dataDp/1032.jpeg

Worldnews

The Attacks On Iran Didnt Achieve Anything More Than Harm Nonproliferation

The conclusion many states may now draw is that complying with the NPT is no longer a guarantee of nuclear security. After launching direct attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, United States President Donald Trump was quick to declare victory. His administration claimed “the world is far safer” after the “bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons”. But in the aftermath of the strikes, there has been much deliberation about the extent to which the Iranian nuclear programme was really set back. As the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, pointed out, craters reveal little about what survived deep below layers of concrete. The Trump administration admitted that at least one site was not targeted with bunker-busting bombs because it was too deep underground. The fate of Iran’s centrifuges and stockpile of 60 percent-enriched uranium remains unknown. While the extent of the damage that the Iranian nuclear programme sustained remains unclear, the nonproliferation regime that kept it transparent for years has been left in tatters. Instead of curbing nuclear proliferation, this short-sighted military action may well intensify the nuclear threat it sought to contain, making not just the Middle East but also the entire world a far more dangerous place. Until this month’s attack, Iran’s nuclear programme had remained a largely peaceful one. It was launched in the 1950s with help from the US Atoms for Peace initiative. Over the following decades, it expanded to include a number of nuclear facilities. Among them are the Arak heavy water reactor, which is now nonoperational; the Tehran Research Reactor, an installation built with US help in 1967 and used for medical isotope production; the uranium conversion and fuel fabrication complex in Isfahan; the Natanz nuclear facility, which is the country’s main enrichment site; the Fordow underground plant near Qom; and the Bushehr nuclear plant, which relies on Russian-supplied fuel and is the only one currently operational in Iran. In addition, Iran is constructing two other nuclear installations – the Darkhovin and Sirik power plant projects – but those remain in early stages. All aspects of the Iranian nuclear programme were under meticulous surveillance by the IAEA for decades. The country became a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968, legally committing itself to forgo the pursuit of nuclear weapons and placing all nuclear materials under IAEA safeguards. Iran signed a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement in 1974 and declared 18 nuclear facilities and nine locations outside facilities (LOFs) where nuclear material was used. These included enrichment plants, research reactors, conversion and fuel fabrication facilities, laboratories and hospital sites using radioisotopes. At times, especially after previously secret sites came to light in 2002, the IAEA carried out more intrusive verification measures and pressed Iran to implement the Additional Protocol, an agreement for expanded inspections. The country did so voluntarily from 2003 to 2006. In 2015, Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with the US, United Kingdom, China, Russia, France and Germany. It accepted strict ceilings on uranium enrichment and agreed to reduce its uranium stockpile by 97 percent in exchange for sanctions relief. The IAEA was granted even greater access to Iran’s programme than before and was allowed to install cameras and remote sensors at nuclear sites, permitting real-time monitoring. This expanded access covered all the major sites of Iran’s nuclear programme, including Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan, the three facilities recently attacked by the US. The JCPOA proved highly effective while it remained in force. In 2018 during his first term as president, Trump decided to pull out of the JCPOA, claiming that under its provisions Iran received “too much in exchange for too little”. Despite repeated pleas from European allies to preserve the accord, the US reimposed sanctions and launched a “maximum pressure” campaign to cripple Iran’s economy. The consequences of Trump’s withdrawal were swift. Deprived of the deal’s benefits, Iran began reducing its compliance with the agreement. In 2020, after a Trump-ordered air strike killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, Tehran announced it would no longer be bound by any operational limits in the nuclear deal. Unsurprisingly, Trump’s actions made any new negotiations with Iran far more difficult. US officials under the second Trump administration tried to restart talks with Iran and conducted several rounds of indirect discussions. Iranian leaders demanded guarantees that a new deal would not be undermined or sanctions reimposed again unilaterally, and in response, Washington showed little flexibility, instead making even more stringent demands. From Iran’s perspective, what was proposed was a less favourable deal than the JCPOA, and it came from a country whose promises had proven unreliable. The US-Israeli attacks all but killed the efforts to revive negotiations. Within hours of the attacks, Iran scrubbed another round of talks with the US in Oman and ordered its negotiators home. In the days after the bombing, Iran’s parliament started drafting legislation to quit the NPT.  If Iran goes through with it, a withdrawal could rupture the cornerstone treaty of global arms control. For half a century, the NPT has limited the nuclear bomb to a handful of states. Iran quitting now would mark the treaty’s most consequential breach since North Korea, which walked away from the NPT in 2003 and tested a nuclear weapon four years later. Outside the NPT, Iran would no longer be bound by any limits or inspections, leaving the world in the dark about its activities. An opaque Iranian nuclear programme would likely spur other regional powers to do the same, shredding decades of restraint. Leaving the NPT is not meant to be easy. It requires three months notice, a public rationale, continued liability for past violations, and the handover or continuous safeguarding of all imported nuclear technology. These are steps the treaty depositories and the United Nations Security Council could use to pressure any would-be quitter back to the table, assuming the quitter still sees any value in remaining at the table. While Iran has not yet declared it is leaving the NPT, its parliament passed legislation to stop all cooperation with the IAEA. This is a clear sign that the prospects of Iran’s continued adherence to multilateral diplomacy are dim. By bombing facilities under active IAEA safeguards, the US in effect told every nonnuclear state that cooperation buys little safety. The strikes set a dangerous precedent: A country that opened its sites to inspectors and remained within a negotiated framework nevertheless faced military force. If states conclude that adhering to the NPT and allowing inspections won’t protect them from attack or coercion, they may well decide that developing a nuclear deterrent is the only reliable security guarantee. After all, we don’t see the US contemplating strikes on North Korean nuclear facilities after it made clear it has a nuclear weapon. Whatever temporary setback this ill-conceived show of force was meant to achieve, it now risks causing a strategic unravelling of the wider nonproliferation regime and regional stability. The US still has a chance to stop a nuclear arms race from erupting in the Middle East and the rest of the world. To do that, it must double down on diplomacy and confront the deep distrust it created head-on. Striking a deal is essential, but for that, American diplomacy must return to realism in negotiations. Washington should abandon the maximalist demand of “zero enrichment”. Arms control experts noted that insisting Iran have no enrichment capability is unnecessary for nonproliferation and also unrealistic. The JCPOA already proved that a tightly limited enrichment programme paired with rigorous monitoring can effectively block Iran’s pathways to a bomb. The US needs to signal it is willing to accept such an arrangement in exchange for security assurances and sanctions relief. For its part, Tehran has signalled its willingness to ship out its stockpile of highly enriched uranium and cap enrichment levels again if offered a fair deal, even though it refuses to relinquish its right to enrich entirely. Ultimately, diplomacy and sustained international engagement remain the most effective tools for managing nuclear proliferation risks, not risky unilateral actions. The strikes have been a grave strategic error. Repairing the damage will require an equally dramatic recommitment to the hard work of diplomacy. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance. Follow Al Jazeera English:...

profile/5377instablog.png.webp

Instablog9ja

Conversation Between Chef Sisi Yemmie And Life Coach Solomon Buchi On Child Care Raises Debate

profile/5377instablog.png.webp

Instablog9ja

Photographer Emotionally Shares How He Stayed With His Woman Despite Her Infidelity; Four Years Later She Is Married To Someone Else With A Child

dataDp/9958.jpeg

P7as2

Akshay Kumars Mysterious Tweet And Paresh Rawals Comeback Cause Hope For Hera Pheri 3

Akshay Kumar’s latest post on Instagram has brought about a rush of enthusiasm from fans, particularly in the wake of veteran actor Paresh Rawal officially announcing his comeback to the much-awaited Hera Pheri 3. Known for its cult status in Indian comedy, the Hera Pheri franchise began in 2000 and featured the unforgettable trio of Raju (Akshay Kumar), Shyam (Suniel Shetty), and Baburao (Paresh Rawal). The confirmation of the original cast coming back together has thrilled fans who have long been waiting for the next installment. Paresh Rawal recently graced the pages of The Himanshu Mehta Show podcast and put an end to the previous controversy over his walkout from the film. The actor had earlier quit because of differences of opinion, which culminated in a legal battle through a ₹25 crore case brought by Akshay Kumar’s production house. However, Rawal revealed that the matter has now been resolved. He shared that he returned ₹11 lakh along with 15% interest and emphasized that there is no longer any bad blood between the parties involved. During the podcast, Paresh Rawal was clear about his intentions. He added that if something is so much loved by the people, like Hera Pheri, one has a duty not to take the people’s love for granted. He emphasized the need to work hard and produce good content due to the trust and faith shown by the fans. Rawal’s comeback is a big moment for the franchise, particularly since his character Baburao has become such an iconic figure in Indian popular culture. Soon after the confirmation of Paresh Rawal, Akshay Kumar went to Instagram and posted a cryptic but emotional message that everyone assumes is his method of showing joy regarding the reunion. The actor posted a throwback photo of himself in a black suit, laughing freely. In the caption, he wrote, “In life, we accumulate stolen moments of happiness. That’s your real wealth.” He added that it serves as a reminder to laugh loud, love deep, and cherish the pauses. The timing of the post led fans to believe that it was indirectly linked to the news of Paresh Rawal’s return. Fans’ comments to the post were brimming with enthusiasm, with the fans calling on the team to start working on Hera Pheri 3 already. For some, it was like a quiet celebration of their own by Akshay himself, a tribute to the nostalgia and happiness that the franchise embodies. The Hera Pheri films are not just comedies; they’ve reached Indian cinema legend. The 2000 release of the first movie was a blockbuster and reached cult status over the years. Its sequel, Phir Hera Pheri, released in 2006, followed suit with the same cast, bringing laughter and memorable dialogue that’s still quoted today. Fans have been demanding the third film with the original cast for decades. Now that it is being made, the anticipation is exhilarating. From vintage one-liners to classic performances, Akshay Kumar, Suniel Shetty, and Paresh Rawal’s chemistry has set the tone for an entire generation of Indian comedy. The actors have become brands in every home, and the films keep minting fresh money year after year. With the creative problems sorted and the actors themselves complimenting the working experience, Hera Pheri 3 appears to be heading in the right direction. As per ongoing reports, the movie is likely to go on floors shortly, complete shootings by mid-2026, and release on the big screens in 2027. The direction will again be taken over by Priyadarshan, who also directed the first one, adding to the nostalgia and fan anticipation. Akshay Kumar’s tweet says a thousand words without taking names. It is a picture of a mature, emotional side of the actor who, like the audience, appears to be savoring the moment. The words “stolen moments of happiness” echo the meaning of Hera Pheri for its fans: sincere, uncomplicated, heartwarming comedy that gives one joy amidst turmoil. The comeback of Paresh Rawal and the low-key celebration by Akshay Kumar have again brought with them hope and anticipation for Hera Pheri 3. It is no longer about a film today; it is about bringing back the magic of three people who reinterpreted comedy in Indian cinema. With the cast and director returning, audiences can now expect a film that brings not just comedy but also respects the legacy it inherits.