UN chief warns of cycle of retaliation after US bombs Iran
United Nations chief Antonio Guterres warned on Sunday (Jun 23) against yet "another cycle of destruction" and retaliation following the US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, which he said marked a "perilous turn" in the region.
"I have repeatedly condemned any military escalation in the Middle East," the secretary-general told an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council.
"The people of the region cannot endure another cycle of destruction. And yet, we now risk descending into a rathole of retaliation after retaliation."
Rafael Grossi, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), also called for restraint as he voiced fears over "potential widening" of the conflict.
"We have a window of opportunity to return to dialogue and diplomacy. If that window closes, violence and destruction could reach unthinkable levels and the global non-proliferation regime as we know it could crumble and fall," Grossi said.
Speaking to the Security Council by video link, he said there were visible craters at Iran's key Fordow nuclear facility, "indicating the use by the United States of America of ground-penetrating munitions".
But Grossi noted that no one had been able to assess the underground damage at Fordow.
He added that "armed attacks on nuclear facilities should never take place and could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked".
On Sunday, Russia, China and Pakistan circulated a draft resolution with other council members that calls for an "immediate ceasefire" in Iran.
The text, seen by AFP, also "condemns in the strongest terms the attacks against peaceful nuclear sites and facilities."
But the council is very much divided, with other members such as France and Britain instead calling for Iran to exercise restraint.
Israel's UN ambassador, meanwhile, rejected the proposed resolution.
"The US and Israel do not deserve any condemnation, but rather an expression of appreciation and gratitude for making the world a safer place," Danny Danon said.
Amir Saeid Iravani, Iran's envoy to the UN, slammed the US for having "once again resorted to illegal force".
Washington, he said, has "waged a war against my country, under a fabricated and absurd pretext: Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
an hour ago
- CNA
Commentary: Iran has no good choices to respond to US strikes – only the best of bad options
SINGAPORE: In the end, it was the American president who appeared to be the most dead set against 'stupid, endless wars' in the Middle East that sent the nation's military back into the region in a purely offensive manner. Although expectations were raised that the United States could act against Iran, the attacks early on Sunday (Jun 22) were a surprise – at least in terms of timing. Donald Trump gave Iran two weeks to come to a decision on whether it wanted to return to the negotiating table. Instead, he took all of two days to strike. Whether the two-week window was a ruse, or whether the US leader had gained new intelligence about Iran's unwillingness to negotiate – or even whether Mr Trump had already decided to attack when he set the deadline – will likely be unknown for some time, if ever. Another big unknown is how successful the American attacks were in setting back Iran's nuclear programme. Mr Trump claimed that Iran's nuclear facilities had been 'completely and totally obliterated'. But the press conference on Sunday night by the Pentagon provided neither detailed battle damage assessments nor satellite imagery that could shed light on the success of Operation Midnight Hammer beyond the superlatives employed by Mr Trump. Details will surely be clearer to the White House, but whether the message has been received by Tehran remains an open question. IRAN HAS NO GOOD CHOICES Perhaps what was most significant about the president's remarks was what was not explicitly stated: The US action was intended as a one-time effort, and whether it stays that way is up to the leadership of the Islamic Republic. That, of course, hinges on two things: Whether the bomb and missile strikes were as effective as claimed, and how Iran will respond to them. On the former, a successful mission is a preferable outcome: It increases the chances that calm will return sooner, rather than later – because Iran has no good choices. If, as threatened, it decides that the only way forward for it is to exit the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and take its programme underground, this will likely invite more American, and Israeli, action as they seek to exploit a moment of extraordinary Iranian weakness and vulnerability. This is a trail that has been blazed by North Korea, which is now estimated to have about 60 nuclear weapons. Washington will have no doubt learned lessons from its failure to keep Pyongyang from breaking out. Then again, the kinetic options that were available to the US in Iran were never really on the table in the case of North Korea, despite threats from a succession of US presidents – Mr Trump himself warned of 'fire and fury like the world has never seen'. The risks of a dramatic escalation, geopolitical uncertainty and lack of solid intelligence were among the reasons the US did not draw a firm line in the sand, and allowed North Korea to call its bluff. When it comes to Iran, the line has been drawn, and the consequences for crossing it have been clearly spelled out. DOING NOTHING WOULD BE CAPITULATION As Mr Trump put it, there will either be peace or tragedy for Iran, and the choice is theirs. Beyond the missile salvo it launched on Israel hours after the US strikes, Iran could hit American bases and the 40,000 troops in the Middle East as retaliation. It could also lash out by attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz, crippling oil supplies and attack Gulf Arab states, as it has done in the past. It could also resort to cyberattacks, or terrorist actions against US and Israeli interests around the world. But that is inviting further trouble on itself. The US attacks on Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, Mr Trump claimed, were the 'most difficult' for the military to carry out, and that future ones would be 'a lot easier'. For good measure, he added a footnote: 'Remember, there are many targets left.' In its current weakened and exposed state, any action Iran takes to widen the conflict will make its position even more precarious. That said, Iran cannot be expected to do nothing. Standing idly by would be tantamount to announcing its humiliating capitulation to the world. For the regime, much worse could follow: Doing nothing would validate an idea that many Iranians themselves believe – that their leaders have led them down a reckless path that has brought them economic misery, international opprobrium and isolation from the world. Iranians are a proud people and will rally around the flag in the face of severe attacks, setting aside political and ideological differences despite all their misgivings. An unconditional surrender, however, will force them to look inward at the choices that brought them here, and begin a reckoning against the clerical regime. WHAT'S THE BEST OF BAD OPTIONS? That leaves Iran the best of bad options – one it has taken before. In 2020, during Mr Trump's first term, it took five days after the US assassination of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leader Qassem Soleimani before Iran retaliated. It fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at US bases in Iraq. Before it pressed the trigger, however, Tehran telegraphed the attacks, allowing Americans to seek safety. This prevented US fatalities, although more than 100 troops suffered traumatic brain injuries. This would appear to be the best course forward. Iran can claim retaliation in force, both sides can then put a lid on this episode and then sit down to work out a lasting solution. An agreement on the terms of Iran's surrendering of its nuclear ambitions – without ever using that word – may then be worked out, allowing all sides to claim some wins, and climb down from the escalatory ladder. Then again, in the Middle East, there are exceedingly few who have been accused of being rational actors.
CNA
an hour ago
- CNA
CNA938 Rewind - Rain, risk, resilience for Singapore's climate
Latest Episodes CNA938 Rewind - Rain, risk, resilience for Singapore's climate In line with Singapore International Water Week, Andrea Heng and Susan Ng take a look at Singapore's flood prevention measures and find out what more can be done in this ever-changing climate. For that, they speak with Professor Vladan Babovic, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, National University of Singapore. 15 mins CNA938 Rewind - US enters the Israel-Iran war Iran has struck Israel in retaliation for the US bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites in what's seen as America's biggest foreign policy gamble. President Donald Trump says Tehran must now end its fight with Israel or face a force far greater than what was witnessed. Andrea Heng and Susan Ng assess the latest developments with Alex Vatanka, Senior Fellow, Middle East Institute. 16 mins CNA938 Rewind - Stock take today: US strikes on Iran, crude oil forecast On the daily markets analysis on Open For Business, Andrea Heng and Susan Ng speak with Heng Koon How, Head of Markets Strategy, Global Economics and Markets Research, UOB. 12 mins
AsiaOne
an hour ago
- AsiaOne
UN Security Council meets on Iran as Russia, China push for a ceasefire, World News
UNITED NATIONS — The UN Security Council met on Sunday (June 22) to discuss US strikes on Iran's nuclear sites as Russia, China and Pakistan proposed the 15-member body adopt a resolution calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in the Middle East. "The bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States marks a perilous turn," UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told the Security Council on Sunday. "We must act — immediately and decisively — to halt the fighting and return to serious, sustained negotiations on the Iran nuclear programme." The world awaited Iran's response on Sunday after President Donald Trump said the US had "obliterated" Tehran's key nuclear sites, joining Israel in the biggest Western military action against the Islamic Republic since its 1979 revolution. Russia and China condemned the US strikes. "Peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved by the use of force," said China's UN Ambassador Fu Cong. "Diplomatic means to address the Iranian nuclear issue haven't been exhausted, and there's still hope for a peaceful solution." But acting US Ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea told the council the time had come for Washington to act decisively, urging the Security Council to call upon Iran to end its effort to eradicate Israel and terminate its drive for nuclear weapons. "Iran long obfuscated its nuclear weapons programme and stonewalled our good-faith efforts in recent negotiations," she said. "The Iranian regime cannot have a nuclear weapon." Russia's UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia recalled former US Secretary of State Colin Powell making the case at the UN Security Council in 2003 that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein constituted an imminent danger to the world because of the country's stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. "Again we're being asked to believe the US's fairy tales, to once again inflict suffering on millions of people living in the Middle East. This cements our conviction that history has taught our US colleagues nothing," he said. Cost of inaction 'catastrophic' Iran requested the UN Security Council meeting on Sunday. Iran's UN Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani accused Israel and the US of destroying diplomacy, said all US allegations are unfounded and that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty "has been manipulated into a political weapon." "Instead of guaranteeing parties' legitimate rights to peaceful nuclear energy, it has been exploited as a pretext for aggression and unlawful action that jeopardise the supreme interests of my country," Iravani told the council. Israel's UN Ambassador Danny Danon praised the US for taking action against Iran, saying: "This is what the last line of defence looks like when every other line has failed." He accused Iran of using negotiations over its nuclear programme as camouflage to buy time to build missiles and enrich uranium. "The cost of inaction would have been catastrophic. A nuclear Iran would have been a death sentence just as much for you as it would have been for us," he told the council. It was not immediately clear when the council could vote on the draft resolution. Russia, China and Pakistan have asked council members to share their comments by Monday evening. A resolution needs at least nine votes in favour and no vetoes by the US, France, Britain, Russia or China to pass. The US is likely to oppose the draft resolution, seen by Reuters, which also condemns attacks on Iran's nuclear sites and facilities. The text does not name the United States or Israel. "Military action alone cannot bring a durable solution to concerns about Iran's nuclear programme," Britain's UN Ambassador Barbara Woodward told the council. "We urge Iran now to show restraint, and we urge all parties to return to the negotiating table and find a diplomatic solution which stops further escalation and brings this crisis to an end." UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi said that while craters were visible at Iran's enrichment site buried into a mountain at Fordow, "no one — including the IAEA — is in a position to assess the underground damage." Grossi told the Security Council that entrances to tunnels used for the storage of enriched material appear to have been hit at Iran's sprawling Isfahan nuclear complex, while the fuel enrichment plant at Natanz has been struck again. "Iran has informed the IAEA there has been no increase in off-site radiation levels at all three sites," said Grossi, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency. [[nid:719362]]
