logo
Iran's President orders halt to cooperation with UN nuclear watchdog IAEA

Iran's President orders halt to cooperation with UN nuclear watchdog IAEA

Business Standard13 hours ago
Iran's president on Wednesday ordered the country to suspend its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency after American and Israeli airstrikes hit its most-important nuclear facilities, likely further limiting inspectors' ability to track Tehran's programme that had been enriching uranium to near weapons-grade levels.
The order by President Masoud Pezeshkian included no timetables or details about what that suspension would entail. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi signalled in a CBS News interview that Tehran still would be willing to continue negotiations with the United States.
I don't think negotiations will restart as quickly as that, Araghchi said, referring to Trump's comments that talks could start as early as this week. However, he added: The doors of diplomacy will never slam shut.
Pressure tactic Iran has limited IAEA inspections in the past as a pressure tactic in negotiating with the West though as of right now Tehran has denied that there's any immediate plans to resume talks with the United States that had been upended by the 12-day Iran-Israel war.
Iranian state television announced Pezeshkian's order, which followed a law passed by Iran's parliament to suspend that cooperation. The bill already received the approval of Iran's constitutional watchdog, the Guardian Council, on Thursday, and likely the support of the country's Supreme National Security Council, which Pezeshkian chairs.
The government is mandated to immediately suspend all cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency under the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons and its related Safeguards Agreement, state television quoted the bill as saying. "This suspension will remain in effect until certain conditions are met, including the guaranteed security of nuclear facilities and scientists.
It wasn't immediately clear what that would mean for the Vienna-based IAEA, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog. The agency long has monitored Iran's nuclear programme and said that it was waiting for an official communication from Iran on what the suspension meant.
A diplomat with knowledge of IAEA operations, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the situation in Iran, said that IAEA inspectors were still there after the announcement and hadn't been told by the government to leave.
Israel condemns the move Iran's decision drew an immediate condemnation from Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar.
Iran has just issued a scandalous announcement about suspending its cooperation with the IAEA, he said in an X post. This is a complete renunciation of all its international nuclear obligations and commitments.
Saar urged European nations that were part of Iran's 2015 nuclear deal to implement its so-called snapback clause. That would reimpose all UN sanctions on it originally lifted by Tehran's nuclear deal with world powers, if one of its Western parties declares the Islamic Republic is out of compliance with it.
Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East, and the IAEA doesn't have access to its weapons-related facilities.
Iran's decision stops short of experts' worst fears Iran's move so far stops short of what experts feared the most. They had been concerned that Tehran, in response to the war, could decide to fully end its cooperation with the IAEA, abandon the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and rush toward a bomb. That treaty has countries agree not to build or obtain nuclear weapons and allows the IAEA to conduct inspections to verify that countries correctly declared their programmes.
Iran's 2015 nuclear deal allowed Iran to enrich uranium to 3.67 per cent enough to fuel a nuclear power plant, but far below the threshold of 90 per cent needed for weapons-grade uranium. It also drastically reduced Iran's stockpile of uranium, limited its use of centrifuges and relied on the IAEA to oversee Tehran's compliance through additional oversight. The IAEA served as the main assessor of Iran's commitment to the deal.
But US President Donald Trump, in his first term in 2018, unilaterally withdrew Washington from the accord, insisting it wasn't tough enough and didn't address Iran's missile programme or its support for militant groups in the wider Middle East. That set in motion years of tensions, including attacks at sea and on land.
Iran had been enriching up to 60 per cent, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels. It also has enough of a stockpile to build multiple nuclear bombs, should it choose to do so. Iran has long insisted its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, but the IAEA, Western intelligence agencies and others say Tehran had an organized weapons programme up until 2003.
Suspension comes after Israel, US airstrikes Israeli airstrikes, which began June 13, decimated the upper ranks of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard and targeted its arsenal of ballistic missiles. The strikes also hit Iran's nuclear sites, which Israel claimed put Tehran within reach of a nuclear weapon.
Iran has said the Israeli attacks killed 935 Iranian citizens, including 38 children and 102 women. However, Iran has a long history of offering lower death counts around unrest over political considerations.
The Washington-based Human Rights Activists group, which has provided detailed casualty figures from multiple rounds of unrest in Iran, has put the death toll at 1,190 people killed, including 436 civilians and 435 security force members. The attacks wounded another 4,475 people, the group said.
Meanwhile, it appears that Iranian officials now are assessing the damage done by the American strikes conducted on the three nuclear sites on June 22, including those at Fordo, a site built under a mountain about 100 kilometres southwest of Tehran.
Satellite images from Planet Labs PBC analysed by The Associated Press show Iranian officials at Fordo on Monday likely examining the damage caused by American bunker busters. Trucks could be seen in the images, as well as at least one crane and an excavator at tunnels on the site. That corresponded to images shot Sunday by Maxar Technologies similarly showing the ongoing work.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

India's foreign policy pragmatism is not a betrayal of principles. It cannot afford grandstanding
India's foreign policy pragmatism is not a betrayal of principles. It cannot afford grandstanding

Indian Express

time27 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

India's foreign policy pragmatism is not a betrayal of principles. It cannot afford grandstanding

In an era of relentless media cycles and performative politics, foreign policy is increasingly becoming a battleground for domestic posturing. The danger lies not just in what is said, but in how and why it's said. Moral absolutism is deployed selectively, outrage is amplified when convenient, and silence is deafening when facts challenge the preferred narrative. The framing of India's foreign policy as either morally courageous or morally bankrupt ignores diplomacy's layered complexities. Nations do not operate in binaries. They navigate shades of grey, often balancing principle with pragmatism. To cast India's foreign policy as a betrayal of historical moral commitments is not only reductionist, it is deeply dishonest. Take the Hamas attack on Israel — one of the most horrific terrorist acts in recent memory. For India — a victim of terrorism — moral clarity on such acts is not optional; it is foundational. To hesitate in condemning such violence is not intellectual sophistication — it is moral evasiveness. India rightly condemned this attack as terrorism. This was not a partisan statement. It was a reflection of India's consistent stance against terror. At the same time, it made clear its support for the Palestinian people — urging humanitarian access to Gaza, calling for the release of hostages, and providing over 65 tonnes of aid. India has donated over $65 million for Palestine's development in recent years and continues to fund infrastructure and education projects in the West Bank. Yet critics accuse it of abandoning its moral compass. On what basis? That it refused to take a simplistic, one-sided view of a multidimensional conflict? Or that it chose to engage both sides while prioritising the safety of Indian citizens and regional stability? Let us not forget: Diplomacy is not Twitter. It is not built for viral outrage. It is about safeguarding interests while promoting peace. Condemning terrorism while extending humanitarian support is not a contradiction — it is coherence. What often passes for foreign policy critique today seems a deliberate misreading of strategic imperatives. This becomes glaring when examining how critics invoke Iran, Israel, and the larger West Asian theatre. For example, the portrayal of Iran as an innocent, misunderstood actor wilfully ignores the concerns over its nuclear programme. According to the IAEA, Iran now holds over 400 kg of 60 per cent-enriched uranium — dangerously close to weapons-grade. Multiple inspections have found uranium traces at undeclared sites, and Iran continues to block full transparency. Yet, such critical developments are conveniently omitted. This is not nuance; it is misdirection. It seeks to equate Iran's opaque nuclear manoeuvres with Israel's alleged nuclear capabilities — a comparison that collapses under scrutiny. Israel has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, nor has it been found in violation of IAEA safeguards. Iran, by contrast, is a signatory and repeatedly non-compliant. To conflate the two is agenda-driven. Some romanticise India-Iran ties by citing Tehran's support for India at the 1994 UN Human Rights Commission vote on Kashmir. But this overlooks the evolving nature of Iran's foreign policy. Iran is a member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation — a bloc that routinely criticises India on Kashmir. In recent years, Tehran has echoed calls for 'restoration of rights' in J&K, aligning with positions India considers deeply problematic. Even the strategic relevance of the Chabahar Port is twisted into a narrative of Iranian altruism. The port's development depended heavily on India's backchannel diplomacy with the US, which provided a sanctions waiver. India's relationship with Iran has been cautious and transactional, shaped by oil trade, connectivity goals, and regional deterrence, not emotional solidarity. When it comes to Israel, let us not forget that full diplomatic ties were established not by today's government but under former prime minister P V Narasimha Rao. That decision reflected strategic foresight. Since then, ties have deepened. To now paint this trajectory as a betrayal of India's historical commitments is a politically convenient case of forgetting one's own legacy. India's nuanced response to the Iran-Israel escalation is another case in point. The Ministry of External Affairs issued a firm, balanced statement urging de-escalation, emphasising dialogue and diplomacy, and reiterating concern for Indians in both countries. Emergency protocols were activated to ensure the safety of thousands in the region. Critics labelled this approach muted. But what was the alternative? Publicly taking sides in a conflict — one with nuclear implications, energy security risks, and the diaspora's safety at stake? Is that responsible statecraft or reckless signalling? India's foreign policy does not exist in a vacuum. It is shaped by geography, history, and hard power realities. Surrounded by two nuclear adversaries, locked in a matrix of regional alliances and dependencies, India cannot afford to grandstand. It must calculate every move with precision. Pragmatism is not a betrayal of principle — it is about preservation in a hostile world. The danger today is not India's diplomatic caution, it is the trend of a partisan foreign policy critique. Turning complex international issues into tools for domestic political attack is hazardous. It undermines national unity on external affairs, weakens credibility abroad, and sends conflicting signals. Foreign policy is not the arena for point-scoring. It demands strategic consistency, institutional memory, and national coherence. When every international issue is filtered through the lens of electoral calculations or ideological grievances, we do not get a better foreign policy — we get a fragmented one. What India needs today is clarity without chaos, values without vanity, and vision without vendetta. The world is not waiting for India to moralise. It is watching to see if India can lead — with balance, wisdom, and strategic resolve. The writer is a policy analyst and PhD scholar at Bennett University

Putin's World Shrinks: As Ukraine Becomes Russia's Afghanistan, Allies Walk Away
Putin's World Shrinks: As Ukraine Becomes Russia's Afghanistan, Allies Walk Away

India.com

time32 minutes ago

  • India.com

Putin's World Shrinks: As Ukraine Becomes Russia's Afghanistan, Allies Walk Away

New Delhi: Moscow has grown quieter. Not because the war has stopped. But because the noise of friendship is fading. One by one, old allies are slipping away from Russia's side. The war in Ukraine, now dragging into its third year, is doing more than bleeding Russian soldiers. It is draining the trust and warmth once shared with nations that stood shoulder to shoulder with the Kremlin. For Vladimir Putin, this is more than a battlefield loss. This is a diplomatic collapse. A mirror to America's fall in Afghanistan – only colder and more isolating. Where once flags of loyalty waved high, now silence, distance and new partnerships fill the air. Syria Syria used to be a victory badge on Putin's coat. Back in 2015, Russia's entry into the Syrian civil war turned the tide for Bashar al-Assad. Moscow's airstrikes, coupled with Iranian boots on the ground, gave Assad his second life. In return, Russia gained access to naval and air bases in the Mediterranean. But that alliance cracked in 2024. Russia, too busy in Ukraine, could not shield Assad when the rebels surged back. The HTS and Turkish-backed fighters regrouped. Damascus wobbled. Assad fled. The same Putin who once stood firm behind Syria, watched it collapse, unable to stretch his power beyond his war-weary borders. Armenia For years, Armenia counted on Russia. Against Azerbaijan and Turkey, Moscow was the shield. But in 2023, that shield vanished. Nagorno-Karabakh fell. Over 100,000 ethnic Armenians fled. Russian peacekeepers stood idle. Anger swelled in Yerevan. By 2024, Armenia began pulling away. Military deals were paused. Old promises were questioned. Then came the final blow – Armenia walked out of the CSTO, the very security pact that tied it to Moscow. A treaty signed in 1997, meant to be ironclad, now lies in the dust. Finland, Sweden The war in Ukraine was meant to stop NATO. Instead, it pulled in the ones who stayed away the longest. Finland joined the NATO in 2023. Sweden followed in 2024. Neutrality turned to fear. And fear turned to strategy. Both nations moved fast, sensing that Russian aggression was no longer just a possibility. It was a pattern. With their entry, NATO touched more of Russia's border. What Putin tried to avoid became reality. What began as a push against NATO's eastward creep ended in a sprint westward by those who feared Moscow most. Central Asia Kazakhstan. Uzbekistan. Kyrgyzstan. These lands once echoed with Soviet ties. Moscow had sway here, in trade, culture and influence. But now? Europe, China and Turkey are moving in. Brussels is building new roads, new trade routes and new promises. Turkey is sending troops, teachers and trade envoys. China's Belt and Road is laying steel and cement across the steppes. Moscow, weighed down by war, is missing this quiet shift. Iran's Loneliness Iran gave Russia its deadliest drones. Shahed loitering munitions buzzed over Ukrainian skies. Tehran stood by Moscow when others hesitated. But loyalty went unanswered. In June 2025, when Israeli jets bombed Iran followed by American bombers, Russia offered only words. A few lines of diplomatic concern. No defense. No action. Tehran took notice. Even as Tehran burns under sirens and smoke, Moscow stays silent. The alliance feels one-sided now. Iran bleeds. Russia watches. From Damascus to Yerevan and from Helsinki to Tehran, the pattern repeats. Russia once led an axis of defiance. Now, it stands alone in many rooms. This is not only a war. It is a quiet falling away. A global friend list losing names.

Pete Hegseth thanks Jaishankar for strengthening Indo-US ties, defense pact, ‘salute our two great democracies'
Pete Hegseth thanks Jaishankar for strengthening Indo-US ties, defense pact, ‘salute our two great democracies'

Mint

time33 minutes ago

  • Mint

Pete Hegseth thanks Jaishankar for strengthening Indo-US ties, defense pact, ‘salute our two great democracies'

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on Wednesday thanked EAM S Jaishankar for a productive meeting on advancing the India-US defence partnership, building on growing convergences of interests, capabilities and responsibilities. The two met on Tuesday on the sidelines of QUAD. Hegseth posted on X, 'Great meeting yesterday with Indian Minister of External Affairs S Jaishankar' 'Thank you, Mr. Minister, for all you do to strengthen U.S.-India relations, especially our defense partnership. I salute our two great democracies' cooperation in securing a free and open Asia-Pacific,' he goes on to add. On Wednesday, the US has expressed hope that it can complete several major pending American defence sales to India, as it stressed that Washington and Delhi are 'mutually aware' of the security concerns in the Indo-Pacific region. Hegseth said, according to the Department of Defence (DoD) news article, the US and India are 'mutually aware of the security concerns in the region, and both nations have the ability to counter that threat together." He also emphasised on US efforts to equip India with the necessary tools to address security challenges in the Indo-Pacific. 'The United States is very pleased with the successful integration of many US defence items into India's inventory," Hegseth said, according to the DoD news article. "And building on this progress, we hope we can complete several major pending US defence sales to India, expand our shared defence industrial cooperation and coproduction efforts, strengthen interoperability ... between our forces, and then formally sign a new 10-year Framework for the US-India Major Defence Partnership ... which we hope to do very soon." Jaishankar, meanwhile, said, 'We believe that our defence partnership is, today, truly one of the most consequential pillars of the relationship. "It's not built merely on shared interest, but we believe really deepening convergence and of capabilities, of responsibilities and what we do in the Indo-Pacific, we believe, is absolutely crucial to its strategic stability," he said. (With inputs from agencies)

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