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.
Dialogue Works | September 21, 2025
The Cradle | September 22, 2025
Over 70 members of Iran’s parliament on 22 September called for a reassessment of the country’s defense doctrine, pressing authorities to consider nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
In a letter addressed to the Supreme National Security Council and the heads of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, the lawmakers demanded that the issue be raised urgently.
“We respectfully request that, since the decisions of that council acquire validity with the endorsement of the Leader of the Revolution, this matter be raised without delay and the expert findings communicated to the parliament,” the statement read.
The MPs argued that while the development and use of nuclear arms contradicts the 2010 ‘fatwa’ of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei banning them, circumstances have changed.
They wrote that “developing and maintaining such weapons as a deterrent is another matter,” stressing that “in Shia jurisprudence, a change in circumstances and conditions can alter the ruling.”
“Moreover, safeguarding Islam – which today is bound to the preservation of the Islamic Republic – is among the paramount obligations.”
The push was led by Hassan-Ali Akhlaghi Amiri, a representative from the holy city of Mashhad, according to Hamshahri Online.
Lawmakers noted that the nuclear doctrine was shaped at a time when the international community was still able to restrain Israeli aggression.
They pointed to the large-scale assault launched by Israel in June, backed by the US, which included direct strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, among them Fordow.
Iran has long stated its nuclear program is peaceful, rejecting western claims it seeks weapons capability. Tehran continues to cite Khamenei’s fatwa as proof of its intentions.
At the same time, the Supreme National Security Council announced the suspension of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) after the UN Security Council imposed sanctions.
State media quoted the body as saying the move was a response to the “ill-considered steps of three European countries.”
Lawmakers warned that pressure tactics by the E3 countries will draw a “harsher and more decisive” response than before.
Press TV – September 20, 2025
Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) says Tehran will suspend its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) after the United Nations Security Council voted not to permanently lift sanctions on Tehran.
In a statement on Saturday, Iran’s top security body condemned the “ill-considered” moves by Britain, France, and Germany —known as the E3— regarding the Islamic Republic’s peaceful nuclear program.
On Friday, the 15-member Security Council failed to adopt a resolution that would have prevented the reimposition of UN sanctions on Iran after the E3 triggered the “snapback” mechanism, accusing Tehran of failing to comply with the 2015 deal, formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Iran rejected the illegitimate move by the European troika, pointing out that the United States had already pulled out of the deal and accusing the European trio of siding with illegal sanctions instead of honoring their own commitments.
In a Saturday session, chaired by President Masoud Pezeshkian, the SNSC addressed the latest situation in the region and the Israeli regime’s adventurism, the statement said.
“Despite [Iranian] Foreign Ministry’s cooperation with the Agency and the proposals presented to settle the [nuclear] issue, the actions of European countries have effectively suspended the path of cooperation with the Agency,” the SNSC emphasized.
According to the statement, Iran’s top security body tasked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with continuing its consultations within the framework of the SNSC decisions to safeguard the national interests.
It added that Iran’s foreign policy under the current circumstances will be based on cooperation to establish peace and stability in the region.
Earlier on Saturday, Pezeshkian said Tehran can overcome any re-imposition of sanctions and will never surrender to excessive demands.
“We should believe that we can overcome obstacles and that the ill-wishers of this territory cannot block our way,” the president added.
The SNSC was formally put in charge of overseeing cooperation with the IAEA in July, following a series of illegal and unprovoked Israeli and US attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities.
The shift came after Iran’s Parliament passed legislation on July 2, requiring that all IAEA inspection requests be reviewed and approved by the SNSC.
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – September 19, 2025
The US has announced it will withdraw the sanctions waiver granted for Iran’s Chabahar Port, which is being developed by India. The port holds strategic importance for both Tehran and New Delhi. Tehran University professor Mohammad Marandi explains the move.
The US is pursuing two objectives by imposing sanctions related to India’s involvement in Chabahar Port, Tehran University professor Mohammad Marandi tells Sputnik.
“They are trying to force the Indian government to do as they wish. And this is part of that process.”
The US’ intimidation of Russia, Iran, and India is pushing them to unite on solutions beyond US control, according to Marandi.
“They create an incentive for countries to work together and exclude the United States. It is US policy that has effectively made BRICS what it is today. It is US policy that has made the Shanghai Cooperation Organization what it is today. It is their behavior, their lawless behavior, using sanctions as a weapon, using tariffs as a weapon, using financial institutions and the US dollar as a weapon.”
The US wants full control, and they see the Global South on the rise, and they increasingly become irritated, and they behave increasingly irrational in order to preserve that control, according to the pundit.
So what’s the smart play for Russia, Iran, and India now? “To speed in the process of developing the North-South Transport Corridor and developing the Chabahar Port,” Marandi believes.
Al Mayadeen | September 19, 2025
The United Nations Security Council voted on Friday to reimpose nuclear sanctions on Iran, citing its alleged violations of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
The move, driven by Britain, France, and Germany, has sparked sharp criticism from Russia, China, and Iran, highlighting deepening divisions within the international community over the future of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.
The three European signatories to the JCPOA called for the activation of the snapback mechanism, falsely claiming that Iran had breached commitments made under the 2015 deal, which was designed to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities.
The European powers alleged that Iran’s advancements in uranium enrichment and reduced cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) constitute material violations of the agreement.
Iran, Russia, and China push back
In response, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that Tehran had presented a “fair and balanced” proposal to European nations aimed at preventing the reimposition of sanctions.
Russia’s UN Ambassador, Vasily Nebenzia, rejected the European-led move, saying, “There are no grounds for reinstating UN sanctions on Iran.” He emphasized that the E3’s push for snapback sanctions has no legal authority and affirmed that Moscow would not recognize it.
Russia also called on Security Council members to support a joint Russian-Chinese draft resolution on Iran, offering an alternative diplomatic track to avoid escalation.
China’s envoy emphasized that pressure on Iran must stop and urged Tehran to reaffirm the peaceful nature of its nuclear program, noting Iran’s declared willingness to cooperate.
Iran maintains that its nuclear program remains peaceful and has accused Western powers of double standards and bad faith. Chinese Ambassador to the UN echoed this stance, stating, “It was the United States that withdrew from the agreement, attacked Iran militarily, and disrupted negotiations.”
China’s envoy also called on the European trio to immediately withdraw their notifications to reinstate sanctions, stressing that “pressure is not the solution.”
Snapback could nullify Cairo agreement
Al Mayadeen’s sources warned on Thursday that activating the snapback sanctions mechanism would nullify the Cairo Agreement and end cooperation between the IAEA and Tehran.
This would prevent international inspectors from accessing sensitive facilities, escalating the standoff even further.
According to the sources, the diplomatic window with Iran remains open, but indicators point to the potential activation of the snapback sanctions mechanism. They argued this is largely because Washington is steering the European Troika in the talks.
The sources warned that Washington is expected to call on Tehran to resume negotiations after activating the snapback mechanism, aiming to impose its conditions from what it perceives as a position of strength. They described this approach as a serious miscalculation of Iran’s stance and the way Tehran would respond.
Press TV – September 19, 2025
The United States has revoked the sanctions waiver for Iran’s Chabahar port, threatening India’s multi-million-dollar investment in the strategic project amid straining ties between Washington and New Delhi.
The White House announced on Thursday that the exemption, in place since 2018, will end on September 29.
The waiver had allowed India to develop the Shahid Beheshti terminal at Chabahar, seen as a key gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia. With its withdrawal, entities involved in the project may now face penalties.
US State Department spokesperson Thomas Pigott said the decision was consistent with the Trump administration’s so-called “maximum pressure” policy. He said that the revocation means any person or company engaged in the port’s operation could be exposed to sanctions.
Located in Chabahar, the port gives India access to Afghanistan and beyond, while also feeding into larger connectivity schemes such as the International North-South Transport Corridor.
India has already provided equipment worth $25 million, shipped food supplies through the port, and, in May 2024, signed a 10-year agreement to operate it. Under that deal, India pledged $120 million in investment and offered an additional $250 million credit line for infrastructure upgrades.
The waiver was originally granted in recognition of the port’s importance for stabilizing Afghanistan and facilitating humanitarian shipments.
Iran, meanwhile, has long slammed Washington’s reliance on sanctions. Officials in Tehran describe the approach as an “addiction” that has persisted since the 1979 revolution, with various Iranian entities repeatedly targeted under shifting pretexts.
Meanwhile, the sanction comes as tensions between New Delhi and Washington have already been rising under the Trump administration. Earlier this year, the White House imposed 50 percent tariffs on Indian goods, doubling an earlier rate.
Trump justified the move by accusing India of indirectly financing Russia’s war in Ukraine through oil purchases. The tariffs, which came into force in August, now cover most Indian exports to the US.
The measures hit at a time when bilateral trade stood at more than $87 billion, making India one of America’s largest partners. Experts warn the duties could shrink India’s exports to the US to nearly half within two years.
New Delhi has condemned the tariffs as “unfair, unjustified, and unreasonable,” and signaled a stronger tilt toward Moscow and Beijing.
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.
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.
In 2018, Europe swore it would shield the Iran deal from Trump. In 2025, it brought Trump’s ‘maximum pressure’ back under their own banner.
By Farhad Ibragimov | RT | September 8, 2025
Back in 2018, Europe blasted Donald Trump for pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal. Paris, Berlin, and London warned of a looming crisis in the Middle East and insisted the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was the only safeguard against another regional war. They even rolled out a special financial vehicle, Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), to shield trade with Tehran from US sanctions. For a moment, it looked as if Europe was finally ready to assert its own strategic autonomy.
Seven years later, the picture couldn’t be more different. Britain, France, and Germany have triggered the snapback mechanism – a procedure written into UN Security Council Resolution 2231 back in 2015. On paper, snapback is a technical clause: if one of the deal’s signatories claims Iran is in breach, all the pre-2015 UN sanctions come rushing back. In practice, it’s a political bombshell. The very governments that once positioned themselves as defenders of the deal are now taking the first steps to dismantle it.
How snapback works
Snapback is a built-in device of Resolution 2231: once a party to the deal files a complaint, a thirty-day clock starts ticking. If the Security Council can’t agree to keep the sanctions lifted, the old restrictions automatically spring back into place – no new vote, no vetoes, just the force of the mechanism itself snapping shut.
And those sanctions aren’t symbolic. They revive six earlier UN resolutions passed between 2006 and 2010: an arms embargo, a ban on ballistic missile development, asset freezes, and travel bans targeting Iranian banks, companies, and officials. In other words, a full reset to the era of maximum pressure that Tehran endured more than a decade ago.
On paper, it reads like legalese. In practice, it carries weighty consequences. For Europe, it means slamming shut whatever limited doors were still open for trade and diplomacy with Tehran. For Iran, it’s a return to a familiar landscape of international isolation – one it has increasingly learned to navigate through ties with Russia, China, and regional partners.
Europe’s brief rebellion
When Donald Trump tore up the nuclear deal in 2018, Europe seemed almost defiant. Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, and Theresa May openly criticized Washington’s unilateral move, warning it could ignite a new crisis in the Middle East and weaken the global nonproliferation regime. For a moment, it looked as if Europe was ready to chart its own course.
To prove it, Paris, Berlin, and London announced a special financial vehicle called INSTEX. On paper, it was meant to let European companies keep trading with Iran while bypassing US sanctions. In speeches, leaders cast it as a bold example of strategic autonomy – Europe standing by international law against American pressure.
In practice, it never delivered. Transactions were scarce, businesses stayed away, and INSTEX turned into little more than a symbol. What was meant to showcase Europe’s independence exposed instead its limits. Behind the rhetoric, the continent still lacked the muscle to stand up to Washington.
Even after the deal began to unravel, Tehran held on longer than many expected. For a time, Iran continued to observe key limits, signaling that it still wanted the agreement to survive. The steps it did take after 2019 – enriching uranium beyond agreed levels, reducing access for inspectors – were limited and largely declarative. They were less about racing toward a bomb than about sending a message: if Europe and the United States failed to keep their end of the bargain, Iran would not keep waiting forever.
Europe could have treated those moves as a call for dialogue. Instead, it chose to treat them as violations to be punished – leaning on legal mechanisms and pressure rather than genuine diplomacy. In practice, this meant not saving the deal but accelerating its collapse.
When Joe Biden took office in 2021, many in Europe breathed a sigh of relief. After four years of Trump’s “maximum pressure,” there was hope the US would return to the nuclear deal or at least give Europe more room to re-engage with Tehran. European diplomats saw Biden’s presidency as a reset button, a chance to salvage what was left of the JCPOA.
Talks resumed in 2022, bringing negotiators from Washington, the E3, and Tehran back to the table. But the optimism didn’t last. The West’s conditions went far beyond nuclear conditions: Iran was pressed to scale back its ties with Russia and cut off growing cooperation with China. To Tehran, those demands amounted to political disarmament – a direct threat to its sovereignty and security.
The negotiations collapsed. For Europe, it was a sobering moment: the Democratic administration they had counted on offered no breakthrough. For Iran, it confirmed what many suspected – that Washington’s return to the deal would come with strings too heavy to accept.
The US get what they want
The word snapback has already made waves in the halls of the UN back in August 2020. That summer, the Trump administration formally notified the Security Council that Iran was in breach of the nuclear deal and demanded that the old UN sanctions be reinstated. US lawyers pointed to Resolution 2231, which still listed Washington as a “participant” in the agreement – even though Trump had withdrawn the US two years earlier.
The reaction was swift and humiliating. Russia and China dismissed the move outright, and so did America’s closest allies in Europe. London, Paris, and Berlin all publicly declared that Washington had no standing to use the mechanism after quitting the deal. The snapback effort fizzled, and the sanctions remained suspended.
The irony is hard to miss. In 2020, Europe stood shoulder to shoulder with Moscow and Beijing to block Washington’s attempt. Five years later, the very same European capitals are the ones pulling the trigger.
When London, Paris, and Berlin announced they were triggering snapback, they wrapped the move in the language of diplomacy. In Paris, Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot stressed that France was still “open to a political solution.” In Berlin, Johann Wadephul urged Tehran to re-engage with the IAEA. Britain’s David Lammy said Iran had provided “no credible guarantees” about the peaceful nature of its program.
On the surface, it sounded like a routine chorus of diplomatic talking points. But behind the careful wording was a clear message: Europe was abandoning the posture of dialogue and embracing pressure. What the E3 once condemned in Washington, they were now carrying out themselves – only this time under their own flag.
In Tehran, the language was restrained but pointed. Officials called the European move “illegal and regrettable,” a formula that barely concealed deep frustration. For Iran, Europe’s decision confirmed once again that Brussels talks about strategic autonomy but falls in line the moment Washington sets the course.
Across the Atlantic, the response was the opposite: warm approval. Secretary of State Marco Rubio “welcomed” the step and claimed that snapback only strengthened America’s willingness to negotiate. Formally it sounded like an invitation to dialogue. But the memory of the spring talks – which ended not with compromise but with Israeli sabotage and US strikes on Iranian facilities – made the words ring hollow.
A world that has moved on
Europe’s wager on sanctions is a throwback to the early 2010s, when Tehran was isolated and the West could dictate terms. But that era is gone. Today Iran is not only a strategic partner for Moscow and Beijing but also a full member of BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – platforms that carve out alternatives to the Western order.
In this new landscape, snapback may sting in Tehran, but it hits Europe too. Brussels loses credibility as a negotiator and opportunities as a trading partner. Each step in Washington’s shadow makes the European claim to “strategic autonomy” sound thinner.
The paradox is striking. On paper, Europe insists on its independence. In reality, its voice is fading in a multipolar world. While Brussels signs off on sanctions, Beijing and Moscow are busy sketching the architecture of a new order – one where Europe is no longer at the center.
Farhad Ibragimov – lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University, visiting lecturer at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
@farhadibragim
The unilateral measures were associated with more than 560,000 excess deaths annually from 1971 to 2021, a recent study suggests
RT | September 7, 2025
Western sanctions contributed to nearly 29 million excess deaths worldwide over five decades – a toll comparable to that of wars, according to a recent study.
The research, published last month in Lancet Global Health, has gained attention around the world.
Examining age-specific mortality in 152 countries from 1971 to 2021, using statistics from the Global Sanctions Database, researchers compared mortality rates before and after sanctions, tracking long-term trends to estimate their toll in excess deaths. They focused on three sanctioning authorities: The UN, the US, and the EU (and its predecessor).
“We estimate that unilateral sanctions over this period caused 564,258 deaths per year, similar to the global mortality burden associated with armed conflict,” the authors noted, with a total of 28.8 million deaths across the 51-year span.
We found the strongest effects for unilateral, economic, and US sanctions, whereas we found no statistical evidence of an effect for UN sanctions.
Most excess deaths occurred among the most vulnerable – the very young and the elderly.
“Our findings reveal that unilateral and economic sanctions, particularly those imposed by the USA, lead to substantial increases in mortality, disproportionately affecting children younger than 5 years,” the study said, noting that the age group accounted for 51% of the total death toll.
The report found that the sanctions undermine economic and food security, often causing hunger and health problems among the poorest. Additionally, the dominance of the dollar and euro in global transactions allowed the US and EU to amplify the impact of their sanctions.
At last year’s BRICS summit, member nations called for “unlawful unilateral coercive measures” to be eliminated, warning of their disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable. Members have increasingly avoided the dollar “to shield themselves from US arbitrariness,” Moscow has said.
At the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin this week, Chinese President Xi Jinping called for a fairer global governance system based on mutual respect and opposition to Western dominance. Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomed the proposal as especially relevant when “some countries still do not abandon their desire for dictatorship in international affairs.”
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | September 2, 2025
A top Iranian official said a deal with the US is still possible, but Washington must drop its demands to limit Tehran’s missile program. Talks between the US and Iran broke off in June when Israel launched an unprovoked war against the Islamic Republic.
On Tuesday, Ali Larijani posted a statement from the Iranian Supreme National Security Council on X. “The path for negotiations with the US is not closed; yet these are the Americans who only pay lip service to talks and do not come to the table; and they wrongfully blame Iran for it,” he wrote. “WE INDEED PURSUE RATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS. By raising unrealizable issues such as missile restrictions, they set a path which negates any talks.”
Since Donald Trump returned to office, the US and Iran engaged in five rounds of negotiations aimed at establishing a new nuclear agreement and lifting sanctions. A sixth round of talks was scheduled, but Israel attacked Iran, halting the diplomatic process. Iranian officials said the talks were progressing towards a deal before the attack.
The US participated in the Israeli war on Iran. Tehran has demanded that Washington give assurances that the US and Israel will not resume strikes on Iran while the talks are ongoing. However, Trump has not responded to Tehran’s demand and has threatened to attack Iran if Tehran restarts its nuclear enrichment program.
Trump has pressed Iran to agree to a new nuclear agreement after he scrapped the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) during his first administration. The 2015 Iran Nuclear deal established a strict inspection regime and limitations on Tehran’s nuclear program.
After Trump broke the agreement and reimposed sanctions on Iran, Tehran exceeded the limits set in the nuclear deal. In response to a series of Israeli assassinations and sabotage attacks, Tehran enriched uranium to a higher level and established a stockpile of 60% enriched Uranium.
Tehran expelled international nuclear inspectors following Israel’s attack on Iran in June.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
ICC | December 2005
When the House of Commons was debating how much to increase the time limit for detention without trial the question of torture came up. Officially this was limited to the nice considerations of whether it was all right to send people to places where torture is used and whether Britain can use information collected by the use of torture in other countries. This discussion gave an impression of democratic Britain as the home of civilised behaviour where the very idea of torture is repugnant to our legislators – unlike, say, the US with its secret CIA jails… In reality, the British state has a long history of using and developing a whole range of torture techniques. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 