Skip to main content

The MOAB Atack; UN Security Council Emergency Meeting

More information is being reported on the U.S. MOAB attack. Here are highlights from a Reuters article, titled “Satellite images indicate severe damage to Fordow.” 

    The 7 B-2 Stealth bombers, starting from and returning to Missouri in a 37-hour flight, dropped 14 MOABs on Iran. ‘The B-2s dropped an initial load of six MOPs on Fordow, followed by a "double tap" of six more in the exact same spots’. ‘An impact hole above the underground enrichment halls at Natanz reportedly caused by a’ MOAB. Probably there was a double tap also at Natanz, accounting for the 14th bomb. 

Reporting to the 9941st (Emergency) Meeting of the UN Security Council on Sunday, June 22, Rafael Mariano Grossi, IAEA’s Director General, reported that craters are visible at the Fordow site. Here are published satellite photos of the surface area of Fordow before and after the attack.
Reuters also reported: 
        Experts said satellite imagery from Maxar Technologies showed "unusual activity" at Fordow on Thursday and Friday [June 19, 20], with a long line of vehicles waiting outside an entrance of the facility. 
        David Albright, Head of ISIS, said “There may be 2,000 to 3,000 centrifuges that were slated to go into [a] new enrichment plant. Where are they?" 
        Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said "The world is going to be in the dark about what Iran may be doing." 

At the Security Council meeting, Secretary-General António Guterres told the Council members that ‘the Non-Proliferation Treaty is a cornerstone of international peace and security, and Iran must fully respect it’. He called for full access to inspectors of the IAEA. Mr. Guterres warned the 15-member Council, “We now risk descending into a rathole of retaliation after retaliation. To avoid it, diplomacy must prevail.” 
 
The official report on the Security Council Meeting had a headline: United States Leadership’s ‘Wholesale Disregard’ for International Law, UN Charter. 
The United States and Israel delegates defended their actions, forcefully stating their well-known exaggerations about the threat posed by Iran. The Iranian delegate condemned their actions saying, “the internationally wanted war criminal Netanyahu succeeded in hijacking US foreign policy, dragging the United States into yet another costly, baseless war.” 

Many delegates called for an immediate cessation of military actions and exercise of maximum restraint. The Russian and Chinese delegates called for Council members to support a draft resolution that would condemn the attacks on Iran’s nuclear installations and call for an “immediate ceasefire.”. If the resolution came to a vote, the U.S. would have vetoed it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

‘New war with Israel at any moment’, ‘still digging through rubble’

The news about Iran has taken an ominous tone in the last couple days. Here is some reporting and commentary.  Newsweek on August 18, 2025, reported that Yahya Rahim Safavi, senior military adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said ‘ We are not in a ceasefire; we are in a stage of war. No protocol, regulation, or agreement has been written between us and the U.S. or Israel. A new war with Israel could break out at any moment .’  Yonah Jeremy Bob commented in The Jerusalem Post on August 19, 2025, that ‘ Khamenei can either “drink from the poisoned chalice” of diplomatic concessions … or face more airstrikes, possibly next time some targeting him directly ’.   Bob also noted that ‘ right now Iran is still digging through rubbl e’. The U.S. attacked Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan on June 22. Two months of digging. No surprise that there has been no public news about that.
Post a Comment
Read more

Assessing possible outcomes of the snapback mechanism

The initiation by the E3 of the 30-day snapback mechanism in the UN Security Council makes everything more difficult and there is great uncertainty about the outcome. Will it be peaceful with a new nuclear deal with Iran, negotiated by the U.S., endorsed by the UNSC and verified by IAEA, or will Iran withdraw from NPT with further military action by Israel and the U.S.?                 To perhaps shed a little light on what the outcome will be, here is my analysis of how the players - Iran, U.S. and E3 - may be assessing the acceptability of the range of outcomes. Four levels of acceptability were used: 1 Fully acceptable; 2 Less acceptable; 3 Just acceptable; and 4 Not acceptable. Four near term 30-day outcomes are listed, and two optimistic outcomes with an interim U.S.-Iran agreement reached within a 6-month extension.                 For the 30-day near term, the best outcome would b...
Post a Comment
Read more

‘Making nuclear fuel’ under the NPT

It is with some hesitation that I take issue with the latest publication of the renowned Henry Sokolski and Sharon Squassoni on August 15 in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, titled: “ Actually, the NPT doesn’t guarantee a right to make nuclear fuel .”  But someone should defend the IAEA and international safeguards! Here are points in question.            ‘ The [NPT] treaty was designed to prevent dangerous bombmaking activitie s.’  NPT is far more complex than that. It is common to state the three pillars of NPT: nuclear disarmament; nuclear nonproliferation; and peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Nonproliferation involves the commitment of non-nuclear states not to pursue nuclear weapons and to accept IAEA inspection to confirm that commitment is being followed. Perhaps Sokolsky intends to refer to INFCIRC/153, which lays out how IAEA and the state cooperate to carry out that confirmation. If so, INFCIRC/153 is not designed to ‘prevent’...
Post a Comment
Read more