The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Thursday adopted a resolution that called on Iran to provide it with access and information regarding its nuclear programme, as required under UN resolutions.

The vote came a day after the head of the IAEA renewed his call for Tehran to allow inspections at key nuclear sites attacked by Israel and the United States in June.

Tensions between Iran and the UN nuclear watchdog have repeatedly flared in recent years and were further inflamed after a 12-day war in June that saw Israeli and US strikes on key Iranian nuclear facilities.

Since the war, agency inspectors have not been granted access to sites such as Fordo and Natanz, which were hit in the strikes, but they have been able to visit other sites.

Thursday’s resolution “urges Iran to comply fully and without delay with its legal obligations under […] UNSC resolutions and to extend full and prompt cooperation to the IAEA, including by providing such information and access that the Agency requests,” according to the text.

The vote was passed with 19 for, three against and 12 abstentions.

“We have performed a number of inspections, but we have not been able to go to the attack sites. I hope we will be able. Indeed, we have to go because this is part of Iran’s commitments,” IAEA head Rafael Grossi told reporters on Wednesday, after opening the regular board meeting of the Vienna-based agency.

“I hope we’ll be able to move in a constructive manner.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Wednesday evening rejected any cooperation with the IAEA “regarding the bombed sites”.

“We only cooperate regarding nuclear facilities that have not been affected, in compliance with IAEA regulations,” he stated on Telegram.

Explosive weapons killed or injured children at record levels last year, as wars increasingly move into urban areas, Save the Children said in a report published Thursday.

Nearly 12,000 children were killed or injured in conflict last year worldwide, said the UK-based charity, citing UN figures. This was the highest number since records began in 2006, and was up by 42% on the 2020 total.

Previously, children in war zones were more likely to die from malnutrition, disease or failing health systems.

But as conflicts, such as those in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine, take place more and more in urban areas, children are being caught up as bombs and drones strike hospitals, schools and residential areas, Save the Children said.

More than 70% of child casualties in war zones in 2024 were caused by explosive weapons, such as missiles and grenades, up from an average of around 59% in the period from 2020 to 2024, according to the report.

“The world is witnessing the deliberate destruction of childhood — and the evidence is undeniable,” said Narmina Strishenets, senior conflict and humanitarian advocacy advisor at Save the Children UK.

“Children are paying the highest price in today’s wars… Missiles are falling where children sleep, play and learn — turning the very places that should be the safest, like their homes and schools, into death traps.”

Children’s smaller bodies and developing organs means injuries from blasts can be much more severe and recovery can be more complex and prolonged.

“Children are far more vulnerable to explosive weapons than adults,” said Paul Reavley, a consultant paediatric emergency physician and co-founder of the Paediatric Blast Injury Partnership, a coalition between Save the Children UK and medical specialists.

“Their anatomy, physiology, behaviour and psychosocial needs make them disproportionately affected.”

The conflicts that claimed the most casualties among children in 2024 were in the Palestinian territories of Gaza and the occupied West Bank, Sudan, Myanmar, Ukraine and Syria.

The deadliest conflict in recent years for children is in Gaza, where 20,000 children have been killed since Israel launched its war on the territory in retaliation for Palestininan resistance group Hamas’s October 2023 attack, the report said.

Afghanistan’s Taliban-led government is increasingly turning to India for trade, investment, and development support, signaling a significant shift in its foreign policy and economic priorities.

For over two decades, Taliban rhetoric painted India as a Hindu “kafir” state that backed “anti-Islam” forces in Kabul.

India was frequently accused of meddling in Afghan affairs, with Indian consulates labeled as intelligence hubs and Indian aid dismissed as foreign interference.

Now, the same government is sending its foreign and commerce ministers to New Delhi, seeking investment, markets, and infrastructure support.

From Ideology to Pragmatism

The pivot represents a marked departure from past ideological positions. The Taliban once justified the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas as a fight against “un-Islamic idols” and the Buddhist-Hindu civilization. Today, they court India, a country that actively promotes and protects the very cultural heritage the Taliban attacked.

Similarly, the Taliban’s historical narrative of labeling the Kabul republic as “India’s puppet” contrasts sharply with their current dependence on India for wheat supplies, reconstruction funds, trade corridors, and access to ports. Analysts note that this transactional approach highlights a pragmatic prioritization of economic stabilization over past ideological claims.

Strategic Choices Over Religious Rhetoric
Despite their repeated emphasis on Muslim solidarity and historic ties with Pakistan, the Taliban have increasingly bypassed their immediate Muslim neighbor amid tensions over border issues, TTP activity, and refugee flows, choosing instead to strengthen ties with India.

Likewise, the Emirate has historically opposed “Western economic systems” and interest-based finance. Yet, it is now leveraging India’s connections to global financial institutions to access banking channels, investments, and reconstruction projects.

Domestic Absolutism vs Foreign Flexibility
While maintaining strict domestic policies—restricting girls’ education, women’s work, and media freedoms in the name of “pure Sharia”—the Taliban display flexibility abroad, negotiating with former ideological adversaries to secure aid, trade, and diplomatic recognition.

Notably, issues such as Kashmir, India’s Citizenship Amendment Act, and anti-Muslim violence receive little attention during official visits to New Delhi, reflecting a prioritization of economic and diplomatic objectives over ideological messaging.

Borders and Recognition
The Taliban continue to challenge the Durand Line with Pakistan but show restraint in dealings with India, respecting its security concerns and acknowledging practical realities, despite India not formally recognizing the Taliban regime. These repeated ministerial visits underscore a clear pursuit of de facto recognition and international legitimacy.

Expert Takeaway
Observers suggest that Afghanistan’s Taliban government has set aside past jihadist and ideological rhetoric in dealings with India, prioritizing trade, aid, and political recognition. Analysts note that this pragmatic approach demonstrates the tension between the Taliban’s domestic ideological rigidity and their foreign policy pragmatism in a fragile state.