Iran says UN nuclear watchdog official will visit country for talks, but no inspections planned
Since Israel launched its first military strikes on Iran's nuclear sites during a 12-day war in June, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have been unable to access Iran's facilities, despite IAEA chief Rafael Grossi stating that inspections remain his top priority.
Iran has accused the agency of effectively paving the way for the bombings by issuing a damning report on May 31, which led the IAEA's 35-nation Board of Governors to declare Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations.
Iran, which denies seeking nuclear weapons, said it remained committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
'Negotiations with the IAEA will be held tomorrow to determine a framework for cooperation,' Araghchi said on his Telegram account.
'A Deputy Director General of Grossi will come to Tehran tomorrow, while there are no plans to visit any nuclear sites until we reach a framework.'
Last month, Iran enacted a law passed by parliament suspending cooperation with the IAEA. The law stipulates that any future inspection of Iran's nuclear sites by the IAEA needs approval by Tehran's Supreme National Security Council
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
'Your job is to ensure Hamas does not lead you astray': Lapid slams Netanyahu for admission
The Israeli opposition criticized Netanyahu's statements during his press conference, where he addressed details of the new IDF Gaza operation and hostage talks. Opposition leader and Yesh Atid chair MK Yair Lapid slammed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following his admission that Hamas misled Israel in hostage deal negotiations during the second press conference on Sunday. The 'admission that 'Hamas led us astray' is nothing short of astonishing,' he said on X/Twitter, adding, 'That's exactly your job: to ensure Hamas doesn't lead you astray.' "Netanyahu – get over it! There is no such thing as a 'green light from the Americans' to conduct negotiations," the Hostages and Missing Families Forum commented. 'These are Israeli citizens, and the State of Israel must lead the moves, demand, and press itself against the mediators for an end to the war and the return of all the hostages home. The responsibility for their lives lies with the Israeli government, not with any other country," they said in a statement. 'The United States has been working tirelessly to free the hostages, end this war, and give civilians in Gaza a future free of Hamas. To do so, we need to place the responsibility where it lies – with Hamas – and hold it and other Gaza terrorists fully accountable. Today's meeting, like so many other recent actions, undermines those efforts,' the US Mission to the UN had posted following the press conferences. Leader of the Blue and White Party, MK Benny Gantz, who was part of the Israeli security cabinet during some periods of the war, was one of the first to react: 'Too many words, too few actions, too much time.' Yisrael Beytenu chairman Avigdor Liberman stated: 'The Prime Minister of October 7 continues to lie with brazen audacity. He sacrifices the hostages on the altar of preserving the coalition, just as he sacrifices the regular and reserve soldiers to appease his natural partners – Shas and United Torah Judaism.' Yair Golan's harsh words over Netanyahu's press conference 'After 22 months of war, after promising that 'we are one step away from total victory,' after 674 days that our hostages are languishing in captivity, Netanyahu declared tonight: 'I have instructed the IDF to defeat Hamas.' Ridiculous,' The Democrats chair MK Yair Golan posted. 'As if until today, IDF soldiers were strolling in Gaza. What we saw tonight is not 'one step from victory' but the most severe security failure in Israel's history,' he said. 'The prime minister of 'Hamas is an asset,' who refuses to defeat the enemy for nearly two years and abandons dozens of Israeli citizens to die in captivity, is a danger to national security. Netanyahu is incapable of winning. He will not release the hostages. He is an utter failure. Israel will only win after he and his government are sent packing,' Golan concluded. The Hostages and Missing Families Forum addressed Netanyahu on Monday, asking him to publicly clarify his remarks at yesterday's press conference in response to a reporter's question, in which he ignored the fallen hostages. "He who abandons fallen ones ends up abandoning lives," the forum's address read. Uri Sela contributed to this report. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
What does recognizing Palestinian state mean, and does it change anything on the ground?
International recognition of a Palestinian state does not automatically lead to the state's creation. On Monday, Australia joined a growing number of countries planning to recognize a Palestinian state at the 80th United Nations General Assembly in September. New Zealand said it is exploring the possibility, but has not yet committed to such a move. Although a Palestinian state is widely recognized in the UN already (by about 75% of member states), significant media attention has been focused on the new announcements from Canada, the UK, France, and now Australia. One reason for the furor is that the war between Israel and Hamas is ongoing, 20 living hostages are still believed to be held in Gaza – alongside 30 bodies – and Hamas still has control over the Gaza Strip. Israel, as a result, has argued that recognizing a Palestinian state is both premature (as the hostages have not been returned, and Hamas has yet to be thwarted) and a reward for terrorism, given that none of the recent countries have set conditions on the recognition. 'This is effectively unconditional recognition, which is astounding,' Senator for Western Australia Michaelia Cash commented on Monday. That being said, even if Canada, the UK, France, Australia, and potentially others choose to go ahead and recognize a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly next month, what, if anything, will change on the ground? International recognition of a Palestinian state does not automatically lead to the state's creation. There are still no internationally-agreed upon borders, no capital city, no army, and no set government. Gaza is in the middle of a war, and there is yet to be discussion on significant minutiae such as land swaps, what happens to Jewish settlements in the West Bank, what happens to Israeli Arabs, and the like. Recognition is mostly symbolic. It is not an order or a plan. If anything, it is designed to put pressure on Israel to end the war and to ramp up humanitarian aid provision to the Strip. This was made evident in UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer's July 29 speech in which he said that the recognition of a Palestinian state would go ahead 'unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agrees to a ceasefire, and commits to a long-term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution.' In other words, recognition – at least on the UK's part – is a bargaining chip for cajoling Israel into acting in line with international consensus on how the war should be carried out. International law regarding the creation of a state is generally based on the Montevideo Convention of 1933. This lists four specific criteria in order for something to qualify as a state. First, it must have a permanent population. Second, it must have a defined territory. Third, a government. And fourth, the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Palestine does not necessarily meet all of these four criteria. While it is generally considered to have a permanent population, it doesn't have a stable government (the Palestinian Authority has only limited control over the West Bank and no control over Gaza) and has disputed borders. As the Israel Democracy Institute recently explained, the traditional position in international law is that a state either exists, or it does not: 'If it does not meet the factual conditions for statehood, recognition of it has no meaning.' Additionally, Article 10 of the Montevideo Convention states that 'The primary interest of states is the conservation of peace. Differences of any nature that arise between them should be settled by recognized peaceful methods.' Critics have argued that this will not be upheld by a future Palestinian state. What say does Israel have? From a legal and diplomatic standpoint, Israel has very little say over the recognition of a Palestinian state. However, from a practical standpoint, it does. This is primarily because any final peace deal requires Israel's approval and because Israel has significant military and territorial control over the area, including borders, airspace, movement of people and goods, and most of Area C. Additionally, an agreement would have to be reached over Jerusalem. Israel considers all of Jerusalem to be its capital, while Palestinians believe east Jerusalem to be theirs. A lot of focus in the speeches of international leaders has also been on the 1967 borders, to be used as a demarcation of a future Palestinian state. However, '1967 borders' never existed. The '1967 borders' do not appear in any agreed-upon international documents. What leaders such as New Zealand Prime Minister Luxon are likely referring to are the demarcation lines set during the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and its neighbors, which remained after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War until the Six-Day War. This is often known as the Green Line. Prior to the Six-Day War, the Jewish people were denied access to the Old City and its holy sites. Additionally, there is the security element of the 1967 borders. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once said that if Israel were to revert to them, the Jewish state would be militarily 'indefensible.' Then there is the matter of whether a Palestinian state is capable of reforming its government and stamping out terror. In his Monday speech, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said that his decision to recognize a Palestinian state was predicated on commitments received from the PA to reform its governance, along with its recognition of Israel's right to exist. Albanese seemed confident with the PA's alleged promises, 'including to reform governance, terminate prisoner payments, institute schooling reform, demilitarize, and hold general elections,' and sees the PA as the best option for a future government. And yet, the Palestinian Authority has been unable to eradicate terror, despite launching Operation Protect the Homeland in Jenin in December 2024, to crack down on local Palestinian militia. This is also the same PA that has been providing monthly stipends to the families of Palestinian terrorists since the 1960s. In 2018, the stipends were estimated to be over $300 million. While the PA said it was canceling its pay-for-slay policy earlier this year, senior security officials called the commitment to do so a 'deception.' The US's veto power Nevertheless, the diplomatic recognition of Palestine by the stated countries does have implications, partially because it makes Israel more dependent on the US for its use of veto power in the UN Security Council. If the UK and France recognize a Palestinian state next month, Palestine will have the support of four of the UN Security Council's five permanent members (alongside China and Russia). The only remaining permanent member not to recognize a Palestinian state – the United States – will be a minority. While US Vice-President JD Vance has said the US has no plans to recognize a Palestinian state, there is no guarantee that this will continue to be the case. If a future US government were to recognize a Palestinian state, Israel would have to stand alone against international pressure. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Syria will not take part in meetings with Kurdish-led SDF in Paris, state TV says
This comes after Syria has struggled to integrate the US-backed group into its military. Syria will not take part in planned meetings with Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in Paris, Syria's state news agency SANA quoted a government source as saying on Saturday. The source cited an earlier forum arranged by the US-backed SDF that it said was a violation of an accord between the government and the group. The source was quoted as saying that Damascus would not be involved in negotiations with any side that aims to "revive the era of the former region." This comes after Turkey and Syria held talks on Thursday to assess ties and tensions with the SDF. "The talks are expected to assess Turkey's national security concerns stemming from northeast Syria, as well as cooperation between the two countries in the fight against terrorist organizations... at a time when preserving Syria's territorial integrity and unity is more important than ever," a source told Reuters. Turkey, Syria debate situation with SDF Ankara considers the SDF a terrorist organization, and has pushed for it to abide by a March integration agreement with Syria. "It has not escaped our attention that the SDF terrorist organization's voice has become louder, empowered by the clashes in Syria's south," the source told reporters at a briefing in Ankara. "The SDF terrorist organization's attacks on the outskirts of Manbij and Aleppo against the Syrian government in recent days damage Syria's political unity and territorial integrity.' Hurdles have arisen because there are major ideological differences between many new Syrian army commanders, who fought alongside Sharaa as part of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), and the SDF. The SDF is largely a Kurdish organization that has roots in the far Left, while HTS is largely an Arab group that is extremely conservative and Islamic. Seth J. Frantzman contributed to this report. Solve the daily Crossword
