Latest news with #Then-US
RTÉ News
5 days ago
- Politics
- RTÉ News
How has the approach to handling Iran's nuclear programme changed?
For decades, the international community has wrung its hands over Iran's nuclear programme, fretting over the Islamic dictatorship's potential to build a bomb. Strategies on what to do about it have largely bounced from sticks to carrots and back again with little agreement - to this day - on the best approach. Now Israel, with US support, has chosen the stick. So how did we get here? In testimony to the United States Senate in 1992, the then-director of the US Central Intelligence Agency Robert Gates said that Iran's attempts to acquire nuclear weapons could be a "serious problem" within five years or less. The US started pressurising and incentivising Iran's nuclear suppliers - Russia and China - to scale back cooperation with Tehran, which was largely successful. Iran insisted its nuclear development was for civilian purposes only. But, by the turn of the century, the International Atomic Energy Agency investigations into Iran's undeclared nuclear activities revealed traces of high uranium enrichment at a site in Natanz. And soon, the populist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was threatening to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth". The US quickly imposed sanctions with the UN Security Council following suit in what would be the first of several rounds of punitive measures imposed by the UN, EU and individual countries. Israel called for the international community to keep the pressure on. Benjamin Netanyahu, then and now prime minister of Israel turned up at the UN General Assembly in 2012 with an illustration of a bomb depicting, he said, Iran's nuclear capability. "The relevant question is not when Iran will get the bomb," he told delegates. "The relevant question is at what stage can we no longer stop Iran from getting the bomb," he said. But then, in 2015, the mood changed. Then-US President Barack Obama oversaw a historic deal offering sanctions relief in exchange for Iran limiting its nuclear capabilities. Known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), it won the support of major powers including all five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the US, UK, France, Russia and China, as well as Germany. Mr Netanyahu remained staunchly opposed. He said the deal "could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people". Far from blocking Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, he said, the deal paved the path to a bomb. Donald Trump agreed, and as president in 2018, he pulled out of the deal. Some analysts saw that as a costly move that prompted Tehran to redouble its efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon, away from the prying eyes of international inspectors. But others believed that Iran would have pursued nuclear capability regardless and agreed with Mr Trump that it was a "horrible one-sided deal". Nevertheless, by the time he came to power a second time, his intelligence chiefs appeared to have concluded that Iran was not, in fact, close to developing a nuclear warhead. In March, the Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told a Senate hearing that the intelligence community assessed that Iran was "not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme leader Khomeini has not authorised the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003". "We continue to monitor closely if Tehran decides to re-authorise its nuclear weapons program," she said. But last week as Israel began its assault on Iran's nuclear and military sites, Israeli officials framed it as a pre-emptive act of self-defence. "If not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time. It could be a year. It would be within a few months, less than a year". "This is a clear and present danger to Israel's survival," he added. In his remarks, Mr Netanyahu appeared to reference a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency that found Iran had enough uranium enriched to 60% purity – a significant step towards the 90% needed – to potentially make nine nuclear bombs. The body also declared Iran to be in breach of its non-proliferation agreements. But that should not be a pretext for military action, said Susi Snyder of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. "If every country that was in noncompliance with its non-proliferation agreements - as cited by the IAEA - were bombed, we would have seen bombs blow up all over the planet," she told RTÉ News. "The reason that the IAEA reports is in order to alert the international community to enable a diplomatic solution not to be used as an excuse for attack," she said. But now that Israel has bombed Iran's nuclear sites, what happens next? Trita Parsi, Iran expert at the Quincy Institute, a think tank, expects that the Iranian leadership will be reluctant to engage in further negotiations to limit its nuclear capability. "Support for acquiring a nuclear weapon has surged among Iran's elite and broader society in response to the Israeli bombings," he said "This has raised the political cost for Tehran to agree to limit enrichment to civilian levels, making a deal more difficult," he added. The question now is whether Israel's strikes have dealt a decisive blow to Iran's nuclear ambitions. "Despite inflicting significant damage on the Natanz nuclear site, Israel has failed to penetrate the far more critical and heavily fortified Fordow facility," Mr Parsi said. Rafael Mariano Grossi, the head of the IAEA, said the Friday attack destroyed the above-ground part of the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz, one of the plants at which Iran was producing uranium enriched up to 60%. However, he said there was no indication of a physical attack on the "underground cascade hall containing part of the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant and the main Fuel Enrichment Plant". Much of Iran's secretive programme remains underground. But this conflict is not over yet. World leaders are increasingly anxious to see a return to the negotiating table. President Trump said he wanted Israel and Iran to do a deal. And last night, European ministers reportedly held a call with their Iranian counterpart, urging Tehran to resume talks and refrain from escalating the conflict with Israel, according to Reuters. The international community may once again find itself having to choose between carrots and sticks.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
13-06-2025
- Politics
- First Post
Israel-Iran conflict: What are Tehran's nuclear and missile capabilities?
Israel and Iran are at a flashpoint as both sides trade attacks. With a fresh censure from the UN nuclear watchdog, Iran's nuclear and missile programmes are under the spotlight again. With enriched uranium stockpiles near weapons-grade and the region's largest ballistic missile arsenal, how close is Iran to crossing the nuclear threshold? read more Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei views a model of a nuclear facility, in Tehran, Iran, June 11, 2023. Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA via Reuters The confrontation between Tehran and Tel Aviv has reached a tipping point as Israel it claimed were linked to nuclear facilities, ballistic missile manufacturing and senior commanders. The assault, which Israeli officials described as the beginning of a longer campaign to curb Tehran's atomic ambitions, was followed by Iran launching approximately 100 drones towards Israeli territory. US intelligence in February had warned that Israel was weighing strikes, potentially aimed at halting Iran's nuclear progress. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signalled such intent, stating his government would 'finish the job' after earlier attacks from Iran on Israel. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Does Iran have a nuclear weapon? Despite speculation, Iran does not yet possess a nuclear weapon. However, international analysts widely agree that it has both the technological expertise and industrial infrastructure necessary to produce one relatively quickly if its leadership decides to proceed. Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), acknowledged in last month that 'the [Iranian] programme runs wide and deep.' Military personnel stand guard at a nuclear facility in the Zardanjan area of Isfahan, Iran, April 19, 2024, in this screengrab taken from video. WANA via Reuters Iran's enrichment of uranium — used to fuel nuclear reactors or, at higher levels, nuclear weapons — has reached near-weapons grade at 60 per cent, according to IAEA reports and US officials. Then-US Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated in June 2024 that Iran could potentially produce weapons-grade fissile material within 'one or two weeks.' Some intelligence reports suggest a covert group of Iranian scientists may be pursuing a more rapid, albeit rudimentary, path to weaponisation. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which initially aimed to restrict Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon, was abandoned by the US under the first Trump administration in 2018. A satellite image shows the Natanz nuclear facility in Iran in this handout image dated January 24, 2025. Maxar Technologies via Reuters Since then, Iran has accelerated its nuclear enrichment activities while curtailing international inspections, particularly since 2021. In its most recent evaluations, the IAEA concluded that Iran's stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium surged by approximately 50 per cent in the three months preceding May — reportedly enough to produce material for up to ten nuclear bombs. Where does Iran house its nuclear facilities? Iran's nuclear infrastructure spans over a dozen known locations. The Natanz facility is its primary enrichment centre, while Bushehr hosts its only civilian nuclear power plant on the Persian Gulf coast. A May 2025 IAEA report also identified three additional sites — Lavisan-Shian, Turquzabad and Varamin — where undeclared nuclear-related activities took place, allegedly involving the use of unreported nuclear material. A satellite image shows the Arak facility in Iran in this handout image dated February 15, 2025. Maxar Technologies via Reuters The same IAEA report found that three of the four examined locations had been part of a clandestine nuclear programme that existed until the early 2000s. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD While Iran denies ever pursuing nuclear weapons, these findings support longstanding IAEA and US intelligence assessments that Tehran had a structured weapons programme up until 2003, followed by intermittent experimentation. On June 6, 2025, the IAEA Board of Governors, comprising 35 nations, passed a resolution formally declaring Iran in breach of its nuclear non-proliferation obligations. The resolution, supported by the US, UK, France and Germany, cited Iran's failure to cooperate with the agency and its inability to explain uranium traces at undeclared sites. Rafael Grossi stated that the agency's concerns were consistent with past suspicions. Iran rejected the censure and announced plans to construct a new uranium enrichment facility. A satellite image shows the tunnel complex near the Natanz nuclear facility in Iran in this handout image dated January 24, 2025. Maxar Technologies via Reuters Diplomatic sources noted that while the resolution hinted at referring Iran to the UN Security Council, that would require a separate resolution — much like in 2006, the last time Iran was declared non-compliant and formally referred. What are Iran's missile capabilities? In addition to its nuclear programme, Iran's missile arsenal presents a significant strategic challenge in the region. The country possesses the region's largest inventory of ballistic missiles, according to US intelligence, with some reports suggesting Tehran had over 3,000 such missiles. These missiles — capable of reaching distances of up to 2,000 kilometres — can strike targets throughout West Asia and parts of Europe. Iran has also used these systems to devastating effect during recent strikes, including its retaliation against Israel in 2024. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Ballistic missiles, with their high speeds and parabolic flight paths, are notably harder to intercept than drones or cruise missiles. A hoarding depicting missiles in Tehran, Iran. File Image/AFP Defence analysts have warned that large conventional warheads, such as those carried by Iran's medium and long-range missiles, could cause mass casualties in populated areas. Comparisons have been drawn to similar payloads used by Russia in Ukraine and by Israel in Gaza, which reportedly left craters more than 12 metres wide. Iran also continues to supply drones and short-range ballistic missiles to Russia, enhancing military ties with Moscow amid the war in Ukraine. The provision of these systems has further alarmed Western powers, concerned about Tehran's expanding military-industrial reach. What about the US-Iran nuclear talks? The reelection of Donald Trump has reopened the possibility of US-Iran negotiations, with bilateral talks having resumed in Oman early this year. However, talks remain stagnant, with Iran demanding sanctions relief and Washington pushing for deeper dismantlement of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Trump has stated his administration will apply 'maximum pressure' while seeking a deal 'stronger' than the 2015 agreement. The May 2025 IAEA revelations injected new urgency into the talks. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD A satellite image shows the Fordo nuclear facility in Iran, January 24, 2025. Maxar Technologies via Reuters Many foreign policy analysts argue that should Iran achieve nuclear weapons capability, it could alter the region's strategic balance, embolden Tehran's foreign policy and prompt neighbouring powers like Saudi Arabia to pursue nuclear arms, leading to a proliferation spiral in the region. Experts also note that Israel's repeated strikes on nuclear sites in Iraq (1981), Syria (2007) and now Iran, reflect a clear doctrine of pre-emptive action to prevent hostile states from acquiring nuclear arms. However, some warn that further strikes could push Iran into a decisive race toward weaponisation or even provoke withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Earlier this month, IAEA's Grossi cautioned that continued escalation could backfire. 'An Israeli strike could solidify Iran's resolve to build its own nuclear weapon,' he warned. Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
Mint
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Mint
Russia doubts possibility of new US nuclear pact amid ‘ruined' bilateral ties as START Treaty nears end
Russia thinks chances are fading for agreeing on a new pact to replace the last nuclear arms control treaty with the US, which expires early next year, a top arms control official said. The main obstacle to any agreement is the state of US-Russian ties, which are 'in ruins,' said Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov in an interview published with the state-run Tass news service on Friday. 'There are no grounds for the full-scale resumption of the New START treaty under the current circumstances,' Ryabkov said, according to Tass. 'Considering that the treaty is reaching the end of its life cycle in approximately eight months, any discussion about the realism of such a scenario is becoming increasingly meaningless.' Russian President Vladimir Putin in February 2023 suspended participation in the New START nuclear treaty though Moscow pledged to continue complying with its terms until the accord's expiration. Russia in April said it continues to respect the pact's limits on nuclear arsenals, which restricts each side to 1,550 deployed strategic warheads. Then-US President Joe Biden extended the treaty by five years to 2026 as one of his first acts upon taking office in 2021 shortly before it was due to expire. Putin had pressed President Donald Trump during his first term without success to agree to a deal. The end of the treaty would mean the US loses access to inspections and monitoring data about the number of deployed Russian nuclear warheads, as well as the land- and sea-based vehicles used to launch them. The potential loss of the nuclear arms control mechanism comes amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, now in its fourth year, which has sparked the worst tensions with the West in decades. Trump's efforts to resolve the conflict have met with no success so far, though his administration has started talks with Moscow on restoring diplomatic operations after contacts were all but cut off following the start of the war.
The Age
01-06-2025
- Politics
- The Age
King Charles and Pope Leo defend US Constitution from Trump
When King Charles – in his capacity as King of Canada – opened the new parliament in Ottawa last Tuesday, the symbolism could not have been more powerful, or the King's purpose more clear. While it is not unprecedented for the sovereign to open a new parliament in one of the Commonwealth nations of which they are head of state, it is seldom done. (It last took place in Australia in 1977.) It had not happened in Canada since 1957. When the Queen opened parliament then, it was an occasion of ceremonial significance only. Then-US president Dwight Eisenhower was not threatening to 'annex' Canada as the 51st state of the US, nor had he launched a trade war with the deliberate intention of severely damaging the economy of America's closest ally. Last week's proceedings, though attended by the customary pomp and circumstance, were not about ceremony. Although the King's words might not have been provocative in ordinary times, because of the events of recent months, they were crafted with unmistakable meaning and deliberate intent. Recalling the shared sacrifices of two world wars, the existential struggle of the Cold War and the war on terror, he said: 'Today, Canada faces another critical moment. Democracy, pluralism, the rule of law, self-determination and freedom are values which Canadians hold dear, and ones which the government is determined to protect … As the anthem reminds us: 'the True North is strong and free!'' It was the most politically pointed speech given by a British monarch in the modern age – a reprimand to the president who did not mince words: keep your hands off my realm! No prime minister could have delivered that message so effectively. It did not come just from a politician; it came from a king. A real king, not a vainglorious tabloid celebrity with delusions of grandeur, like the person to whom it was directed. King Charles' speech came just two weeks after another historic event: the inauguration of Pope Leo XIV. Unlike the modern monarchy, the Vatican has not avoided engaging actively, if circumspectly, in high politics. There is no better recent example than the pontificate of John Paul II, the importance of whose discreet but purposeful support for the democratic revolution of the 1980s in his native Poland is increasingly being appreciated by historians. It may have been Reagan and Thatcher who brought communism down, but John Paul II played an important role as well. Loading I remember, as a student, travelling through Poland in the summer of 1982. As the regime began to totter, the despised dictator General Wojciech Jaruzelski imposed martial law. Fearful people converged upon parish churches, which became centres of resistance and mobilisation. (Poland was still the most Catholic country in Europe.) The co-operation of the Polish church with the revolutionary Solidarity movement had the firm support of the former archbishop of Krakow. It is too soon to know how politically engaged the new Pope will be. His choice of papal name – in homage to Leo XIII, who, in the encyclical Rerum Novarum, famously defended the rights of workers and organised labour – has been widely interpreted as a revealing gesture. When he was still Cardinal Prevost, he did not hesitate to use social media to criticise US President Donald Trump's mass deportation of migrants – most of them from South America. As the first North American pope, his potential influence in his homeland could be immense, should he choose to use it.
Sydney Morning Herald
01-06-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
King Charles and Pope Leo defend US Constitution from Trump
When King Charles – in his capacity as King of Canada – opened the new parliament in Ottawa last Tuesday, the symbolism could not have been more powerful, or the King's purpose more clear. While it is not unprecedented for the sovereign to open a new parliament in one of the Commonwealth nations of which they are head of state, it is seldom done. (It last took place in Australia in 1977.) It had not happened in Canada since 1957. When the Queen opened parliament then, it was an occasion of ceremonial significance only. Then-US president Dwight Eisenhower was not threatening to 'annex' Canada as the 51st state of the US, nor had he launched a trade war with the deliberate intention of severely damaging the economy of America's closest ally. Last week's proceedings, though attended by the customary pomp and circumstance, were not about ceremony. Although the King's words might not have been provocative in ordinary times, because of the events of recent months, they were crafted with unmistakable meaning and deliberate intent. Recalling the shared sacrifices of two world wars, the existential struggle of the Cold War and the war on terror, he said: 'Today, Canada faces another critical moment. Democracy, pluralism, the rule of law, self-determination and freedom are values which Canadians hold dear, and ones which the government is determined to protect … As the anthem reminds us: 'the True North is strong and free!'' It was the most politically pointed speech given by a British monarch in the modern age – a reprimand to the president who did not mince words: keep your hands off my realm! No prime minister could have delivered that message so effectively. It did not come just from a politician; it came from a king. A real king, not a vainglorious tabloid celebrity with delusions of grandeur, like the person to whom it was directed. King Charles' speech came just two weeks after another historic event: the inauguration of Pope Leo XIV. Unlike the modern monarchy, the Vatican has not avoided engaging actively, if circumspectly, in high politics. There is no better recent example than the pontificate of John Paul II, the importance of whose discreet but purposeful support for the democratic revolution of the 1980s in his native Poland is increasingly being appreciated by historians. It may have been Reagan and Thatcher who brought communism down, but John Paul II played an important role as well. Loading I remember, as a student, travelling through Poland in the summer of 1982. As the regime began to totter, the despised dictator General Wojciech Jaruzelski imposed martial law. Fearful people converged upon parish churches, which became centres of resistance and mobilisation. (Poland was still the most Catholic country in Europe.) The co-operation of the Polish church with the revolutionary Solidarity movement had the firm support of the former archbishop of Krakow. It is too soon to know how politically engaged the new Pope will be. His choice of papal name – in homage to Leo XIII, who, in the encyclical Rerum Novarum, famously defended the rights of workers and organised labour – has been widely interpreted as a revealing gesture. When he was still Cardinal Prevost, he did not hesitate to use social media to criticise US President Donald Trump's mass deportation of migrants – most of them from South America. As the first North American pope, his potential influence in his homeland could be immense, should he choose to use it.
