Global News Podcast - US strikes Iran: UN chief warns against cycle of retaliation

Episode Date: June 22, 2025

At an emergency session of the UN Security Council, Antonio Guterres warned that fighting needed to stop and negotiations should resume. Also: 20 people are dead after a suicide bombing in the Syrian capital, Damascus.

This is the Global News podcast from the BBC World Service. I'm Janet Jalil and in the early hours of Monday, the 23rd of June, these are our main stories. At an emergency UN Security Council session called after the US strikes on Iran, the UN chief warns against a cycle of retaliation in the Middle East. The UN's nuclear watchdog says it can't assess the damage caused by the American attacks, contradicting the Trump administration's claim that its operation was an incredible success. Twenty people are reported to have been killed in a suicide bombing in a church in the Syrian

capital Damascus. Also in this podcast... This person who inspired me all these years, he's my personal hero, though thousands of heroes are behind bars and hundreds of thousands continue to fight for our people. An emotional family reunion for a Belarusian dissident released from prison after five years. It was an emergency meeting called to try to restore a degree of calm after the US strikes on Iran's nuclear sites. But perhaps predictably, the UN Security Council session merely exposed

divisions with Iran's allies, Russia and China, condemning the American attack and, along with Pakistan putting forward a draft resolution calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, a move likely to be vetoed by the US. The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned that the fighting needed to stop and negotiations needed to resume otherwise there was a risk of descending into what he called a rat hole of retaliation after retaliation. We face a stark choice. One path leads to wider war, deeper human suffering and serious

damage to the international order. The other leads to de-escalation, diplomacy and dialogue. We know which path is right. The UN nuclear watchdog chief, Rafael Grossi, told the Security Council that while craters were visible at Iran's enrichment plant buried into a mountain at Fordow, no one, including the IAEA, is in a position to assess the underground damage, contradicting Donald Trump's claim to have obliterated the nuclear site there. The Russian ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nabensya, likened the US actions to those in Iraq more than 20 years ago. I imagine that many are getting a nagging sense of deja vu today.

Let me remind you that back in 2003, in this very chamber, the US Secretary of State Colin Powell waved around a test tube justifying Washington's plans to invade the territory of another sovereign state, only to having waged decades of chaos onto its people to not find any WMDs there. Today's situation is no different in substance to the one we saw in 2003. Again, we're being asked to believe the US's fairy tales to once again inflict suffering on millions of people living in the Middle East.

But the US envoy to the UN, Dorothy Scherer, said it was a different situation now. For decades, Iran has been responsible for misery and countless deaths across the Middle East. Iran's government and its proxies have also killed numerous Americans, including American service members in Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent weeks, Iranian officials have intensified their hostile bluster and rhetoric. Iran has long obfuscated its nuclear weapons program and stonewalled good-faith efforts in recent negotiations. Madam

President, the time finally came for the United States in the defense of its ally and in the defense of our own citizens and interests to act decisively. Our correspondent Jake Kwon was watching the Security Council meeting. The two main key word has been restraint and diplomacy. This is something that every country that has spoken so far has been calling for, that there is really still a window to come back to the negotiation table. It's not too late to take an off ramp here. And this has been the message from the Secretary General,

who had urged diplomacy. And what we've seen is this fault line happening along the more traditional Western nations as opposed to the Eastern hemisphere. The Russians have strongly condemned American actions and China had echoed that line that they're strongly condemning U.S. attack on Iran. However, the Western countries like UK had said that they support this idea of Iran not having the nuclear weapon. And then they urged Iran to stop itself from any kind of retaliation and to really come back to the negotiation table, which has been echoed by other Western nations. And another thing was the American representative echoed the same line that we heard from President Trump as well as his cabinet saying that

this attack was really out of necessity, that their goal always has been to keep nuclear weapon out of Iranian hands. We heard from Donald Trump that the US strikes had obliterated the nuclear sites but at this emergency session of the UN Security Council, the UN nuclear watchdog chief, Rafael Grossi, says no one is really in a position to assess the damage at Fordow in particular, which has a site deep underground. That discrepancy was already evident in the American side in Washington when Secretary of Defense Pete Hexeth was giving the press

conference today alongside the chief of staff of the military, who said that the damage assessment is still going on. And this is already hours after President Trump has declared that the nuclear site has been obliterated. How do you square that with the idea that the actual damage to this nuclear site is still uncertain. And we heard this being confirmed by IAEA, the United Nations Watchdog and Nuclear Director Grossi saying that, yes, it's going to take more verification effort on the ground, actually. And what he was urging was that each party, Israel needs to stop bombing, Iran needs to stop bombing, for IAEA ground team to go in there and really do some fact-finding and that there is a further risk of nuclear material radioactivity leaking

into the environment and really having a human cost. Jake Kwon, well a surprise overnight US attack when Iran's nuclear sites named Operation Midnight Hammer involved 125 military aircraft, including seven B-2 stealth bombers, the only planes capable of delivering the bunker buster bombs designed for targets deep underground. Three nuclear facilities were hit, Netanz, Isfahan and Fordow. At a news conference the US defence secretary, Pete Hegthef, called the operation an incredible success saying that the strikes did not target Iranian troops or civilians and that the aim was not to topple the Iranian government but to stop it getting a nuclear bomb. This mission was not and has not been about regime change. The president authorized a

precision operation to neutralize the threats to our national interests posed by the Iranian nuclear program and the collective self-defense of our troops and our ally Israel. At the same news conference, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Cain, said battle damage assessment was still continuing. With more details, here's our security analyst Gordon Carrera. Operation Midnight Hammer started with deception. A group of B-2 bombers headed out from the US, with some going towards the Pacific as a decoy. Meanwhile, seven of the bombers headed

quietly east with minimal communications, refuelling on the way. They then linked up with escort and support aircraft. Just before they entered Iranian airspace a US submarine launched more than two dozen cruise missiles at targets at a site at Isfahan. The B-2s then hit two more targets. About 75 precision guided munitions were deployed including 14 of the massive ordnance penetrators, so-called bunker busters. They were used operationally for the first time. US officials say Iranian defences did not engage the aircraft as they came or left and may not have seen them. General Dan Cain, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave this assessment. Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate

that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction. Satellite imagery shows impact points at Fordow, but it does not reveal what happened underground and the site appears damaged but not destroyed. Iranian officials have also claimed they already moved their enriched uranium to other sites. Gordon Carrera, I spoke to the defence analyst Jonathan Marcus and asked him what we knew about how much damage the US strikes had caused. Obviously the Americans are talking about a very fair degree of success. If you of course

listen to the political echelon in the United States, Mr. Trump and Mr. Hegs of it was an overwhelming success, mission accomplished as it were. We just don't know yet and inevitably that will take time and America's ability to actually assess the damage may be limited to some extent given that this is a subterranean target. But when you think that they used 14 of these massive ordnance penetrator bombs which can bury deep down into the ground before exploding, and you know the impact of such an explosion is a bit like a very small earthquake in some ways. So one can expect there was considerable damage. Whether these had been completely destroyed, these targets or not, we're

waiting to find out. And the big question is, how will Iran respond? Well, there's an even bigger question, how much of Iran's nuclear program is left? Where is the highly enriched uranium that was being stored at Esfahan? We don't know where that is. We don't know if there are other secret Iranian clandestine facilities that the West doesn't know about. But you're right, in terms of what happens next, Iran's response is the key. The Americans will signal very strongly this is a one-off attack. Having said that, though, the war looks as though it's going to continue.

The air war, the Israelis are not letting up. The Iranians are not letting up in responding to Israel by firing back missiles at Israeli territory. So as yet it's very, very uncertain, very dangerous, but a lot is going to hinge upon what exactly the Iranians decide to do or perhaps what they decide not to do. This is a regime very much on the ropes and the danger is they turn a war that is about dismantling their nuclear infrastructure. If they do the wrong thing themselves, they could turn it into a war that is about dismantling their nuclear infrastructure. If they do the wrong thing themselves, they could turn it into a war for the survival

of the Iranian regime. And there is that fear that these US strikes could be counterproductive because with that uncertainty of where the nuclear material is, the Iranians could now be racing to create a bomb. Well, we'll see. We'll see how much of their program is left. I think the people have got to be very pragmatic and rational about this. I don't think there was a serious deal in the offing to constrain Iran's program. And the actual fact is that the Iranians have

gone way beyond what they need to have a civil nuclear program and able to provide nuclear fuel for a reactor. They are so far beyond that. The particular details of precisely what they've done and when they're going to do it are in some senses, I'm afraid, rather beside the point. They were on a path towards the capacity to have a nuclear weapon. And that actually, frankly, means that if something wasn't done about it, they could well have pursued a nuclear bomb in pretty short order. And remember, last October when Israel began taking down their air defences, that was a real warning sign for the Iranians. Their calculus may well have changed significantly over the past few months.

Jonathan Marcus, so what do Iranians themselves make of the US attacks? Siavash Adlan from BBC Persian is monitoring reaction within Iran. People's reaction is more one of concern and worry that this conflict might escalate. What if Iran retaliates? If Iran retaliates against the US by targeting US bases or by targeting any of the naval aircraft carriers of the US in the region, then the US might respond even in a stronger fashion, as President Trump said. So Iranians are worried about escalation.

And I guess it's been a rude awakening for most Iranians, both the hardliners who thought that Iran is stronger than it really was, who overestimated its deterrence power, its strength, and also for the people who were somehow happy thinking that if the US or Israel attacked Iran that would weaken the regime, realizing that war is not a very selective game, that it's a big package that comes with a lot of difficulties. So Iranians basically are very confused and still the conversations are very divisive in terms of whether they're happy about the war or whether they should expect regime change or whether they would rather have the regime in power than to see it collapse, which would bring about a collapse

of the central government and all kinds of instabilities. Because if the regime were to collapse, there's no obvious alternative. There is not. The opposition has really not done a good job of trying to coalesce, of trying to bring its forces together. The opposition differences among themselves. It's so bitter, even more bitter than their opposition sometimes to the regime itself. There are some voices who claim to represent the majority of Iranians, particularly the monarchist groups. The monarchists are closely aligned with Israel itself. So they have supported Israel's attacks and they've called on people to rise up amidst these attacks. Obviously that alienated a lot of Iranians. So they

lost their base among many Iranians who were unhappy about this war. So then that leaves the other parts of the opposition inside the country, civil society, political prisoners, who have kind of taken a balanced stance, but they have no really little voice because they don't have the media or the access to the population. And the Iranian Foreign Minister is going to Russia for talks with President Putin. Are we expecting much to come out of that? I don't think we can expect much. There has been some expressions of support inside Russia that, oh, we should do something to help Iran, but it's been really more show than substance. I don't think Russia will come out in favor of Iran, though it would not like to see the

situation escalate any further. I don't think we'll see anything beyond that, which just goes to the point that many Iranian critics have always mentioned in the past years that Iran, the government of Iran, is suffering from what they call strategic loneliness. Sivash Adlan. Meanwhile, Israel and Iran have continued firing missiles at each other. Israel said it struck dozens of military targets in Iran, while several Israeli neighborhoods were hit by missiles fired by Tehran.

Our correspondent in Jerusalem is Ioni Wells. The morning after the U.S.'s decision to join Israel's bombing of Iranian nuclear sites, these back and forth missile strikes between Iran and Israel continued. Iran retaliated further, with some missiles making it through Israel's defence system and hitting various different areas around central Israel. There were buildings that were significantly damaged, more people injured, although no further reports of fatalities. Meanwhile, Israel has decided to continue targeting various different military targets in Iran as well.

What's interesting is that even though this U.S. intervention has been widely acknowledged as an incredibly significant move and one that has caused damage to Iran's nuclear sites, Israel hasn't acknowledged this as victory or an achievement of its stated target, which is to eradicate Iran's nuclear program. Now, that suggests that Israel still sees this as a long campaign, that it plans to continue striking Iran until it feels it has achieved not just that aim of eradicating its nuclear program, but also severely weakening Iran's ability to strike Israel back. What's less clear is what Iran does next, and there are various different scenarios

that people here are discussing. One is whether they continue to retaliate, firing more missiles back towards Israel. A second is whether they decide to divert some of their retaliatory attacks towards U.S. personnel, U.S. military bases in the wider region, potentially then bringing in other nations as well in the surrounding region. The other question is whether they do wait a bit longer or whether they decide to rejoin negotiations, although it is pretty clear from what we're hearing from the Iranian side that they don't feel they want to go back to negotiations for as long as they are

under attack from Israel. Ione Wells. Let's look at some other news now. In Syria, at least 20 people have been killed by a suicide bomber in a church in the capital Damascus. The government says he was a member of the Islamic State group. The attack is a blow to Syria's leader, Ahmed al-Sharah, who has struggled to assert control over a nation that's been devastated and divided by years of civil war and recent sectarian killings. Lina Sinjab is following

events from Beirut. This is Sunday so there is a mass at six o'clock where Christians in this neighborhood attend to this Marilias Church which is an Orthodox Church. We're told that over 100 have been in the church, men, women, and children, and elderly as well, when a man, armed man, broke into the church and started firing at worshipers. And then when people tried to push him out of the church, he blew himself up and detonated an armed bell that he had,

you know, killing several people. We're not sure of the number but many people are saying that there are more than 20 killed so far. This is the first attack since the toppling of Assad regime on Christians, the first attack to happen in Damascus and inside the church, a place of worshipping. We've heard one of the priests there saying that this is going to spread fear among the Christian community. Already, the Christians have been attacked by Islamists in the past during the civil

war. But for this to happen after the toppling of the regime of Bashar al-Assad with this new government that is saying it wants to have a Syria for all and protect all the minorities, this is already a big blow for Ahmed Al-Chalaz government. Leena Sinjab. Still to come, scientists stationed in Antarctica receive a royal message. With the sun shining away from your horizon today, I particularly wanted to send my warmest good wishes to all of those

serving at British Antarctic research stations. A leading Belarusian dissident has described how his own daughter didn't recognize him when he was released from jail. Sergei Tikhonovsky was freed unexpectedly on Saturday along with 13 other political prisoners as a US Special Envoy Kief Kellogg visited Belarus' capital Minsk and held talks with the country's authoritarian leader Alexander Lukashenko. Here's our Europe regional editor, Paul Moss. This was an emotional occasion, a reminder, should one be needed, of the suffering endured by political prisoners in Belarus. Sergey Tekanovsky spent five years in solitary confinement.

He appeared at a news conference emaciated and clearly distressed as he described the moment he was reunited with his family. My son told my daughter, this is your father, he said, before bursting into tears and handing the microphone to his wife. Sviatlana Tikhanovska had taken over leadership of the main Belarusian opposition movement while her husband was in prison. This person who inspired me all these years, he's my personal hero, though thousands of heroes are behind bars and hundreds of thousands continue to fight for our people. It's more than three decades since Alexander Lukashenko took power in Belarus, and despite Saturday's release of Mr Tikhanovsky and 13 other

critics of the Minsk regime there's no sign he intends to relinquish power anytime soon. Paul Moss. Cambodia has announced that it's stopping all fuel imports from its neighbor Thailand. This comes as relations have deteriorated over a tense border dispute which saw a Cambodian soldier killed in a military clash last month. Jason Lee reports. Thailand may be a far bigger economic power, but Cambodia isn't backing down. The country is the third largest buyer of Thailand's petroleum gas, so it knows this will sting, even at the prospect of hurting itself. The Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet has said

that his country would import fuel and gas from elsewhere to meet its domestic needs, without specifying from where. It's the latest move over a dispute that stemmed back more than a century ago when the borders between the two countries were drawn by France during its rule of Indo-China. The French have now gone, but colonialism has left enduring scars. And those simmering tensions over territory reached boiling point last month, when a Cambodian soldier was killed during skirmishes at the border. Hundreds of kilometers west, in the Thai capital Bangkok, the crisis then took an unexpected turn when a phone call between Prime Minister Birtan Sinawat and Cambodia's

veteran leader Hun Sen, who relinquished power to his son two years ago, was leaked in which she disparaged a Thai military commander while discussing the clashes. The scandal threatened to topple her government, with critics accusing her of undermining the country's sovereignty. Determined to keep her job, she apologized to the nation, yet protests demanding her resignation continued. But she persuaded her coalition partners to keep supporting her government.

For now, she may have won over her colleagues, but it's unclear if she has fully regained the hearts of the Thai people. Jason Le. An award-winning documentary which looks at how a Mississippi town is grappling with its history as a slave-trading, is captivating Film Festival critics. The film, called Natchez, presents competing narratives that form part of a wider ongoing debate in the US over whether to bury what some see as the country's racist past or face up to it. From New York, where the film has just had its world premiere, Tom Brook reports. On the surface, Natchez in Mississippi looks beautiful, even serene.

The town thrives on tourism built on people coming to visit its old mansions. The new documentary called Natchez examines how the town is reckoning with its unsettling past, that it is also a community built on the backs of African-American slaves, a crucial part of its history often omitted from tourist-friendly narratives. That was their favorite servant. He became the overseer of this town. They taught him to read and write.

Those are his actual writings right here. In the town are residents who think its racist past is best left alone and others who say it has to be owned to move forwards. The film shows both sides. Director Susanna Herbert collaborated with producer Darcy McKinnon to make the film. It's very a concentrated version of a lot of the dynamics and conversations that are happening across the country

and perhaps across the globe today about what constitutes a true American history. Natchez is a little blue speck in a sea of red. Early on we meet Rev, a preacher and tour guide. He gives visitors the alternative unvarnished account of the town in which he mentions the indignities perpetrated on African-Americans in this community. He doesn't see Americans in general moving towards owning what he views as the country's uncomfortable racist past, But he definitely welcomes this film.

It is a baby step, less than a step in what has to happen for reconciliation. And the true nature of that creed that all men are created equal and die with their unalienable rights and freedom and that sort of thing. That's a goal, but that's certainly not where we are. Natchez had its world premiere here in this New York neighborhood a few days ago at the Tribeca Festival where it picked up some significant awards including best documentary feature and it earned some good reviews. It's a film that tries not to be judgmental it just presents differing viewpoints. But it certainly shows

that some residents in Natchez have been heavily invested in the past. I'm very much a country girl. I grew up poor. We grew up literally at the end of a dirt road. A key character in the documentary is Tracy McCartney, a local woman who, with her hoop skirt, resembles the archetypal Southern Belle who might just have stepped out of the movie classic Gone With the Wind set in America's South. But as a result of her involvement with the documentary, Tracy's view of Natchez has changed. She's grown uncomfortable with what she sees as the racism still evident

in the town. It did make me aware that it's a bigger problem than what I realized. But I think just this film will help, you know, open people's eyes to the struggle that black people have, that eyes of white women don't face. Natchez is a complicated little town. The filmmaking team is keen to make it plain that they're not trying to demonize Natchez in exploring its Southern racist past. It's all part of an effort to further understanding.

Producer Darcy McKinnon again. We're the Southerners and we did not want to make a film that was didactic or that in any way disrupted or kind of gotcha'd anyone. We love Natchez and we love the South. I live there and I want to stay there. We want our Southern stories and our Southern places to open up their sense of self and open up and be a place where everyone can thrive.

The documentary is most definitely hitting a resonant chord, coming at a time when Americans are grappling with different narratives of their past, sometimes choosing to embrace the one that looks more enticing and more comforting over one that is perhaps closer to the truth. That report by Tom Brook. King Charles, a long-time champion of environmental issues, has sent a personal message of support to British scientists stationed in Antarctica at a time of year

when the winter solstice sees where they are plunged into complete darkness for 24 hours. Each year the BBC World Service broadcasts a midwinter message to the team working at the British Antarctic Survey. It's now in its 70th year and this year the King warmly praised the team's resilience and commitment to scientific research. Our senior royal correspondent Daniela Rilfe has been talking to the team in the Antarctic. Shackleton calling, Shackleton calling. Hello Shackleton, hello Shackleton. This is the BBC. This was 1956 and the closest we could get to the first broadcast to the British Antarctic Survey.

Are you receiving me? Over. The history of annual messages from before 2005 has sadly been wiped from the archive. Receiving you loud and clear. Over. Hello Ralph, hello Ralph. That's splendid. But the BBC World Service broadcasts have become an important part of the midwinter celebrations in the Antarctic over the past 70 years. The sun is currently below the horizon there. The team is living in freezing temperatures. The nearest hospital is a thousand miles away.

The King acknowledges the scientific challenges and the isolation in his recorded message for the team. With the sun shining away from your horizon today, I particularly wanted to send my warmest good wishes to all of those serving at British Antarctic Research Stations this midwinter's day and above all to express the greatest admiration for the critically important work you do. But it's not all hardship. So we have a whole range of things that we do on Midwinter. Traditionally we start with a bit of a brunch.

Alex Roots is a Winter Station leader at Rothera Base. We'll have a large midwinter meal, a broadcast every year which will get some messages from family and friends and hear some tunes that we've picked as a station. And then throughout the week we have a variety of celebrations to coincide with that midwinter period including this year we're going to do a 10k fun run. A 10k fun run in those conditions, how fun is that? Ask me when I'm halfway round.

It's an attitude the King pays tribute to, along with his good wishes for all of those at British Antarctic research stations. I very much appreciate the resilience and commitment to duty you all demonstrate so effectively and which embody the pioneering spirit that has characterised British polar exploration for generations. Hello, British Antarctic. Past messages have come in varied forms. It's rock and roll in the South Pole in your cosy Antarctic. There was a song from comedian and musician Bill Bailey in 2017.

Keep rocking at the end of the world. Love you guys. In 2021, it was something more traditional from Sir David Attenborough. That's a blackbird in midsummer in Kew Gardens, sending you best wishes for you in the middle of your winter. And then the cast of the BBC comedy W1A. I know it's really hard.

They must be thinking why am I there at this point? I've no idea. I'm thinking why they're there. If they are, you've just got to send them a message to say that it's very important that they are there and that we're very pleased about it. And also I think the main message is we should try and keep warm.

For Alex Roots, each one offers something to the team, living through an Antarctic midwinter. It's that reminder that we are doing something at the cutting edge of science in a really difficult part of the world to operate and that people back home are thinking of us and give us something that can keep us on that sense of mission and keep driving us to do what we're doing. It's the first time a monarch has sent this message. What will that mean to the team? Yeah, I imagine future iterations of winterers will talk in hushed tones about the experience that we've been able to have.

Antarctic winter station leader Alex Roots ending that report by Daniela Relf. And that's all from us for now, but there will be a new edition of the Global News podcast later. If you want to comment on this podcast, you can send us an email. The address is globalpodcast at bbc.co.uk. This edition was produced by Harry Bly and Ariane Coetje. It was mixed by Caroline Driscoll and the editor is Karen Martin. I'm Janette Jaleel. Until next time, goodbye.