logo
UNSC emergency meeting: UN Chief António Guterres warns of 'rathole of retaliation' after US hits Iran nuclear sites

UNSC emergency meeting: UN Chief António Guterres warns of 'rathole of retaliation' after US hits Iran nuclear sites

Mint3 hours ago

UN Secretary-General António Guterres on Sunday (June 22) issued a dire warning at an emergency Security Council meeting, saying the United States' bombing of Iranian nuclear sites marks a dangerous escalation in an already unstable region.
'I have repeatedly condemned any military escalation in the Middle East,' Guterres said.
'The people of the region cannot endure another cycle of destruction. And yet, we now risk descending into a rathole of retaliation after retaliation.'
Calling the strikes a 'perilous turn,' Guterres lamented that his earlier plea for de-escalation had gone unheeded: 'Two days ago, in this very chamber, I made a direct appeal: give peace a chance. That call was not heeded.'
Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), also addressed the Security Council via video link, cautioning against further conflict and underscoring the stakes for the global nuclear order.
'We have a window of opportunity to return to dialogue and diplomacy,' Grossi said.
'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 stressed that nuclear facilities must never be targets in military operations: '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.'
Grossi confirmed significant surface damage at Iran's Fordow nuclear facility, one of the country's main uranium enrichment centers.
'There are visible craters at Iran's key Fordow nuclear facility, indicating the use by the United States of America of ground-penetrating munitions,' he said.
However, the IAEA chief noted that the full extent of the damage remains unknown.
'No one, including the IAEA, is currently in a position to assess the underground damage at Fordow.'
The IAEA also confirmed that parts of the Isfahan nuclear complex — specifically entrances to tunnels used to store highly enriched uranium — were struck in the US airstrikes.
'We have established that entrances to underground tunnels at the site were impacted,' the IAEA said in a formal statement issued Sunday.
Grossi elaborated in his Security Council remarks: 'Entrances to tunnels used for the storage of enriched material appear to have been hit,' adding that much of Iran's 60% enriched uranium is believed to be stored at Isfahan.
Iran has indicated that it may take undisclosed steps to safeguard its nuclear materials, which has raised concerns about reduced transparency.
Responding to these reports, Grossi said such steps must be consistent with international obligations.
'Any special measures by Iran to protect its nuclear materials and equipment can be done in accordance with Iran's safeguards obligations,' he stated.
'This is possible — and necessary — under the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.'
The UN emergency meeting, requested by Iran, follows the US-led Operation Midnight Hammer, which targeted Iran's Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan facilities early Sunday. and, Washington claims the strikes were necessary to halt Iran's weapons-grade enrichment efforts.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How Israel Became A Nuclear Power, How Many Bombs Does It Have?
How Israel Became A Nuclear Power, How Many Bombs Does It Have?

India.com

time38 minutes ago

  • India.com

How Israel Became A Nuclear Power, How Many Bombs Does It Have?

Israel-Iran War: Despite never officially confirming its nuclear arsenal, Israel has long been believed to possess nuclear weapons. The secrecy surrounding its programme makes any estimate uncertain. But experts believe there is enough evidence to draw some broad conclusions. Israel remains one of the world's unofficial nuclear states. It has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), nor has it ever publicly declared or denied having nuclear weapons. According to estimates by the Federation of American Scientists and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Israel today likely holds around 90 nuclear warheads. However, former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell once suggested, in a leaked email, that Israel might possess as many as 200 bombs – each one potentially aimed at Iran. Israel's nuclear journey began soon after its independence. In 1952, the newly formed government created the Israel Atomic Energy Commission to spearhead nuclear research. Around 1958, construction reportedly began at the secretive facility near Dimona in the Negev desert. By the mid-1960s, whispers within intelligence circles suggested that Israel was making significant progress. By 1967, just after the Six-Day War, it is believed that Israel had developed the capacity to build nuclear explosives. What makes Israel's programme particularly enigmatic is how discreetly it was built. Despite imposing strict controls on nuclear materials, many Western suppliers allegedly provided Israel with technology and components without fully enforcing NPT safeguards. This assistance, direct or indirect, helped Israel quietly amass the rare isotopes and technical know-how needed for bomb development. Why Israel built nukes? It viewed nuclear weapons as an insurance policy in a volatile region. Its leadership feared that if Iran ever acquired a nuclear bomb, Israel's very existence could be threatened. That mentality has intensified as recent events, missile exchanges, airstrikes and a growing Iran-Israel standoff, have elevated both countries to the edge of open conflict. The wide range of estimates, between 90 and 200 warheads, reflects uncertainty. The lower number comes from technical assessments of Israel's capacity – plutonium production rates, missile delivery systems and storage facilities. The higher end comes from diplomatic notes like Colin Powell's statement, suggesting Israel may have stockpiled more weapons than outside observers can verify. Israel's nuclear programme remains cloaked in silence, supported by decades of official ambiguity. Current estimates are just that, estimates. But whether it holds a few dozen or several hundred nuclear bombs, Israel clearly has enough firepower to shape its national security policy for decades to come. And in a region increasingly defined by missile tests, nuclear rhetoric and high-speed airstrikes, that arsenal carries a heavy geopolitical weight.

India wary about Iran's nuclear project: Voted against in 2005, abstained in 2024
India wary about Iran's nuclear project: Voted against in 2005, abstained in 2024

Indian Express

time41 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

India wary about Iran's nuclear project: Voted against in 2005, abstained in 2024

Almost 20 years after India voted against Iran's nuclear programme for the first time, Delhi's careful balancing act — between Israel and the US on one side and Iran on the other side — has come into play. While India has always tried to walk the diplomatic tightrope walk, its discomfort over Iran with a nuclear weapon was apparent then. On September 24, 2005, India voted with 21 other countries on the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) resolution (GOV/2005/77) which found Iran in non-compliance with its safeguards agreement. This was seen as a departure from the past, as India had voted with the US and the western bloc against Iran, which was in its extended neighbourhood and with whom it has a historical and civilisational relationship. This was the time when India had just started negotiating its agreement with the US on its civilian nuclear programme, and Washington was able to lean on Delhi to vote against Tehran. Delhi, which was keen to portray its responsible behaviour as a nuclear power, went along with the idea that voting against Iran's nuclear programme would burnish its reputation. However, the resolution did not refer the matter immediately to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and India was one of the countries which urged the western bloc of European countries — UK, France and Germany (EU-3) — to keep the issue at the IAEA. According to Indian officials, India voted for the resolution at that time, against the majority of NAM members who abstained, because it felt obligated to do so after having pressured the EU-3 to omit reference to immediate referral to the UNSC. Months later, on February 4, 2006, India again sided with the US when the IAEA Board of Governors voted to refer Iran's non-compliance to the UNSC. 'As a signatory to the NPT, Iran has the legal right to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy consistent with its international commitments and obligations… (But) it is incumbent upon Iran to exercise these rights in the context of safeguards that it has voluntarily accepted upon its nuclear programme under the IAEA,' then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told Parliament on February 17, 2006. Over the years, as India negotiated the nuclear deal with the US, Delhi came out of the pressure to vote against Tehran as the issue went to the UNSC. Sources said that once the matter went to the UNSC, India did not have to take any position on Iran's nuclear programme between 2007 and 2024. In between, the US administration under President Barack Obama negotiated the JCPOA (joint comprehensive plan of action) with Iran in 2015 — which was a deal between P-5+1 and Iran. US President Donald Trump walked out of the JCPOA in 2017, and Iran's nuclear programme once again came under scrutiny. India was forced to stop oil imports from Iran, although its Chabahar port project development was going on. While it did not have to take any firm position against Iran's nuclear programme, that changed last year when the US brought in a resolution against Iran. In June 2024, India abstained from a vote at the IAEA regarding Iran. The vote, initiated by the US, aimed to censure Iran for its nuclear programme. While the resolution passed, with 19 out of 35 board members voting to censure Iran, India was among the 16 countries that abstained. This decision reflected India's balancing act between its deep defence and security relationship with Israel and its historical ties with Iran. In September 2024, India again abstained from voting on a resolution at the IAEA Board of Governors that censured Iran for its lack of cooperation with the agency's investigations into its nuclear programme. The resolution, brought by France, the UK, and Germany (E3) along with the US, followed an IAEA report noting Iran's increased uranium enrichment. In June this year too, India abstained on the IAEA Board of Governors' resolution strongly criticising Iran's nuclear programme and declaring it in breach of its 1974 Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement. This time, India's decision to abstain from the vote reflected its balanced stance — recognising Iran's right to pursue a peaceful nuclear energy programme while calling upon Tehran to adhere to its non-proliferation commitments. While the change, from voting against to abstention, marks Delhi's shifting positions as geopolitical alignments changed, India's concern about the Iranian nuclear programme was evident. Shubhajit Roy, Diplomatic Editor at The Indian Express, has been a journalist for more than 25 years now. Roy joined The Indian Express in October 2003 and has been reporting on foreign affairs for more than 17 years now. Based in Delhi, he has also led the National government and political bureau at The Indian Express in Delhi — a team of reporters who cover the national government and politics for the newspaper. He has got the Ramnath Goenka Journalism award for Excellence in Journalism '2016. He got this award for his coverage of the Holey Bakery attack in Dhaka and its aftermath. He also got the IIMCAA Award for the Journalist of the Year, 2022, (Jury's special mention) for his coverage of the fall of Kabul in August 2021 — he was one of the few Indian journalists in Kabul and the only mainstream newspaper to have covered the Taliban's capture of power in mid-August, 2021. ... Read More

"Why Wouldn't There Be Regime Change?" Trump's 'MIGA' Message For Iran
"Why Wouldn't There Be Regime Change?" Trump's 'MIGA' Message For Iran

NDTV

timean hour ago

  • NDTV

"Why Wouldn't There Be Regime Change?" Trump's 'MIGA' Message For Iran

WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump on Sunday questioned the possibility of regime change in Iran following US military strikes against key Iranian military sites over the weekend. "It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!" Trump wrote on his social media platform. A day after the US. sent 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs crashing into the mountain above Iran's Fordow nuclear site, Tehran vowed to defend itself at all costs. Iran and Israel continued to trade volleys of missile attacks, with an explosion in western Iran claiming the lives of half a dozen military personnel, according to an Iranian media outlet. Earlier, Iran fired missiles that wounded scores of people and flattened buildings in Tel Aviv. The US State Department ordered employees' family members to leave Lebanon and advised citizens elsewhere in the region to keep a low profile or restrict travel. An advisory from the US Department of Homeland Security warned of a "heightened threat environment in the United States." Law enforcement in major US cities stepped up patrols and deployed additional resources to religious, cultural and diplomatic sites. Tehran has so far not followed through on its threats of retaliation against the United States - either by targeting US bases or trying to choke off global oil supplies - but that may not hold. Speaking in Istanbul, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said his country would consider all possible responses. There would be no return to diplomacy until it had retaliated, he said. "The US showed they have no respect for international law. They only understand the language of threat and force," he said. Trump, in a televised address, called the strikes "a spectacular military success" and boasted that Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities had been "completely and totally obliterated." But his own officials gave more nuanced assessments and - with the exception of satellite photographs appearing to show craters on the mountain above Iran's subterranean plant at Fordow - there has been no public accounting of the damage. The UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said no increases in off-site radiation levels had been reported after the US strikes. In a step towards what is widely seen as Iran's most effective threat to hurt the West, its parliament approved a move to close the Strait of Hormuz. Nearly a quarter of global oil shipments pass through the narrow waters that Iran shares with Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Iran's Press TV said closing the strait would require approval from the Supreme National Security Council, a body led by an appointee of Khamenei. Attempting to choke off Gulf oil by closing the strait could send global oil prices skyrocketing, derail the world economy and invite almost certain conflict with the US Navy's massive Fifth Fleet, based in the Gulf and tasked with keeping the strait open. Security experts have long warned that a weakened Iran could also find other unconventional ways to strike back, such as bombings or cyberattacks. DIVERGING WAR AIMS Israeli officials, who began the hostilities with a surprise attack on Iran on June 13, have increasingly spoken of their ambition to topple the hardline Shi'ite Muslim clerical establishment that has ruled Iran since 1979. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Israeli reporters that Israel was very close to meeting its goals of removing the threats of ballistic missiles and the nuclear program in Iran. US officials, many of whom witnessed Republican President George W. Bush's popularity collapse following his disastrous intervention in Iraq in 2003, have stressed that they were not working to overthrow Iran's government. "This mission was not and has not been about regime change," Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters at the Pentagon. "The president authorised a precision operation to neutralise the threats to our national interests posed by the Iranian nuclear programme." (Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store