U.N. nuclear watchdog chief says Iran ready to restart technical conversations
The International Atomic Energy Agency has said it must be allowed to resume inspections after Israeli and U.S. airstrikes last month that aimed to destroy Iran's nuclear programme and deny it the capacity to build a nuclear weapon.
Rafael Grossi said in Singapore that Iran must be transparent about its facilities and activities.
He told reporters alongside a public lecture that the IAEA had proposed that Iran start discussions on "the modalities as to how to restart or begin (inspections) again".
"So this is what we are planning to do, perhaps starting on technical details and, later on, moving on to high level consultations," Grossi said, adding that technical teams sent to Iran for talks will not include inspectors yet.
On Wednesday, Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said Iran had agreed to allow a technical team from the IAEA to visit in the coming weeks, but not to go to the nuclear sites.
Tehran, which denies seeking to build a nuclear weapon, has said access to the bombed sites poses security and safety risks.
Grossi said he had no further information from Iran on the status and whereabouts of its stock of some 400 kg of highly enriched uranium.
"This is why it is so important that we engage as soon as possible and that we can start our inspection," he said.
(This story has been corrected to remove the attribution of the phrase 'So this will not include inspections yet' to Grossi in paragraph 6)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
25 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Labour is making Britain a more European country
Illustration by Jonathan McHugh / Ikon Images It was Nigel Lawson who stated the ambition most clearly. Nine years ago, a fortnight after the UK voted to leave the EU, the late Conservative chancellor hailed an opportunity to 'finish the job that Margaret Thatcher started'. For free marketeers, Brexit was the method, the object was to change the country's soul. The description of their vision as 'Singapore-on-Thames' has always been erroneous – this imagined libertarian Disneyland has a highly dirigiste state. But the aim was not in doubt: a Britain in which taxes would be cut, spending reduced and regulations eliminated. Brexit is an increasingly friendless project – Labour MPs note with interest how rarely Reform dares mention it; the last reference on the party's X account was in March. Only 29 per cent of the country, according to a new More in Common poll, would still vote Leave, while 49 per cent favour a referendum on rejoining the EU within the next five years. Far from regarding Keir Starmer's Europe deal as a 'betrayal', most believe it is too modest. Leavers can take solace from the implacability of Labour's red lines: Starmer has suggested there will be no return to the single market, the customs union and free movement in his lifetime. But those on the right who always viewed Brexit as a means rather than an end lack such consolation. If there is anything resembling a clear pattern from Labour's first year in office it might be this: the embrace of a more European-style economy. After Brexit, France and Germany took seriously the threat of acquiring a free-market upstart on their doorstep. In practice, the UK is mirroring them. Start with taxes and spending. As Rachel Reeves likes to remind left-wing critics, she used her first Budget to impose the largest increase in the former since 1993: £41.5bn, or 1.2 per cent of GDP. By 2027-28, the UK, a country traditionally described as having 'US-style taxes', will have a tax take of 37.7 per cent, putting it within touching distance of the Netherlands and Germany (even before Reeves' planned sequel). Public spending will settle at a similarly European level of 43.9 per cent of GDP. A shift that the Conservatives could plead was temporary – owing to the emergencies of the pandemic and the energy crisis – is becoming permanent under Labour. Reeves, fittingly, replaced a portrait of Lawson in her office with one of Ellen Wilkinson, Clement Attlee's education minister and a founding member of the Communist Party of Great Britain. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Next turn to workers' rights. Tony Blair once described his government's role as 'to campaign to extend flexible labour markets to the rest of Europe'. Starmer, by contrast, through the Employment Rights Bill, is importing a more continental model: a ban on 'exploitative' zero-hours contracts, an end to 'fire and rehire' and the extension of full rights to workers from day one. Cabinet ministers proudly point out that, far from being 'watered down', the bill has been strengthened in areas such as non-disclosure agreements. Then there is ownership. The UK's aversion to nationalisation under Thatcher and New Labour was yet another dividing line between it and statist Europe. Now Ed Miliband boasts of having established the 'first publicly owned energy company in over 70 years' (GB Energy), and rail franchises – some of them previously held by France and the Netherlands – are being reclaimed by the British state. This European turn could yet extend to welfare. Papers by Labour Together call for the reassertion of the contributory principle – with a far clearer link between what people pay in and what they get out, as is typical on the continent. This, the think tank suggests, would serve as an antidote to populists exploiting a broken social contract – one adviser references the fury of the Inbetweeners actor James Buckley at having to pay for a garden waste collection even as council tax continually rises. A new digital contribution card – recalling the National Insurance stamps once received by employees – is proposed alongside a system of unemployment insurance (potentially set as a share of earnings). Back in 2021, in a 12,000-word essay for the Fabian Society, Starmer championed the 'contribution society', one based on 'being part of something bigger, playing your part, valuing others'. This notion, cabinet ministers such as Liz Kendall and Shabana Mahmood believe, should be central to Labour's philosophy. There are moments when Starmer's often inchoate approach acquires more definition. During his press conference with Emmanuel Macron last month, he spoke of proving 'that social democracy has the answers' in contrast to the 'performative populism' of Nigel Farage. Here was a riposte to those who accuse him of engaging in no act more complex than chasing Reform's tail. But what direction is Starmer heading in? The UK is charting a different course yet Labour has left voters wondering whether this is the product of accident or design. In his first speech as Prime Minister, Starmer vowed to lead a government 'unburdened by doctrine' – an approach that disillusioned MPs contend has left his administration rudderless. 'There's too many concepts floating around at too high a level, which is what happens when intellectual leadership is lacking,' says one. The task facing Labour this autumn is to provide it. Rather than finishing the job that Thatcher started, Starmer has chosen to begin reversing it. He will soon have to tell voters why. [See also: The Online Safety Act humiliates us all] Related
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Returned and reeling: Afghans expelled from Iran struggle to start over
ISLAM QALA, Afghanistan, August 7 (Reuters) - Habiba, an Afghan woman who fled Taliban rule to pursue a master's degree in engineering in Iran, was deported in July just before she was about to complete her studies. The 31-year-old, who declined to give her family name for fear of repercussions, said she returned to her homeland with little more than her laptop and documents, the last traces of a future she nearly secured, one of hundreds of thousands forced to return in recent weeks as Iran ramped up expulsions of Afghans in the wake of its war with Israel. "I was so close," Habiba told Reuters at the Afghan border post of Islam Qala. She said she had just saved enough to complete her thesis, the final step before graduation, and now will have to start over in a country where women are barred from high school, let alone university. Aid agencies say accusations by Iranian authorities that Afghan nationals were spying for Israel triggered a surge in deportations, with the UN refugee agency UNHCR reporting nearly 700,000 Afghans expelled from Iran since the beginning of June. The two countries share a 920-km (550-mile) land border through a flat, arid landscape. Iranian officials maintain those deported were undocumented and most left voluntarily, citing security and resource concerns. Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni said in July that 70% of the 1 million who left since March did so by choice, local media reported. Local media quoted Nader Yarahmadi, an adviser to Iran's Interior Ministry and head of its Centre for Foreign Nationals and Immigrants Affairs, as saying that temporary census cards held by about 2 million Afghan nationals were invalidated from March and that they had until July to leave. An additional 2.1 million Afghans in Iran had no documents, he said. The number of Afghans returning exploded after Israel and Iran fought a 12-day war in June. UNHCR estimates Iran deported an average of more than 30,000 Afghans each day during the war, up 15-fold from about 2,000 earlier. But Iranian officials have downplayed espionage claims as isolated media reports. The crackdown is on illegal immigrants, Yarahmadi said. Aid workers at Islam Qala said some of the returnees arrived after days without food or water. Momeni said deportations were conducted with 'respect and dignity,' but admitted the war triggered rushed exits, leaving many without their wages or possessions. Reuters interviewed 26 Afghans who had recently returned from Iran, many of whom described coming home to a country that now feels unfamiliar and unlivable. Most of them denied they were illegal immigrants in Iran and said they had held some form of documentation. Rahela, 37, said she had built a steady livelihood in Tehran as a certified makeup artist and seamstress. Now back in the Afghan city of Herat with her two daughters, she says she sees no future. She says she separated from her husband several years ago after he struggled with drug addiction, and has been raising her daughters alone ever since. The Taliban's restrictions bar women from most forms of employment and from travelling long distances without a male guardian. 'I have no helper and no male guardian (mahram),' she said. Her father, although a mahram, is elderly and unable to accompany her or provide support, leaving her effectively confined, she said. The flood of refugees returning to Afghanistan from Iran and Pakistan is straining aid in a country already grappling with economic collapse, donor fatigue and a ban on girls' secondary education. But it is the post-conflict purge from Iran that has overwhelmed Afghan authorities and aid workers, many of whom say they were unprepared for the scale and speed of the deportations. The Taliban-led government has urged Iran to proceed gradually, and allow returnees time to settle financial affairs and retrieve personal property. While the women who have returned spoke of lost rights and opportunities, Afghan men described split families, derailed plans and an uncertain future. Rahim Uzbek, 59, said he was arrested at his job as a security guard, deported alone, and is now living in a mosque near the Islam Qala crossing, away from his two wives and seven children who remained in Iran, although they were also Afghan nationals. He said that he had some money tied up in an advance payment for rent in Iran, but the landlord did not return it. 'I have no assets or savings, nor do I have any shelter or place to stay,' he said, with tears in his eyes. 'I have no idea what to do.' Mansoor Ahmad, 21, a metalworker from Kabul, said he was arrested at work and deported without his family. He said Iranian officers accused him of helping someone escape a deportation camp and beat him when he denied it. 'When I spoke, they beat me. When I stayed silent, they beat me again,' he said. 'Then they put me in solitary.' Red marks and bruises were visible on his back and shoulders, consistent with being struck or kicked. Iranian officials deny systemic abuse. The Iranian chargé d'affaires in Kabul, Alireza Bigdeli, said there were no official reports of mistreatment but acknowledged 'some may be unhappy with the way they were treated, detained, or returned.' Iranian authorities say they tried to prevent family separations but admit the post-war rush split some families. Students were encouraged to leave with relatives under a voluntary return plan. While many of the Afghans said life in Iran was tough, marked by discrimination, high costs and a constant sense of being unwelcome, they still had goals. Some worked, others studied. 'The situation in Iran was very difficult,' said Rahela. 'People treated us harshly. They humiliated and insulted us. But at least there was security and work. Women could work... and that was good for us."
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Israeli military chiefs 'are clashing over civilian killings in Gaza'
Israeli military chiefs fell out in an explosive shouting match over the sheer number of Palestinians killed by IDF airstrikes, according to local media. Major General Yaniv Asor, head of the army's southern command, is said to have complained to the air force that it was consistently overruling bombing requests for targets in Gaza, which has already been decimated since Israel began its siege of the enclave. In response, Major General Tomer Bar, the head of Israel's air force, said that many of requests made by Asor's subordinates were killing civilians and showed a 'lack of professionalism.' Local media reported that the argument only spiralled from there, resulting in the senior military figures screaming at each other in front of top officers. The spat required Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, chief of staff at the IDF to intervene, witnesses said. The argument reflects a deep division within Benjamin Netanyahu 's government over what the future, vis-a-vis Gaza, ought to look like. Earlier this week, Netanyahu told the military to prepare for a full takeover of the Gaza Strip, including areas where hostages are being held. A source in the Prime Minister's Office told The Jerusalem Post on Monday that the message had been passed on to IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir saying: 'If this does not suit you, then you should resign.' Israeli soldiers walking next to damaged buildings as smoke billows during a military operation in the north of the Gaza Strip amid continuing battles between Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas It comes as Netanyahu prepares to meet with top officials to decide on the next steps in Gaza and what to do about the remaining hostages. An Israeli official told The Jerusalem Post: 'The prime minister is considering all available options regarding the next steps.' Hamas, however, has brushed off talks of an Israeli takeover. The group said: 'Israel's threats are repetitive, worthless, and have no influence on our decisions.' But a political analyst with Channel 12 quoted an unnamed official saying: 'Hamas won't release more hostages without total surrender, and we won't surrender. 'If we don't act now, the hostages will starve to death and Gaza will remain under Hamas's control. ' According to reports, the prime minister used the phrase 'occupation of the Strip' in private conversations while describing his intentions for Gaza. If Netanyahu's plans are successful, the Israeli military could extend its reach across the whole region, according to local reports. It currently holds 75 percent of the Strip. He is now set to take the plans to his cabinet to seek their backing for the plan. In a video message, Netanyahu said he was 'committing to free Gaza from the tyranny of these terrorists'. According to The Times of Israel, the IDF is against the proposal and has said it would take a significant amount of time to clear infrastructure belonging to Hamas.
