Trump says Iran has not agreed to inspections, give up enrichment
He told reporters aboard Air Force One that he believed Tehran's nuclear programme had been set back permanently though Iran could restart it at a different location.
Trump said he would discuss Iran with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he visits the White House on Monday.
'I would say it's set back permanently,' Trump said as he travelled to New Jersey after an Independence Day celebration at the White House. 'I would think they'd have to start at a different location. And if they did start, it would be a problem.'
Trump said he would not allow Tehran to resume its nuclear programme, adding that Iran did want to meet him.
The UN nuclear watchdog said on Friday it had pulled its last remaining inspectors from Iran as a standoff deepens over their return to the country's nuclear facilities bombed by the US and Israel.
The US and Israel say Iran was enriching uranium to build nuclear weapons. Tehran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes.
Israel launched its first military strikes on Iran's nuclear sites in a 12-day war with the Islamic Republic three weeks ago. The International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors have not been able to inspect Iran's facilities since then, even though IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said that is his top priority.
Iran's parliament has passed a law suspending co-operation with the IAEA until the safety of its nuclear facilities can be guaranteed. While the IAEA says Iran has not yet formally informed it of any suspension, it is unclear when the agency's inspectors will be able to return to Iran.
Iran has accused the agency of effectively paving the way for the bombings by issuing a damning report on May 31 that led to a resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation Board of Governors declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations.
The US and Israeli military strikes either destroyed or badly damaged Iran's three uranium enrichment sites. But it was less clear what has happened to much of Iran's nine tonnes of enriched uranium, especially the more than 400kg enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
2 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Lesotho Highlands Water Project: Centre local voices in the climate change, conflict and peacebuilding nexus
The Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP), established by the 1986 treaty signed by the governments of Lesotho and South Africa, is a multi-phased project that generates hydroelectricity through a system of several large dams and tunnels in Lesotho for domestic use and supplies water to the Vaal River System in South Africa for its economic hub, Gauteng. The rise of conflicts in societies has been attributed to a multitude of factors ranging from political, socio-economic grievances to ethnic and religious hostilities. Poverty, land and food insecurity are worsened by conflict and climate change. What seems to be missing in the discourse is the interplay between climate, conflict and peace. The rise of resource conflicts, increasing climate-related security risks and the process to foster peace by resolving conflict in nonviolent ways demonstrate that climate change and peacebuilding are interconnected. But there is a tendency to deal with climate change and peacebuilding at high level decision-making structures led by governments and international actors such as the United Nations, marginalising those affected by climate change and conflict, thus failing to sustain peace in local communities. Top-down approaches to peacebuilding apply universal approaches and local contexts and perspectives are either not acknowledged or neglected in conflict-affected societies. Because local communities disproportionately experience water scarcity, land disputes, livelihood disruptions, climate-induced displacements, the influence of climate change on conflict is more pronounced at local levels compared to national and international levels. These issues highlight the need to explore how climate change is reshaping the concept of peace at the local level and how such changes can be integrated into peacebuilding efforts. Local practices and approaches to conflict resolution such as community-led dialogue and local adaptation strategies should be strengthened to help mitigate the risks of climate-related conflicts while promoting local ownership and sustainable peace. The local turn legitimises local norms of building peace and mitigates the effects of climate change, empowers ecologically aligned ontologies and environmentally sustainable practices in many communities while rethinking our understanding of conflict, peace and the causes and consequences of climate change. The Lesotho Highlands Water Project case The The LHWP is often hailed as a model for transboundary water management. Yet beneath this success story lies a complex web of power asymmetries, governance challenges and contested development narratives. The LHWP has had severe effects on the livelihoods and socioeconomic standing of local people, neglecting to compensate those affected by financial and ecological expenses associated with dams, tunnels and power plants. The stability of the LHWP is threatened by climate change due to the system of river flows feeding into the dams. Increased intensity of rainfall can lead to soil erosion and sedimentation in dams, decreasing water quality and reservoir capacity. These environmental changes pose risks not only to the water supply but also to downstream ecosystems and local agricultural productivity. As Phase II is under way, a construction company had to suspend operations because acidic and oily wastewater was dumped in rivers and the Katse reservoir, while the wastewater was discharged near the Polihali Dam where animals drink water and women do laundry at the Sekoai River. People often express frustration over limited participation in decision-making processes, leading to feelings of exclusion and mistrust. Local populations possess local knowledge related to land, water and weather patterns, using their own forecasting methods, crop diversification and soil conservation techniques to cope with climatic variability. Integrating this knowledge with scientific data can enhance climate resilience. Environmental degradation and political, economic and social instability form a complex and reinforcing cycle that affects local communities. In Lesotho, competition over water and land use has led to disputes between people affected by resettlement and those adjacent to project areas. Displacement has disrupted social fabrics, creating grievances that can escalate into conflict if unaddressed. Traditional conflict resolution mechanisms remain vital in Lesotho. Chiefs, elders and community councils mediate disputes arising from resource use and projects. These customary processes emphasise consensus-building and restoration of social harmony. But the integration of these local mechanisms with LHWP governance is limited. Strengthening participatory decision-making and recognising local institutions in project planning could reduce conflicts and increase legitimacy. Water scarcity driven by climate change heightens competition among people and sectors, exacerbating social tensions. Political dynamics also influence how water stress is managed. Unequal power relations, weak governance and lack of transparent resource allocation can deepen grievances. Enhancing transparency, accountability and multi-level coordination is crucial. Policies must ensure equitable distribution of benefits and risks, recognise local rights and foster adaptive management responsive to climate variability. Kgomotso Komane is a PhD candidate and writes on behalf of at the University of Pretoria.
Mail & Guardian
2 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Struggle for the Freedom Charter goes on
Hope: The Freedom Charter was adopted on 26 June 1955 at Kliptown in Soweto. Its contents were drawn from submission from people all over South Africa. The Freedom Charter was adopted in Kliptown 70 years ago, on 26 June 1955. Thousands of delegates travelled across South Africa — by train, by bus, on foot — to take part in the Congress of the People. They met under an open sky, gathered on a dusty field where a wooden stage had been erected. Armed police watched from the perimeter but the atmosphere was determined and jubilant. One by one, the clauses of the Charter — on land, work, education, housing, democracy, peace — were read aloud, and each was met with unanimous approval. The charter distilled months of discussion and collective vision. Discussions of the charter seldom place it in its full historical context. Yet to understand its true significance, we must see it as part of a wider global moment — an era in which oppressed peoples across the world were rising against colonialism. After the defeat of fascism in 1945, there was a deep sense of possibility. The victory fuelled a new international moral order, embodied in the founding of the United Nations and its charter, with its emphasis on human rights, self-determination and peace. In the colonised world, this sparked a wave of anti-colonial struggle and growing demands for independence. India gained independence in 1947, China, through force of arms, in 1949 and Ghana in 1957. In April 1955, two months before the Freedom Charter was adopted, 29 newly independent and colonised nations met in Bandung, Indonesia. The Bandung Conference gave voice to the aspirations of the Global South — to end colonialism and racial domination, assert autonomy in world affairs and build cooperation among formerly colonised peoples. Bandung thrilled anti-colonial forces globally. The Freedom Charter emerged amid this excitement. This hopeful period was shadowed by a fierce imperial backlash. In Iran, prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh's nationalisation of oil in 1951 was met with a CIA- and MI6-backed coup in 1953. In Guatemala, president Jacobo Árbenz's land reforms provoked a similar response, and in 1954 the CIA orchestrated his removal. Around the world, popular sovereignty was crushed to preserve imperial power. The Korean War (1950–53) marked the aggressive militarisation of the Cold War. In January 1961, Congo's first elected leader, Patrice Lumumba, was assassinated with the support of the CIA. In April that year the CIA organised the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. In 1965, the US began a full-scale invasion of Vietnam. In 1966, Ghana's Kwame Nkrumah was overthrown in a Western-backed coup. In South Africa, the vision set out in the Freedom Charter was swiftly met with state repression. Months after its adoption, 156 leaders of the Congress Alliance were arrested and charged with treason. Then came the Sharpeville Massacre in March 1960. The apartheid regime banned the liberation movements underground and, in response, the ANC took the decision to turn to armed struggle. The Freedom Charter cannot be separated from the process that gave it life — a process that was profoundly democratic and rooted in the daily lives of people. In 1953, the ANC and its partners in the Congress Alliance issued a call for a national dialogue: to ask, plainly and urgently, 'What kind of South Africa do we want to live in?' The response was remarkable. Across the country, in townships, villages, workplaces, churches and at all kinds of gatherings, people came together to develop their demands. Submissions arrived handwritten, typed or dictated to organisers. The charter expressed a vision of South Africa grounded in equality, justice and shared prosperity. 'The people shall govern' affirmed not only the right to vote, but the principle that power must reside with the people. 'The land shall be shared among those who work it' challenged the dispossession at the heart of colonial and apartheid rule. Crucially, the charter called for an economy based on public benefit rather than private profit: 'The national wealth of our country, the heritage of South Africans, shall be restored to the people.' Education, housing and healthcare were to be universal and equal. The charter envisioned a South Africa without racism or sexism, where all would be 'equal before the law', with 'peace and friendship' pursued abroad. After the banning of the liberation movements in the 1960s and the brutal repression that followed, the Freedom Charter did not disappear — but it receded from popular memory. In the 1980s, it surged back into public life with renewed force. The formation of the United Democratic Front in 1983 in Cape Town, and the emergence of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) in 1985 in Durban, gave new organisational life to the charter. Grassroots formations drew on unions, civics and faith groups to take the charter out of the archives and the underground and into the streets. For the powerful mass movement organised in workplaces and communities the charter promised a future grounded in radical democracy and a fundamental redistribution of land and wealth. The charter became a vital reference point for the negotiations that began after the unbanning of the liberation movements. Its language and principles profoundly shaped elements of the new Constitution. The charter's insistence that 'South Africa belongs to all who live in it' and that 'the people shall govern' was carried through into the constitutional affirmation of non-racialism and universal suffrage. Guarantees of equal rights, human dignity and socio-economic rights such as housing, education and healthcare echo the charter's vision. But the transition involved compromise. In the 1980s, the charter had been a call for deep structural transformation. At the settlement, key clauses — particularly those calling for the redistribution of land and the sharing of national wealth — were softened or deferred. The final settlement preserved existing patterns of private property and accepted a macroeconomic framework shaped in part by global neoliberal pressures. While the vote was won, the deeper transformations envisioned in the charter were postponed. The result is that today, 31 years after the end of apartheid, structural inequalities and mass impoverishment remain. The charter's economic promises have not been fulfilled. The 2024 general election marked a historic turning point. Taken together, the two dominant parties garnered support from less than a quarter of the eligible population. Nearly 60% of eligible voters did not participate. The charter's promise that 'the people shall govern' demands more than a vote — it requires sustained participation. This requires rebuilding mass democratic participation from below. It means rekindling the culture of popular meetings, community mandates and worker-led initiatives that grounded the charter in lived experience. It means going beyond elections and restoring a sense of everyday democratic agency — in schools, workplaces and communities. It means making good on the promise to redistribute land and wealth. It also means rebuilding solidarity across the Global South. South Africa played a leading role in the formation of the Hague Group in January this year to build an alliance in support of Palestine. This was a major breakthrough that echoed the spirit of Bandung. The meeting that the group will hold in Bogota in July promises to significantly expand its reach and power. We must recognise the scale of resistance to transformation, both internationally and at home. The criminal attack on Iran by Israel and the United States exposes the brutality of imperial power — and the urgent need for a global counterweight. In South Africa economic elites and NGOs, think tanks and media projects funded by Western donors often work to frame redistributive politics as illegitimate or reckless. These networks have grown bolder as ANC support has declined. In June 2023, the Brenthurst Foundation — funded by the Oppenheimer family — convened a conference in Gdansk, Poland. Branded as a summit to 'promote democracy', the conference issued a 'Gdansk Declaration' widely read as an attempt to legitimise Western-backed opposition to redistributive politics in the Global South. The Democratic Alliance and the Inkatha Freedom Party were present, along with former Daily Maverick editor Branko Brkic and representatives of Renamo (Mozambique) and Unita (Angola), both reactionary movements that were backed by the West to violently oppose national liberation movements. The event marked the open emergence of a transnational alliance aimed at neutralising any attempt to challenge elite power in the name of justice or equality. It is a reminder that the struggle to realise the Freedom Charter's vision will not be won on moral terms alone. It will require effective political organisation, ideological clarity and courage. The charter was born of struggle. It must now be defended and renewed through struggle. Ronnie Kasrils is a veteran of the anti-apartheid struggle, and South Africa's former minister for intelligence services, activist and author.
The Herald
3 hours ago
- The Herald
Civil society leaves UN development summit feeling unheard
Still, certain initiatives — such as an alliance to tax the super-rich or plans to slap new levies on premium and private-jet flying — were widely celebrated among CSOs. Their main complaint was a lack of access, with accusations ranging from difficulties obtaining accreditations to exclusion from key negotiations, prompting CSO delegates to hold a protest at the conference's venue on its final day. "We've witnessed an unprecedented wave of restrictions and lack of attention to the voice of civil society," Oyebisi Babatunde Oluseyi, executive director of the Nigeria Network of NGOs, told Reuters, adding a new mechanism was needed to insert their perspective into global decision-making. UN deputy secretary-general Amina Mohammed acknowledged CSOs' grievances in Thursday's closing press briefing and said the UN would endeavour to "expand the space" for them. "The UN was built to defend human rights — if it cedes to the global trend of shrinking civic space, it'll undermine its legitimacy," said Hernan Saenz of Oxfam International. In a joint declaration on Sunday, the CSOs denounced the international financial system as unjust and called for its "complete overhaul". Despite the pervasive discontent, all CSO representatives interviewed by Reuters said they ultimately believed in the UN system. Hirotaka Koike, a board member at the Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation, said he did so because it was the only place where all countries were treated equally. "Yes, there are bureaucracies. Yes, there are a lot of processes. But what else do we have?" Reuters
