SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
international atomic energy agency
Trump Strikes on Iran Nuclear Sites Called 'Devastating Blow' to Nonproliferation
"It's such a terrible precedent that could drive states to determine that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty no longer benefits their security," one expert warned during a virtual event on the conflict.
Jun 23, 2025
Experts said Monday during a webinar on the escalating Mideast crisis that U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran's civilian nuclear facilities—which were ostensibly under International Atomic Energy Agency protection—further exposed the United States as untrustworthy and severely damaged efforts to stop the global proliferation of nuclear weapons.
ReThink Media hosted Monday's webinar, during which host Mac Hamilton discussed issues including Saturday's U.S. attack on Iran with panelists Sara Haghdoosti, the executive director of Win Without War; Yasmine Taeb, the legislative political director at MPower Change; Kelsey Davenport, Arms Control Association's director for nonproliferation policy; and Arti Walker-Peddakotla, chair of the board at About Face: Veterans Against the War.
"Military action is not an effective long-term strategy for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran."
President Donald Trump ordered the attacks on the Fordow Uranium Enrichment Plant, the Natanz Nuclear Facility, and the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center despite decades of U.S. intelligence community consensus—including his own administration's recent assessment—that Iran is not trying to develop nuclear weapons. Trump also disregarded international law, his own two-week ultimatum for Iran, and the fact that the three facilities were supposed to be safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
"From a nonproliferation perspective, Trump's decision to strike Iran was a reckless, irresponsible escalation that is likely to push Iran closer to nuclear weapons in the long term," Davenport said during Monday's webinar. "The strikes did damage key Iranian nuclear facilities, like the underground Fordow enrichment site. But Tehran had ample time prior to the strikes to remove its stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium to a covert location, and it's likely that they did so."
"This underscores that the strikes may have temporarily set back Iran's program, but military action is not an effective long-term strategy for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran," she continued. "Because technically, Iran has retained its nuclear weapons capability and critical aspects of the program."
"And politically, there's greater impetus now to weaponize," Davenport contended. "I mean, strikes are already strengthening factions in Iran calling for withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and strengthening arguments that nuclear weapons are necessary to deter further attacks."
Rejecting the president's claim to have "completely and totally obliterated" Iran's nuclear sites, Davenport said that "all Trump has destroyed is U.S. credibility, I think Iranians have less reason now to trust the United States to negotiate an agreement in good faith."
Davenport continued:
Iran has certainly learned the lessons of past history. I mean, [former Libyan Prime Minister] Moammar Gadhafigave up Libya's nuclear weapons program, and later was overthrown by Western-backed forces. Syria, its nuclear weapons program was bombed while it was still in its infancy. Decades later, [former Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad was overthrown.
The United States has demonstrated it is not interested in credible negotiations under the Trump administration, and that if a deal is struck there's no guarantee that the United States will abide by its commitments, even if Iran is abiding by its end of the bargain. That's what we saw in the [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] scenario. So it really raises questions about U.S. nonproliferation policy going forward, and the risk of erosion, you know, to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
In 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal, despite his own administration's assessment that Tehran was in full compliance with the agreement. Critics argued Trump's move was meant to satisfy Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has boasted about being able to control U.S. policy and whose country has an undeclared nuclear arsenal and is not a party to the NPT.
Davenport highlighted the "uptick in conversation" in Tehran about quitting the NPT, given that "the treaty cannot preserve and protect civil nuclear activities."
"I think it is worth underscoring that the United States struck sites that were under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. These were not covert enrichment facilities," she stressed. "These were not sites where Iran was dashing to the bomb. You know, there's no evidence of that. These were safeguarded facilities that the IAEA regularly has access to."
"This is a devastating blow to the nonproliferation regime," Davenport said. "And I think over time, this is going to contribute to erosion of the treaty. It's such a terrible precedent that could drive states to determine that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty no longer benefits their security, that their civil programs can become targets without any evidence of weaponization, and drive further questioning of whether remaining in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is in their interest."
IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi—who last week said there was no proof Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb—also warned during a Monday meeting of the body's board of governors in Vienna that "the weight of this conflict risks collapsing the global nuclear nonproliferation regime."
"But there is still a path for diplomacy," Grossi said. "We must take it, otherwise violence and destruction could reach unimaginable levels and the global nonproliferation regime that has underpinned international security for more than half a century could crumble and fall."
"Iran, Israel, and the Middle East need peace," he emphasized. "Armed attacks on nuclear facilities should never take place and could result in boradioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the state which has been attacked. I therefore again call on maximum restraint. Military escalation not only threatens lives, it also delays us from taking the diplomatic path."
"To achieve the long-term assurance that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon and for the continued effectiveness of the global nonproliferation regime, we must return to negotiations," Grossi added.
Iranian officials and other observers have accused Grossi and the IAEA of complicity in U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran. Last week, Iran filed a complaint against the agency's chief for allegedly "undermining the agency's impartiality."
This, following last week's IAEA board of governors approval of a resolution stating that Iran is not complying with its obligations as a member of the body, a finding based largely on dubious intelligence that skeptics compared to the "weapons of mass destruction" lies in the lead-up to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
In an opinion piece published Monday by Common Dreams, Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies of the peace group CodePink wrote that the U.S. and Israel "used Grossi" to "hijack the IAEA and start a war on Iran."
"Rafael Grossi should resign as IAEA director before he further undermines nuclear nonproliferation and drags the world any closer to nuclear war," Benjamin and Davies added.
On Monday, the Majlis, Iran's Parliament, began weighing legislation to suspend cooperation with the IAEA.
"The world clearly saw that the IAEA has failed to uphold its commitments and has become a political instrument," Majlis Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf said on the chamber floor Monday.
Qalibaf added that Iran would "will definitely respond in a way that will make gambler Trump regret" attacking Iran.
Later Monday, Iran fired a salvo of missiles at a military base housing U.S. troops in Qatar and, reportedly, at an American facility in Iraq. There have been no reported casualties or strike damage.
This was followed by Trump's announcement on social media of a cease-fire agreement between Israel and Iran.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israel, Iran, and the War Machine’s Global Lust for the Rapture
Donald Trump, like Joe Biden before him, was unable—or unwilling—to restrain Israel from genocide, lawlessness, and slaughter.
Jun 15, 2025
For a while, at least, Donald Trump talked a good game about diplomacy, including negotiations with Iran and Israel. But Israel is America’s id. We can’t restrain Israel because Israel is the skull beneath the American mask.
The “id” was Sigmund Freud’s term for the hidden reservoir of passions and desires that fuels the personality. The ego—“what we call reason and sanity,” as Freud phrased it—tries to restrain those passions by riding them “like a man on horseback.”
The horse has thrown its rider once again.
Read the newspaper today. Watch cable news tonight. See if they mention the plain fact that Israel’s attack is a violation of international law.
“Monsters from the id!” That's what Dr. Morbius shouts at the end of the 1956 science-fiction movie Forbidden Planet, as he tries to shut down the all-powerful alien engines he’s learned to control with his thoughts. His subconscious urges and desires have begun to destroy his deep-space paradise, and he’s powerless to stop them. The vast machinery is serving his true self, not the civilized veneer he presents to himself and others.
So it is with military might. Just as Israel is the American id, America is the id for a financialized planet driven by greed and exploitation. American war machinery is global lust made manifest: lust for power, lust for wealth, lust for more.
Donald Trump, like Joe Biden before him, was unable to restrain Israel from genocide, lawlessness, and slaughter. Both presidents aided and abetted snuff-movie violence on a massive scale, because that violence reflects the shadow self of the nation they represent.
If “the sleep of reason produces monsters,” we’ve been in a coma for a long time.
John F. Kennedy may have been an imperfect vessel for change, but he spoke often and well about the need for international law and world institutions. “We must create even as we destroy (nuclear arms),” he said, “creating worldwide law and law enforcement as we outlaw worldwide war and weapons.”
Read the newspaper today. Watch cable news tonight. See if they mention the plain fact that Israel’s attack is a violation of international law. The mass assassination of another country’s leaders and the under-reported deaths of civilians will be debated in tactical terms, while moral and legal questions receive little (if any) attention.
These attacks may temporarily serve Israeli and U.S. interests, but their benefits won’t last. Iran isn’t Gaza, impoverished and defenseless and populated primarily by women and children. Iran is home to 91 million people and possesses considerable resources. Trump was already forced to back down from a confrontation with the Iran-allied Ansar Allah (the Houthis) in the Red Sea, and they’re essentially desert fighters. This attack may weaken Iran, but what will happen if, and when, it regroups and retaliates?
The Israeli state isn’t acting rationally; neither is the American national security state. But how could it be otherwise?
Like the passions of Dr. Morbius, the drive to kill inevitably becomes self-destructive. “In 20 of the 24 countries surveyed,” Pew Research reports, “around half of adults or more have an unfavorable view of Israel.” That’s from a poll published June 3. Those figures may well be even lower now. Pew continues, “Around three-quarters or more hold this view in Australia, Greece, Indonesia, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Turkey.”
In the United States, the percentage of adults with a negative view of Israel has risen 11 points since March 2022; 53% of Americans polled now hold “a somewhat or very unfavorable opinion of Israel.”
This trend represents an existential threat to both the Jewish state and the American military empire. The political consensus in Washington, however, remains unchanged.
The Israeli state isn’t acting rationally; neither is the American national security state. But how could it be otherwise? They are the manifestation of our own cravings. Our warlike impulses are leading us down the path of conflict and confrontation, seemingly oblivious to peaceful alternatives. By refusing to cooperate with China and the rising nations, we are surrendering our future to them.
That is, if we even have a future.
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency tried to remind the world that “armed attacks on nuclear facilities could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked.”
The world didn’t seem very interested.
Evangelical Christians—some of them, at least—are undoubtedly thrilled. With this development From the Bible (Matthew 24:6-7):
And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in diverse places.
Meanwhile, Americans have forgotten the words of their fallen president. “Mankind must put an end to war,” said John Kennedy, “or war will put an end to mankind.”
Some Americans consider Matthew’s prophecy a harbinger of deliverance—for them, not for the rest of us. They’re counting on eventual, if selective, salvation through rapture.
The rest of us, believers and nonbelievers alike, will have to conclude with the verse that follows:
All these are the beginning of sorrows.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Nuclear Facilities Must Never Be Attacked': IAEA Chief Condemns Israel's Bombing of Iran
"Such attacks have serious implications for nuclear safety, security, and safeguards, as well as regional and international peace and security," said the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Jun 13, 2025
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency issued a grave warning about the potentially catastrophic environmental and human impacts of military attacks on nuclear facilities after Israel launched a massive assault on Iran's nuclear energy infrastructure, reportedly damaging the country's largest uranium enrichment site.
"This development is deeply concerning," said IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi. "I have repeatedly stated that nuclear facilities must never be attacked, regardless of the context or circumstances, as it could harm both people and the environment. Such attacks have serious implications for nuclear safety, security, and safeguards, as well as regional and international peace and security."
Grossi pointed to the IAEA's longstanding position that "armed attacks on nuclear facilities could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked."
As of Friday afternoon local time, Iranian officials said radiation levels were not elevated at the Natanz enrichment site, according to Grossi. Iranian officials also said the country's Esfahan and Fordow nuclear sites were not affected by Israel's attacks.
"Despite the current military actions and heightened tensions," Grossi said Friday, "it is clear that the only sustainable path forward—for Iran, for Israel, the entire region, and the international community—is one grounded in dialogue and diplomacy to ensure peace, stability, and cooperation."
"Israel's bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities is a dangerous escalation from a nuclear-armed state that threatens to thwart negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program."
Israel's deadly attack on Iran came a day after the IAEA Board of Governors approved a U.S.-backed resolution accusing Iran of not complying with its commitments to international nuclear safeguards.
Iran responded furiously to the resolution's passage, saying it "has no choice but to respond to this politically motivated resolution" and announcing a "new enrichment facility in a secure location."
Contrary to the Israeli government's claim that Iran is racing toward a nuclear weapon, U.S. intelligence agencies have maintained that Iran is not building an atomic bomb—an assessment consistent with Iran's repeated public statements that its nuclear program is for civilian energy purposes only.
Following Israel's attack, Iran—which is not a member of the IAEA board—requested that the United Nations agency hold an emergency meeting to discuss the Israeli strikes. Reuters reported that board members Russia, China, and Venezuela supported the request for a meeting.
Melissa Parke, executive director of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, said in a statement Friday that "Israel's bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities is a dangerous escalation from a nuclear-armed state that threatens to thwart negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program."
"Israel and Iran must join the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons without delay," said Parke. "This would require Israel to dismantle its nuclear weapons program and Iran to maintain its current nuclear safeguards framework under IAEA oversight. It is only through broad-based negotiated solutions that we can truly end the threat from nuclear weapons by agreeing to their total elimination."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular