Sunrise host Natt Barr clashes with Iranian ambassador on live TV
Iranian ambassador to Australia Ahmad Sadeghi spent much of a Sunrise interview this morning defending the nation's right to 'peaceful nuclear usage' and to respond to 'illegal' attacks from Israel and the US in recent days.
In a brief but prickly exchange, Sunrise host Nat Barr accused Iran of breaching international obligations regarding nuclear development before demanding to know if reports out of Washington, stating the program remains intact, are correct.
'I think you had just breached your agreement under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty right before this, but let's ask you, what did the US destroy when they bombed Iran several days ago?' Barr asked.
Addressing Barr's lead statement, Mr Sadeghi asserted, 'We didn't breach our commitments – I don't know what reference you are doing'.
The UN nuclear energy watchdog ruled days before fighting in the region began that, indeed, Iran was in breach of its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations by failing to reveal information about undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple sites.
For its part, Tehran has been highly critical of the International Atomic Energy Agency's assessments before and after this month's 12-day war with Israel.
Addressing the damage from the US strikes, Mr Sadeghi said: 'I do not have any exact technical assessment and estimate (on the damage)'.
'That is something that the technical teams, with regard to Iran, and the IAEA, maybe, later on, have to find out about, the dimension of the damage.
Of course, a leaked report from US military intelligence overnight purportedly found that US President Donald Trump's weekend air strikes on Iran left most of its nuclear infrastructure intact, and its capacity to develop nuclear weapons was 'likely only set back by months'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
24 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Bruce Lehrmann returns to court to fight damning rape findings
Bruce Lehrmann will return to a Sydney court on Wednesday in an effort to overturn his blockbuster defamation suit loss to Lisa Wilkinson and Network 10, and the damning findings made by a Federal Court judge. In a landmark judgment, Justice Michael Lee in April last year dismissed his multi-million dollar lawsuit against the network and its former star journalist over its reporting of Brittany Higgins' rape allegations on The Project. Justice Lee found – on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities – that Lehrmann had raped his then colleague inside Parliament House in March 2019 after a night out drinking in Canberra. Lehrmann is now seeking to have the findings overturned on appeal, with a three-day hearing before the Full Court of the Federal Court beginning on Wednesday morning. The appeal hearing will be presided over by Justices Michael Wigney, Justice Craig Colvin and Justice Wendy Abraham. 'Procedural fairness' Justice Lee found: 'it is more likely than not' that Lehrmann was 'so intent upon gratification to be indifferent to Ms Higgins' consent, and hence went ahead with sexual intercourse without caring whether she consented.' In commenting on Lehrmann's decision to sue after criminal proceedings against him were withdrawn, Justice Lee said: 'Having escaped the lions' den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat.' Lehrmann's legal team, headed by solicitor Zali Burrows, has claimed that Lehrmann was denied procedural fairness, because Justice Lee's findings were different to the case put forward by Ten and Wilkinson at trial. Lehrmann has maintained his innocence and claimed that he had no sexual contact with Higgins inside the office of their then-boss Senator Linda Reynolds. On his version of events, after entering Reynolds' office, he went to the left and she went to the right, and he did not see her again that night. In her evidence given to the court during the trial in late 2023, Ms Higgins said she told Mr Lehrmann 'no on a loop', that she couldn't scream and that she felt 'waterlogged and heavy'. Justice Lee found that he was not satisfied that Ms Higgins said 'no on a loop' and it was more likely than not 'that she was passive … during the entirety of the sexual act.' Lehrmann argues there are inconsistencies between Justice Lee's findings and the case pleaded by Ten and Wilkinson. 'Consent' Lehrmann's legal team argued that while he was on the witness stand, he should have been questioned further about whether he was reckless about consent. But that argument has been slammed by Wilkinson's legal team which described it as 'entirely misconceived'. In their written submissions to the court, they said that during the trial, Lehrmann was probed by Ten's barrister Dr Matt Collins about whether Ms Higgins had consented to sex. 'Did Ms Higgins at any time consent,' Dr Collins asked at the time. 'I didn't get consent because I didn't have sexual intercourse with her,' Lehrmann said. Ms Wilkinson's lawyers say in their submission: 'At trial Mr Lehrmann's lawyers were of the view that it was unfair to ask him about consent because he had denied sexual intercourse. 'They now apparently take the view that it was unfair to him to not have asked him specific questions about consent.' They say it is 'difficult to see' how he was 'denied natural justice or procedural fairness' because he was not questioned further. 'Given his emphatic denials of sexual intercourse or any similar intimate interaction whatsoever, there was no lack of fairness in not putting to Mr Lehrmann that he was reckless to Ms Higgins' consent when he had had sexual intercourse with her,' the submissions say. Lehrmann faced trial in the ACT Supreme Court in 2022 after pleading not guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent. The trial was abandoned due to juror misconduct and the Director of Public Prosecutions dropped the charge and plans for a retrial due to concerns about Ms Higgins' welfare.
ABC News
24 minutes ago
- ABC News
After moving a motion of no-confidence in a Rockliff government, has Labor orchestrated one in itself?
Did Labor just successfully orchestrate a no-confidence motion in itself? That's probably the question the party should be asking rather than doubling down on its every decision. Labor leader Dean Winter's much-anticipated motion of no confidence in Premier Jeremy Rockliff and confidence in himself finally came to a head on Tuesday evening — and it spectacularly backfired. How bad do you have to play it that, when compared with an 11-year-old government that has driven the state into debt, bungled berth infrastructure for the new Spirit of Tasmania ships and toyed with the idea of privatising government businesses, you're the worse option? Not only did the opposition fail to gain the support of the Greens, who until recently appeared almost desperate to work with Labor, it could not convince a single other member of the crossbench that it was worthy of government. Not to mention, two of those members of the crossbench voted for the last no-confidence motion in the Liberals. Turns out the alternative was even less appealing. And yet it seems Labor's reaction is that the crossbench got it wrong. Compromise is not the way. The Liberals have sold out. Some will say Labor is right, that it needs to stick to its values and its word. But how good does "right" feel when you have just locked yourself into four more years of opposition (theoretically)? It seems, though, that Labor is not seeing this as a total loss. In a statement after the motion failed, Mr Winter wrote "the Liberals' decade-old Labor-Green scare campaign" had been put to bed and it was now the Liberals in bed with the Greens. "Unlike Jeremy Rockliff, Labor won't abandon workers or make deals behind closed doors," Mr Winter said. "While Jeremy Rockliff caved in to the Greens and compromised his values for power, I stood by workers and did not. "Tasmanians have just witnessed the coronation of a Liberal-Green government, and Tasmanian workers will never forget Jeremy Rockliff's betrayal." Apparently, distancing themselves from the Greens is worth more than not having the power to affect real change. That statement likely says a lot about why Labor pushed ahead with its doomed, no-confidence motion. If it could not grab power then at least it could force the Liberals and the Greens to stand side by side. Because while the crossbenchers made it very clear the vote was not an endorsement of the Liberal government, it was a choice. By choosing not to support the motion, the crossbench has chosen to stick with the status quo, aka the Liberals. And Labor is going to make them pay for that every step of the way. Last year it was the "Liberal-Lambie coalition", this year it's the "coronation of a Liberal-Green government". Labor will no doubt have fun with that. From the opposition benches. But while the Liberals might be rejoicing now, nothing about the next four years (if it gets to that) is going to be easy. It would be a stretch to say Mr Rockliff has the crossbench onside. If anything, he is going to need to work out how to get them onside. They are wary and rightfully so. The Liberals have a track record of promising reviews and then ignoring the findings. They have shown, at times, to be so far from transparent they are bordering on opaque and not to mention that "floating billboard of failure" Spirit of Tasmania IV, which will be sailing into Devonport at the end of the week just to remind everyone it can't be used until the end of next year. Plus the Liberals have broken promises before. They promised taxpayers would spend "$375 million and not a red cent more" on a new AFL stadium, then later said they would use borrowings to cover any shortfall. More recently, they vowed to protect the greyhound racing and salmon industries but then leveraged them to make policy concessions to the crossbench. Not that the crossbench is particularly sad about those last two. But what does it say about Mr Rockliff's word? Labor would argue that it says a lot. That he can vow to support these industries one week and abandon them the next. But do you get to keep all your promises if you fail to win a majority? If 18 is the magic number, the Liberals have three-quarters of a mandate. Labor has just over half. It could stand to reason that if you need to lean on others to govern, you're also going to need to give a little ground. In his speech on the motion, Mr Rockliff said the Liberals' decision to move on certain policy areas was an "acknowledgement that people have spoken". "And this acknowledgement that we are in minority government, and we must respect the views of others." He might have won the day, but there's no denying Mr Rockliff has his work cut out for him. He has to deal with a largely progressive crossbench that would like him to go much further than he has when it comes to his promises on the salmon industry and native forest logging. (They'd end both). On a side note, given the crossbench has been willing so far to accept what Mr Rockliff is offering, it seems they at least know how to compromise. Though Labor might argue otherwise. On the other hand, Mr Rockliff has some very conservative voices in his party who are probably hoping that now they have survived the no-confidence motion, the hard asks are over. Bad news: That work is just beginning. If it wants to survive, the Liberals will need to continue to negotiate, to be up-front, transparent and, yes, compromise. On the face of things, the Liberals — at least some of them — seem aware of this. Members of the crossbench, including the Greens, say Mr Rockliff's language and concessions suggest he has an understanding of how minority parliament needs to work. And the Liberals have made moves that go beyond policy and speak to the way they are hoping to approach this new parliament. They have set up a multi-partisan budget panel that had its first meeting last week. The premier has chosen to forgo any extra portfolios so he can focus on dealing with the crossbench. And they have employed former Liberal MP Nic Street, who is well-liked across the parliament, as a crossbench liaison officer. A position that was desperately needed last time. If they stay on this trajectory, maybe, just maybe, things could work out. After all, they cannot afford to be complacent. They would be remiss to think the crossbench won't throw them out again. Sure, Labor's current tack appears to be doubling down, but they could change course. And Labor is right: Values-wise, they do have far more in common with the crossbench. Look at the legislation they teamed up to pass in the last parliament. If the Liberals forget who is allowing them to stay in power and Labor discovers the ability to compromise, Tasmania could see another change in government. For now, though, Labor is busy licking its wounds and maybe considering a new leader. And there appears to be enough "goodwill" across most of the parliament to try to find a way to make it work for the people they are representing. So hopefully, now, the drama is over (a solid two months after parliament blew up). To borrow a Liberal phrase, they can all just "get on with the job".
ABC News
24 minutes ago
- ABC News
Donald Trump rules out sending US troops to Ukraine as its allies consider security guarantees
US President Donald Trump has ruled out sending American ground troops into Ukraine, as the war-torn nation's allies build a "reassurance force" that could be deployed under a possible peace agreement. Monday's White House peace talks have triggered a flurry of further meetings about how to give security guarantees to Ukraine under any prospective deal with Russia. Leaders from "coalition of the willing" nations — which include Australia — held a virtual meeting and would "prepare for the deployment of a reassurance force if the hostilities ended", the office of British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said. They were also considering further sanctions on Russia, his office said. NATO military leaders are expected to meet on Wednesday. Mr Trump was meanwhile asked on Fox News about "assurances" that there "won't be American boots on the ground defending that border". He said: "Well, you have my assurance, and I'm the president." But he suggested the US could provide support from the air. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt later said that was an "option and a possibility". "I won't, certainly, rule out anything as far as military options that the president has at his disposal," she said. US officials were also working to set up a bilateral meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin "as soon as possible", Ms Leavitt said. It followed a phone conversation between the US and Russian presidents on Monday, after which Mr Trump said he had begun arranging the meeting. On Tuesday, he said he told Mr Putin: "We're going to set up a meeting with President Zelenskyy, and you and he will meet, and then after that meeting if everything works out OK, I'll meet and we'll wrap it up." But Mr Putin is yet to publicly commit to the bilateral meeting, and the Kremlin only said he and Mr Trump discussed "the prospect of exploring opportunities for drawing higher-ranking officials" into direct talks between Ukrainian and Russian delegations. Mr Trump told Fox News: "I hope President Putin is going to be good — if he's not, it's going to be a rough situation. "And I hope that Zelenskyy, President Zelenskyy, will do what he has to do. He has to show some flexibility also." After the meeting of Ukraine's allies, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Australia welcomed the "ongoing efforts towards achieving a just and enduring peace, including yesterday's discussions with Washington". ABC/wires
