Press TV – September 26, 2025
The United States and its allies veto a draft resolution aimed at delaying “snapback” of the UN Security Council’s sanctions against Iran that were lifted in 2015 in line with a nuclear deal between the Islamic Republic and world countries.
On Friday, the US, the UK, France, Denmark, Greece, Panama, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, and Somalia vetoed the draft measure seeking to delay imposition of the coercive economic measures for six months.
China, Russia, Algeria, and Pakistan voted in favor of the measure that had been submitted by Beijing and Moscow. South Korea and Guyana abstained.
According to the UN, “The so-called ‘snapback’ mechanism [now] remains in force, which will see sanctions rei-imposed on Tehran this weekend, following the termination of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).”
JCPOA refers to the official name of the nuclear deal that upon conclusion was endorsed by the Security Council in the form of its Resolution 2231.
The agreement lifted the sanctions, which had been imposed on Iran by the Security Council and the US, the UK, France, and Germany over unfounded allegations concerning Tehran’s peaceful nuclear energy program.
The bans had been enforced against the nation, despite the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s having historically failed to find any proof of “diversion” of the nuclear program.
The US left the JCPOA in an illegal and unilateral move in 2018 and then re-imposed those of its sanctions that the deal had removed.
In 2020, Washington went further by trying unilaterally to trigger the “snapback.”
After the American withdrawal, the UK, France, and Germany too resorted to non-commitment vis-à-vis the Islamic Republic by stopping their trade with Tehran.
The Friday vote came after the trio launched their own bid to activate the “snapback” on August 28.
The allies have been rehashing their accusations concerning Iran’s nuclear energy activities in order to try to justify their bid to reenact the sanctions, ignoring absence of any proof provided by the IAEA that has subjected the Islamic Republic to the agency’s most intrusive inspections in history.
They have also constantly refused to accept their numerous instances of non-commitment to the JCPOA.
Iran, however, began observing an entire year of “strategic patience” following the US’s withdrawal – the first serious violation of the nuclear agreement – before retaliating incrementally in line with its legal right that has been enshrined in the deal itself.
In the meantime, the Islamic Republic has both voiced its preparedness to partake in dialog besides actually engaging in negotiation aimed at resolving the situation brought about by the Western allies’ intransigence.
Tehran refused to categorically rule out talks with the European troika even after illegal and unprovoked attacks by the Israeli regime and the United States against key Iranian nuclear facilities in June, which made it impossible for the IAEA to continue its inspections as before.
The Islamic Republic’s latest goodwill gesture came on September 9, when it signed a framework agreement with the IAEA aimed at resuming cooperation with the agency, which had been suspended following the attacks.
The Friday vote came, although, Iranian officials, including President Masoud Pezeshkian, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, and security chief Ali Larijani, had strongly warned the US and its allies against triggering the “snapback.”
Araghchi had cautioned that such vote would lead to termination of the agreement with the IAEA, while Pezeshkian had noted that talks would be “meaningless” if the mechanism were to be enacted.
Meeting with anti-war activists in New York on Thursday, the president had called the prospect of re-imposition of the sanctions unwelcome, but added that the coercive measures did not signal “the end of the road.”
“Iran will never submit to them,” he had said, referring to the bans, and added that the Islamic Republic “will find the means of exiting any [unwelcome] situation.”
China voices ‘deep regret,’ discourages renewed aggression
Reacting to the vote, China’s Deputy UN Ambassador Geng Shuang similarly expressed “deep regret” for the failure to adopt the draft resolution, identifying dialogue and negotiation as two of “the only viable options” out of the situation caused by the Western measures.
He urged the US “to demonstrate political will” and “commit unequivocally to refraining from further military strikes against Iran.”
Geng further called on the European trio to engage in good faith in diplomatic efforts and abandon their approach of pushing for sanctions and coercive pressure against Iran.
Russia slams US, allies for lack of ‘courage, wisdom’
The remarks were echoed by Geng’s Russian counterpart Dmitry Polyanskiy, who said, “We regret the fact that a number of Security Council colleagues were unable to summon the courage or the wisdom to support our draft.”
“We had hoped that European colleagues and the US would think twice, and they would opt for the path of diplomacy and dialogue instead of their clumsy blackmail,” he said.
Such approach, the diplomat added, “merely results in escalation of the situation in the region.”
Speaking before the vote, Polyanskiy had also told the chamber that Iran had done all it could to accommodate Europeans, but that Western powers had refused to compromise.
By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | September 24, 2025
On September 19th, the UN Security Council voted to reimpose savage economic restrictions on Iran over its nuclear program. European leaders have in recent months repeatedly accused Tehran of refusing to abide by the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action’s terms. A core, repeated claim is the Islamic Republic has collated a uranium stock over 40 times the level permitted under that deal. No supporting evidence for the charge has been provided, and the source of this information isn’t clear.
It may nonetheless be highly significant London has taken the lead in calling for the restoration of sanctions, independently imposed punitive measures on Iranian individuals and commercial entities, and employed relentlessly bellicose rhetoric about the Islamic Republic’s purported breaches of its JCPOA commitments. In August, then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy declared Tehran had “consistently failed to provide credible assurances on the nature of its nuclear programme.” In the wake of the UNSC vote, British ambassador Barbara Woodward proclaimed, “we urge [Iran] to act now.”
As this journalist has previously exposed, the JCPOA resulted from a long-running MI6 black propaganda campaign to falsely frame the Islamic Republic as possessing nuclear weapon ambitions, if not nukes outright. Under the Agreement’s terms, Tehran received sanctions relief in return for granting the International Atomic Energy Agency virtually unhindered access to its secret nuclear complexes. Despite the IAEA consistently certifying Iran’s compliance, the Trump administration shredded the Agreement in May 2018, and launched a “maximum pressure” campaign to cripple the country.
Information gathered by the IAEA under the Agreement appears to have assisted Israel’s criminal 12 Day War in June, raising the obvious question of whether the Agreement was always intended as an espionage operation, in preparation for future conflict with Tehran. This interpretation is amply reinforced by leaked documents, indicating the IAEA provided Zionist entity intelligence with names of Iranian nuclear scientists who were subsequently assassinated. Meanwhile, the papers show Agency chief Rafael Grossi enjoys an intimate, covert relationship with officials in Tel Aviv.
These disclosures understandably motivated Iranian lawmakers and President Masoud Pezeshkian to halt any and all cooperation with the Agency. The sanctions eased by the JCPOA being the product of an MI6 black propaganda effort, to falsely convince the West and its overseas proxies and puppets Tehran posed a global nuclear weapon threat, provides the Republic with even more urgent justification for ignoring the Agreement’s terms. Iran’s grounds for rejecting any accommodation with the same countries now seeking to sanction her are inarguable.
‘Supportive Relations’
At the centre of MI6’s black propaganda war on Iran was longtime British intelligence officer Nicholas Langman, a veteran dark arts specialist who has been repeatedly publicly exposed perpetrating the dirtiest imaginable deeds for London’s foreign spying agency the world over. He was for example intimately implicated in Britain’s contribution to the CIA’s global post-9/11 torture program. However, rather than being penalised or defenestrated for his actions and unmasking, he appears to have been richly rewarded, and consistently failed upwards.
A leaked CV shows 2006 – 2008, Langman led MI6’s Iran Department. Here, he oversaw a team seeking to “develop understanding” of Iran’s “nuclear program”. Then, 2010 – 2012, he led an “inter-agency” effort to infiltrate the IAEA, while “[building] highly effective and mutually supportive relations across government and with senior US, European, Middle and Far Eastern colleagues for strategy which enabled major diplomatic success [sic] of Iranian nuclear and sanctions agreement.”
It was during the latter period that public and governmental attitudes across the West – and in vassal states – towards the Islamic Republic became highly belligerent, and negative. One by one, governments and international bodies – including the EU and UN – imposed ravaging sanctions against Tehran, devastating its economy, influence, and standing. MI6 journeyman Langman triumphed in his mission to foment concerted global hostility against Iran, based on the bogus spectre of the country posing a nuclear threat.
The question of whether British ‘intelligence’ on Iran’s nuclear program was the product of torture is an open and obvious one. Langman moved straight to leading MI6’s Iran Department from running the agency’s station in Athens, Greece. There, in late 2005, he was exposed by local media as having overseen an operation to abduct and ferociously mistreat 28 Pakistani guestworkers, wrongfully suspected of having had contact with individuals accused of perpetrating the 7/7 bombings in London in July that year.
That Langman wasn’t reprimanded over the incident strongly suggests he enjoyed a high level of protection, and London approved of his vicious intelligence-gathering methods – known to invariably produce false testimony from detainees. MI6 was not only an enthusiastic collaborator in the CIA’s global extraordinary rendition program, but led its own operations. Markedly, in at least one case, the British sought to sideline the CIA and ensure exclusive access to “intelligence” from a detainee in which Langley also had an interest.
The Obama administration was during its first year in office formally committed to non-interference in the Islamic Republic’s affairs, to the extent State Department apparatchik Jared Cohen was almost fired for publicly demanding Twitter halt planned maintenance during June 2009 protests in Iran, to ensure demonstrators could continue posting. It’s therefore unknown whether Washington was in on MI6’s Iran nuke con. If not, it wouldn’t be the first time British intelligence has misled the international community, with catastrophic results.
‘Possible Manipulation’
In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a scathing report on “the US intelligence community’s prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq.” It reserved particular disdain for how the CIA et al had “[relied] too heavily on foreign government services and third party reporting, thereby increasing the potential for manipulation of U.S. policy by foreign interests [emphasis added].” This was a reference to MI6’s central role in gathering – or concocting – intelligence on Baghdad’s purported WMD capabilities:
“Due to the lack of unilateral sources on Iraq’s links to terrorist groups like al-Qaida [redacted], the [US] Intelligence Community (IC) relied too heavily on foreign government service reporting and sources to whom it did not have direct access to determine the relationship between Iraq and [redacted] terrorist groups… The IC left itself open to possible manipulation by foreign governments and other parties interested in influencing US policy.”
As far back as the late 1990s, Britain’s foreign spying agency took the lead on sourcing dud ‘intelligence’ to manufacture consent for the against Baghdad. Under the auspices of a psychological warfare effort dubbed Operation Mass Appeal, MI6 black propaganda specialists circulated false information to foreign editors and reporters on its payroll “to help shape public opinion about Iraq and the threat posed by WMD,” which was then recycled by Western leaders and news outlets to reinforce its credibility.
In September 2002, then-MI6 chief Richard Dearlove personally approached British Prime Minister Tony Blair, claiming his agency had cultivated a source inside Iraq with “phenomenal access”, who could provide the “key to unlock” Iraq’s purported WMD program. Their assorted claims subsequently formed the basis of a dossier, which made a number of wild charges about Baghdad’s chemical and biological weapon capabilities. A prominently reported allegation was that Iraq could deploy WMD against Western countries within just 45 minutes. Its source was an Iraqi taxi driver.
This claim was repeated in a radio address by George W. Bush that month. In January the next year, as the invasion of Iraq rapidly loomed, the President declared in his State of the Union address, “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” That December, then-CIA chief George Tenet admitted this assertion was completely fallacious, and “these 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.”
The Zionist entity justified its unprovoked assault against Iran in June in large part on an intelligence dossier, which concluded the Islamic Republic had reached the “point of no return” in acquiring nukes. Its findings relied heavily on a May IAEA report that provided zero fresh information, but concluded Tehran supposedly maintained “undeclared nuclear material” until the early 2000s. While intended to trigger regime change, Tel Aviv’s broadside ended promptly in embarrassing failure, despite extensive foreign support, including US airstrikes.
Undeterred by the fiasco, Benjamin Netanyahu remains determined to crush the “Iranian axis”, while Trump has declared he would bomb Tehran “without a question” in response to indications the Islamic Republic has enriched uranium beyond agreed levels. We could be on the precipice of another war. As with the Iraq invasion, the perilous trail that brought us to this grave point could lead back to London. Yet again, MI6 may have taken the lead in concocting ‘intelligence’, justifying further US-Israeli aggression against the Islamic Republic.
By Fereshteh Sadeghi | The Cradle | September 15, 2025
Three months after the Israeli occupation state’s aerial assault on Iran, the Iranian government reached a new deal with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The agreement, and the fact that IAEA chief Rafael Grossi and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi offered conflicting interpretations of it, has outraged Iranian political circles and the public, many of whom view Grossi as a facilitator of Israeli aggression. Araghchi is now accused of concealing details of the agreement and repeating the mistakes of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal.
Iran signs surprise deal with IAEA after Israeli strikes
During a brief visit to Egypt on 12 September, Araghchi shook hands with Grossi as they announced a deal on the resumption of UN inspections of Iran’s nuclear program. The agreement was significant as Tehran had halted its cooperation with the IAEA in the wake of the Israeli aggression in June, and a parliamentary vote had suspended international inspections. The vote had been ratified after the cessation of the 12-day war between Iran and the occupation state in late June, amid accusations that the IAEA was sharing intelligence on their nuclear facilities and scientists with Israel and the US. Iranian officials claimed two IAEA inspectors smuggled classified documents on the Fordow nuclear site to Vienna. Iran revoked their licenses, but the agency took no punitive action. Fordow was later bombed by US B-52 bombers. Grossi’s 12 June report to the IAEA Board of Governors, which accused Iran of failing to meet its safeguards obligations, is widely seen as having paved the way for the 12-day Israel–Iran war that started one day after on 13 June. The agency’s refusal to condemn Tel Aviv’s attacks deepened Iranian distrust.
E3 pushes for sanctions as Iran tries to avoid snapback
As Iran withdrew from indirect nuclear talks with the US and halted cooperation with the IAEA, Germany, France, and Britain (the E3) announced their intention to reinstate UN sanctions. Those sanctions had been suspended under the 2015 JCPOA. The E3 said it would trigger the snapback mechanism before its expiry in mid-October, claiming that Iran had failed to uphold its commitments.
Seeking to avoid further sanctions, Iran agreed to engage the E3 in talks in late August. In exchange for Iranian cooperation with the IAEA, clarification on 440 kilograms of highly enriched uranium stockpiled before the Israeli attack, and a return to US negotiations, the Europeans offered to extend the snapback deadline by six months. Iran rejected the offer. The E3 then launched the snapback process but gave Iran a 30-day deadline to comply with the UN atomic watchdog’s demands. A week later, IAEA inspectors were scheduled to visit Iran to supervise fuel replacement at the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Araghchi reassured lawmakers that the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) had authorized the inspectors’ visit and insisted all cooperation would comply with the law banning extensive IAEA engagement. A source close to the Iranian Foreign Ministry tells The Cradle that inspectors had also planned to visit other facilities, including the Tehran Research Reactor, but those plans were quietly scrapped under parliamentary pressure. Then, without warning, the Araghchi–Grossi agreement in Cairo was revealed, shocking Iranian society. The deal guarantees renewed Iranian cooperation with the IAEA.
Parliament sidelined, backlash intensifies
One day before Araghchi’s Cairo trip on 9 September, parliamentarian Hussein-Ali Haji-Deligani warned that a new IAEA deal was imminent – one that violated Iranian law and did not protect national rights. He warned Araghchi against signing or risking impeachment. Once news of the agreement broke, reports surfaced that the Iranian legislature, the Majlis, would close for three weeks for lawmakers to visit their constituencies. Critics alleged this was a calculated move to shield the Cairo agreement from scrutiny.
While the Foreign Ministry and the SNSC remained silent, Grossi publicly elaborated:
“The technical document would include access to all facilities and installations in Iran and contemplates the required reporting on all the attacked facilities including the nuclear material present at those and that will open the way for respective inspections and access.”
That statement drew sharp rebuke. Tehran MP Amir-Hussein Sabeti said, “This passive and weak settlement to renew cooperation with the IAEA contradicts national interests, paves the way for new [Israeli] strikes, and clearly violates the law.”
In a televised debate, Araghchi attempted to allay the criticism, claiming the deal was approved by the SNSC. He dismissed Grossi’s remarks as “his own interpretation of the text”, adding, “from now on, the IAEA should request access to each nuclear site and the SNSC will review the requests case by case.”
The Iranian top diplomat stressed that “as long as Iran has not implemented environmental and safety measures at the attacked facilities, the IAEA will not be granted permission to visit them.” He insisted the agreement had nothing to do with the E3’s ultimatum; nevertheless, he contradicted himself by stating, “This settlement will be declared null and void if the Snapback mechanism goes into effect.”
Araghchi faces mounting calls for impeachment
Araghchi’s inconsistent justifications failed to quell the backlash. His repeated references to the SNSC did little to calm MPs. And in Iranian politics, it is an unprecedented event. Tehran’s Hamid Rasaei posted on X, “Ambiguities remain despite Araghchi’s explanations. Therefore, the Foreign Ministry must publish the text of the agreement.” He added sarcastically, “We usually kept deals secret for fear of the enemies. But since the other party is Grossi – the Israeli spy – there’s no reason to hide this deal from the public.” His colleague, Kamran Ghazanfari, went further to threaten Araghchi, “either deny Grossi’s remarks and share the signed document with lawmakers, or get prepared for your impeachment. We are not treating our national interests flippantly.”
Keyhan newspaper openly called the Cairo deal “invalid” because it does not meet the requirements of the Iranian law. Rajanews compared the Cairo document with Lausanne’s nuclear deal, adding, “Back in 2015, the government of Hassan Rouhani and then FM [Mohammad Javad] Zarif refused to publish the relevant fact sheet. Only later, Iranians found out the fact sheet had imposed unprecedented restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program.”
As public scrutiny intensified, the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee summoned Araghchi for a closed-door session. He described the three-hour meeting as “very good and constructive” but revealed no details. According to reports, “Araghchi provided the committee with the text of the memorandum” and “it was decided that cooperation with the IAEA remain only in the framework of the law and its implementation depends on non-happening of the Snapback.” That reassurance did little to assuage critics. Rasaei summed up the mood with a blunt X post, “The three-hour session finished. It’s the JCPOA all over again.”
On 14 September, the SNSC issued a statement indicating that its Nuclear Committee had ratified the Cairo agreement, adding “the committee is backed by the SNSC whose decisions are confirmed by Iran’s leader [Ali Khamenei].” Yet, the statement also stressed that should any hostile action be taken against the Islamic Republic and its nuclear facilities, including the reinstatement of the terminated resolutions of the UN Security Council, the implementation of the arrangements would be suspended. So far, 90 lawmakers have asked Majlis Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf to convene a session on the Cairo memorandum. Ghalibaf has yet to comply.
In a country still reeling from the JCPOA’s consequences, lawmakers are increasingly determined to block another unilateral, opaque agreement made without parliamentary oversight.
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 16.09.2025
Iran, Russia, Belarus, China, Venezuela, and Nicaragua have submitted a draft resolution to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) calling for a ban on any attacks or threats against safeguarded nuclear sites.
The initiative of the six countries, titled Prohibition of all forms of attack and threats of attack against nuclear sites and facilities under IAEA safeguards, is meant to defend the integrity of the NPT, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei stated on X, in a reference to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
The draft:
Stresses that all states have the right to peaceful nuclear energy and are entitled to guarantees against military threats;
*Reaffirms that no country should target another’s safeguarded nuclear facilities.
Baqaei urged the international community to act decisively, warning against the “normalization of lawlessness.”
The Cradle | September 10, 2025
Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officially agreed to resume cooperation on 9 September, following a suspension over Israel’s US-backed war against the country and its strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
The meeting between IAEA chief Rafael Grossi and Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was hosted by Egypt.
“In Cairo today, I agreed with Iran’s Foreign Minister on practical modalities to resume inspection activities in Iran. This is an important step in the right direction,” Grossi said on X.
During a press conference between Grossi, Araghchi, and his Egyptian counterpart, the Iranian foreign minister said, “the development marks an important step in demonstrating the Islamic Republic’s goodwill and its commitment to resolving all issues related to its peaceful nuclear program through diplomacy and dialogue.”
“Iran has remained steadfast in defending its inalienable rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to peaceful nuclear energy, even while facing illegal and criminal attacks by the Israeli regime and the US, and has shown readiness to engage in meaningful dialogue for the implementation of its obligations,” he added.
US and Israeli strikes on the Islamic Republic have “fundamentally altered the conditions under which Iran had cooperated with the IAEA.”
As a result, a “new mechanism” has been reached after intensive talks between Iran and the IAEA recently, Araghchi said.
Unnamed diplomats cited by Reuters said “the devil was in the details, and neither Grossi nor Araghchi provided any.”
In early July, Tehran formally suspended cooperation with the IAEA. Talks between the two sides resumed the following month.
Iran stressed that it could not “completely end” its cooperation with the agency, but said “new conditions” would need to be reached.
The Iranian government had previously accused the agency of passing along sensitive information obtained from inspections over to Israel. It also said the agency paved the way for Israel’s war with its anti-Iran report in May and its resolution accusing Tehran of not fulfilling nuclear obligations, which was passed just one day before Tel Aviv attacked.
It also accused it of failing to properly condemn the attack on nuclear sites.
Officials even signaled potential legal action against Grossi himself, who was barred from entering the country in late June.
Sputnik – 10.09.2025
Iran has not yet given permission to IAEA inspectors to visit its nuclear facilities, despite an agreement to resume cooperation, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Wednesday.
“I should note that under this agreement, we are currently not giving access to IAEA inspectors,” Araghchi said on Telelgram.
RT | July 21, 2025
Russia, China, and Iran will hold talks on Tuesday to discuss Tehran’s nuclear program, Esmaeil Baghaei, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, has announced. He noted that a separate round of talks with European nations is scheduled for later this week.
Speaking to reporters on Monday, Baghaei said that the trilateral talks would also focus on the threats by Britain, France, and Germany to reimpose UN sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. In particular, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot warned of a potential sanctions snapback next month if no meaningful progress is made in limiting Iran’s nuclear activities.
Baghaei noted that Russia and China remain members of the 2015 nuclear deal and hold significant influence in the UN Security Council. He added that Iran had had “good consultations” with the two countries regarding the potential sanctions snapback. “Legally and logically, there is no reason for the return of sanctions lifted under the [nuclear deal],” he stressed.
The spokesman also confirmed that Iran would hold a separate meeting at the deputy foreign minister level with Britain, France, and Germany in Istanbul on Friday, adding that Tehran has “no plans to talk with the US” at this time.
One of the key stumbling blocks has been Iran’s decision to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was monitoring Tehran’s nuclear program. Tehran has accused the IAEA of releasing a biased report, which was allegedly used as a pretense by Israel to launch a 12-day war against Iran.
The Israeli attack came after Iran-US nuclear talks ended up at an impasse due to Washington’s demand that Tehran fully abandon uranium enrichment. While the US has argued that Iran could use the capacity to create a nuclear bomb, Iran has dismissed any plans of doing so, insisting that it needs enrichment to fuel its civilian energy industry.
Both Russia and China maintain that the Iranian nuclear crisis can only be resolved through political and diplomatic means.
21st Century Wire | July 2, 2025
Dr. Piers Robinson is a political scientist, a former professor at the University of Sheffield, as well a research director at the International Center for 9/11 Justice, whose recent article on Substack is titled, “The IAEA and OPCW: Watchdogs for Peace or Propagandists for War?” looks at the IAEA’s questionable operations in Iran, and the similarities to the abused OPCW in Syria, and in general the role of “lying through institutions”, and plying war-propaganda through third-party institutions.
Recent events in Iran have all but exposed how these supposed ‘watchdog’ institutions have been coopted and used by US and British intelligence in order to fabricate another case for war.
Pascal Lottaz, host of Neutrality Studies, talks with the co-director for the Organisation for Propaganda Studies, Dr Piers Robinson, about this, as well as the broader geopolitical implications at play here. Watch:
Al Mayadeen | July 2, 2025
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has issued a decree suspending the country’s cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), according to a report by Tasnim news agency on Wednesday.
The decision comes amid heightened tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program and follows recent legislative developments from the Iranian parliament.
Last week, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf announced that lawmakers had enacted a law mandating the suspension of cooperation with the IAEA, which he described as “Israel’s protector and servant.”
Ghalibaf argued that continued cooperation with the IAEA was untenable as long as the security of Iran’s nuclear facilities remained unresolved, claiming the agency’s impartiality had been compromised by its ties to “Israel”.
Grossi barred from Iran’s nuclear facilities
Meanwhile, Deputy Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Hamid Reza Haji Babaei, announced on Sunday that IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi has been barred from accessing Iranian nuclear facilities or placing surveillance cameras there, after Iran suspended all cooperation with the nuclear watchdog.
“We will no longer give Grossi permission to be present at [Iran’s] nuclear facilities and install cameras [there] because we saw information about our facilities in documents received from … the Israeli regime,” Haji Babaei told ISNA news agency.
The Islamic Republic further exposed profound cooperation between the IAEA and the Israeli occupation, which prompted Iran to obtain, through a major intelligence operation, a vast trove of highly classified strategic documents and information tied to “Israel”, well-informed sources told Al Mayadeen last month.
The sources told Al Mayadeen that the data included “thousands of documents related to the Israeli occupation’s projects and its nuclear facilities.”
According to the sources, the operation took place some time ago, but the enormous volume of documents and the need to safely transport the entire haul into Iran “required keeping the matter under secrecy.”
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | July 1, 2025
Iran didn’t violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the United States did. When the U.S. bombed Iran’s civilian nuclear facilities on June 23, they didn’t just violate the cardinal rule of international law by attacking a sovereign nation, without Security Council approval, that had neither attacked it nor threatened to attack it. They also violated the NPT. In doing so, the U.S. may have done irreparable harm to the non-proliferation regime.
As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran was protected by the “inalienable right to a civilian [nuclear] program.” Iran and the world watched, not only as that nonnuclear umbrella collapsed and failed to protect Iran, but as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the guardian of the non-proliferation regime, whispered barely a criticism. Iran’s parliamentary speaker has criticized the IAEA for having “refused to even pretend to condemn the [American] attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.”
Iran has accused IAEA director general Rafael Grossi of issuing a “biased” report on Iran’s nuclear program right as Trump’s sixty day window for diplomacy was closing that could be used as a “pretext” for the attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The U.S. was complicit in using the resolution that followed the report, since only 19 out of 33 countries voted in favor of it after the U.S. pressured eight countries they saw as “persuadable… to either vote with the US on the IAEA vote or not vote at all.”
After Grossi clarified that the IAEA “did not find in Iran elements to indicate that there is an active, systematic plan to build a nuclear weapon” and concluded that “We have not seen elements to allow us, as inspectors, to affirm that there was a nuclear weapon that was being manufactured or produced somewhere in Iran,” Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the clarification came “too late.” He blasted Grossi for “obscure[ing] this truth in your absolutely biased report that was instrumentalize by E3/U.S. to craft a resolution with baseless allegation of ‘non-compliance’; the same resolution was then utilized, as a final pretext… to launch an unlawful attack on our peaceful nuclear facilities.” Baghaei finished with the accusation that Grossi “betrayed the non-proliferation regime.”
On June 20, Iran filed a formal complaint against Grossi to the Security Council, accusing him of a “clear and serious breach of the principle of impartiality.” Iran’s Ambassador to the UN, Amir Saeed Iravani, criticized Grossi’s failure to condemn American and Israeli threats and use of force against its peaceful nuclear program as demanded by IAEA resolutions “which categorically prohibit any threat or use of force against nuclear facilities dedicated to peaceful purposes.” He said that Grossi’s “passivity… amounts to de facto complicity.”
On June 25, the Iranian parliament approved a bill suspending – but not yet terminating – its cooperation with the IAEA. Parliamentary speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf explained the passage of the bill by saying that the IAEA “has put its international credibility up for sale” because it “did not even formally condemn the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.” “For this reason,” he said, “the AEOI [the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran] will suspend its cooperation with the Agency until the security of its nuclear facilities is guaranteed.”
The next day, the Guardian Council approved the bill. The spokesperson for the Council said that “considering… the attacks carried out… against the peaceful nuclear facilities of our country… the government is obliged to suspend any cooperation with the IAEA until the principles ensuring… the security of nuclear scientists’ centers and ensuring the inherent rights of the Islamic Republic of Iran to benefit from all rights stipulated in Article 4 of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, particularly concerning uranium enrichment.” Having been approved by the Guardian Council, Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, says the bill is now “binding.” That means, he says, that “From now on, our relationship and cooperation with the [IAEA] will take a new form.”
The great risk now is that Iran could withdraw from the NPT altogether. When I asked former Iranian nuclear negotiator [ret] Ambassador Seyed Hossein Mousavian if this failure of the NPT might move Iran to withdraw from the treaty, he answered, “Perhaps Iran does not rush to withdraw but ultimately this could be a serious option.”
Having its legal nuclear facilities bombed by a nuclear power who is a signatory to the NPT could convince Iran that membership in the NPT is harmful to it. Mousavian has pointed out that countries that did develop nuclear weapons – which Iran did not – outside of the NPT “have remained immune from military attacks.” Trump and the U.S. have not bombed North Korea. “It is only natural that following the military attack,” Mousavian writes, “Iran would reconsider its nuclear strategy, including its continued membership in the NPT.” And that, Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, says “is quite likely.”
The danger is that the American bombing could eliminate a civilian nuclear program that was operating under the watchful international eye of an unprecedented inspection regime with one that is rebuilt entirely out of the eyes of international inspectors.
Sina Toossi, senior non-resident fellow at the Center for International Policy, told me that “far from neutralizing Iran’s nuclear capabilities, the war may have pushed Tehran closer to covert weaponization under a hardened doctrine.”
Withdrawal from the NPT would not entail that Iran has made the decision to build a nuclear weapon. Blinding the international community, led by the United States, may be seen by Iran as the only viable strategy for reconstituting a civilian nuclear program that would otherwise be bombed each time it reemerged.
The decision by the Trump administration to drop bunker buster bombs on Iran’s legal, civilian nuclear facilities, whether it “severely damaged” them, “obliterated” them or merely “set them back,” is that much more than the nuclear facilities were damaged. Under the guise of preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran, the U.S. may have so discredited the NPT that they have “severely damaged” and “set back” the world’s hard won non-proliferation regime.
Ted Snider is a regular columnist on U.S. foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets. To support his work or for media or virtual presentation requests, contact him at tedsnider@bell.net
Leaked confidential files indicate the IAEA was infiltrated by a veteran British spy who has claimed credit for sanctions on Iran
By Kit Klarenberg | The Grayzone | July 1, 2025
A notorious British MI6 agent infiltrated the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on London’s behalf, according to leaked documents reviewed by The Grayzone. The agent, Nicholas Langman, is a veteran intelligence operative who claims credit for helping engineer the West’s economic war on Iran.
Langman’s identity first surfaced in journalistic accounts of his role in deflecting accusations that British intelligence played a role in the death of Princess Diana. He was later accused by Greek authorities of overseeing the abduction and torture of Pakistani migrants in Athens.
In both cases, UK authorities issued censorship orders forbidding the press from publishing his name. But Greek media, which was under no such obligation, confirmed that Langman was one of the MI6 assets withdrawn from Britain’s embassy in Athens.
The Grayzone discovered the résumé of the journeyman British operative in a trove of leaked papers detailing the activities of Torchlight, a prolific British intelligence cutout. The bio of the longtime MI6 officer reveals he “led large, inter-agency teams to identify and defeat the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons technology, including by innovative technical means and sanctions.”
In particular, the MI6 agent says he provided “support for the [IAEA] and Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW] and through high level international partnerships.”
Langman’s CV credits him with playing a major role in organizing the sanctions regime on Iran by “[building] highly effective and mutually supportive relations across government and with senior US, European, Middle and Far Eastern colleagues for strategy” between 2010 and 2012. He boasts in his bio that this achievement “enabled [the] major diplomatic success of [the] Iranian nuclear and sanctions agreement.”
The influence Langman claimed to have exerted on the IAEA adds weight to Iranian allegations that the international nuclear regulation body colluded with the West and Israel to undermine its sovereignty. The Iranian government has alleged that the IAEA supplied the identities of its top nuclear scientists to Israeli intelligence, enabling their assassinations, and provided critical intelligence to the US and Israel on the nuclear facilities they bombed during their military assault this June.
This June 12, under the direction of its Secretary General Rafael Grossi, the IAEA issued a clearly politicized report recycling questionable past allegations to accuse Iran of violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Three days later, Israel attacked the country, assassinating nine nuclear scientists as well as numerous top military officials and hundreds of civilians.
Iranian former Vice President for Strategic Affairs Javad Zarif has since called for the IAEA’s Grossi to be sacked, accusing him of having “abetted the slaughter of innocents in the country.” This June 28, the Iranian government broke ties with the IAEA, refusing to allow its inspectors into the country.
While Iranian officials may have had no idea about the involvement of a shadowy figure like Langman in IAEA business, it would likely come as little surprise to Tehran that the supposedly multilateral agency had been compromised by a Western intelligence agency.
Langman’s name placed under official UK censorship order
In 2016, Langman was named a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George, the same title bestowed on fictional British spy James Bond. By that point, the supposed secret agent held the dubious distinction of being publicly ‘burned’ as an MI6 operative on two separate occasions.
First, in 2001, journalist Stephen Dorril revealed that Langman had arrived in Paris weeks prior to Princess Diana’s fatal car crash in the city on August 31 1997, and was subsequently charged with conducting “information operations” to deflect widespread public speculation British intelligence was responsible for her death.
Then, in 2005, he was formally accused by Greek authorities of complicity in the abduction and torture of 28 Pakistanis in Athens. The Pakistanis, all migrant workers, were suspected of having had contact with individuals accused of perpetrating the 7/7 bombings in London, July 2005.
Brutally beaten and threatened with guns in their mouths, the victims “were convinced their interrogators were British.” When Greek media named Langman as the MI6 operative who oversaw the migrants’ torture, British news outlets universally complied with a government D-notice – an official censorship order – and kept his identity under wraps when reporting on the scandal.
London vehemently denied any British involvement in torturing the migrants, with then-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dismissing the charge as “utter nonsense.” In January 2006 though, London admitted MI6 officers were indeed present during the Pakistanis’ torture, although officials insisted the operatives played no active part in their arrests, questioning or abuse.
Following his withdrawal from Athens, Langman returned to London to head the UK Foreign Office’s Iran Department, a shift which highlights his importance to MI6 and suggests the British government had no qualms about his allegedly brutal evidence gathering methods.
Britain’s Foreign Office collaborates closely with MI6, whose agents use it as cover just as the CIA does with State Department diplomatic postings.
MI6’s man on Iran takes credit for “maximum pressure” strategy
While leading the Foreign Office’s Iran Department from 2006 – 2008, Langman oversaw a team seeking to “develop understanding” of the Iranian government’s “nuclear program.”
It’s unclear exactly what that “understanding” entailed. But the document makes clear that Langman then “generated confidence” in that assessment among “European, US and Middle Eastern agencies” in order to “delay programme [sic] and pressurise Iran to negotiate.” The reference to “Middle Eastern agencies” strongly implied MI6 cooperation with Israel’s Mossad intelligence services.
In April 2006, Tehran announced it had successfully enriched uranium for the first time, although officials denied any intention to do so for military purposes. This development may have triggered Langman’s intervention.
The Islamic Republic has rejected any suggestion it harbors ambitions to possess nuclear weapons. Its denials were corroborated by a November 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate expressing “high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted” any and all research into nuclear weapons. This assessment remained unchanged for several years, and was reportedly shared by the Mossad, despite Benjamin Netanyhau’s constant declarations that Iran was on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon.
Langman’s IAEA support work overlaps with Iran sanctions blitz
International governmental attitudes towards Iran changed abruptly between 2010 and ‘12. During this period, Western states and intergovernmental institutions initiated an array of harshly punitive measures against the country, while Israel ramped up its deadly covert operations against Iran’s nuclear scientists.
This period precisely overlapped with Langman’s tenure at the Counter-Proliferation Centre of the UK Foreign Office. His bio implies he used this position to influence the IAEA and other UN-affiliated organizations to foment a campaign of global hostility towards Iran.
In June 2010, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1929, which froze the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ assets, and banned overseas financial institutions from opening offices in Tehran. A month later, the Obama administration adopted the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act. This set off a global chain of copycat sanctions by Washington’s vassals, who often imposed even more stringent measures than those levied by the UN and US.
In March 2012, the EU voted unanimously to cut Iranian banks out of the SWIFT international banking network. That October, the bloc imposed the harshest sanctions to date, restricting trade, financial services, energy and technology, along with bans on the provision of insurance to Iranian companies by European firms.
BBC reporting on the sanctions acknowledged European officials merely suspected Tehran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but lacked concrete proof. And behind the scenes, the MI6 operative Langman was claiming credit for helping legitimize the allegations against Iran.
Nuclear agreement lays foundations for war
Following the Western-led campaign isolation of Iran from 2010 – 2012, over its purported nuclear weapon program, the Obama administration negotiated a July 2015 agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Under the JCPOA’s terms, the Islamic Republic agreed to limit its nuclear research activities in return for sanctions relief. In the years that followed, the IAEA was granted virtually unlimited access to Tehran’s nuclear complexes, ostensibly to ensure the facilities were not used to develop nuclear weapons.
Along the way, IAEA inspectors collected vast amounts of information on the sites, including surveillance camera photos, measurement data, and documents. The Iranian government has since accused the Agency of furnishing the top secret profiles of its nuclear scientists to Israel. These include the godfather of Iran’s nuclear program, Mohsen Fakrizadeh, who was first publicly named in a menacing 2019 powerpoint presentation by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The following year, the Mossad assassinated Fakrizadeh in broad daylight with a remote-controlled machine gun.
Internal IAEA documents leaked this June indicated that IAEA Secretary General Rafael Grossi has enjoyed a much closer relationship with Israeli officials than was previously known, and suggested he leveraged his cozy ties with Tel Aviv to secure his current position.
During a June 24 interview with Fox News’ war-crazed anchor Martha MacCallum, Grossi did not deny making the inflammatory claim that “900 pounds of potentially enriched uranium was taken to an ancient site near Isfahan.” Instead the IAEA director asserted, “We do not have any information on the whereabouts of this material.”
Well before Grossi rose to the top of the IAEA with Western and Israeli backing, the agency appears to have been penetrated by a British intelligence agent who took responsibility in his bio for engineering the West’s economic attack on Iran.
The IAEA has not responded to an email from The Grayzone seeking clarification on its relationship with Langman and the MI6.
By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 30, 2025
It appears that Israel and Iran have postponed World War III and, for now, seem to adhere to the ceasefire negotiated by Donald Trump (likely with the help of other countries). But even if the “12-Day War” has stopped and missiles are no longer flying back and forth, doubts remain about the fate of Iran’s nuclear program.
The U.S. government insists that Iran’s nuclear program no longer exists, while Iran maintains that its nuclear program is still operational. All signs indicate that the Iranians are correct and that the U.S. is once again constructing a purely simulated parallel reality for the sake of narrative power projection.
But the main issue is not this—it is, in fact, something few have mentioned, as recently noted by Sergey Lavrov: the role of Rafael Grossi and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The IAEA was founded in 1957 as an “autonomous” agency—though linked to the UN—with the goal of monitoring nations’ use of nuclear energy to promote peaceful applications and prevent the construction of nuclear weapons. In this capacity, IAEA teams visit nuclear power plants, research centers, and other facilities related to national nuclear programs to conduct safety checks and oversee enrichment levels.
However, it is important to note that despite its claims of “autonomy,” the IAEA was established at the insistence of the U.S., shortly after the abandonment of the post-WWII “utopian” idea of keeping nuclear weapons under the exclusive control of the UN. The institution has always been closer to the interests of the Western Bloc than to those of the Eastern Bloc or the Non-Aligned Movement.
That said, in the past, the IAEA did challenge U.S. claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, under the leadership of Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei.
But even during ElBaradei’s tenure, there were signs of a shift toward Western alignment. In writings from that period, ElBaradei advocated for a revival of the utopian, globalist vision of nuclear energy monopolized by a “multinational” agency—much like the various Western agencies controlled or influenced by the U.S. ElBaradei himself became a collaborator with the U.S. after his term ended, participating in the color revolution orchestrated in Egypt against Hosni Mubarak.
It was only during Yukiya Amano’s leadership that the IAEA’s collaboration with the U.S. became evident, thanks to WikiLeaks revelations. According to documents obtained by Julian Assange, in a meeting between Amano and U.S. diplomats, Amano explicitly stated that he was aligned with the U.S. regarding staffing decisions and the stance to be taken on Iran’s nuclear program. This, of course, meant that Amano filled the IAEA with U.S. collaborators. He was later accused by IAEA staff themselves of having a pro-Western bias.
This context helps explain the behavior of Rafael Grossi, Amano’s successor.
Fast-forward to June: Grossi prepared a report accusing Iran of failing to meet its obligations to the IAEA and scheduled a board meeting for the same day Trump’s 60-day ultimatum on negotiations with Iran expired. According to CNN, the U.S. contacted several board members to persuade them to vote in favor of Grossi’s resolution. The purpose was to lend an institutional veneer of legitimacy to Israel’s attacks against Iran.
Grossi’s report was entirely based on information provided by Mossad, which alleged the existence of previously unknown nuclear facilities containing traces of enriched uranium.
All evidence suggests that Grossi was aware of the imminent attack and collaborated in creating a pretext to justify Israel’s actions. This is further corroborated by the fact that Grossi has never once turned his attention to Israel’s nuclear program, which remains entirely opaque, free from any international inspections.
In light of these revelations, it is alarming that, as Grossi told the Financial Times earlier this year, he intends to run for UN Secretary-General. Given his track record, it is plausible that he will have U.S. backing, which would greatly aid his candidacy.
Cases like this are not isolated. We have seen how the International Criminal Court (ICC) moved to accuse Vladimir Putin and Russia of “kidnapping” Ukrainian children. The World Health Organization (WHO), meanwhile, attempted to override national sovereignty during the pandemic. The IMF is routinely used to deindustrialize Third World countries.
The list could go on.
The key issue, however, is this: Given the current state of international institutions, can they be reformed?
Or will we need to abandon them—as Iran did with the IAEA—and build new ones from scratch?
Al Mayadeen | June 27, 2025
Former Iranian Foreign Minister and ex-Vice President for Strategic Affairs, Mohammad Javad Zarif, issued a scathing condemnation of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Secretary-General Rafael Grossi on Friday, accusing him of facilitating war crimes through politically charged actions and rhetoric.
In a statement posted on his official X account, Zarif said Grossi had “abetted the slaughter of innocents” by issuing what he described as a fictitious IAEA report, and warned that the director-general is now laying the groundwork for further crimes against Iran.
Grossi accused of promoting false narratives
Zarif sharply criticized Grossi’s recent suggestion that Iran might be concealing uranium at World Heritage Sites in Isfahan, calling the claim “reckless musing” and part of a broader campaign to provoke further military escalation. “@rafaelmgrossi is now conspiring to abet more war crimes,” Zarif wrote.
The former top diplomat added that the IAEA should remove Grossi from his post, calling him a “disgrace” to the agency and launching the hashtag “#Fire_Grossi” to amplify the demand.
Mounting criticism over IAEA’s politicization
The remarks add to a growing number of Iranians accusing the IAEA of losing its impartiality and enabling acts of aggression by the Israeli occupation and the United States.
This also comes after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced Friday that the Iranian Parliament had voted to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) until the safety and security of the country’s nuclear infrastructure can be guaranteed.
The decision follows days of mounting tension over the US and the Israeli regime’s attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, which Tehran says were politically facilitated by the IAEA’s leadership. Araghchi directly blamed IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi for contributing to what he called “a sordid state of affairs.”
In a statement published on X, Araghchi accused Grossi of playing a “regrettable role in obfuscating” the fact that the IAEA had closed all past issues with Iran’s nuclear program a decade ago. Instead of upholding that record, Grossi, according to Araghchi, enabled the IAEA Board of Governors to adopt a “politically-motivated resolution” against Iran.
That resolution, Araghchi said, directly set the stage for recent bombings of Iranian nuclear sites by the US and the Israeli occupation.
Iran to defend its sovereignty
Araghchi condemned Grossi’s silence in the face of these attacks, calling it a “betrayal” of his statutory responsibilities. “In an astounding betrayal of his duties, Grossi has failed to explicitly condemn such blatant violations of IAEA safeguards and its Statute,” Araghchi said.
He further criticized Grossi’s insistence on visiting bombed sites under the pretext of inspections, calling such efforts “meaningless” and “possibly even malign in intent.”
Iran, Araghchi emphasized, reserves the right to take any measures necessary to defend its sovereignty, people, and national interests. He reiterated that cooperation with the IAEA would not resume until credible guarantees are in place to protect Iran’s nuclear facilities from further attacks.
“The IAEA and its Director-General bear full responsibility for what has transpired,” Araghchi stated, underscoring Iran’s growing distrust of the agency’s impartiality amid a broader climate of Western pressure and aggression.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Daniel Ken | TCW Defending Freedom | May 20, 2023
Over more than two decades in the classroom I’ve taught thousands of children and teenagers: some were lovely and lots were hard-working. On the other hand, quite a number were disruptive and argumentative, and a number were violently opposed to learning. But I don’t think I’ve taught more than a handful of kids who could be properly described as having the symptoms of ADHD. And that handful could just as easily have had something else wrong with them. Because here’s the thing: despite the fact that the best part of a million children are medicated for the condition, ADHD doesn’t exist.
There’s no definitive medical test for it, experts can’t agree on what it actually means, and most of the symptoms disappear if the child in question has lots of exercise, good diet and, crucially, a set of clear behavioural boundaries, preferably set early in childhood and, for the boys at least, enforced by a stable adult male living at home. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 