“Weapons of mass destruction are prohibited in Islam”

By Eric van de Beek

Nuclear facilities in Iran are “severely damaged,” says Iran’s ambassador, Dr. Hadi Farajvand. He blames the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA , the European Union and the Netherlands for not condemning the Israeli and American attacks. Iran denies developing a nuclear weapon. Farajvand stresses that even the U.S. intelligence community and the IAEA have indicated that there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Israel launched an attack on Iran last month, just before Iran was scheduled to meet the United States again to negotiate a new nuclear deal. Israel did not want to wait for the outcome. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had raised the alarm about Iran’s nuclear programme. The country was reportedly enriching uranium in larger quantities and to a higher percentage than were necessary for peaceful purposes, such as nuclear power plants. Israel’s attack did not go unanswered: Iran retaliated forcefully. Eight days after the start of the war, the Americans joined the fight, bombing three nuclear facilities in Iran. A cease-fire is now in effect, but tensions remain high. The US and Israel demand that Iran dismantle all nuclear facilities and cease all nuclear activities. The Iranians refuse. They deny working on a nuclear weapon and have suspended co-operation with the IAEA; the agency’s inspectors are no longer allowed access to Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Iranians accuse the head of the agency, Rafael Grossi, of failing to condemn the Israeli and American attacks. He also allegedly spread false information about Iran’s nuclear programme, allowing the Israelis and Americans to use it as justification for their attack. The Iranians further suspect the agency of passing confidential information to third parties.

Mr Ambassador, the head of the IAEA, Mr Grossi, said that Iran could be enriching uranium within months. How does Iran see this?
We don’t know on what information the head of the IAEA bases his claim that Iran can resume enrichment within months. Based on the technical assessment of our officials, the nuclear facilities in Iran have been severely damaged by the United States and Israel. It’s not clear in how many months—or weeks—we can resume enrichment.

Who initiated the current cease-fire? Was it the United States, Israel or Iran?
We did not ask for a cease-fire, because we didn’t start the war. We merely acted according to the United Nations Charter, in particular Article 51, which recognises the right of self-defence. We said from the very beginning of the conflict that if Israel and the United States stopped bombing Iran, Iran would also stop its military activities against them. They thought they could destroy all Iranian military capability in just one strike, but they couldn’t. They understood that Iran’s capability to respond to any military attack remained almost untouched, so they revised their strategy and requested a cease-fire.

Why did Iran suspend its co-operation with the IAEA?
Unfortunately, the IAEA did not condemn the attacks by the Israelis and Americans against our nuclear facilities, which were under the safeguards of the IAEA. In our assessment, the head of the IAEA was part of the campaign against Iran by providing misinformation to the agency’s board.

Iran has not withdrawn from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Does this mean that Iran is leaving the door open for the IAEA to resume co-operation? If so, under what conditions will Iran do so?
We have to be 100 per cent sure that classified information regarding our nuclear facilities and enrichment activities will not be disclosed to third parties—in particular Israel, which is a member of neither the NPT nor the IAEA. This information was used by the United States and Israel for bombing purposes. Resuming co-operation with the IAEA also depends on a guarantee that we will not be betrayed again and bombed in the middle of negotiations.

How did information gathered by the IAEA end up in the hands of the Israelis and the Americans? Was the IAEA infiltrated?
I don’t know; this question has to be asked of Mr Grossi.

There are reports that the British intelligence agency MI6 infiltrated the IAEA.
I don’t have access to those reports, but in several cases we faced claims the IAEA put forward that had no roots in reality. In some instances there was manipulation by intelligence services or other countries. Unfortunately, we witnessed the IAEA taking this misinformation as fact. We strongly recommend Mr Grossi abide by the principles of the IAEA: be a technical body that verifies the compliance of States Parties with the NPT, rather than a political one. If the IAEA engages in political discussion or deviation, it breaches its fundamental principles and destroys its credibility. For the IAEA to be credible, it must remain purely technical and prevent other States Parties from intervening in its safeguards work.

The main reason the US and Israel have given for their attacks is that they suspect Iran is working on a nuclear weapon.
It’s a baseless accusation. Even US intelligence agencies issued a report clearly stating that Iran is not seeking to build a nuclear weapon; they said that if Iran began, it would take two or three years. Mr Grossi has likewise said the IAEA has no concrete information that Iran has a clandestine weapons programme.

In march of this year Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard indeed said that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. But then on 20 June, the day before the US attack on Iran, on X she wrote that America had intelligence showing Iran could produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months if it decided to finalise assembly. Is this true? Does Iran have all the material needed to assemble a nuclear weapon?
The United States and Israel have claimed for 22 years that Iran could build a nuclear weapon within weeks or months. Since 2003, Iran has denied any attempt to build such a weapon. We know how to enrich uranium, but enrichment is only one part of building a nuclear weapon; other components are needed. If you make a claim, you must prove it. The US and Israel never have. Remember 2003, when the US invaded Iraq to destroy alleged weapons of mass destruction? They never produced a shred of evidence. The real goal was simply to topple the Iraqi regime.

If Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon, why has it enriched uranium beyond the level needed for nuclear energy? The IAEA stated that “the significantly increased production and accumulation of highly enriched uranium by Iran, the only new non-nuclear-weapon state to produce such nuclear material, is of serious concern”.
First, Iran enriched uranium up to 60 per cent in reaction to the United States’ withdrawal from the JCPOA, the 2018 nuclear deal. From the beginning, all Iranian officials said that if the United States and the European Union returned to the deal and implemented their commitments, Iran would also step back. Secondly, a nuclear bomb requires enrichment beyond 90 per cent. Thirdly, 60 per cent enrichment does not violate the NPT, because uranium at this level can be used only for peaceful purposes; some submarines and large ships have reactors using uranium enriched to 60 per cent. Finally, all our enrichment activities and our stockpile of 60 per cent uranium were under IAEA supervision, monitored by cameras and inspectors; nothing was hidden.

Yet the IAEA still says it is of serious concern that Iran produced such material in such quantities.
That is Mr Grossi’s statement. His concern does not mean that Iran is in breach of its NPT commitments.

But if uranium is enriched to 90 per cent, does Iran have all the components needed to build a nuclear weapon?
No. Iran has never developed those components.

Iran is very rich in oil and gas. Why does it need nuclear energy in the first place?
Iran is a large country with a population of 95 million, and it is still growing. We need nuclear energy to produce electricity and to manufacture radio-pharmaceuticals. Having abundant fossil fuels doesn’t mean we should ignore nuclear energy, which is cheaper and far cleaner. Global warming is a critical issue; the international community is pushing to reduce carbon emissions. We must encourage building more nuclear facilities, not fewer. Moreover, the United States—the world’s biggest oil and gas producer—also runs many power plants that use enriched uranium.

Russia proposed moving uranium to Russia to convert it into civilian reactor fuel. How did Iran react?
We cannot comment on the Russian proposal at this stage, but it will be discussed in future negotiations on our nuclear programme.

In October 2003 Supreme Leader Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production and use of any weapon of mass destruction. What was his motivation?
In Islam the mass killing of people is strictly forbidden; therefore, weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, chemical or biological—are prohibited in Islam. These kinds of weapons do not discriminate between civilians and the military.

Why did Khamenei issue the fatwa in October 2003?
At that time, the Iranian nuclear programme was receiving intense attention from the international community. The United States and others were accusing Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapon. The fatwa reminded the world that Iran never intends to develop or produce nuclear weapons.

Israel has nuclear bombs. Would Iran not be safer with its own deterrent?
You know the history of nuclear bombs: they were used by the United States in the Second World War, and since then several countries have developed them. In addition to our religious principle prohibiting weapons of mass destruction, we believe nuclear weapons cannot bring security. Developing and producing them also requires considerable financial and human resources.

If the Israelis and Americans were not convinced that Iran was building a nuclear weapon, what was the real reason behind the attacks?
If you look at the comments of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in the first days of the attack, the purpose was clearly to topple the Iranian government. They thought that by killing Iranian officials and military commanders the country would remain defenceless. Netanyahu encouraged the Iranian people to take to the streets and protest against their government. Perhaps the expectation of the Iranian government’s fall was the reason the United States joined the campaign—to share in the victory.

Many Western politicians understand the Israeli and American attacks on Iran because Iran is supposedly out to destroy Israel. How do you see this?
No Iranian official has ever said that Iran is going to attack or destroy Israel—or any other country. The State of Israel destroys itself because it has no internal or international legitimacy.

In the Western media we often see demonstrations in Iran with people shouting: “Death to Israel, death to the US.”
This slogan is not directed at the people of Israel or the US, nor at their officials. It means: death to the unlawful actions committed by the United States and Israel—death to their policies of genocide and occupation.

Iran has a large Jewish community. How is it doing now? Is there a fear in Iran of a fifth column? Is there fear among Jewish people in Iran?
The Jewish community has been part of the Iranian nation throughout history and is very committed to the country. During the eight-year war with Iraq, several hundred Iranian Jews defended their homeland; some were killed in action, and their graves testify to their patriotism. We do not see any systematic adherence of our Jewish community to Israel, acting as a fifth column. They are free to practise their religion. Although their number is small, they have a representative in parliament. If anyone—regardless of religion—acts as a fifth column or spies for Israel, he or she will be held responsible. In fact, our Jewish citizens generally oppose Israeli policy; they joined demonstrations against Israel’s genocidal acts against Palestinians.

The Dutch government emphasises on its website that developing the international legal order is a permanent objective of Dutch foreign policy under Article 90 of the Constitution. It calls itself the international legal capital of the world. What do you make of Dutch officials’ reactions to the Israeli and American attacks on Iran? Prime Minister Schoof and Foreign Minister Veldkamp did not condemn the attacks.
Indeed, the Netherlands is the capital of international law: both the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court are hosted there. We expected the Netherlands in particular to condemn and take a strong stand against violations of international law in the aggression by the United States and Israel. But the Netherlands, along with other EU countries, unfortunately didn’t take a firm stand against these acts of aggression.

So why do you think Dutch officials did not condemn the attacks?
For two reasons. First, the Netherlands always acts in coordination with the European Union. Secondly, it is clear that the Netherlands has good relations with both Israel and the United States—despite genocide and attacks on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Unfortunately, there are reports that the Netherlands is still providing Israel with spare parts for F-35 fighters used in bombing campaigns against Palestinians and Iran.

Israel bombed Iran on the eve of a new round of negotiations with the United States. How does this affect Iran’s level of trust in negotiations with the US going forward?
Israel aimed to destroy the negotiations, and unfortunately the United States joined the bombing. It’s clear you cannot negotiate while being bombed. The next round was scheduled for Sunday, and Israel started bombing on Friday or Saturday. This breeds mistrust. Any future negotiations will not be credible unless we receive a strong guarantee that we will not be bombed again during talks.

How have developments over the past year affected Iran’s relationships with neighbours such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey?
We have very good relations with Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Trade with Turkey is extensive, and Saudi Arabia is an important country in the Islamic world. Because we share the same region, good relations are vital, and leaders in all three countries are determined to improve them further.

How does Iran view the new administration in Syria?
We are waiting to see further developments. Any Syrian government must be legally elected by the Syrian people. We hope Syria will be independent and stable, and that its government will be inclusive of all religions and nationalities.

Syria now has an interim administration. Do you think it is closer to Israel and the US than to Iran?
It seems the interim administration in Syria is trying to get closer to the United States and Israel.

How does Iran view its relationship with the Sunni Muslim world in light of the war with Israel?
We don’t differentiate between Sunnis, Christians, Shias or Jews. Iran is the biggest supporter of Palestinians—who are Sunni—while Iran is Shia. Religion is not the issue. Our principle is to support oppressed people against oppressors.

“For some time now, the world has been going through a period of searching and realignment, and BRICS decisions can accelerate the change of the global economic order.”

By Ret Gen Corneliu Pivariu

The BRICS meeting on 6-7 July 2025 took place in a tense international context, marked by stagnating economic growth in the West, the prolonged conflict in Ukraine, tensions in the Middle East, and an industrial revival in Asia. The summit occurred as BRICS member states seek to strengthen their role in the global architecture, but it was also marked by the physical absence of two key leaders: Xi Jinping was absent for the first time since 2012[1], and Vladimir Putin participated only online[2].

Among the participants were Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva – President of Brazil (host and rotating BRICS president), Narendra Modi – Prime Minister of India, Cyril Ramaphosa – President of South Africa, Prabowo Subianto – President of Indonesia (admitted as a member on 6 January 2025), and Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan – President of the United Arab Emirates.

This meeting is shaping up to be a turning point, with the potential to accelerate the process of de-dollarisation and the consolidation of a multipolar economic order.

Main Outcomes

The final declaration was extensive and cautious, spanning 31 pages, addressing reforms of global institutions (UN, IMF, World Bank), cooperation in health, climate change, AI, and logistics infrastructure.

Positions reserved towards the USA and Israel were expressed, with diplomatic wording chosen regarding sanctions and regional conflicts, although the military attack on Iran was condemned, and generic support for multilateralism was expressed.

Promotion of the use of national currencies[3] in internal trade to the detriment of the dollar, with support for the development of the BRICS Pay[4] platform and for the establishment of proprietary financial infrastructures. Consolidation of the BRICS Bank (NDB).

Initiatives for AI regulation and data protection, highlighting the need to safeguard data against unauthorized use in AI training. Given the complexity and novelty of the subject, it will continue to be addressed to establish a mandatory legal framework in the field[5].

In the field of energy coordination and strategic resources, the meeting took place against the backdrop of a volatile oil market and new energy alliances. Discussions were held on reducing dependence on the US dollar in energy transactions and creating supply chains within BRICS[6]. Geopolitical tensions (sanctions against Russia and Iran) necessitate the acceleration of energy coordination.

The summit confirmed that technological and industrial partnerships are becoming a strategic pillar of the bloc, aiming in the medium term for technological autonomy within BRICS, the creation of an integrated internal market, and the transformation of the bloc into a major global industrial-technological actor[7].

Unlike 2024, which saw the largest BRICS expansion, no final decision was made in Rio regarding the admission of new members. It was decided to continue discussions on the admission of Saudi Arabia[8] until the BRICS 2026 summit. Additionally, it was decided to create a BRICS working group on expansion to establish: economic and political admission criteria; procedures for evaluating candidacies; and a realistic calendar for the next wave of expansion[9]. In conclusion, BRICS expansion has not stopped but has entered a period of internal consolidation following the major 2024 expansion.

Conclusions and Practical Implications

The 2025 BRICS meeting will consolidate the trend of diversifying global economic and financial relations, offering member states and partners an alternative to dollar hegemony.

Through energy and resource agreements, BRICS will reduce its members’ exposure to sanctions imposed by the USA and EU, especially in the context of current conflicts.

BRICS coordination may weaken the influence of the IMF and World Bank, while the NDB may become a pivot for financing infrastructure projects in the Global South.

China and India[10] will strengthen their influence as leaders of the Global South, influencing investment flows and setting technological standards.

The summit reflects the consolidation of BRICS as an alternative but cautious pole, without radical steps. The event marks a shift from ideological rhetoric to practical measures for building economic, financial, and technological autonomy.

The United States and the European Union have expressed concerns regarding the accelerated de-dollarization process, fearing the loss of global financial influence and the shift of trade flows towards BRICS platforms.

The expansion of BRICS and its de-dollarization initiatives may affect the EU’s access to essential resources and emerging markets, requiring adjustments in European energy and industrial strategies to counter the growing influence of the BRICS bloc in global markets.

For Romania, it is important to closely monitor the directions set at the BRICS summit, as the expansion and consolidation of this group may generate changes in energy, raw material, and global trade markets, indirectly affecting European economies as well.

At the same time, BRICS developments may offer opportunities for targeted collaboration in areas such as infrastructure, energy, and trade, and adapting national strategies to these realities may help reduce vulnerabilities and diversify international economic partnerships.

In conclusion, although BRICS cannot unilaterally change the global economic order, the cohesion of member states’ interests may gradually drive changes in global economic and financial power flows.

[1] The official reason given for the Chinese leader’s absence was “a scheduling conflict.” Insufficiently confirmed sources mention possible health issues, as well as the potential existence of tensions at the top of the Chinese political-military leadership. He was represented by Prime Minister Li Qiang.

[2] Vladimir Putin, under an arrest warrant issued by the ICC, intervened online and was physically represented by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

[3] In the short term (2025-2026), BRICS transactions in national currencies are expected to increase by 15-20% compared to 2024 levels. Additionally, the testing of the BRICS digital currency in pilot transactions between China, Russia, and India is foreseen.

[4] A pilot program has been launched between China, India, and Russia for transactions in yuan, rupees, and rubles, targeting trade in raw materials and industrial equipment, with a tested volume exceeding USD 2 billion over the past six months.

[5] BRICS does not yet have a unified AI Act due to ongoing differences between Russia, China, and India. In Rio, the intention was confirmed to: strictly protect the data of BRICS citizens; condition access to data on compensation/collaboration agreements; and develop a proprietary AI infrastructure independent of foreign actors. BRICS considers data to be strategic resources, similar to mineral or energy resources.

[6] Russia and Iran proposed the creation of BRICS energy corridors (oil, LNG, strategic minerals). Discussions took place regarding the strengthening of the North-South International Transport Corridor (Iran-Russia-India). The possibility of LNG deliveries from Russia and Iran to Brazil and South Africa was also explored.

[7] Proposals for BRICS industrial zones with preferential customs regimes were discussed, as well as investments through the BRICS Bank in logistics infrastructure (ports, railways, integrated industrial zones). It was decided to establish the BRICS Council for Technology and Industry, which will prepare a joint strategic plan for the 2025-2030 period.

[8] Although invited, Saudi Arabia has not yet ratified its membership, citing the need for further internal consultations, balancing relations with the USA and China, and assessing the implications for OPEC.

[9] Divergent positions exist among members regarding expansion: China and Russia support expansion; India is calling for a pause for reflection, citing the risks of diluting internal cohesion; Brazil and South Africa prefer clear accession criteria, including commitments for financial contributions to the BRICS Bank.

[10] India has not yet managed to become a superpower, but it is a major regional power and an influential global actor, without having the complete instruments of a superpower (a globally projectable military, mass-competitive proprietary technology, soft power equivalent to the USA/China), and with some real limitations (young demographics, an education system and agriculture lagging behind a superpower economy). However, it has the potential to become a major actor, provided it overcomes its internal constraints and intelligently navigates the rivalry between China and the USA.

By John Dunkelgrün

For centuries, it was not uncommon for an army that had clearly lost a battle to be allowed to leave unharmed and honorably, often even with their colors, if they surrendered.

Life for the people of Gaza is hell, that much friend and foe can agree on, and that hell must stop. But putting pressure on Israel is not the best way to achieve that.

It is Hamas, which has brutally held the two million-plus Gazans hostage for a quarter of a century, which has used untold millions in aid to build its army, its weapon factories, and its underground fortress. It is Hamas that has stolen aid supplies and resold them at a gross profit to the Gazans.

Militarily, Hamas has been defeated. The only reason they can hold out is because of the hostages. The fastest way to save the people of Gaza from this hell on earth is to put maximum pressure on Hamas to release all hostages, the living and the dead, in return for a safe exit; if need be, with flying colors. Gaza should then get a pan-Arab caretaker government as a first step to a federal State of Palestine, together with the Palestine Authority in Ramallah. It would be a very hard pill to swallow for both the Israeli government and Hamas. However, this is where the power and influence of President Trump, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar can truly prove to be a force for good.

It would be better for both the people of Gaza and for Israel. It would finally give the Gazans the opportunity for a life in peace and hope for their future.

Any solution that leaves Hamas in power means waiting for the next round.