Skip to main content

“They asked for the attacks to stop”

With the world’s spotlights focused on Israel-Gaza, it seems that “all’s quiet on the Iran front.” We imagine that Iran is digging out at Fordow and Isfahan and probably Natanz. We await news of the resumption of IAEA inspections in Iran, at the nuclear power plant Bushehr and other nuclear locations not bombarded by Israel. And we wonder what other nuclear activities Iran might be undertaking in this period of calm. 

Here's what Foreign Minister Araghchi is reported to have said over the weekend (by The Jerusalem Post):
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said, in an interview with the Iranian Student News Agency, that Iran could still strike Israel despite the blows the republic took in June. “The aggression has stopped, and in turn our right to defend has stopped. That’s it. There is no ceasefire agreement; there is nothing else. They stopped the aggression without any conditions, and we stopped the defense. When there is no aggression, naturally, there is no reason to defend ourselves. So, since they asked for the attacks to stop without any conditions, we accepted. Everything can resume. They can resume, we can resume. There is no official ceasefire, and everything is possible, and it is not just Iran that should be worried and concerned.” 

“They asked for the attacks to stop without any conditions.” And the attacks stopped! Is Araghchi referring to just a tweet by Donald Trump? We don’t know. It was remarkable that the “12-day war” stopped, just like that. Why doesn’t Donald Trump do the same with the Israel-Hamas war? 

Israeli political and military leaders have continued to state that they will attack Iran again any time they decide it is necessary. Donald Trump has said the same. Araghchi said “They can resume, we can resume.” All this gives the sense that more is coming around the bend. But let’s hope not.

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