logo
What to know about inspections of Iran's nuclear program by the IAEA ahead of a key board vote

What to know about inspections of Iran's nuclear program by the IAEA ahead of a key board vote

Independent18 hours ago

Iran 's nuclear program remains a top focus for inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, particularly as any possible deal between Tehran and the United States over the program would likely rely on the agency long known as the United Nations ' nuclear watchdog.
This week, Western nations will push for a measure at the IAEA 's Board of Governors censuring Iran over its noncompliance with inspectors, pushing the matter before the U.N. Security Council. Barring any deal with Washington, Iran then could face what's known as 'snapback' — the reimposition of all U.N. sanctions on it originally lifted by Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, if one of its Western parties declares the Islamic Republic is out of compliance with it.
All this sets the stage for a renewed confrontation with Iran as the Mideast remains inflamed by Israel's war on Hamas in the Gaza Strip. And the IAEA's work in any case will make the Vienna-based agency a key player.
Here's more to know about the IAEA, its inspections of Iran and the deals — and dangers — at play.
Atoms for peace
The IAEA was created in 1957. The idea for it grew out of a 1953 speech given by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower at the U.N., in which he urged the creation of an agency to monitor the world's nuclear stockpiles to ensure that 'the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life."
Broadly speaking, the agency verifies the reported stockpiles of member nations. Those nations are divided into three categories.
The vast majority are nations with so-called 'comprehensive safeguards agreements" with the IAEA, states without nuclear weapons that allow IAE monitoring over all nuclear material and activities. Then there's the 'voluntary offer agreements' with the world's original nuclear weapons states — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the U.S. — typically for civilian sites.
Finally, the IAEA has 'item-specific agreements' with India, Israel and Pakistan — nuclear-armed countries that haven't signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. That treaty has countries agree not to build or obtain nuclear weapons. North Korea, which is also nuclear armed, said it has withdrawn from the treaty, though that's disputed by some experts.
The collapse of Iran's 2015 nuclear deal
Iran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, negotiated under then-President Barack Obama, allowed Iran to enrich uranium to 3.67% — enough to fuel a nuclear power plant but far below the threshold of 90% 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.
But President Donald Trump in his first term in 2018 unilaterally withdrew America from the accord, insisting it wasn't tough enough and didn't address Iran's missile program or its support for militant groups in the wider Mideast. That set in motion years of tensions, including attacks at sea and on land.
Iran now enriches up to 60%, 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 program is for peaceful purposes, but the IAEA, Western intelligence agencies and others say Tehran had an organized weapons program up until 2003.
IAEA inspections and Iran
Under the 2015 deal, Iran agreed to allow the IAEA even greater access to its nuclear program. That included permanently installing cameras and sensors at nuclear sites. Those cameras, inside of metal housings sprayed with a special blue paint that shows any attempt to tamper with it, took still images of sensitive sites. Other devices, known as online enrichment monitors, measured the uranium enrichment level at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility.
The IAEA also regularly sent inspectors into Iranian sites to conduct surveys, sometimes collecting environmental samples with cotton clothes and swabs that would be tested at IAEA labs back in Austria. Others monitor Iranian sites via satellite images.
In the years since Trump's 2018 decision, Iran has limited IAEA inspections and stopped the agency from accessing camera footage. It's also removed cameras. At one point, Iran accused an IAEA inspector of testing positive for explosive nitrates, something the agency disputed.
The IAEA has engaged in years of negotiations with Iran to restore full access for its inspectors. While Tehran hasn't granted that, it also hasn't entirely thrown inspectors out. Analysts view this as part of Iran's wider strategy to use its nuclear program as a bargaining chip with the West.
What happens next
Iran and the U.S. have gone through five rounds of negotiations over a possible deal, with talks mediated by the sultanate of Oman. Iran appears poised to reject an American proposal over a deal this week, potentially as soon as Tuesday.
Without a deal with the U.S., Iran's long-ailing economy could enter a freefall that could worsen the simmering unrest at home. Israel or the U.S. might carry out long-threatened airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities. Experts fear Tehran in response could decide to fully end its cooperation with the IAEA, abandon the the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and rush toward a bomb.
If a deal is reached — or at least a tentative understanding between the two sides — that likely will take the pressure off for an immediate military strike by the U.S. Gulf Arab states, which opposed Obama's negotiations with Iran in 2015, now welcome the talks under Trump. Any agreement would require the IAEA's inspectors to verify Iran's compliance.
But Israel, which has struck at Iranian-backed militants across the region, remains a wildcard on what it could do. Last year, it carried out its first military airstrikes on Iran — and has warned it is willing to take action alone to target Tehran's program, like it has in the past in Iraq in 1981 or Syria in 2007.
___
Associated Press writer Stephanie Liechtenstein contributed to this report. ___
The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
___

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Australia sanctions two ‘extremist' Israeli ministers for inciting violence against Palestinians
Australia sanctions two ‘extremist' Israeli ministers for inciting violence against Palestinians

The Guardian

time40 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Australia sanctions two ‘extremist' Israeli ministers for inciting violence against Palestinians

Australia has joined the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Norway in placing financial sanctions and travel bans on two Israeli government ministers, over what Penny Wong described as 'inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank'. The Magnitsky-style sanctions on Israel's national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and the finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, were in response to serious human rights violations and abuses against Palestinians in the West Bank, including Israeli settlements considered illegal under international law, the governments said in a joint statement. Israel's foreign minister has branded the move 'outrageous', and the US has condemned the sanctions, but Wong said settler violence in the West Bank undermined prospects of reaching a two-state solution and peace in the Middle East. 'These two ministers are the most extreme proponents of the unlawful and violent Israeli settlement enterprise,' Australia's foreign affairs minister told ABC Radio National. 'Along with the United Kingdom, with Canada, with New Zealand and Norway, we have determined that it is important together to send a very clear message that these activities and the the impingement on the rights and human rights of Palestinians in the West Bank are not acceptable.' In an unexpected move, news of which broke overnight (Australian time), the Albanese government joined several allies in levelling the targeted financial sanctions and travel bans. The men were sanctioned in relation to a range of public comments and actions, including marching through Jerusalem's Muslim Quarter with a group that chanted 'death to Arabs' and 'may your village burn'. Ben-Gvir last month said Israel would 'occupy the entire territory of the Gaza Strip' and encourage migration of Gazans elsewhere, while Smotrich in February said ''With God's help we will work to permanently bury the dangerous idea of a Palestinian State'. The sanctions make it an offence to make assets available to a sanctioned person, require the freezing of any assets in Australia, and prevent them from entering Australia. Wong said the actions of the two ministers 'go against the notion of a two-state solution.' 'We do think that's important for peace and security in the region,' she said of moves toward a two-state solution. In a joint statement alongside foreign ministers of the other countries, Wong said that settler violence had led to the deaths of Palestinians and the displacement of whole communities. 'Settler violence is incited by extremist rhetoric which calls for Palestinians to be driven from their homes, encourages violence and human rights abuses and fundamentally rejects the two-state solution,' the joint statement read. 'Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights. Extremist rhetoric advocating the forced displacement of Palestinians and the creation of new Israeli settlements is appalling and dangerous. These actions are not acceptable. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email 'We have engaged the Israeli Government on this issue extensively, yet violent perpetrators continue to act with encouragement and impunity. This is why we have taken this action now – to hold those responsible to account. The Israeli Government must uphold its obligations under international law and we call on it to take meaningful action to end extremist, violent and expansionist rhetoric.' Guardian Australia has contacted Israel's embassy in Australia for comment. Israel's foreign minister, Gideon Sa'ar, described the decision as unacceptable and said it was 'outrageous that elected representatives and members of the government are subjected to these kind of measures'. Speaking about the British government's decision specifically, Smotrich said: 'Britain has already tried once to prevent us from settling the cradle of our homeland, and we will not allow it to do so again.' Ben-Gvir said: 'We passed Pharaoh, we will also pass [Keir] Starmer's wall.' The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, urged that the sanctions be reversed, saying the US condemned the action. 'These sanctions do not advance U.S.-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home, and end the war,' he said in a statement. 'We reject any notion of equivalence: Hamas is a terrorist organisation that committed unspeakable atrocities, continues to hold innocent civilians hostage, and prevents the people of Gaza from living in peace. 'We remind our partners not to forget who the real enemy is. The United States urges the reversal of the sanctions and stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel.' The joint statement from Australia and allies had noted the ministers' 'unwavering support for Israel's security and we continue to condemn the horrific terror attacks of 7 October by Hamas'. 'Today's measures are targeted towards individuals who in our view undermine Israel's own security and its standing in the world. We continue to want a strong friendship with the people of Israel based on our shared ties, values and commitment to their security and future,' the statement said. 'We continue to be appalled by the immense suffering of civilians, including the denial of essential aid. There must be no unlawful transfer of Palestinians from Gaza or within the West Bank, nor any reduction in the territory of the Gaza Strip. We will continue to work with the Israeli Government and a range of partners.'

Britain sanctions two far-right Israeli ministers over inciting violence against Palestinians
Britain sanctions two far-right Israeli ministers over inciting violence against Palestinians

The Sun

time2 hours ago

  • The Sun

Britain sanctions two far-right Israeli ministers over inciting violence against Palestinians

BRITAIN has slapped sanctions on two far-right Israeli ministers it accused of inciting extremist violence against Palestinians. Foreign Secretary David Lammy joined Norway, Australia, New Zealand and Canada in imposing travel bans and asset freezes on Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. 3 3 The move, branded 'outrageous and unacceptable' by Israel's foreign minister, risks a row with Donald Trump's US administration, which is leading Israel-Hamas ceasefire talks. Mr Lammy and his four counterparts accused the two ministers of using 'monstrous' rhetoric. In a joint statement, they said the pair 'incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights'. Both must be held to account, they said, for calling for the displacement of Palestinians in Gaza so it could be re-settled by Jewish Israelis, as well as using extremist and violent language in pushes to annex the West Bank. Mr Ben-Gvir and Mr Smotrich have threatened to withdraw from their government to force fresh elections if Israel ends its war against Hamas. Asked if the UK would urge PM Benjamin Netanyahu to sack them, Mr Lammy said: 'The Israeli government will make their own determination.' The Tories' Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel said of the sanctions: 'The Conservative Party had always been committed to supporting a two-state solution — delivered in the right way, and at the right time — and will work with the Government to support efforts to achieve this.' Mr Ben-Gvir, Israel's national security minister, pledged last night: 'We survived Pharaoh, we will survive Keir Starmer as well.' Finance minister Mr Smotrich added: 'Britain has already tried once to prevent us from settling the cradle of our homeland, and we will not allow it to do so again.' No 10 said: 'Ben-Gvir and Smotrich do not speak for all Israeli people, but have a long history of dangerous and extremist views.' Israel is expected to debate its response to the sanctions next week. 3 Death of Hamas chief Mohammad Sinwar could cause DECIMATED terror group to implode

Surviving Syria's Prisons review – consistently shocking and unforgettably moving
Surviving Syria's Prisons review – consistently shocking and unforgettably moving

The Guardian

time2 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Surviving Syria's Prisons review – consistently shocking and unforgettably moving

The response to the fall of Bashar al-Assad in December 2024 is an indication of what a wretched age we are living through. What happened during Syria's civil war ought to have been globally infamous, the sort of dark blip that makes humanity reflect on the terrible things it can do – but with so much destruction, oppression and injustice elsewhere, there is a reckoning still to come. Sara Obeidat's chilling, profoundly thoughtful documentary takes a significant step towards comprehending the horror and trying to account for it. As the Arab spring protests spread into Syria in 2011, Shadi Haroun and his brother Hadi organised rallies that they dreamed would topple Assad. When a march ended in a mass shooting by the authorities and arrests of the survivors, Shadi spent time in jail. After his release a few months later, his family begged him not to continue with his activism because they knew the likely consequences. But Shadi had seen first-hand how violent and corrupt the Syrian state had become. It had to be fought, so he and Hadi stepped up their efforts. They were rewarded with almost a decade in an abjectly cruel carceral system. Obeidat takes the Haroun brothers back to Harasta, a building on the outskirts of Damascus run by the feared air force intelligence. They point to the high window ledges where inmates would try to find space to sleep, because 400 of them had been put in a room measuring 10 metres by eight. They show us the ceiling pipes in a narrow corridor to which prisoners would be cuffed for 72 hours without food, before 'interrogations' that were no more than sadistic beatings. Having survived Harasta, the brothers were transferred somewhere worse: Sednaya, a prison known as 'the Human Slaughterhouse', where Amnesty International estimates up to 13,000 people were executed in one four-year period. Confessions extracted using torture would lead to death sentences handed down by a sham military 'field court'. But many prisoners did not make it that far: 'heart and respiratory failure' was routinely recorded as the official cause of death for those who did not survive the physical abuse. Obeidat has obtained photographs of some of their bodies, bruised beyond recognition. It wasn't their hearts that failed them. Shadi and Hadi's testimony is consistently shocking and unforgettably moving. Hadi recounts how hearing Shadi screaming was worse for him than being tortured himself, so when he heard him cry out, he would start screaming so he could take his brother's place. He describes how, as the prisoners' sense of time and place melted away, his elaborate fantasies in which he pretended bulgur wheat rations were delicious fried chicken kept a packed cell of men sane for a few more precious days. The film does not stop at documenting what the victims of Assad went through. It asks who did it to them. And how could they do it? To that end, Obeidat tracked down several regime soldiers who worked at the prisons. They talk about being brainwashed at school and during national service, and about being stripped and beaten during their initiation into the Assad regime, as a warning of what would happen to them if they disobeyed. They assigned numbers to inmates to make it harder for families to track what had become of them. They organised the digging of mass graves. One officer talks about how the prisoners 'were all one mass … they were all the same'. Another says whatever guilt he felt was overridden by the knowledge that showing any mercy would mean 'you sentence yourself to death'. This is a valuable examination of how totalitarianism sustains itself; how oppressors who fearfully feel they have no other option can be as dangerous as those who take the role of oppressor gladly. Not that they should be excused. As Hadi calmly observes, the option to defect or flee was there, as risky as it might have been. The film strikes a difficult balance, empathising with the perpetrators without forgiving them. As it's described here, the depravity Syria sunk into might be far beyond human forgiveness. Hussam, a former prison officer at Sednaya who says he hasn't looked in a mirror for three years because he cannot bear to see himself, recalls a tradition he and his colleagues upheld every Wednesday morning: 'execution parties'. At one such event, one of the prisoners who was hanged by the neck didn't die, so Hussam was ordered to step forward and finish the job by grabbing his legs and pulling. This put him close enough to hear the man's last words. 'Before he died he said one thing: 'I'm going to tell God what you did.'' Surviving Syria's Prisons aired on BBC Two and is on iPlayer.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store