"Iran could start enriching uranium for bomb within months, UN nuclear chief says"
This is the headline from an article from the BBC dated 06/29/25. The political back and forth on this is continuing and a statement like this can be seen and used in different ways. The most factual part is this:
"Frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there," Grossi said on Saturday. "
He feels that Iran could get some centrifuges back on-line fairly quickly:
"On Saturday, Grossi told CBS News, the BBC's US media partner, that Tehran could have "in a matter of months... a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium."
Now this of course will ellicit more ignorance and name-calling from Crumb the 1st and his cabal of fascists. But there are more ways to see these statements from the IAEA. Given the statement at face value it would obviously give the pretext for Netanyahu to claim justification for bombing again. Keep in mind the recent move by Iran to cut off all relationships with the IAEA and we can see that the message between the lines from the IAEA to Iran might well be "Words from us about you carry great weight in being used as justification for the bombs to begin again. So maybe you would be wise to not cut us off."
We do know that the IAEA report has been a basis to justify the recent attacks:
"Israel and the US attacked Iran after the IAEA last month found Tehran to be in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years."
So too can the IAEA be seen as not an honest arbiter here depending on where a person sits. The article notes:
"Tehran has rejected the IAEA's request to inspect the damaged facilities, and on Friday, Araghchi said on X that "Grossi's insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent"."
Is the IAEA being used for a political purpose by member nations who control the organization? Is Iran lying about things? Is the IAEA compromised in it's claims of neutrality? All of these things can be true at the same time and the questions about whether Iran tells lies is settled long ago but our media never digs into whether things are skunky at the IAEA. But there is good reason to think they are given the latest report from them prior to the bombings and how it went down.
We know that there were ongoing demands for negotiations and some talks had been held. A previous BBC report dated 06/12/25 regarding the IAEA report about "non-compliance" from Iran notes:
"Nineteen of the 35 countries on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voted for the motion, which was backed by the US, UK, France and Germany."
And further in the report:
"Diplomats said three countries - Russia, China and Burkina Faso - voted against the resolution at the IAEA board's meeting in Vienna. Eleven others abstained and two did not vote."
Now the opposition of Russia and China is to be expected but you have 13 other members of a 35 person board who obviously had doubts about all of this severe enough that they would not back the resolution. That in itself is extraordinary and very telling because every subject regarding the Middle East at the UN or it's agencies brings immense behind the scenes pressure from the US to go along with what the US wants.
So the IAEA acting in both a political as well as scientific manner does have basis for concern since it appears to now be an adopted practice despite assurances to the world that it is not being used or conducting itself politically. They barely got a majority vote for the resolution pushed by the US etc. and that formed a justification and was used by the leaders of two governments for bombing another nation that they both have wanted to heavily bomb for decades and also create regime change.
So what we have is Iran tells lies, the IAEA is no longer able to claim neutrality in carrying out it's duties, Iran says it will continue on, the vaunted sense of invincibility given by Israel's Iron Dome is gone, there is death and damage in both countries, the men in charge of the US and Israel are known crooks, the taxpayers in the US keep being tabbed to support all of this, there is less IAEA access now than before the bombings and the only plan these geniuses have going forward is to do more of the same and continue to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries and pressure and threaten other nations around the world to go along with it. But supposedly this is "winning".
These kinds of policies and actions have been at the heart of Western conduct in the Middle East throughout since the British and French Mandates and continuing forward until this very day. So we do the same things over and over and think we will get a different result. The number of times in 100 years that the West backed people as leaders in the region, then overthrew them in order to go with a "new" leader would take many more fingers than one person has. The obvious fomenting and furthering of inter-group conflict in order for dominant outside nations to have influence has condemned the average people in the region to not even being an afterthought in comparison to the quest for influence and control as we continue with policies shown to have only exacerbated division and violence.
Always at the heart of it all is the old Western Colonialist attitudes toward the world they see. In their eyes the only leaders a country should have are the ones they find "acceptable" and if they are not then the Western nations will take actions both overt and covert to get rid of those they find "unacceptable". Should we wish for different leadership in Iran and more freedom for their people? Sure but we are not endowed with some right to go around the world remaking by force and covert action the internal affairs of other nations. Smaller countries know very well this kind of treatment by the major Western powers. It is no less wrong or problematic than the conduct of Russia and China.
But at the heart of hypocrisy in all of the Western nations conduct toward Iran and Syria has been the open acceptance of the conduct of Saudi Arabia. The US and other Western nations fall all over themselves in sucking up to that brutal regime. Condemning Assad for brutality for example is laudable but rings hollow while being mealy-mouthed about Saudi Arabia. So it is also laudable to condemn Iran on the idea of nuclear weapons and it's conduct in the world but that too rings hollow when one of the main countries pushing the condemnation has it's close ally in the same region with those nuclear weapons and who refuses compliance with international norms of conduct.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79qeqg89g2o
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3v6w2qr12o
= new reply since forum marked as read
