Skip to main content

What leaders have been saying

Here is a compilation of some of what world leaders have been reported as saying in the past week about Iran and IAEA. 

 Iran President Pezeshkian 
• [I] ordered the country to cut ties with the nuclear watchdog [IAEA]. A bill to suspend cooperation had already been passed in the Iranian parliament and approved by the country’s Guardian Council. Guardian Council spokesperson Hadi Tahan Nazif said the decision had been taken for the “full respect for the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic of Iran”. The bill itself says the suspension “will remain in effect until certain conditions are met, including the guaranteed security of nuclear facilities and scientists.” [July 2] 

Iran Foreign Minister Araghchi 
• “Grossi’s insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent.” “Iran reserves the right to take any steps in defence of its interests, its people and its sovereignty.” [June 30] 
• [T]he non-proliferation regime would now "witness changes, but it is not possible to say in what direction". [July 1] 
• “In accordance with the new legislation... our cooperation with the IAEA will be channeled through Iran’s Supreme National Security Council for obvious safety and security reasons.” [July 3] 
• “I don’t think negotiations [with U.S.] will restart .. quickly ...” “We will have to first ensure that America will not revert to targeting us in a military attack during the negotiations.” [July 3] 
• “Iran remains committed to the NPT and its Safeguards Agreement.” Reports of a full suspension [of cooperation with IAEA] are “fake news.” [July 4] 
• “The US-Israeli attacks on our nuclear facilities were in stark violation of NPT and the UNSC Resolution 2231 that has endorsed Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme in 2015 by consensus. The US’s subsequent involvement in this aggression by targeting Iran’s peaceful nuclear installations has left no doubt as to the full complicity of the American government in Israel’s war of aggression against Iran.” [BRICS summit, Brazil, July 6] 

IAEA Director General Grossi 
• "We cannot afford that .... the inspection regime is interrupted," [June 27] 
• “… to confirm, for the whole situation, evaluation, we need to return (IAEA inspectors to Iran's nuclear facilities)." [July 2] 
• “[T]he crucial importance” of holding talks with Iran to resume its monitoring and verification work as soon as possible. [July 3] 

BRICS summit in Brazil, July 6, 2025 
• “We condemn the military strikes against the Islamic Republic of Iran since 13 June 2025.” “We further express serious concern over deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear facilities.”

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