UN nuclear watchdog's board declares Iran in breach of non-proliferation obligations
UN nuclear watchdog's board declares Iran in breach of non-proliferation obligations
VIENNA, June 12 (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog's 35-nation Board of Governors declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations on Thursday for the first time in almost 20 years, raising the prospect of reporting it to the U.N. Security Council.
The major step is the culmination of several festering stand-offs between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran that have arisen since President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of a nuclear deal between Tehran and major powers in 2018 during his first term, after which that deal unravelled.
Since Iran bristles at resolutions against it and this is the most significant one in years, it is likely to respond with a nuclear escalation, as it has said it will. That could complicate the current talks between Iran and the U.S. aimed at imposing new curbs on Iran's accelerating atomic activities.
More: 'Constructive' and 'positive': What to know about the rare US-Iran nuclear talks
The resolution also comes at a time of particularly heightened tension, with the U.S.pulling staff out of the Middle East, and Trump warning the region could become dangerous and saying Washington would not let Iran have nuclear weapons.
Diplomats at the closed-door meeting said the board passed the resolution submitted by the United States, Britain, France and Germany with 19 countries in favour, 11 abstentions and three states - Russia, China and Burkina Faso - against.
DAMNING REPORT
The text, seen by Reuters, declares Iran in breach of its obligations given a damning report the IAEA sent to member states on May 31.
"The Board of Governors… finds that Iran's many failures to uphold its obligations since 2019 to provide the Agency with full and timely cooperation regarding undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple undeclared locations in Iran … constitutes non-compliance with its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with the Agency," the text said.
A central issue is Iran's failure to provide the IAEA with credible explanations of how uranium traces detected at undeclared sites in Iran came to be there despite the agency having investigated the issue for years.
The May 31 IAEA report, a board-mandated "comprehensive" account of developments, found three of the four locations "were part of an undeclared structured nuclear programme carried out by Iran until the early 2000s and that some activities used undeclared nuclear material".
More: What countries are on Trump's travel ban list? 12 countries include Haiti, Iran
U.S. intelligence services and the IAEA have long believed Iran had a secret, coordinated nuclear weapons programme it halted in 2003, though isolated experiments continued for several years. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said this week the findings were broadly consistent with that.
Iran denies ever having pursued nuclear weapons.
While the resolution alluded to reporting Iran to the U.N. Security Council, diplomats said it would take a second resolution to send it there, as happened the last time it was declared in non-compliance in September 2005, followed by referral in February 2006.
(Reporting by Francois Murphy; Editing by Ed Osmond)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Israel's bravery shames our pusillanimous Prime Minister
It would, to say the least, be helpful if we had a Prime Minister who understood even his own supposed principles. Since taking office last year, Sir Keir Starmer has been admirably strong and consistent in supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression, at least in his statements, if not in actual firepower. But his response to the Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear and military sites is not just naïve, it is pusillanimous and shows how empty a vessel he really is: 'The reports of these strikes are concerning and we urge all parties to step back and reduce tensions urgently. Escalation serves no one in the region. Stability in the Middle East must be the priority and we are engaging partners to de-escalate. Now is the time for restraint, calm and a return to diplomacy.' Starmer grasps the need to stand up to Putin's aggression, but crumbles into spineless diplo-speak when confronted by a theocratic tyranny. For a leader with a clear understanding of the Iranian threat – of reality, in other words – there should be relief, not consternation. Just yesterday, for example, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declared that Iran was in breach of its non-proliferation obligations, refusing to answer questions on uranium particles found in undeclared sites in the country and the stockpiling of uranium enriched to nearly weapons grade. Iran then revealed it is operating a previously secret new uranium enrichment centre. The threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon has not been theoretical but very real and increasingly imminent. According to Sir Keir, 'Now is the time for restraint, calm and a return to diplomacy.' This is the precise opposite of what it is the time for. Diplomacy led us to the disastrous Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which relaxed sanctions on the regime, handed it huge amounts of money from oil exports, and thus funded not just the Iranian proxies Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis but the nuclear weapons programme. In this sense Israel has been acting not only on its own behalf but on behalf of all those Middle Eastern states which have been destabilised by Iran – and on behalf of the West itself. This is a familiar story; twice before Israel has saved us all from nuclear enemies, in 1981 when it destroyed Saddam's reactor in Iraq and in 2007 when it destroyed Assad's facilities in Syria. One irony of this is that the so-called Free Palestine brigade, who will doubtless be back on the streets soon, should be cheering Israel today – if they genuinely cared about securing a Palestinian state. There are reports that the UK is on the verge of recognising such an entity next week at the special UN conference called by France. But there will never be a secure and stable Palestinian state while Iran continues to spread its malign influence through its proxies – and should it acquire a nuclear weapon the prospect of a Palestinian state would be the first casualty. Contrary to Sir Keir's spineless timidity, this is the time for action by a clear eyed state which understands the threat posed by its enemy and is willing to act to defend itself by neutering that threat. Far from stopping now as Sir Keir urges, it is essential that Israel finishes the job it began last night. Israel has not started a war – it has prevented one. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Disgusting': Lindsey Graham Called Out Over 'Ugly, Evil' Message On Social Media
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) seemed just a little too eager for war as Israel launched airstrikes on Iran early Friday. 'Game on,' he wrote on X. 'Pray for Israel.' Israel said its strikes targeted Iran's nuclear program, including scientists working on atomic weapons as well as military leaders and missile facilities. Iran launched drones at Israel in retaliation. Graham also delivered a warning to Iran not to attack U.S. personnel or interests in the region. If they do, he wrote, 'America should have an overwhelming response, destroying all of Iran's oil refineries and oil infrastructure putting the ayatollah and his henchmen out of the oil business.' The messages struck many as Graham cheerleading for war ― and they let him know on X:
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With troops in Los Angeles, echoes of the Kent State massacre
Ohio National Guard members with gas masks and rifles advance toward Kent State University students during an anti-war protest on May 4, 1970. More than a dozen students were killed or injured when the guard opened fire. (.) This article was originally published by The Trace. Earlier in June, President Donald Trump deployed thousands of National Guard troops and Marines to quell anti-deportation protests and secure federal buildings in downtown Los Angeles. The move, some historians say, harks back 55 years to May 4, 1970, when Ohio's Republican governor summoned the National Guard to deal with students demonstrating against the Vietnam War at Kent State University. Guard members were ordered to fire over the students' heads to disperse the crowd, but some couldn't hear because they were wearing gas masks. The troops fired at the students instead, killing four and wounding another nine. The shooting served as a cautionary tale about turning the military on civilians. 'Dispatching California National Guard troops against civilian protesters in Los Angeles chillingly echoes decisions and actions that led to the tragic Kent State shooting,' Brian VanDeMark, author of the book 'Kent State: An American Tragedy,' wrote this week for The Conversation. We asked VanDeMark, a history professor at the United States Naval Academy, more about the parallels between 1970 and today. His interview has been edited for length and clarity. After the Kent State shooting, it became taboo for presidents or governors to even consider authorizing military use of force against civilians. Is the shadow of Kent State looming over Los Angeles? VanDeMark: For young people today, 55 years ago seems like a very long time. For the generation that came of age during the '60s and were in college during that period, Kent State is a defining event, shaping their views of politics and the military. There are risks inherent in deploying the military to deal with crowds and protesters. At Kent State, the county prosecutor warned the governor that something terrible could happen if he didn't shut down the campus after the guard's arrival. The university's administration did not want the guard brought to campus because they understood how provocative that would be to student protesters who were very anti-war and anti-military. It's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. The military is not trained or equipped to deal well with crowd control. It is taught to fight and kill, and to win wars. California Governor Gavin Newsom has said that deploying the guard to Los Angeles is inflammatory. What do you fear most about this new era of domestic military deployment? People's sense of history probably goes back five or 10 years rather than 40 or 50. That's regrettable. The people making these decisions — I can't unpack their motivation or perceptions — but I think their sense of history in terms of the dangers inherent in deploying U.S. troops to deal with street protests is itself a problem. There are parallels between Kent State and Los Angeles. There are protesters throwing bottles at police and setting fires. The Ohio governor called the Kent State protesters dissidents and un-American; President Trump has called the Los Angeles demonstrators insurrectionists, although he appears to have walked that back. What do you make of these similarities? The parallels are rather obvious. The general point I wish to make, without directing it at a particular individual, is that the choice of words used to describe a situation has consequences. Leaders have positions of responsibility and authority. They have a responsibility to try to keep the situation under control. Are officers today more apt to use rubber bullets and other so-called less-lethal rounds than in 1970? Even though these rounds do damage, they're less likely to kill. Could that save lives today? Most likely, yes. In 1970, the guard members at Kent State, all they had were tear gas canisters and assault rifles loaded with live ammunition. Lessons have been learned between 1970 and today, and I'm almost certain that the California National Guard is equipped with batons, plastic shields, and other tools that give them a range of options between doing nothing and killing someone. I've touched one of the bullets used at Kent State. It was five and a half inches long. You can imagine the catastrophic damage that can inflict on the human body. Those bullets will kill at 1,000 yards, so the likelihood that the military personnel in Los Angeles have live ammunition is very remote. Trump authorized the deployment of federal troops not only to Los Angeles but also to wherever protests are 'occurring or are likely to occur,' leading to speculation that the presence of troops will become permanent. Was that ever a consideration in the '60s and '70s, or are we in uncharted waters here? In the 1960s and early 1970s, presidents of both parties were very reluctant to deploy military forces against protests. Has that changed? Apparently it has. I personally believe that the military being used domestically against American citizens, or even people living here illegally, is not the answer. Generally speaking, force is not the answer. The application of force is inherently unpredictable. It's inherently uncontrollable. And very often the consequences of using it are terrible human suffering. Before the Kent State shooting, the assumption by most college-aged protesters was that there weren't physical consequences to engaging in protests. Kent State demonstrated otherwise. In Los Angeles, the governor, the mayor, and all responsible public officials have essentially said they will not tolerate violence or the destruction of property. I think that most of the protesters are peaceful. What concerns me is the small minority who are unaware of our history and don't understand the risks of being aggressive toward the authorities. In Los Angeles, we have not just the guard but also the Marines. Marines, as you mentioned, are trained to fight wars. What's the worst that could happen here? People could get killed. I don't know what's being done in terms of defining rules of engagement, but I assume that the Marines have explicitly been told not to load live ammunition in their weapons because that would risk violence and loss of life. I don't think that the guard or the Marines are particularly enthusiastic about having to apply coercive force against protesters. Their training in that regard is very limited, and their understanding of crowd psychology is probably very limited. The crowd psychology is inherently unpredictable and often nonlinear. If you don't have experience with crowds, you may end up making choices based on your lack of experience that are very regrettable. Some people are imploring the Marines and guard members to refuse the orders and stay home. You interviewed guard members who were at Kent State. Do you think the troops deployed to Los Angeles will come to regret it? Very often, and social science research has corroborated this, when authorities respond to protests and interact with protesters in a respectful fashion, that tends to have a calming effect on the protesters' behavior. But that's something learned through hard experience, and these Marines and guard members don't have that experience. The National Guard was deployed in Detroit in 1967; Washington, D.C. in 1968; Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992; and Minneapolis and other cities in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd. Have the Marines ever been deployed? Or any other military branch? Yes. In 1992, in the wake of the Rodney King controversy, the California governor at the time, a Republican named Pete Wilson, asked President George H.W. Bush to deploy not only the guard but also the Marines to deal with street riots in Los Angeles. That's the last time it was done. And how did that go? I'm not an expert on this, but I assure you that the senior officers who commanded those Marines made it very clear that they were not to discharge their weapons without explicit permission from the officers themselves, and they were probably told not to load their weapons with live ammunition. In 1967, during the Detroit riots, the Michigan National Guard was called out to the streets of Detroit. When the ranking senior officer arrived, he ordered the soldiers to remove their bullets from their rifles. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
