Israel-Iran conflict

Tehran’s top diplomat Abbas Araghchi visits Saudi Arabia for the first time after Iran’s 12-day war with Israel.

Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has met Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Jeddah in the first visit by a top Iranian official to the Gulf kingdom after Israel’s war with Tehran.

Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said Araghchi’s talks with Prince Mohammed and other Saudi officials on Tuesday were “fruitful”.

The visit after the 12-day intense conflict between Israel and Iran, which saw the United States bomb three Iranian nuclear facilities before mediating a ceasefire, suggests that the war did not derail the rapprochement between Tehran and Riyadh.

Saudi Arabia’s official news agency, SPA, said Araghchi and Prince Mohammed “reviewed bilateral relations and discussed the latest regional developments and the efforts being made in that regard”.

“The Crown Prince expressed the Kingdom’s aspiration that the ceasefire agreement would contribute to creating conditions that promote security and stability in the region, emphasizing the Kingdom’s stance in supporting dialogue through diplomatic means as a path to resolving disputes,” SPA said.

It added that Araghchi expressed his gratitude to the kingdom for “condemning the Israeli aggression”.

The top Iranian diplomat also met with Saudi Minister of Defence Khalid bin Salman bin Abdulaziz and Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud.

Israel launched a massive bombardment against Iran on June 13, without direct provocation, killing top military commanders and nuclear scientists as well as hundreds of civilians.

Iran retaliated with missile barrages that left widespread destruction in Israel.

After the US targeted Iran’s nuclear sites, Tehran responded with a missile launch against a US airbase in Qatar. Shortly after that attack, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel.

While Arab countries condemned the attack as a violation of Qatar’s sovereignty, Iran appears to be pushing to repair relations with Gulf states.

Ties between Tehran and Riyadh were strained for years over disagreements around regional conflicts and mutual accusations of spreading instability.

But the two countries agreed to restore formal relations as part of a deal brokered by China in 2023, and top Saudi and Iranian officials have been in regular contact.

Before the outbreak of the recent war, Saudi Arabia had welcomed Iran’s nuclear talks with the US, saying it supported efforts to resolve regional and international disputes.

On Monday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said he believed Tehran could resolve its differences with the US through dialogue, but trust would be an issue after the attacks on his country.

In an article published by the Financial Times earlier on Tuesday, Araghchi accused Israel of preferring conflict over diplomacy.

“Iran remains interested in diplomacy, but we have good reason to have doubts about further dialogue,” he wrote. “If there is a desire to resolve this amicably, the US should show genuine readiness for an equitable accord.”

US President Donald Trump and his Middle East envoy both claimed the talks could happen next week, following the Iranian president’s comments on being open to dialogue.

Iran says it has not requested talks with the United States over its nuclear programme, as claimed by US President Donald Trump.

“No request for a meeting has been made on our side to the American side,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said on Tuesday in comments carried by the country’s Tasnim news agency.

The clarification came a day after Trump, during a dinner in the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said Iran was actively seeking negotiations on a new nuclear deal following the 12-day war with Israel last month, which the US also joined.

“We have scheduled Iran talks. They want to talk,” Trump told reporters. “They want to work something out. They are very different now than they were two weeks ago.”

Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff – also present during the dinner – had even said the meeting could take place in the next week or so.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote in an opinion piece published in the Financial Times newspaper on Tuesday that Tehran remains interested in diplomacy but “we have good reason to have doubts about further dialogue”.

Sanctions relief

On June 13, Israel launched an unprecedented bombing campaign on Iran that targeted military and nuclear sites as well as residential areas, killing senior military commanders and nuclear scientists. Iranian authorities say the Israeli strikes killed at least 1,060 people. Israel says retaliatory drone and missile fire by Iran killed at least 28 people.

The US joined the war, bombing Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz, just days before a planned meeting between Tehran and Washington, DC on reviving the nuclear talks. Trump then went on to announce a ceasefire between Israel and Iran.

The negotiations, aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief, would replace the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – a deal signed with the US, China, Russia, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the European Union – which Trump ditched during his first term in office.

Floating the prospect of more talks on Monday, Trump also dangled the prospect of lifting punitive US sanctions on Iran, imposed after the US withdrawal from JCPOA, with further restrictions piled on this year.

This month, the US issued a new wave of sanctions against Iranian oil exports, the first penalties against Tehran’s energy sector since the US-backed ceasefire ended the war between Israel and Iran.

“I would love to be able to, at the right time, take those sanctions off,” said Trump.

Towards the end of last month, Trump said he was working on “the possible removal of sanctions”, but dropped his efforts after Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claimed “victory” in the Iran-Israel war.

Tehran’s denial regarding talks with the US came after Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told US journalist Tucker Carlson that Iran had “no problem” resuming talks so long as trust could be rebuilt between the two sides.

The interview, aired on Monday, provoked a backlash in Iran, with the critics accusing Pezeshkian of being “too soft” in the wake of last month’s attacks on the country.

“Have you forgotten that these same Americans, together with the Zionists, used the negotiations to buy time and prepare for the attack?” said an editorial in the hardline Kayhan newspaper.

The conservative Javan daily also took aim at Pezeshkian, saying his remarks appeared “a little too soft”.

In contrast, the reformist Ham Mihan newspaper praised Pezeshkian’s “positive approach”.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has met United States President Donald Trump at the White House, with the two leaders repeating their controversial proposal to forcibly transfer thousands of Palestinians out of the Gaza Strip.

Trump and Netanyahu met for dinner in the Blue Room of the White House on Monday as indirect talks in Qatar between Israel and Hamas on US-backed proposals for a 60-day ceasefire to end the 21-month Gaza war appeared to gather some momentum.

Netanyahu told reporters present at the meeting that the US and Israel were working with other countries to give Palestinians a “better future”, suggesting that the residents of Gaza could move to neighbouring nations.

“If people want to stay, they can stay, but if they want to leave, they should be able to leave. It shouldn’t be a prison. It should be an open place and give people a free choice,” Netanyahu said.

“We’re working with the United States very closely about finding countries that will seek to realise what they always say, that they wanted to give the Palestinians a better future. I think we’re getting close to finding several countries.”

Trump, who earlier this year caused outrage when he floated his idea of relocating Palestinians and taking over the Strip to turn it into a “Riviera of the Middle East”, said there had been “great cooperation” on the matter from “surrounding countries”.

“So something good will happen,” he added.

‘Recipe for catastrophe’

“This is something the Israelis have been saying for some time, calling it the ‘voluntary migration’ of Palestinians from their homelands. But of course, this has been condemned as ethnic cleansing,” Al Jazeera’s Hamdah Salhut said, reporting from Amman, Jordan.

Former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas told Al Jazeera that just because there are ongoing reports and statements about relocating Palestinians in Gaza to other countries, it does not mean that there is a “practical plan”.

“The fact that the Israeli defence minister blurts some ideas out, or even the prime minister, or even the president of the United States, doesn’t mean there is a plan,” he said.

“In early February, Trump spoke about a Palestinian Riviera, and within 36 hours, he changed that from a Riviera for the Palestinians to the Palestinians will be expelled,” he added.

Pinkas explained that amid reports that the Boston Consulting Group, which has been asked to come up with a plan to relocate Palestinians, it “doesn’t mean it’s implementable, it doesn’t mean it’s practical”.

“[It] is a recipe for catastrophe because it ensures that no [post-war] agreement in Gaza is durable,” Pinkas said.

Trump and Netanyahu met as Israeli and Hamas negotiators held a second day of indirect talks in Qatar, seated in different rooms in the same building. Proposals for a 60-day pause in fighting envisage a phased release of Hamas-held captives and Palestinian prisoners, Israeli troop withdrawals from parts of Gaza, and discussions on completely ending the war.

But a sticking point is whether the ceasefire will end the war altogether. Hamas has said it is willing to free all the captives in exchange for all Palestinian prisoners and a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Netanyahu says the war will end once Hamas surrenders, disarms and goes into exile – something the Palestinian group refuses to do.

In advance of Netanyahu’s visit to the US, Trump predicted that a ceasefire deal could be reached this week. But Netanyahu appeared cagey, ruling out a full Palestinian state, saying Israel will “always” keep security control over the Gaza Strip.

Monday’s talks in Qatar ended with no announcements. Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, who played an important role in crafting the proposals, is expected to join negotiators in Qatar this week.

Coveted Nobel nomination

Trump and Netanyahu’s discussions came just over two weeks after the former ordered the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites in support of Israeli air strikes, before announcing a ceasefire in the 12-day Israel-Iran war.

During their meeting, Netanyahu gave Trump a letter that he said had been used to nominate the US president for the Nobel Peace Prize. Trump, appearing pleased by the gesture, thanked him.

“So much of this is about optics,” said Al Jazeera’s Phil Lavelle, reporting from Washington, DC. “Of course, the [Israeli] prime minister will be very keen to make sure that this is seen back home as a major success … He is very keen to make sure that he is portrayed as being back in the good favours of Donald Trump.”

Trump has made little secret of the fact that he covets a Nobel, trumpeting recent truces that his administration facilitated between India and Pakistan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda.

During the meeting, Trump indicated that Iranian officials have reached out to the US to schedule talks about Iran’s nuclear programme. Negotiations had started in April but were scuppered after Israel launched attacks last month.

“We have scheduled Iran talks, and they … want to talk. They took a big drubbing,” said the US president.

Sitting at the table with Trump, Witkoff said the meeting would be soon, perhaps in a week.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said in an interview with US journalist Tucker Carlson, released on Monday, that he believed Tehran could resolve its differences with Washington through dialogue.

Netanyahu, who also met Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday, is due to meet Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday morning (about 13:30 GMT).

Israel attacked Iran just days before Tehran and Washington were to meet for a new round of nuclear talks.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has said he believes Tehran can resolve its differences with the United States through dialogue, but trust would be an issue after US and Israeli attacks on his country.

“I am of the belief that we could very much easily resolve our differences and conflicts with the United States through dialogue and talks,” Pezeshkian told US right-wing podcaster Tucker Carlson in an interview conducted on Saturday and released on Monday.

His remarks came less than a month after Israel launched its unprecedented June 13 bombing campaign against Iran, killing top military commanders and nuclear scientists.

The Israeli attacks took place two days before Tehran and Washington were set to meet for a new round of nuclear talks, stalling negotiations that were aimed at reaching a deal over Iran’s atomic programme.

A week later, in separate attacks on June 21, the US also bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

Iranian state media said on Monday that the death toll from the 12-day war had risen to at least 1,060.

Pezeshkian blamed Israel, Iran’s archenemy, for the collapse of talks with the US.

“How are we going to trust the United States again?” he asked.

“How can we know for sure that in the middle of the talks, the Israeli regime will not be given the permission again to attack us?”

Iran’s president also accused Israel of attempting to assassinate him during the June attacks.

“They did try, yes. They acted accordingly, but they failed,” Pezeshkian told Carlson in response to a question on whether he believed Israel had tried to kill him.

“It was not the United States that was behind the attempt on my life. It was Israel. I was in a meeting … they tried to bombard the area in which we were holding that meeting,” he said, according to a translation of his remarks from Persian into English.

On June 16, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also did not rule out plans to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, saying it would “end the conflict” after reports emerged at the time that US President Donald Trump had vetoed the move.

While a ceasefire between Iran and Israel has been in place since June 24, during the interview with Carlson, Pezeshkian accused Netanyahu of pursuing his “own agenda” of “forever wars” in the Middle East and urged Trump not to be drawn into war with Iran by the Israeli leader.

Netanyahu is visiting Washington on Monday for talks at the White House.

“The United States’ president, Mr. Trump, he is capable enough to guide the region towards peace and a brighter future and put Israel in its place. Or get into a pit, an endless pit, or a swamp,” Pezeshkian said.

“So it is up to the United States president to choose which path.”

Trump said he expected to discuss Iran and its nuclear ambitions with Netanyahu, praising the US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites as a tremendous success.

On Friday, he told reporters that he believed Tehran’s nuclear programme had been set back permanently, although Iran could restart efforts elsewhere.

The international legal order loses its effectiveness when faced with the unilateralism of hegemonic powers as well as acts that flout universally accepted norms. If such practices remain unaddressed, there is a risk that the order will lose its foundational purpose: the protection of justice, peace, and the sovereignty of nations.

The attack by the United States and Israel on Iran, including the targeted killings of scientists and intellectuals, bombing of IAEA-approved nuclear facilities, and strikes against residential, medical, media, and public infrastructure, is a prime example of illegal, unilateral action that must not remain unaddressed. It is a wrongful act and a clear violation of fundamental norms of international law.

In this context, the principle of state responsibility, which dictates that states are held accountable for wrongful acts, must be applied. This principle was codified by the International Law Commission ILC in its 2001 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which have since been widely recognised and cited by international courts and tribunals.

Per their provisions, the commission of a wrongful act – such as the unlawful use of force – constitutes a violation of an international obligation and imposes a binding duty on the responsible state to provide full and effective reparation for the harm caused.

In the case of the illegal acts committed by the United States and Israel, the scope of legal responsibility goes far beyond ordinary violations. These acts not only contravened customary international law, but also breached peremptory norms, the highest-ranking norms within the international legal hierarchy. Among these, the principle of the prohibition of aggression is a core and universally binding rule. No state is permitted to derogate from this norm, and violations trigger obligations, requiring all members of the international community to respond collectively to uphold the law.

There are at least two relevant legal precedents that can guide the application of the principle of state responsibility and the obligation for reparations in the case of Iran.

In 1981, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 487 in response to Israel’s attack on Iraq’s nuclear facilities. It unequivocally characterised this act of aggression as a “serious threat to the entire safeguard regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]”, which is the foundation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The resolution also fully recognised the inalienable sovereign right of all states to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes.

Article 6 stipulates that “Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel”. By mandating that the aggressor compensate the victim for the resulting damages, the resolution provides a clear legal precedent for pursuing redress in similar cases.

Thus, given the fact that the attacks by the US and Israel were carried out with public declarations confirming the operations and are well-documented, the application of the principles and provisions of Resolution 487 to the Iranian case is not only appropriate and necessary but also firmly grounded in international law.

Another relevant document is UN Security Council Resolution 692, which was adopted in 1991 and established the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. The commission was tasked with processing claims for compensation of losses and damages incurred as a result of the invasion.

The creation of UNCC demonstrated the capacity of international mechanisms to identify victims, evaluate damage, and implement practical compensation – setting a clear model for state responsibility in cases of unlawful aggression.

This precedent provides a strong legal and institutional basis for asserting the rights of the Iranian people. It is therefore both appropriate and necessary for the UN to establish a rule-based mechanism, such as an international commission on compensation, to redress Iran.

Such a commission, initiated and endorsed by the UN General Assembly or other competent UN bodies, should undertake a comprehensive assessment of the damages inflicted by the unlawful and aggressive acts of the US and the Zionist regime against Iran.

The establishment of reparative mechanisms – whether through independent commissions, fact-finding bodies, or compensation funds operating under international oversight – would contribute meaningfully to restoring trust in the global legal system and provide a principled response to the ongoing normalisation of impunity.

Iran also has another avenue for pursuing justice for the illegal attacks it was subjected to. In the lead-up to them, the IAEA published biased and politically motivated reports about the Iranian nuclear programme, which facilitated the commission of aggression by the US and Israel and breached the principle of neutrality.

This places Iran in a position to seek redress and claim damages from the agency under Article 17 of the IAEA Safeguards Agreement. As a state harmed by the agency’s manifest negligence, Iran is entitled to full reparation for all material and moral damages inflicted upon its peaceful nuclear facilities and scientific personnel.

In this context, pursuing accountability for the IAEA, alongside the aggressor states, is a vital element of Iran’s broader strategy to uphold accountability within the international legal order. By relying on recognised, legitimate, and binding international mechanisms, Iran will steadfastly defend the rights of its people at every forum.

Ultimately, responsibility for the recent crimes of this war of aggression does not lie solely with the direct perpetrators, the US and Israel, and those who aided them, the IAEA. All states and international organisations bear an undeniable obligation to implement effective legal measures to prevent such crimes.

The international community as a whole must respond decisively. Silence, delay, or any form of complicity in the face of aggression and atrocities would reduce the principle of state accountability under international law to an empty slogan.

In its pursuit of accountability, Iran will exhaust all available resources and will not relent until the rights of its people are fully recognised and they receive adequate redress. It will continue to seek the prosecution and accountability of those responsible for these crimes, both domestically and internationally, until justice is fully achieved.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Afghans given Sunday deadline amid concerns over security after conflict with Israel, but humanitarian groups warn that mass deportations could further destabilise Afghanistan.

Millions of Afghan migrants and refugees in Iran have been asked to leave or face arrest as a deadline set by the government comes to an end.

Sunday’s target date neared amid public concerns over security in the aftermath of the 12-day conflict with Israel, which the United States joined with air strikes on Iran’s uranium-enrichment facilities.

But humanitarian organisations warned that mass deportations could further destabilise Afghanistan, one of the world’s most impoverished nations. Iran is home to an estimated 4 million Afghan migrants and refugees, and many have lived there for decades.

In 2023, Tehran launched a campaign to expel foreigners it said were living in the country “illegally”. In March, the Iranian government ordered that Afghans without the right to remain should leave voluntarily by Sunday or face expulsion.

Since then, more than 700,000 Afghans have left, and hundreds of thousands of others face expulsion. More than 230,000 departed in June alone, the United Nations International Organization for Migration said.

The government has denied targeting Afghans, who have fled their homeland to escape war, poverty and Taliban rule.

Batoul Akbari, a restaurant owner, told Al Jazeera that Afghans living in Tehran were hurt by “anti-Afghan sentiment”, adding that it was heartbreaking to see “people sent away from the only home they have ever known”.

“Being born in Iran gives us the feeling of having two homelands,” Akbari said. “Our parents are from Afghanistan, but this is what we’ve always known as home.”

Mohammad Nasim Mazaheri, a student whose family had to leave Iran, agreed: “The deportations have torn families apart.”

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated that Iran deported more than 30,000 Afghans on average each day during the war with Israel, up from about 2,000 earlier.

“We have always striven to be good hosts, but national security is a priority, and naturally, illegal nationals must return,” Iranian government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani said on Tuesday.

Late last month, the UNHCR said, of the 1.2 million returning Afghans, more than half had come from Iran after its government set its deadline on March 20.

“They are coming in buses, and sometimes, five buses arrive at one time with families and others, and the people are let out of the bus, and they are simply bewildered, disoriented and tired and hungry as well,” Arafat Jamal, the UNHCR representative in Afghanistan said as he described the scene at a border crossing.

“This has been exacerbated by the war, but I must say it has been part of an underlying trend that we have seen of returns from Iran, some of which are voluntary, but a large portion were also deportations.”

Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar, reporting from Tehran, said Afghans have increasingly been blamed for economic hardships, shortages and social issues in Iran.

“These accusations have been fuelled by political rhetoric and social media campaigns following 12 days of conflict between Iran and Israel and claims that Israel has recruited Afghans as spies,” he said.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei attended a mourning ceremony on the eve of the Muslim holy day of Ashura.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has attended a religious ceremony in Tehran, making his first public appearance since the 12 days of conflict between Israel and Iran.

The 85-year-old leader appeared in a video aired by state media on Saturday, which showed dozens of people attending an event at a mosque to mark Ashura, the holiest day of the Shia Muslim calendar.

In the footage, Khamenei is seen waving and nodding to the chanting crowd, which rose to its feet as he entered the mosque.

State TV said the clip was filmed at the Imam Khomeini Mosque in central Tehran.

Khamenei has avoided public appearances since the start of the fighting on June 13, and his speeches have all been prerecorded.

The United States, which joined in the Israeli attacks by bombing three key nuclear sites in Iran on June 22, had sent warnings to Khamenei, with US President Donald Trump saying on social media that Washington knew where the Iranian leader was, but had no plans to kill him, “at least for now”.

On June 26, in prerecorded remarks aired on state television, Khamenei rejected Trump’s calls for Iran’s surrender, and said Tehran had delivered a “slap to America’s face” by striking a US airbase in Qatar

Trump replied, in remarks to reporters and on social media: “Look, you’re a man of great faith. A man who’s highly respected in his country. You have to tell the truth. You got beat to hell.”

Iran has acknowledged that more than 900 people were killed in the war, as well as thousands injured. Iran’s retaliatory missile attacks on Israel killed at least 28 people there.

The ceasefire between the two countries took hold on June 24.

Since then, Iran has confirmed serious damage to its nuclear facilities, and denied access to them for inspectors from the United Nations’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The IAEA’s inspectors had stayed in the Iranian capital throughout the fighting, even as Israel attacked Iranian military sites and killed several of the country’s most senior commanders and top scientists, as well as hundreds of civilians.

However, they left after Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed a law suspending cooperation with the IAEA on Wednesday.

IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi on Friday stressed “the crucial importance” of dialogue with Iran to resume monitoring and verification work of its nuclear programme as soon as possible.

Iran was holding talks with the US on its nuclear programme when Israel launched its attacks. The US has been seeking a new agreement after Trump pulled the US out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which Tehran signed with world powers in 2015.

Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi separately said on Thursday that the country remains committed to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), dismissing speculation that Iran would leave the international accord.

The US president says he will not allow Tehran to resume its nuclear programme, adding Iranian officials want to meet with him.

United States President Donald Trump has said Iran has not agreed to inspections of its nuclear programme or to giving up enriching uranium.

He told reporters on board Air Force One on Friday that he believed Tehran’s nuclear programme had been “set back permanently”, although he conceded Iran could restart it at a different location.

Trump said he would discuss Iran with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he visits the White House on Monday, where a potential Gaza ceasefire is expected to top the agenda.

Trump said, as he travelled to New Jersey after an Independence Day celebration at the White House, “I would think they’d have to start at a different location. And if they did start, it would be a problem.”

Trump said he would not allow Tehran to resume its nuclear programme, adding that Iranian officials wanted to meet with him.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Friday it had pulled out its inspectors from Iran as a standoff deepens over their return to the country’s nuclear facilities that were bombed by the US and Israel.

The US and Israel say Iran was enriching uranium to build nuclear weapons. Tehran denies wanting to produce a nuclear bomb, reiterating for years that its nuclear programme has been for civilian use only. Neither US intelligence nor the UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi said they had found any proof that Tehran was building a nuclear weapon.

Israel launched its first military strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites in a 12-day war with the Islamic Republic three weeks ago, with the US intervening on the side of its staunch ally by launching massive strikes on the sites on June 22.

The IAEA’s inspectors have been unable to inspect Iran’s facilities since the beginning of the conflict, even though Grossi has said that it is his top priority.

Grossi stressed “the crucial importance” of holding talks with Iran to resume its monitoring and verification work as soon as possible.

Distrust of IAEA

In the aftermath of the US and Israeli attacks, Iran, which has said it is still committed to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), made painfully clear its burgeoning distrust of the IAEA.

Since the start of the conflict, Iranian officials have sharply criticised the IAEA, not only for failing to condemn the Israeli and US strikes, but also for passing a resolution on June 12 accusing Tehran of non-compliance with its nuclear obligations, the day before Israel attacked.

On Wednesday, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian ordered the country to cut ties with the nuclear watchdog. A bill to suspend cooperation had already been passed in the Iranian parliament and approved by the country’s Guardian Council.

Guardian Council spokesperson Hadi Tahan Nazif said the decision had been taken for the “full respect for the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic of Iran”.

The bill itself says the suspension “will remain in effect until certain conditions are met, including the guaranteed security of nuclear facilities and scientists”, according to Iranian state television.

While the IAEA says Iran has not yet formally informed it of any suspension, it is unclear when the agency’s inspectors will be able to return to Iran.

On Monday, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi summarily dismissed Grossi’s request to visit nuclear facilities bombed by Israel and the US. “Grossi’s insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent,” Araghchi said.

The US claims military strikes either destroyed or badly damaged Iran’s three uranium enrichment sites.

But it was less clear what had happened to much of Iran’s nine tonnes of enriched uranium, especially the more than 400kg (880 pounds) enriched to up to 60 percent purity, a closer step but not in the realm of weapons grade at 90 percent or more.

Hours before a ceasefire took effect between Israel and Iran on June 24, the son of Iran’s last shah, Reza Pahlavi, held a televised news conference in the French capital, Paris.

Dressed in a grey suit and blue tie with his hair combed back, the 64-year-old exiled (and self-styled) crown prince of the monarchy that Iranians overthrew in 1979 urged the United States not to give Iran’s government a “lifeline” by restarting diplomatic talks on its nuclear programme.

Pahlavi insisted that Iran’s Islamic Republic was collapsing. “This is our Berlin Wall moment,” he said, calling for ordinary Iranians to seize the opportunity afforded by Israel’s war and take to the streets, and for defections from the military and security forces.

But the mass protests Pahlavi encouraged never materialised.

Instead, many Iranians – including those opposed to the government – rallied around the flag in a moment of attack by a foreign force. It appears that Pahlavi, who said in his Paris speech that he was ready to replace Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and lead Iranians down a “road of peace and democratic transition”, had misread the room.

While he was willing to align with Israel in achieving what he perceives to be the greater goal of overthrowing the Islamic Republic, the majority of his compatriots were not.

If anything, Pahlavi may have squandered the little support he once had by choosing not to condemn Israel’s heavy bombardment of Iran, which killed more than 935 people, including many civilians, said Trita Parsi, an expert on Iran and the author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States.

“He has – in my estimation – destroyed much of the brand name [of the shah] … by going on TV and making excuses for Israel when it was targeting our apartment buildings and killing civilians,” he told Al Jazeera.

Pahlavi’s office did not respond to requests for comment from Al Jazeera.

Generational appeal

The level of support for Pahlavi is disputed, but many experts doubt it is extensive.

Still, what support he does have – particularly in the Iranian diaspora – often emanates from opposition to the Islamic Republic and nostalgia for the monarchy that predated it.

Yasmine*, a British-Iranian in her late 20s, said that members of her own family support Pahlavi for the symbolism of the pre-Islamic Republic era that he represents, as opposed to what he may actually stand for, adding that she believed that he lacked a clear political vision.

“He really symbolises what Iran was [a government that was secular and pro-West] prior to the Islamic Republic, and that’s what those who are asking for Reza Pahlavi want back,” she told Al Jazeera.

Her aunt, Yasna*, 64, left Iran just months before the 1979 revolution to attend university in the United Kingdom. While she supports Pahlavi for the reasons her niece mentioned, she also believes Iran will no longer be a pariah to the West if he returned to rule Iran.

“He’s somebody from my generation, and I have a clear memory of growing up in the days under the shah … he’s also so friendly with America, Europe and Israel, and we need somebody like that [in Iran],” Yasna said.

Analysts explained to Al Jazeera that the lack of a prominent alternative to Pahlavi – due to the Iranian government’s crackdown on political opposition – was part of Pahlavi’s appeal.

They also pointed out that support for Pahlavi is tied to the distorted memory that some have of his grandfather, Reza Khan, and his father, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Reza Khan was widely credited with creating an ethno-centralised state that curtailed the power of the religious clergy and violently cracked down on opponents and minorities. That repression continued under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

However, Yasna speaks fondly of the Pahlavi family and hopes Reza Pahlavi can soon carve out his own legacy.

“Reza’s grandfather brought security to the country, and his father helped us move forward. I now think Reza can unite us again,” she said.

Family history

The Pahlavis were not a dynasty with a long and storied past. Reza Khan was a military officer who seized power in the 1920s, before being replaced by Mohammad Reza in 1941.

Foreign powers had a role to play in that, as they did in 1953, when the US and the UK engineered a coup against Iran’s then-elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had nationalised the assets of the Anglo-Persian oil company, now known as BP, in April 1951.

“The British thought it was their oil,” explained Assal Rad, a historian of Iran and the author of State of Resistance: Politics, Identity and Culture in Modern Iran.

“They had no recognition of the colonial past that allowed them to forcefully take the resource, nor recognition of Iran’s right to take the resource for itself,” she told Al Jazeera.

Prior to the coup, Rad explained that the shah was engaged in a power struggle with Mosaddegh, who openly criticised the shah for violating the constitution. The former wanted to maintain his control, especially over the military, while the latter was trying to mould Iran into a constitutional democracy with popular support.

The coup against Mosaddegh was ultimately successful, leading to another 26 years of progressively more repressive Pahlavi rule.

According to a 1976 report by Amnesty International, the shah’s feared intelligence agency (SAVAK) often beat political prisoners with electric cables, sodomised them and ripped off their finger and toenails to extract false confessions.

“At the end of the day, the shah’s regime was a brutal dictatorship and non-democracy,” Parsi told Al Jazeera.

Economic inequality between the rich urban classes and the rural poor also grew under the shah, according to a 2019 Brookings Institute report by Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, an economist at Virginia Tech University.

And yet, the shah appeared detached from the plight of his own people throughout his reign. Rad referenced a lavish party that the shah threw in 1971 to celebrate 2,500 years of the Persian Empire.

The luxurious party brought together foreign dignitaries from across the world, even as many Iranians struggled to make ends meet, highlighting the country’s economic disparities.

“He was celebrating Iran with nothing Iranian and no Iranians invited nor involved, and he even had student protesters arrested beforehand because he didn’t want incidents to occur while he was doing this,” Rad said. “The party was one of these monumental moments that led to the disconnect between him and his own people.”

Coupled with state repression and rising poverty, the Persian Empire celebration was one of the factors that eventually led to the 1979 revolution.

Reza Pahlavi was in the US when the revolution erupted, training to be a fighter pilot.

He was just 17 years old and has never returned to Iran since. Instead, a life in exile began, with the ultimate goal always remaining a return to his home country – and power.

As the eldest of the shah’s two sons, loyalists to the monarchy recognised Reza Pahlavi as heir apparent after his father passed away from cancer in 1980.

He has since spent the majority of his life in the US, mostly in the suburbs of Washington, DC.

Initially focused on restoring the monarchy, Pahlavi has shifted his rhetoric in the last two decades to focus more on the idea of a secular democracy in Iran. He has said he does not seek power, and would only assume the throne if asked to do so by the Iranian people.

Opposition outreach

Pahlavi’s attempt to broaden his appeal came as he also reached out to other opponents of the Iranian government.

Some have outright refused to work with him, citing his royal background. And others who have worked with him have quickly distanced themselves.

One of the most important examples of this was the Alliance for Democracy and Freedom in Iran, formed in 2023, in the wake of antigovernment protests that began the previous year.

As well as Pahlavi, the coalition included Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, women’s rights activist Masih Alinejad, human rights activist and actress Nazanin Boniadi, former footballer Ali Karimi, and the author Hamed Esmaeilion.

But problems emerged from the very meeting organised to form the coalition in February 2023.

According to Parsi and Sina Toossi, an expert on Iran with the Center for International Policy (CIP), Pahlavi rejected any proposal to collaborate with the other attendees at the meeting in Washington, DC’s Georgetown University, either by agreeing to make decisions based on a shared consensus or through some kind of majority vote.

He instead wanted all attendees to defer and rally behind him as a leader of the opposition.

Another issue that followed the Georgetown meeting was the behaviour of Pahlavi’s supporters, many of whom were against anyone associated with left-wing politics, and defenders of the actions of the shah’s regime.

“The monarchists [his supporters] were upset that Reza was put on par with these other people [at the meeting],” said Toossi.

The coalition soon collapsed, with Esmaeilion referring to “undemocratic methods” in what many perceived to be criticism of Pahlavi.

Israeli connections

Two months after the Georgetown meeting, and as the newly formed alliance quickly collapsed, Pahlavi made a choreographed visit to Israel with his wife Yasmine.

As Al Jazeera previously reported, the visit was arranged by Pahlavi’s official adviser Amir Temadi, and Saeed Ghasseminejad, who works at the US right-wing think tank the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), which frequently publishes analyses that call on the US to use military force to deter Iran’s regional influence and nuclear programme.

During the visit, Pahlavi and his wife took a photo with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara.

Yasmine and I were very pleased to meet with @IsraeliPM and Sara @netanyahu. We expressed appreciation for Israel’s continued support for the Iranian people’s democratic aspirations and emphasized that, as the children of Cyrus the Great, Iranians aspire to have a government that… pic.twitter.com/lInuy4lwdC

— Reza Pahlavi (@PahlaviReza) April 19, 2023

The trip highlighted Pahlavi’s close ties to Israel, a relationship that had been cultivated for years, even if it was less publicly acknowledged initially.

During George W Bush’s first term as US president in the early 2000s, Pahlavi approached the powerful American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – a powerful lobby – to speak at their annual conference, according to Parsi.

The offer was rejected, with AIPAC members explaining that he would hurt his own brand as an Iranian nationalist if he were to speak at their annual conference, Parsi explained.

“AIPAC had told him that perhaps it wasn’t a good idea because it could delegitimise him, which tells you something about how disconnected [Pahlavi] was from the realities of the Iranian diaspora,” he told Al Jazeera.

But, about 10 years ago, during US President Donald Trump’s first term, Pahlavi also began to surround himself with advisers who have long called for closer ties between Iran and Israel and for the US to continue its “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign against Iran’s government, according to Toossi.

Trump’s maximum pressure campaign hurt common people more than the Iranian government. It resulted in sharp inflation and major depreciation of its currency, making it difficult for many Iranians to afford basic commodities and life-saving medications, according to Human Rights Watch.

According to Toossi, Pahlavi appeared somewhat aware of the economic hardships brought on by sanctions, which may explain why he supported US President Barack Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015.

The JCPOA ensured global monitoring of Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for much-needed sanctions relief.

However, Pahlavi quickly began to align with Trump when he came to power the following year, Toossi said. Trump scorned the JCPOA and finally pulled out in 2018 before beginning his maximum pressure policy.

The disconnect between Pahlavi and regular Iranians over this issue could also be seen in his actions during the 2023 trip to Israel.

Pahlavi made a well-publicised trip to the Western Wall, in occupied East Jerusalem, which holds considerable religious significance for Jewish people across the world.

The vast majority of Iranians are still Shia Muslims – even if many are secular– and Pahlavi did not visit the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third-holiest site in Islam. The Western Wall is part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound’s exterior wall.

Out of touch

In hindsight, the 2023 trip to Israel and Pahlavi’s apparent friendly relations with Israeli officials have damaged his reputation, said Toossi.

“In short … what’s been going on with the Iran monarchy movement is a very clear, evident and above-the-table alliance with Israel,” he told Al Jazeera.

“He was really the only opposition figure that was supportive of [Israel’s war],” he added.

According to Barbara Slavin, an expert on Iran and a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Centre in Washington, DC, Pahlavi’s rhetoric was “counterproductive” during the 12-day war.

Slavin said Pahlavi has largely been disconnected from the feelings and perspectives inside Iran because he simply has not been there since he was a teenager, and his failure to condemn Israel’s bombardment of civilians has turned a lot of people off.

“After all the civilians Israel killed, [his relationship with Israel] really has a bad smell,” she told Al Jazeera.

Parsi agrees and adds that he doesn’t think Israel truly believes that Pahlavi can one day rule the country due to his lack of popular support both in and outside of Iran.

Parsi believes Israel is simply exploiting his brand to legitimise its own hostility towards Iran.

“He is … useful for the Israelis to parade around because it gives them a veneer of legitimacy for their own war of aggression against Iran” during the fighting, he said.

“[Israel] can point to [Pahlavi] and say, ‘Look. Iranians want to be bombed.’” Parsi said.

But that is a turn-off for many Iranians, including those against the government.

Yasmine, the British-Iranian, is one of them.

Pahlavi, in her view, was not charismatic and had cemented his unpopularity among Iranians, both inside Iran and outside, with his call for Iranians to take to the streets as Israel attacked Iran.

“He was asking Iranians to rise up against the government so that he will come [to take over],” Yasmine said. “He was basically asking Iranians to do his dirty work.”

*Some names have been changed to protect the safety of interviewees

Russian president says future talks need to be between Kyiv and Moscow amid signs latter does not want US involvement.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has told his United States counterpart, Donald Trump, that Moscow will not give up on its goal of eliminating the “root causes” of the war in Ukraine.

“Russia will not back down,” Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters although he added that Putin had also expressed a “readiness” to “seek a political and negotiated solution to the conflict” during his one-hour phone conversation with Trump on Thursday.

The phrase “root causes” is shorthand for the Kremlin’s argument that it was compelled to launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 to prevent the country from joining NATO and being used by the Western alliance as a launchpad to attack Russia – arguments rejected by Kyiv and its allies but supported in part by Trump.

Trump said after the call that he had made “no progress” with Putin on moving towards a ceasefire, adding that he was “not happy” about the war in Ukraine.

The phone call, their sixth since Trump started his second term in January, came the day after the Pentagon confirmed it was halting some weapons deliveries to Kyiv, including air defence missiles and precision-guided artillery. They were promised under President Joe Biden’s administration. The announcement was made as Russia has intensified its attacks on Ukraine

Trump and Putin did not broach the subject of the paused weapons deliveries, according to the Kremlin aide, who said the US president had raised the issue of bringing about a swift end to the war.

While the prospect of a face-to-face meeting was not discussed, the two leaders agreed to keep talking.

Although Trump has tried to mediate in the Ukraine war, he has little progress to show for it. Putin has thus far rejected Washington’s proposal for an unconditional ceasefire, and there was nothing in the Kremlin readout to suggest any shift in his position. Ukraine supported the proposal.

Ushakov said that while Russia was open to continuing to speak with the US, any peace negotiations needed to occur between Moscow and Kyiv.

He made the comment amid some indications that Moscow is trying to avoid a trilateral format for any peace negotiations. Ukrainian officials have said Russian negotiators asked US diplomats to leave the room during a meeting in Istanbul in early June.

Putin and Trump last talked in mid-June when Putin offered to mediate in the recent 12-day Iran-Israel war. Trump responded to Putin’s offer by switching the focus back to Ukraine, saying: “No, I don’t need help with Iran. I need help with you.”

Ushakov said that during Thursday’s call, Putin emphasised the need to resolve all “disputes, disagreements and conflict situations” regarding Iran through diplomatic means.

The US waded into the Israel-Iran conflict last month, bombing three of Iran’s nuclear sites, a move condemned by Moscow as unprovoked and illegal.

Earlier on Thursday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met European Union leaders in Denmark, saying doubts over US military aid to Ukraine reinforced the need to “strengthen our cooperation and coordination through the EU, NATO and also in our direct relations”.

Trump has in effect nixed Ukraine’s attempts to join the NATO military alliance.

Zelenskyy told reporters he hopes to speak to Trump as soon as Friday about the pause in weapons shipments.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says Tehran is committed to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), dismissing speculation that Iran would leave the accord in response to major attacks by Israel and the United States on its nuclear and other sites.

Araghchi also said on Thursday that Iran will honour its safeguards agreement with the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), despite recently passing a law to suspend cooperation with the agency.

Safeguards agreements between the IAEA and NPT signatories allow the UN agency to ensure that the countries’ nuclear programmes remain peaceful.

“Iran remains committed to the NPT and its Safeguards Agreement,” Araghchi wrote in a social media post.

“In accordance with the new legislation by Majlis [parliament], sparked by the unlawful attacks against our nuclear facilities by Israel and the US, our cooperation with [the IAEA] will be channelled through Iran’s Supreme National Security Council for obvious safety and security reasons.”

It is not clear how that cooperation will proceed or when and how IAEA inspectors will be granted access to Iran’s nuclear sites.

Araghchi’s comment was made in response to a German Federal Foreign Office statement decrying the Iranian legislation against the IAEA as a “devastating message”.

The Iranian foreign minister hit out at the criticism by Germany – one of Israel’s most committed allies that backed the attacks against Iran last month.

At the height of Israel’s strikes, which were launched without direct provocation, Chancellor Friedrich Merz suggested Germany and the West are benefitting from the war.

“This is dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us,” he said. The remarks earned him praise from Israeli officials and caused outrage in some other quarters.

On Thursday, Araghchi rebuked “Germany’s explicit support for Israel’s unlawful attack on Iran, including safeguarded nuclear sites, as ‘dirty work’ carried out on behalf of the West”.

He also accused Berlin of repudiating its commitments under the 2015 multilateral nuclear deal with Tehran by demanding zero enrichment by Iran.

The pact – which US President Donald Trump torpedoed during his first term in 2018 – allows Iran to enrich uranium at a low grade under a strict monitoring regime.

“‘Iranians were already put off by Germany’s Nazi-style backing of Genocide in Gaza, and its support for Saddam’s war on Iran by providing materials for chemical weapons,” Araghchi said in a post on X.

“The explicit German support for the bombing of Iran has obliterated the notion that the German regime harbours anything but malice towards Iranians.”

Companies from the former West Germany have long been accused by Iran of helping late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein develop chemical weapons, which he used against Iranian forces during the war between the two countries in the 1980s.

Iran has been calling on Germany to investigate its ties to Iraq’s chemical weapons, but Berlin has not publicly acknowledged any role in the programme.

Germany and other European countries came out in support of Israel in its recent 12-day war with Iran, which killed hundreds of Iranian civilians, including nuclear scientists and their family members, as well as top military officials.

The US joined the Israeli campaign last month, bombing three Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran retaliated against the US attack with a missile strike against an airbase in Qatar where US soldiers are stationed. Hours later, a ceasefire was reached.

Iranian officials have sharply criticised the IAEA not only for failing to condemn the Israeli and US strikes but also for passing a resolution on June 12 accusing Tehran of noncompliance with its nuclear obligations, the day before Israel attacked.

International law offers special protection to nuclear sites due to the high risk of an environmental disaster if attacks result in the leak of radioactive material.

The state of the Iranian nuclear programme after the US and Israeli strikes remains unclear.

On Wednesday, the Pentagon said the US bombing operation set back Iran’s nuclear programme by one to two years.

But IAEA chief Rafael Grossi recently said Iran could be enriching uranium again in a “matter of months”. Enrichment is the process of enhancing the purity of radioactive uranium atoms to produce nuclear fuel.

Iran has repeatedly denied seeking a nuclear weapon while Israel is widely believed to possess an undeclared nuclear arsenal of dozens of atomic bombs.

After ordering the United States military to bomb Iran last month, US President Donald Trump made a brief address at the White House to laud the “massive precision strike” that had allegedly put a “stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror”.

The speech, which lasted less than four minutes, ended with the invocation of God’s name no fewer than five times in a span of seven seconds: “And I wanna just thank everybody and in particular, God. I wanna just say, ‘We love you God, and we love our great military – protect them.’ God bless the Middle East, God bless Israel, and God bless America.”

Of course, the terminology deployed in the speech was problematic before we even got to the rapid-fire mention of the Almighty by a man who has never been particularly religious. For one thing, Iran simply lacks the credentials to qualify as the world’s “number one state sponsor of terror”; that position is already occupied by the US itself, which, unlike Iran, has spent the entirety of its contemporary history bombing and otherwise antagonising folks in every last corner of the Earth.

The US has also continued to serve as the number one state sponsor of Israel, whose longstanding policy of terrorising Palestinians and other Arabs has now culminated in an all-out genocide in the Gaza Strip, as Israel seeks to annihilate the territory and its inhabitants along with it.

But anyway, “God bless Israel.”

This, to be sure, was not the first time that Trump relied on God to sign off on worldly events. Back in 2017, during the man’s first stint as president, the deity made various appearances in Trump’s official statement following a US military strike on Syria. God, it seems, just can’t get enough of war.

God made a prominent return in January 2025, taking centre stage in Trump’s inauguration speech – yet another reminder that the separation of church and state remains one of the more transparently disingenuous pillars of American “democracy.” In his address, the president revealed the true reason he had survived the widely publicised assassination attempt in Pennsylvania in July 2024: “I was saved by God to make America great again.”

Part of making America great again was supposed to be focusing on ourselves instead of, you know, getting wrapped up in other people’s wars abroad. But the beauty of having God on your side means you really don’t have to explain too much in the end; after all, it’s all divine will.

Indeed, Trump’s increasing reliance on the Almighty can hardly be interpreted as a come-to-Jesus moment or a sudden embrace of the faith. Rather, God-talk comes in handy in the business of courting white evangelical Christians, many of whom already see Trump himself as a saviour in his own right based on his valiant worldwide war on abortion, among other campaigns to inflict earthly suffering on poor and vulnerable people.

The evangelical obsession with Israel means Trump has earned big saviour points in that realm, as well. In 2019, for example, the president took to Twitter to thank Wayne Allyn Root – an American Jewish-turned-evangelical conservative radio host and established conspiracy theorist – for his “very nice words,” including that Trump was the “best President for Israel in the history of the world” and that Israeli Jews “love him like he’s the King of Israel”.

And not only that: Israelis also “love him like he is the second coming of God”.

Obviously, anyone with an ego as big as Trump’s has no problem playing God – especially when he already believes that his every proclamation should spontaneously be made reality, biblical creation story-style.

Former Arkansas governor and zealous evangelical Mike Huckabee, who once declared that “there is no such thing as a Palestinian” and who is now serving as Trump’s ambassador to Israel, has done his own part to encourage the president’s messiah complex, writing in a text message to Trump that “I believe you hear from heaven … You did not seek this moment. This moment sought YOU!”

So it was only fitting that Trump should thank and profess love for God after bombing Iran in accordance with Israel’s wishes – not that US and Israeli interests don’t align when it comes to sowing regional havoc and ensuring the flow of capital into arms industry coffers.

And yet, Trump is not the only US head of state to have enjoyed wartime communications with God. Recall the time in 2003 that then-President and “war on terror” chief George W Bush informed Palestinian ministers of his “mission from God”.

Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath would go on to quote snippets from Bush’s side of the conversation: “God would tell me, ‘George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.’ And I did, and then God would tell me, ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.’ And I did.”

Now, Trump doesn’t like to take orders from anyone, even if they’re from on high. However, he’s made it clear that he’s not opposed to ingratiating himself with God in the interest of political expediency.

Some evangelical adherents see the current upheaval in the Middle East as potentially expediting the so-called “end times” and the second coming of Jesus – which means the more war, the better. And the more that God can be portrayed as an ally in US and Israeli-inflicted devastation, the better for Trump’s delusions of deification.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Iran is also considering an entry ban on IAEA chief Rafael Grossi, after rejecting his request to visit nuclear sites.

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian has signed a law suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), amid growing tensions between Tehran and the UN nuclear watchdog over monitoring access and transparency, after United States and Israeli strikes on its most important nuclear facilities during a 12-day conflict last month.

“Masoud Pezeshkian promulgated the law suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency,” Iranian state TV reported on Wednesday.

The move comes a week after Iran’s parliament passed legislation to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, citing Israel’s June 13 attack on Iran and later strikes by the US on Iranian nuclear facilities.

According to the parliament resolution, IAEA inspectors will not be allowed to visit nuclear sites without approval from Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.

Iran’s foreign minister earlier this week said IAEA chief Rafael Grossi, whom Iranian officials have sharply criticised for failing to condemn Israeli and US strikes during the recent 12-day war, was no longer welcome in the country.

Officials have also criticised Grossi over a June 12 resolution passed by the IAEA board accusing Tehran of non-compliance with its nuclear obligations.

Iranian officials said the resolution was among the “excuses” for the Israeli attacks.

Iran has also rejected a request from IAEA chief Grossi to visit nuclear facilities bombed during the war.

“Grossi’s insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent,” said Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on X on Monday. “Iran reserves the right to take any steps in defence of its interests, its people and its sovereignty.”

Earlier this week, Pezeshkian decried Grossi’s “destructive” conduct, while France, Germany and the United Kingdom have condemned unspecified “threats” made against the IAEA chief.

Iran’s ultra-conservative Kayhan newspaper recently claimed that documents showed Grossi was an Israeli spy and should be executed.

Iran has insisted no threats were posed against Grossi or the agency’s inspectors.

The 12-day war began when Israel carried out a surprise bombardment of Iranian nuclear facilities and military sites and assassinated several top military commanders and nuclear scientists. Tehran responded with waves of missiles and drones at Israel.

On June 22, Israel’s ally, the US, launched unprecedented strikes of its own on Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz. A ceasefire between Iran and Israel took hold on June 24.

At least 935 people were killed in Israeli attacks on Iran, according to judiciary spokesperson Asghar Jahangir, citing the latest forensic data. The deceased included 132 women and 38 children, Jahangir added.

Iran’s retaliatory attacks killed 28 people in Israel, according to authorities.

US President Donald Trump said the US attacks had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear programme, though the extent of the damage was not clear.

Araghchi has admitted that “serious” damage has been inflicted on nuclear sites.

But in a recent interview with US media outlet CBS Evening News, he said: “One cannot obliterate the technology and science… through bombings.”

Israel and some Western countries say Iran has sought nuclear weapons – an ambition Tehran has consistently denied.

In the predawn darkness of June 13, Israel launched a “preemptive” attack on Iran. Explosions rocked various parts of the country. Among the targets were nuclear sites at Natanz and Fordo, military bases, research labs, and senior military residences. By the end of the operation, Israel had killed at least 974 people while Iranian missile strikes in retaliation had killed 28 people in Israel.

Israel described its actions as anticipatory self-defence, claiming Iran was mere weeks away from producing a functional nuclear weapon. Yet intelligence assessment, including by Israeli ally, the United States, and reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) showed no evidence of Tehran pursuing a nuclear weapon. At the same time, Iranian diplomats were in talks with US counterparts for a possible new nuclear deal.

But beyond the military and geopolitical analysis, a serious ethical question looms: is it morally justifiable to launch such a devastating strike based not on what a state has done, but on what it might do in the future? What precedent does this set for the rest of the world? And who gets to decide when fear is enough to justify war?

A dangerous moral gamble

Ethicists and international lawyers draw a critical line between preemptive and preventive war. Pre-emption responds to an imminent threat – an immediate assault. Preventive war strikes against a possible future threat.

Only the former meets moral criteria rooted in the philosophical works of thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas, and reaffirmed by modern theorists like Michael Walzer — echoing the so-called Caroline formula, which permits preemptive force only when a threat is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation”.

Israel’s raid, however, fails this test. Iran’s nuclear capability was not weeks from completion. Diplomacy had not been exhausted. And the devastation risked — including radioactive fallout from centrifuge halls — far exceeded military necessity.

The law mirrors moral constraints. The UN Charter Article 2(4) bans the use of force, with the sole exception in Article 51, which permits self-defence after an armed attack. Israel’s invocation of anticipatory self-defence relies on contested legal custom, not accepted treaty law. UN experts have called Israel’s strike “a blatant act of aggression” violating jus cogens norms.

Such costly exceptions risk fracturing the international legal order. If one state can credibly claim pre-emption, others will too — from China reacting to patrols near Taiwan, to Pakistan reacting to perceived Indian posturing — undermining global stability.

Israel’s defenders respond that existential threats justify drastic action. Iran’s leaders have a history of hostile rhetoric towards Israel and have consistently backed armed groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently argued that when a state’s existence is under threat, international law struggles to provide clear, actionable answers.

The historical scars are real. But philosophers warn that words, however hateful, do not equate to act. Rhetoric stands apart from action. If speech alone justified war, any nation could wage preemptive war based on hateful rhetoric. We risk entering a global “state of nature”, where every tense moment becomes cause for war.

Technology rewrites the rules

Technology tightens the squeeze on moral caution. The drones and F‑35s used in Rising Lion combined to paralyse Iran’s defences within minutes. Nations once could rely on time to debate, persuade, and document. Hypersonic missiles and AI-powered drones have eroded that window — delivering a stark choice: act fast or lose your chance.

These systems don’t just shorten decision time — they dissolve the traditional boundary between wartime and peacetime. As drone surveillance and autonomous systems become embedded in everyday geopolitics, war risks becoming the default condition, and peace the exception.

We begin to live not in a world of temporary crisis, but in what philosopher Giorgio Agamben calls a permanent state of exception — a condition where emergency justifies the suspension of norms, not occasionally but perpetually.

In such a world, the very idea that states must publicly justify acts of violence begins to erode. Tactical advantage, coined as “relative superiority”, leverages this compressed timeframe — but gains ground at a cost.

In an era where classified intelligence triggers near-instant reaction, ethical scrutiny retreats. Future first-move doctrines will reward speed over law, and surprise over proportion. If we lose the distinction between peace and war, we risk losing the principle that violence must always be justified — not assumed.

The path back to restraint

Without immediate course correction, the world risks a new norm: war before reason, fear before fact. The UN Charter depends on mutual trust that force remains exceptional. Every televised strike chips away at that trust, leading to arms races and reflexive attacks. To prevent this cascade of fear-driven conflict, several steps are essential.

There has to be transparent verification: Claims of “imminent threat” must be assessed by impartial entities — IAEA monitors, independent inquiry commissions — not buried inside secret dossiers.

Diplomacy must take precedence: Talks, backchannels, sabotage, sanctions — all must be demonstrably exhausted pre-strike. Not optionally, not retroactively.

There must be public assessment of civilian risk: Environmental and health experts must weigh in before military planners pull the trigger.

The media, academia, and public must insist that these thresholds are met — and keep governments accountable.

Preemptive war may, in rare cases, be morally justified — for instance, missiles poised on launchpads, fleets crossing redlines. But that bar is high by design. Israel’s strike on Iran wasn’t preventive, it was launched not against an unfolding attack but against a feared possibility.  Institutionalising that fear as grounds for war is an invitation to perpetual conflict.

If we abandon caution in the name of fear, we abandon the shared moral and legal boundaries that hold humanity together. Just war tradition demands we never view those who may harm us as mere threats — but rather as human beings, each worthy of careful consideration.

The Iran–Israel war is more than military drama. It is a test: will the world still hold the line between justified self-defence and unbridled aggression? If the answer is no, then fear will not just kill soldiers. It will kill the fragile hope that restraint can keep us alive.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Iran’s embassy in Berlin swiftly rejects allegation after man is arrested in neighbouring Denmark.

A Danish man has been arrested on suspicion of spying in Germany on behalf of Iran, an allegation swiftly denied by the Iranian embassy in Berlin.

German prosecutors on Tuesday said the man, identified only as Ali S under German privacy law, was suspected of conducting the surveillance “in preparation of further intelligence activities in Germany, possibly including terrorist attacks on Jewish targets”.

It added that the individual was suspected of receiving the espionage orders from “an Iranian intelligence service”.

German and Danish authorities said the man had been arrested in Denmark but would be extradited to Germany.

The Iranian embassy in Berlin decried what it called “unfounded and dangerous accusations”.

“Previous discussions with relevant German authorities have already highlighted that certain third parties are attempting to divert public perceptions from the actual events through artificial staging,” the embassy said in a statement.

Meanwhile, Germany’s foreign minister, Johann Wadephul, said Iran’s ambassador had been summoned after the arrest.

“If this suspicion were confirmed, it would be an outrageous incident that would once again demonstrate that Iran is a threat to Jews all over the world,” Wadephul said during a visit to Odesa, Ukraine, shortly after visiting a synagogue there.

Alleged spying

According to Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine, the suspect took photos of at least three buildings in Berlin in June.

They included the headquarters of the German-Israeli Society, which has lobbied the European Union to list Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) as a “terrorist” organisation, and a building where the president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Josef Schuster, was said to occasionally stay.

Der Spiegel reported that investigators believe the suspect was working on behalf of the Quds Force, the foreign operations arm of the IRGC.

He was arrested in the Danish city of Aarhus by local police last week and was awaiting extradition to Germany.

During the 12-day war between Israel and Iran in June, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said his country was preparing “in case Iran targets Israeli or Jewish institutions”.

He did not provide further details at the time.

Berlin has been a key ally of Israel and vocally supported the attacks on Iran, which began with surprise strikes on June 13.

Iran has taken an unequivocal stance against the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), with the country’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi summarily dismissing its chief Rafael Grossi’s request to visit nuclear facilities bombed by Israel and the United States during a 12-day conflict earlier this month.

“Grossi’s insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent,” said Araghchi on X on Monday. “Iran reserves the right to take any steps in defence of its interests, its people and its sovereignty.”

In tandem, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron that Tehran had halted cooperation with the IAEA due to what he called Grossi’s “destructive” behaviour towards Iran, his office said.

“The action taken by parliament members … is a natural response to the unjustified, unconstructive, and destructive conduct of the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency,” Pezeshkian told Macron in a phone call, according to a presidency statement.

Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar, reporting from Tehran, said the Iranian leadership is making it clear that the IAEA is an “international body with defined responsibilities and these responsibilities are not political but technical”. But, he added, Tehran views the nuclear agency as an international body “under immense [political] pressure from Israel and the United States”.

Iranian lawmakers on Wednesday voted in favour of a bill to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, citing Israel’s June 13 attack on Iran and later strikes by the US on nuclear facilities.

A ceasefire between Iran and Israel took hold on June 24.

Since the start of the conflict, Iranian officials have sharply criticised the IAEA not only for failing to condemn the Israeli and US strikes, but also for passing a resolution on June 12 accusing Tehran of non-compliance with its nuclear obligations, the day before Israel attacked.

‘Anger of Iranian public opinion’

In the meantime, France, Germany and Britain have decried “threats” made against Grossi.

“France, Germany and the United Kingdom condemn threats against the director general of the IAEA Rafael Grossi and reiterate our full support to the agency,” Foreign Ministers Jean-Noel Barrot, Johann Wadephul and David Lammy said in a joint statement.

“We call on Iranian authorities to refrain from any steps to cease cooperation with the IAEA,” they added. “We urge Iran to immediately resume full cooperation in line with its legally binding obligations, and to take all necessary steps to ensure the safety and security of IAEA personnel.”

While none specified which threats they were referring to, Iran’s ultra-conservative Kayhan newspaper recently claimed documents showed Grossi was an Israeli spy and should be executed.

Iran has insisted no threats were posed against Grossi or the agency’s inspectors.

On Monday during his weekly press conference, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the Iranian parliament’s decision to halt cooperation with the IAEA reflected the “concern and anger of the Iranian public opinion”.

He further criticised US and European powers for maintaining what he described as a “political approach” towards Iran’s nuclear programme.

At least 935 people were killed during the recent conflict with Israel, Iran’s judiciary spokesperson Asghar Jahangir said, citing the latest forensic data. The deceased included 132 women and 38 children, Jahangir added.

Foreign ministers from the Group of Seven nations said later on Monday they supported the ceasefire between Israel and Iran, and urged that negotiations resume for a deal to address Iran’s nuclear program, according to a joint statement.

“We reaffirm that Iran can never have nuclear weapons, and urge Iran to refrain from reconstituting its unjustified enrichment activities,” the statement said.

Meanwhile, a Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman has said the country is involved in efforts to reach an agreement on the Iranian nuclear issue and a guarantee against a return to escalation by all parties.

Pezeshkian issued an official apology to the Qatari people in a phone call to Qatar’s Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani after the targeting of Al Udeid Air Base, the biggest US military base in the Middle East, he added.

Video shows the aftermath of a deadly Israeli strike on Evin Prison in Tehran, that killed at least 71 people, including visiting women and children. The prison, known for holding political prisoners, was hit just a day before a ceasefire ended 12 days of fighting initiated by Israeli strikes.

Direct US involvement in Israel’s unprovoked attack on Iran was a dangerous decision, argues Vali Nasr, professor of international affairs and Middle East history at Johns Hopkins University.

Hours before a ceasefire between the US, Israel and Iran was announced, Nasr told host Steve Clemons that “the US doesn’t have a regime change option in Iran” and should be wary of humiliating Tehran, which would lead to long-term consequences.

Nasr argues that the 12-Day War was meant to establish Israel’s dominance as the premier Middle East power, backed by Washington, with no room for challengers.