union Minister of Commerce and Industry, Piyush Goyal is on his official visit to Italy. The two-day visit is scheduled for June 4-5, 2025, following the conclusion of his engagements in France focused on advancing India-France economic cooperation. The Italy leg of the visit reaffirms India's commitment to enhancing strategic and economic ties with key European partners and deepening bilateral trade and investment collaboration with Italy. During the visit, the Minister will co-chair the 22nd Session of the India-Italy Joint Commission for Economic Cooperation (JCEC) with H.E. Antonio Tajani, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Italy. This engagement takes place in the context of a defining phase in India-Italy bilateral relations, following the launch of the India-Italy Joint Strategic Action Plan (JSAP) 2025-2029. The JSAP is built on ten thematic pillars, with economic cooperation as a core area of focus. The 22nd JCEC session will offer both sides an opportunity to assess progress and identify new avenues for collaboration in high-impact areas such as Industry 4.0, agritech, digitalization, energy transition, sustainable mobility, and the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). These deliberations are expected to further strengthen bilateral economic connectivity and foster strategic industrial partnerships. Goyal will also lead a high-level Indian business delegation to the India-Italy Growth Forum in Brescia, a major industrial hub. The Forum will bring together key enterprises and stakeholders from both countries to promote investment, build business-to-business linkages, and explore synergies in sectors aligned with innovation and sustainability.
Mint
25 minutes ago
- Mint
Labour Has No Choice But to Break Its Promises
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Most governments, of whatever political stripe, would agree there's never enough money to go around. It's a problem that's particularly acute for UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer as he prepares to launch the results of his year-old administration's 'comprehensive spending review,' setting out budgets for each department for the next few years. Starmer's team not only lacks the funds to deliver what they'd like to do during their time in power, they don't have the money to do what they've already committed to. Something has to give, and Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves will ultimately need to do at least one of three things: slash spending, raise taxes or increase borrowing. Right now, she's not being clear which. Voters deserve at least a vague understanding of what tough decisions need to be made. It's a clarity Starmer and Reeves have seemed unwilling or unable to provide; instead, they've hoped for economic expansion to bring additional tax revenue to pay for their plans. Unfortunately, the boom is proving elusive: The OECD has downgraded Britain's growth forecast to 1% from 1.2% for 2026. Much of that contraction, the OECD said, is due to Donald Trump's tariffs, which may not be as punitive for the UK as on much of the rest of the world. But they will still likely have a significant impact, even if Britain can stave off 50% tariffs on steel within the capricious president's capricious new five-week deadline. Trump's move to pull back in Ukraine is also adding pressure on the British economy. This week, a UK government defense review confirmed an 'ambition' to raise spending on the military to 3% of gross domestic product, a hike Starmer believes is necessary as he continues to pursue his plan for a 'coalition of the willing' to counter the threat from Vladimir Putin in Ukraine without depending on the US. As my Bloomberg Economics colleague Dan Hanson has calculated, this would cost £17.3 billion by 2029-30, the equivalent of an increase in debt of 1.5 percentage points. NATO, which is preparing to gather this month, is pushing for a hike to 3.5% of members' GDP, rising to 5%, which Bloomberg calculates would cost the UK £350 billion ($475 billion). When she sets out her CSR on Wednesday, Reeves should be overt about how much the unfavorable economic winds are driven by Trump — voters are more likely to accept pain if they understand the reasons for it. And she should go further and provide a coherent sense of what the government believes, an ideological prism though which tricky choices can be viewed. It's something severely lacking from the government's messaging. Having witnessed the disastrous mini-budget of Liz Truss and following painful tax rises on farmers and employers in last October's budget, the mantra from Starmer and Reeves had been that the books would be balanced not via further borrowing or tax increases but through departmental cuts. That commitment was difficult for a left-leaning government that would rather be spending money on things it cares about, but it was at least intellectually coherent. It's no longer clear that the government will stand firm. Last month, Starmer unwisely gave in to pressure from his own MPs to partially reverse the move to withdraw winter fuel benefits from pensioners. The reversal revealed a soft underbelly in the iron chancellor's armor. Labour MPs are now pressing Reeves to also end a controversial two-child benefit limit and relax plans to remove some disability benefits, even if that means either increasing borrowing or taxes. If she does stick to her guns and square the fiscal circle by spending restraint, the UK will surely fall into the austerity she has vowed to resist. At minimum, she'll have to let go of manifesto commitments such as halving violence against women and girls, making homes more energy efficient and building affordable social housing. There is no way Labour can avoid breaking some of its promises; now we need to know the rationale shaping which promises they are. None of this is simple — which is why it's important the government's priorities are made explicit. Instead, Starmer is offering mixed messaging. In speeches and interviews, he's said his first priority is the defense of the realm, but also that he sees nothing more important than protecting 'working people' from the consequences of market turmoil, and also that he believes 'profoundly in driving down poverty and child poverty.' As Labour resists the threat from the upstart populist Reform UK party, Starmer has pledged to fix public services, slash NHS waiting lists and reduce immigration by making it harder to come to Britain to work and study (which Bloomberg estimates will cost £9 billion by 2028-2029.) At the same time, the PM seeks to drive growth through a youth-mobility arrangement with the European Union that leaves him vulnerable to accusations of open borders. Does he avoid strikes by boosting public-sector pay or focus on keeping down inflation? Encourage entrepreneurship or tax the rich so that many quit these shores? No wonder voters are confused — they've been given no framework within which to anticipate where the ax will fall or how else the government will make the sums add up. If Starmer's team doesn't lay out a clear vision for how they'll approach these touch choices, then they'll be more than confused — they'll be let down. More From Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Rosa Prince is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering UK politics and policy. She was formerly an editor and writer at Politico and the Daily Telegraph, and is the author of 'Comrade Corbyn' and 'Theresa May: The Enigmatic Prime Minister.' More stories like this are available on
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
30 minutes ago
- First Post
How the West lost Turkey and India is paying the price
As Turkey and Ankara try to cobble together a pan-Islamic bloc rooted in grievance and revanchism, India must do more to support the Saudi–UAE axis in West Asia and reinforce its alignment with moderate Muslim powers like Indonesia read more I visited Turkey some years ago as part of a delegation from the Royal College of Defence Studies, London. Recep Tayyip Erdogan was the Prime Minister, and the Kemalist character of Turkey—defined by Atatürk's vision of secularism, European integration, and military guardianship—was visibly present. We were briefed by officials at the Turkish Foreign Ministry and the EU representative office in Ankara. It was evident that Kemal Pasha's dream of a European Turkey was floundering. The EU wanted Turkey's strategic location and large military-industrial base but balked at fully integrating a Muslim-majority nation. The conditions placed upon Turkey for EU accession were politically awkward and perceived as patronising. The result was a wounded national pride—and the beginning of a long geopolitical drift. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD That drift now affects us in India directly. Turkey under Erdogan has recast itself from a secular republic aspiring to European norms, to a confident, assertive, and increasingly power-seeking leadership role in the Islamic world. Operation Sindoor made this real for India: as Pakistan reeled, Turkey stood firmly by its side—diplomatically, rhetorically, and strategically; hoping to gain from it. From Europe's Rejection to Erdogan's Reimagining When Europe effectively closed the door on Turkish accession, it handed Erdogan the perfect opportunity to remake the country's identity. With the secular military sidelined and public opinion more receptive to Islamic nationalism, Erdogan recast Turkey's foreign policy through the prism of Muslim solidarity and civilisational assertion. The Arab Spring, Syria, Palestine, and Kashmir became not just foreign policy issues but ideological battlegrounds. Turkey's alignment with Pakistan deepened during this phase. Though their diplomatic ties date back to the early years of both republics, the modern warmth is more strategic. Pakistan gained a powerful ally that regularly supports it in international forums like the UN and OIC. For Erdogan, Pakistan offered both a military partner and a religiously resonant cause—particularly the issue of Kashmir, which plays well with Turkish domestic audiences and the broader Muslim world. General Pervez Musharraf was instrumental in bringing transformational effect to Pakistan-Turkey relations because of his lifelong obsessive fondness for everything Turkish going back to his young days when his father was posted to Ankara. Sectarian alignment between the two also plays a role, albeit not a deep one. Both countries are Sunni-majority and largely follow the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. This common ground provides a religious-cultural comfort level, even though Turkey's religious landscape is shaped more by Sufi traditions and state control, while Pakistan's is influenced by powerful clerical networks and sectarian actors. Their real bond, however, is not theological but political - both governments use Islamic identity for global positioning and to challenge India's rise as a pluralist, secular democracy. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Why India Failed to Influence Turkey India, despite its global rise, has failed to gain strategic traction with Turkey. One reason is the mismatch in worldviews. Erdogan sees himself as a leader of the Islamic world; India, with its strong ties to Israel and growing alignment with the West, is viewed as part of an opposing camp. Second, Indian diplomacy has been marginally reticent in engaging Turkey's domestic political landscape. While India has cultivated strong ties in the Gulf and Southeast Asia, it has remained reactive and restrained when it comes to Turkey. Third, India's burgeoning ties with Turkey's rivals—Greece, Armenia, and Israel—though grounded in mutual interest, have confirmed Ankara's perception of India as strategically adversarial. This despite India's proactive action of launching Operation Dost as a humanitarian and disaster relief operation after the devastating earthquake hit Southern Turkey in Feb 2023. India's support was almost the first to reach Turkey. Economically, the India-Turkey relationship lacks sufficient weight to act as a lever. Trade is modest too. This limits India's ability to shape Ankara's choices through economic means. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD What's at Stake for India? The implications of Turkey's hostility go beyond diplomatic sparring. Turkey's backing gives Pakistan added legitimacy in global forums and bolsters its Islamic narrative. Ankara's support to Islamabad on Kashmir complicates India's diplomatic messaging in Africa, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia, where Turkey is investing heavily in soft power and religious outreach. More concretely, defence cooperation between Turkey and Pakistan is growing. Joint military exercises, arms deals, and drone collaborations are becoming more common. This has implications for South Asia's strategic balance and could introduce new military technologies into Pakistan's arsenal. The recent Ukrainian drone attack—Operation Spider Web—would have given Pakistan ideas on utilisation of drones in an imaginatively pro-active way against India. Turkey's religious diplomacy also poses a softer but insidious challenge. Through state-backed institutions and media, it is projecting itself as a leader of the global Muslim ummah. This can shape narratives that influence Indian Muslim communities indirectly, especially in an era where identity politics is increasingly global. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD What Must India do? India needs to develop a coherent Turkey strategy grounded in realism, not nostalgia about shared civilisational roots. India must respond clearly to Turkish provocations, whether on Kashmir or Pakistan. Silence has sometimes been mistaken for weakness. New Delhi should be willing to call out Ankara, including at multilateral forums. Deepen ties with Turkey's adversaries—Greece, Cyprus, Armenia, and Israel—not just diplomatically, but in defence, culture, and trade. A robust regional counterweight will force Turkey to reconsider its positioning. Invest in projecting India's narrative as a secular, multi-religious democracy. Partnering with moderate Muslim countries—like Indonesia, UAE, Egypt and now increasingly even Saudi Arabia—can help isolate Turkey's harder posturing. While current trade levels are modest, Turkey's dependence on tourism, select exports, and access to Asian markets gives India some room to explore economic influence, directly or via third parties. Turkey's turn under Erdogan is not temporary. It reflects a deeper shift in identity and ambition—one that rejects the rejection of the West and seeks frontline Islamic leadership, casting aside all 'Kemalian' thought. In aligning with Pakistan, Turkey is not just supporting a traditional ally—it is staking a claim in a multipolar Islamic world where India is seen as the 'other'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Fortunately, India is no longer a passive observer in West Asia or Southeast Asia. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, New Delhi has made significant and sustained inroads into the Middle East and beyond. The burgeoning strategic and economic partnerships with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and Oman reflect a quiet but profound shift—one that positions India as a key partner in regional stability, infrastructure, and counter-radicalism. Simultaneously, India's enhanced ties with Indonesia—the world's largest Muslim-majority country and a democratic, pluralistic nation—serve as a counter-narrative to the Islamist posturing of the Turkey-Pakistan axis. These relationships are not merely transactional but represent a convergence of long-term visions. As Ankara and Islamabad try to cobble together a pan-Islamic bloc rooted in grievance and revanchism, India must do more to support the Saudi–UAE axis in West Asia and reinforce its alignment with moderate Muslim powers like Indonesia. By doing so, New Delhi can effectively dilute the ideological resonance of the Turkey–Pakistan combine and reaffirm its own civilisational model as a viable and inclusive alternative in the Islamic world. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The writer is a member of the National Disaster Management Authority. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
