UN watchdog report ‘hardly' justification for attack on Iran
Israel's attack on Iran is not justified by the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) latest report, which states there is no evidence that Tehran is developing a nuclear bomb, according to the agency's chief, Rafael Grossi.
Israel launched airstrikes against Iran last week, claiming it was on the brink of developing a nuclear bomb. Tehran denied the accusation and responded with retaliatory strikes.
Israel's attack came several days after the IAEA Board of Governors declared Iran in breach of its nonproliferation obligations. The resolution cited Grossi's recent report that Iran had enriched uranium to 60% purity, albeit short of the 90% required for weapons-grade material, and was not cooperating with inspectors.
Speaking to CNN's Anderson Cooper on Thursday, Grossi stressed that the IAEA's report 'could hardly be a basis for military action.'
'Military action, whomever it comes [from], is a political decision that has nothing to do with what we are saying,' he said.
Grossi acknowledged that Iran had failed to provide adequate answers to the agency's inquiries, but emphasized that the IAEA 'do not have any indication that there is a systematic program in Iran to manufacture, to produce a nuclear weapon.'
He also noted that enriched uranium alone does not equal a bomb. 'We do not have any evidence that this is ongoing in Iran,' he said.
Tehran had previously accused the IAEA chief of betrayal, saying his 'biased report' was used to 'craft' the resolution used by Israel to justify its 'unlawful attack.'
US intelligence agencies have also maintained there is no evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Nevertheless, US President Donald Trump has dismissed those findings, insisting Iran was 'very close' to getting a bomb when Israel attacked. He has called for Iran's 'unconditional surrender' and warned of possible US involvement if American targets are attacked.
Since launching its assault, Israel has hit several Iranian nuclear sites, including in Natanz, Isfahan, and near Tehran. However, the Israeli military reportedly lacks the capability to breach Iran's fortified Fordow facility – built deep within a mountain – and has allegedly asked the US to use its GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs, according to Axios.
The White House has insisted that Trump had ruled out direct US participation in the strikes. The Wall Street Journal, however, recently claimed the president has already approved a US attack plan but is yet to give the order.
Israel's campaign has drawn widespread condemnation. Moscow has accused West Jerusalem of violating international law and warned that US intervention would escalate the crisis.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
UN watchdog report ‘hardly' justification for attack on Iran
Israel's attack on Iran is not justified by the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) latest report, which states there is no evidence that Tehran is developing a nuclear bomb, according to the agency's chief, Rafael Grossi. Israel launched airstrikes against Iran last week, claiming it was on the brink of developing a nuclear bomb. Tehran denied the accusation and responded with retaliatory strikes. Israel's attack came several days after the IAEA Board of Governors declared Iran in breach of its nonproliferation obligations. The resolution cited Grossi's recent report that Iran had enriched uranium to 60% purity, albeit short of the 90% required for weapons-grade material, and was not cooperating with inspectors. Speaking to CNN's Anderson Cooper on Thursday, Grossi stressed that the IAEA's report 'could hardly be a basis for military action.' 'Military action, whomever it comes [from], is a political decision that has nothing to do with what we are saying,' he said. Grossi acknowledged that Iran had failed to provide adequate answers to the agency's inquiries, but emphasized that the IAEA 'do not have any indication that there is a systematic program in Iran to manufacture, to produce a nuclear weapon.' He also noted that enriched uranium alone does not equal a bomb. 'We do not have any evidence that this is ongoing in Iran,' he said. Tehran had previously accused the IAEA chief of betrayal, saying his 'biased report' was used to 'craft' the resolution used by Israel to justify its 'unlawful attack.' US intelligence agencies have also maintained there is no evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Nevertheless, US President Donald Trump has dismissed those findings, insisting Iran was 'very close' to getting a bomb when Israel attacked. He has called for Iran's 'unconditional surrender' and warned of possible US involvement if American targets are attacked. Since launching its assault, Israel has hit several Iranian nuclear sites, including in Natanz, Isfahan, and near Tehran. However, the Israeli military reportedly lacks the capability to breach Iran's fortified Fordow facility – built deep within a mountain – and has allegedly asked the US to use its GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs, according to Axios. The White House has insisted that Trump had ruled out direct US participation in the strikes. The Wall Street Journal, however, recently claimed the president has already approved a US attack plan but is yet to give the order. Israel's campaign has drawn widespread condemnation. Moscow has accused West Jerusalem of violating international law and warned that US intervention would escalate the crisis.
Russia Today
9 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ex-Russian president warns of new Chernobyl
Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities could result in a nuclear disaster akin to the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned on Thursday. His comments come amid reports that the US is weighing a potential strike on Iran's heavily fortified Fordow nuclear installation, which was built deep into a mountain to withstand airstrikes. The US is reportedly considering the deployment of its GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs to target the site. Israel has no comparable military capability. 'Everyone, even the Israeli defense minister, with his loud declaration about Khamenei's fate, must understand that attacks on nuclear facilities are extremely dangerous and can lead to a repeat of the Chernobyl tragedy,' said Medvedev, who is currently deputy chair of Russia's Security Council, in a social media post. Earlier Thursday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz referred to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as a 'modern-day Hitler' who 'can no longer be allowed to exist.' The Guardian reported on Thursday that US officials doubt whether the GBU-57s would be effective. According to the report, some officials have said that only a tactical nuclear weapon could damage Fordow — a scenario President Donald Trump is reportedly not considering. The White House has dismissed the claims. Fox News cited an anonymous official who said the US military is 'confident bunker busters can complete the job, and NO OPTIONS have been taken off the table.' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has said a final decision on possible US military action would be made within two weeks. Speaking in a Q&A with journalists on Wednesday night Russian President Vladimir Putin said that despite the attacks, Iran's underground infrastructure remained operational. Moscow is calling for deescalation of tensions and has offered itself as a mediator. On Friday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called reports about possible US use of tactical nuclear weapons 'speculative' and warned that such a move would be 'catastrophic.' Tensions flared last Friday when Israel launched unprovoked airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites and assassinated multiple Iranian nuclear scientists and high-ranking military officers. West Jerusalem claimed the operation was a 'preemptive' effort to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran denies its nuclear program has a military dimension, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has said it has seen no signs of imminent weaponization.
Russia Today
15 hours ago
- Russia Today
The end of Israeli exceptionalism
Israel has now been at war with its neighbours for nearly two years. The latest round began with the Hamas-led terrorist attack on 7 October 2023. In response, West Jerusalem launched an aggressive military campaign that has since expanded to touch nearly every country in the region. The escalation has placed the Jewish state at the centre of Middle Eastern geopolitics once again – this time, dragging in Iran, a state that had long avoided direct confrontation through strategic caution. Now, even Tehran finds itself under fire, with US backing making the stakes far higher. Iran is left facing a grim choice between the bad and the very bad. But this isn't about Iran. It's about Israel, a country that has for decades functioned as the West's forward operating base in the Middle East. Since the mid-20th century, Israel has enjoyed a privileged position – a bridgehead of Western power in a volatile region, while also deeply enmeshed in its politics and rivalries. Its success has rested on two pillars: the unshakable support of the United States, and its own internal capacity for innovation, military strength, and a unique social model. That second pillar, however, has weakened. The clearest sign is in demographics: Israel is facing rising negative migration. In 2024, some 82,700 people are expected to leave the country – a 50% increase from the year before. It is not the unskilled or disengaged who are leaving, but the young and educated. The people who are needed to sustain a modern state are choosing to go. Of course, Israel's troubles are not unique. Like many developed nations, it is struggling under the weight of a decaying neoliberal economic system. The pandemic made things worse, exposing the fragility of the model and encouraging a shift toward a 'mobilisation' mode of governance – rule through emergency and constant readiness for conflict. In the West more broadly, war and geopolitical confrontation have become a way to delay or disguise necessary systemic reform. In this regard, Israel has become a laboratory for the West's emerging logic: permanent war as a method of governance. In the autumn of 2023, the Israeli establishment embraced this fully. Conflict became not just a tactic, but a way of life. Its leaders no longer see peace as the goal, but war as the mechanism for national unity and political survival. In this, Israel mirrors the broader Western embrace of conflict with Russia and China – proxy wars chosen when actual reform is off the table. At the global level, nuclear deterrence limits how far such wars can go. But in the Middle East, where Israel wages war directly, those constraints don't apply. This allows war to serve as a pressure valve – politically useful, even as it becomes self-destructive. But even war has limits. It cannot indefinitely mask economic decay or social unrest. And while conflict tends to cement elite power – even among incompetent leadership – it also drains national strength. Israel is now consuming more and more of its own resources to sustain this permanent state of war. Its social cohesion is fraying. Its once-vaunted model of technological and civic progress is no longer functioning as it did. Some in West Jerusalem may dream of 'reformatting' the Middle East – reshaping the region through force and fear. If successful, it could buy Israel a few decades of security and breathing room. But such outcomes are far from guaranteed. Crushing a neighbour doesn't eliminate the threat; it merely brings distant enemies closer. Most importantly, Israel's deepest problems aren't external – they are internal, rooted in its political and social structures. War can define a state, yes. But such states – Sparta, North Korea – tend to be 'peculiar,' to put it mildly. And even for them, war cannot substitute for real diplomacy, policy, or growth. So has Israel, always at war, truly developed? Or has it simply been sustained – politically, militarily, and financially – as a subdivision of American foreign policy? If it continues down this path of permanent conflict and right-wing nationalism, it risks losing even that status. It may cease to be the West's bridge in the Middle East – and become something else entirely: a militarised garrison state, isolated, brittle, and increasingly article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.
