Press TV, on Iran, 24 October 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

No state can rewrite NPT to undermine Tehran’s right to nuclear energy: Iran at UN

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.4 findings

Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations has defended his country’s inalienable right to peaceful nuclear energy, accusing the United States and Israel of waging two "wars of aggression" against Iranian facilities and warning that no single nation can unilaterally rewrite the global Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Addressing the UN General Assembly, Ambassador Gholamhossein Darzi pushed back against Western pressure, asserting that Article IV of the NPT guarantees all state parties the right to develop peaceful nuclear energy, including the full nuclear fuel cycle.

“The United States seeks to deny Iran that right while claiming to uphold the Treaty,” Darzi declared. “No State can unilaterally rewrite the Treaty or impose its own political veto.”

The Iranian envoy leveled severe accusations against Washington and Tel Aviv, stating they had launched two distinct "wars of aggression" against Iran in 2025 and 2026.

Crucially, he noted that these military strikes specifically targeted nuclear facilities that were under the strict safeguards and monitoring of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Darzi condemned the silence of the international community, pointing out that neither the IAEA’s leadership nor the UN Security Council has formally condemned the attacks on safeguarded civilian infrastructure.

He denounced the "blatant" hypocrisy of the international system for pressuring the victim of military aggression while allowing the aggressors to escape accountability.

Regarding IAEA inspections, that Tehran has neither abandoned nor formally suspended its safeguards obligations.

However, he stressed that the military attacks have fundamentally altered security conditions on the ground, making physical inspections unsafe without adequate security guarantees.

"Responsibility for those circumstances rests with the aggressors, not Iran," he asserted.

from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018.

Following the US withdrawal under the Trump administration, Washington reimposed crippling economic sanctions under a "maximum pressure" campaign, effectively killing the economic incentives of the nuclear deal.

Since then, the US has consistently used its diplomatic leverage to lobby the IAEA Board of Governors to pass resolutions censuring Iran, a move Tehran views as the weaponization of a technical agency for political coercion.

Furthermore, .

In response to the US breaking the JCPOA and the subsequent European failure to offset US sanctions, . This included removing advanced surveillance cameras and increasing uranium enrichment levels.

However, tensions reached a breaking point following the US and Israeli military strikes in 2025 and 2026. Because the targeted facilities were legally registered as peaceful and under IAEA safeguards, the military attacks created an unprecedented crisis for the nuclear watchdog.

Iran has repeatedly argued that the IAEA cannot demand routine, intrusive inspections of facilities that are actively being bombed by Western-backed military forces.

Read the original article on presstv.ir (opens in a new tab)
What we found (4)

Press TV reports Iran's UN ambassador's speech with clear attribution for his own claims. In the background section, though, it states contested points in its own voice: that Iran's reduced commitments were legal, and that the US gave intelligence and military support to Israeli sabotage, with no source for either. It also calls the envoy's account a clarification, which treats his claim as settled.

  1. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “the US has provided diplomatic cover, intelligence, and military support for Israeli sabotage operations and direct military strikes against Iranian nuclear and scientific infrastructure over the past several years”

    Why this matters
    Press TV states in its own voice that the US supplied intelligence and military support to Israeli sabotage operations over several years. It gives no source, no document and no official account.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes US intelligence and military backing for every Israeli sabotage operation as an established, sourced fact.
    The context
    The article attributes nothing in this sentence. It cites no report, no official and no record for the support it describes. Darzi's own accusations in S5 are attributed, but this broader claim is made in the outlet's voice alone.

    Show it in the article

  2. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “Iran gradually and legally reduced its voluntary IAEA commitments under the treaty's provisions”

    Why this matters
    The word "legally" gives a legal verdict on Iran's reduced commitments in the outlet's own voice. The sentence names no authority and no ruling behind that verdict.
    The impression it gives
    The reader comes away believing it is settled that Iran's reductions, including removing cameras and raising enrichment, were lawful.
    The context
    This is Iran's legal position. The article reports in S14 that the IAEA Board of Governors passed resolutions censuring Iran, so the question was contested. The outlet gives no source for its verdict that the steps were legal.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“lobby the IAEA Board of Governors to pass resolutions censuring Iran”

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Iran says it reduced its voluntary IAEA commitments lawfully, in response to the US withdrawal and Europe's failure to offset US sanctions; the IAEA Board of Governors has passed resolutions censuring Iran.

  3. States one side's claim as fact

    Minor

    “The collapse of nuclear diplomacy is deeply rooted in the United States' unilateral withdrawal”

    Why this matters
    Press TV states a causal verdict on why nuclear diplomacy collapsed in its own voice, rather than as Iran's argument.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes the cause of the diplomatic collapse as settled analysis rather than one party's account.
    The context
    The US withdrawal in 2018 is a fact the article reports. The claim that it is the root of the collapse is an interpretation, and the article gives no source for it.

    Show it in the article

  4. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “Darzi clarified”

    Why this matters
    The verb "clarified" presents the envoy's account of Iran's safeguards status as a correction of the record, not as his claim.
    The impression it gives
    The reader takes it as established that Iran has neither abandoned nor suspended its safeguards obligations.
    The context
    This is the Iranian government's position, delivered in a speech. A neutral verb such as "said" would leave it as his claim. The same sentence's "Crucially, he noted" in S6 does similar work.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“Crucially, he noted that”

    Show it in the article

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Press TV

  1. 24 OctIran presented no new proposals to Pakistani mediator on Hormuz: Report6.0
  2. 24 OctIRGC warns ‘apocalyptic war’ will reverberate beyond Iran, shape region’s fate6.0
  3. 24 OctIran will not allow ‘rusty’ US military vessels to re-enter Persian Gulf: Top commander6.0
  4. 24 OctIranian intelligence, IRGC forces arrest two over collaboration with foreign spy agencies8.2
  5. 24 OctTwelve countries warn against normalizing attacks on peaceful nuclear sites3.0

Everything we scored from Press TV