By David L. Phillips
LONDON, Jun 23 2025 – A deal between the US and Iran is possible if Iran’s bottom line — its right to nuclear enrichment — and Israel’s bottom line, guarantees that Iran will never have a nuclear bomb are met. This “win-win” outcome would require Donald Trump’s personal engagement. With weapons turned to plowshares, Trump would be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize.

For sure, it’s hard to imagine a path forward in current circumstances. The region is embroiled in conflict. Iran has been humiliated by Israel’s attack. Its nuclear program has been seriously damaged. Israeli air power has destroyed air defenses, incapacitated Iran’s missiles, and killed its military leaders and scientists.

Israel’s actions in the past year have changed the balance of power, neutralizing Hezbollah, Hamas and eliminating the Pro-Iranian Assad regime in Syria.

Javad Zarif, Iran’s former foreign minister and nuclear negotiator, often spoke to me about “Persian pride.” To move forward, a peace deal would have to address Iran’s battered psyche and Israel’s sense of vulnerability.

I envision a deal that would allow Iran to maintain its enrichment facility deep underground at Fordo. The International Atomic Energy Agency would need unfettered access to Fordo ensuring that enrichment was capped at 7 percent, well below the level needed for a nuclear bomb.

Iran’s nuclear program has been set-back as a result of Israeli strikes. Natanz and other enrichment facilities have been damaged and would be permanently dismantled. The Isfahan nuclear complex, which includes a uranium-conversion facility turning “yellowcake” into uranium hexafluoride, has been disabled by Israel’s air strikes and would be decommissioned.

The Tehran Research Center, which manufactures advanced rotors for enrichment, is destroyed. So is the workshop at Karaj, where other uranium enrichment components were manufactured.

Missile and drone attacks are another concern. The US would give security guarantees guarding against such attacks. It would commit to providing Israel with additional Thermal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery systems, an effective mobile surface to air interceptor that shoots down incoming ballistic missiles at a distance of 1,800 miles. Iran’s missile system has been degraded but it is not destroyed.

For the foreseeable future, the US would deploy an aircraft carrier group in the Arabian Sea. Each carrier has more than 60 war planes that can deter missiles and drones strikes. Fighter jets already deployed in the region would also be available for Israel’s defense.

Netanyahu wants Trump to use the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a “bunker buster”, to take out the Fordo facility. Ford is buried deep underground in a mountain side. Only the US has bunker busters to disable Fordo’s enrichment process.

A bunker buster is designed to penetrate hardened targets using precision-guided 30,000-pound bombs armed with a 5,300-pound warhead. More than one bomb will be needed to disable Fordo. The mission’s success is uncertain. Fordo adjoins a base of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC). Its air force could take down the B2 planes needed to deliver bunker buster ordinance.

Trump is under pressure from Netanyahu to attack Fordo. So far, Trump is keeping his options open. Trump insists on Iran’s “complete surrender”. The Ayatollah says Iran will never “grovel” to Washington. It is unlikely that Iran will waive a white flag. Resistance and martyrdom are at the core of Shiite beliefs.

Iran has signaled it is ready to meet US negotiators and discuss a ceasefire. An agreement would commit the US to never use bunker busters unless Iran weaponized its nuclear program.

Iran’s belligerent posture may change when the Iranian people take stock of the regime’s mismanagement. The Iranian people are fed up with their pariah status. Trump’s decision not to intervene would increase the prospects of Iran’s home-grow democratic transition, the best guarantor of peace.

The deal could reap economic and diplomatic benefits. An agreement could catalyze reform across the region, including progress in Gaza. A ceasefire leading to an independent Palestinian state could result in Saudi Arabia’s decision to join the Abraham Accords and normalization of relations with Israel.

Is this positive vision possible? If we can imagine it, we can make it a reality.

Peacebuilding would start with a deal to fully, finally and verifiably eliminate the possibility that Iran’s nuclear program would be used for anything but peaceful purposes.

Current events in the Middle East are nothing short of disastrous. They can, however, be a catalyst for transformation. Only the US can lead this process, and only Trump has the chutzpah to try it.

IPS UN Bureau

Excerpt:

David L. Phillips is an Academic Visitor at St. Antony’s College at Oxford University (September 2025). He was formerly a Senior Adviser at the State Department.

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 23 2025 – When billionaire Elon Musk, a former short-lived advisor to President Donald Trump, was mandated with the task of decimating the federal bureaucracy and laying off thousands of staffers, he was famously pictured carrying a hacksaw to symbolize his cost-cutting agenda.

Perhaps it is now the turn of the United Nations for slashing—the UN80 Initiative– but no one is armed either with a hacksaw or a mini chain saw.

A UN Task Force is currently exploring staff layoffs, merging of several departments and relocating UN agencies from high-cost duty stations, including New York and Geneva, to lower-costs cities.

Meanwhile the Geneva-based UN refugee agency announced its own restructuring last week: “In light of difficult financial realities, UNHCR is compelled to reduce the overall scale of its operations”.

“We will focus our efforts on activities that have the greatest impact for refugees, supported by streamlined headquarters and regional bureau structures,” said Filippo Grandi, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

As part of the agency’s broader cost-cutting measures, UNHCR has had to close or downsize offices worldwide and implement a nearly 50 percent reduction in senior positions at its Geneva headquarters and regional bureau.

In total, approximately 3,500 staff positions will be discontinued. Additionally, hundreds of colleagues supporting UNHCR on a temporary basis have had to leave the organization due to the funding shortfall.

Overall, UNHCR estimates a global reduction in staffing costs of around 30 percent.

Throughout the review exercise, decisions were driven by the overarching priority to maintain operations in regions with the most urgent refugee needs, the refugee agency pointed out.

Regarding staff cutbacks in the Secretariat, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters last week that no UN department will be exempted from layoffs.

Asked whether the 20 percent cuts were inevitable, he said: “This process is ongoing. It is across the board in the Secretariat, and including in the Secretary-General’s own office”.

“I think his own office is not exempt from it. I spoke to (Under-Secretary-General for Policy) Guy Ryder yesterday, and we hope to have him, and other senior colleagues come and brief you in- person”.

Asked if the Spokesperson’s office is included in the cutbacks, he said: “The need to reduce is across the board– and no office is exempt”.

But the ultimate decision on restructuring will depend, as it does on key policy issues, on approval by the UN’s Administrative and Budgetary Committee (Fifth Committee), with final ratification by the 193-member General Assembly, the UN’s highest policy making body.

In a memo to staffers last week, the UN Staff Union (UNSU) in New York reminded “all colleagues that no decisions regarding the proposed changes have been approved by the General Assembly (GA) at this time.”

“The information shared is preliminary and non-binding, intended solely to prepare you for potential outcomes should the General Assembly endorse the proposals later this year.”

“We urge all colleagues to interpret such communications with caution and to remain aware that final authority rests with the General Assembly, whose decisions are still pending.”

A lingering question remains: will the GA rubber-stamp the decisions of the Secretary-General and his Task Force — or also heed to complaints from staffers and staff unions?

In the memo to staffers, Narda Cupidore, President, 48th Staff Council, UNSU, New York, outlined “the basic premise of potential proposals being made in line with the Secretary General’s instructions to achieve a reduction of 15% – 20% of the UN’s regular Budget for 2026”.

The memo reads:

• “Relocation of Functions: Some functions may be moved from New York to lower-cost duty stations where the UN already has operational infrastructure.
• Consolidation of Functions: Certain administrative services, may be consolidated for efficiency. Functions might be affected by the proposal to consolidate
• Discontinuation of Functions: Some functions may need to be discontinued, requiring a review of both vacant and encumbered posts to determine options.

What this Means for STAFF:

• Direct Impact: Some staff may be asked to relocate, work in different time zones, or see their roles evolve. A few may face the possibility of separation.
• Transparency and Support: Staff will be fully informed of decisions affecting them, given adequate notice, and supported through reassignment, relocation, separation entitlements, or other mitigation measures.
• Emotional Toll: Even those not directly affected may experience stress and uncertainty.
• Engagement and Communication: The organization commits to transparency, open communication, and treating staff with dignity and respect. Measures will include town halls, team meetings, individual consultations, and collaboration with staff representatives.

Management proposes that staff will be supported as follows:

• Transparency and Communication: Staff will be kept informed about decisions, options, and timelines. Managers are tasked with maintaining open lines of communication.
• Engagement Activities: Regular town halls, smaller team meetings, and individual consultations will be held to address concerns and provide guidance.
• Support Measures: Staff will receive assistance through reassignment, relocation, separation entitlements, or other mitigation measures. The organization will work closely with staff representatives to ensure rights and well-being are prioritized.
• Dignity and Respect: The process will be handled with care, treating everyone with humanity and respect.“

Looking Ahead

The UNSU says it appreciates the sharing of this important communication to staff. We continue to advocate for full transparency, consistent and clear communication, and call on all Secretariat entities to uphold this standard without exception. UNSU remains on standby for the proposed collaboration.

“UNSU continues to raise its concern about the realism of the aggressive timeline, the thoroughness of the analysis in such a short time frame; the reason for the specific established quota of cuts; the lack of clarity on the financial cuts and their impacts; as well as the effects on the productivity and quality of our outputs.

UNSU remains fully committed to supporting all colleagues during this period of uncertainty. We strongly encourage you to engage with staff representatives, share your concerns, and report any inconsistencies or challenges you may encounter.

This is very important because in the environment of the Delegation of Authority (DoA) Head of Entities may have differing interpretations of directives, thereby creating the risk of inconsistent implementation.

During this confusing and chaotic time, please do not hesitate to reach out to the Union – as your feedback is essential to ensuring that issues are addressed effectively and equitably.

UNSU will be attending the upcoming Staff Management Committee Meeting in Kosovo, from 23-28 June 2025 and will report on the outcome of that meeting.

If you have experienced inconsistencies, have questions, or wish to share your perspective, please reach out to your staff representative.

For offices without designated representation, the UNSU leadership is your point of contact and stands ready to advocate on your behalf. You can also submit feedback directly to [email protected].

Together, we will ensure that your voice is heard and your rights are protected.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

By CIVICUS
Jun 23 2025 –  
CIVICUS discusses the closure of offices of the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) in Mexico with members of Integral Human Rights In Action (DHIA), a Mexican civil society organisation (CSO) that promotes and defends human rights in contexts of mobility.

In May, the UNHCR announced it would be closing four of its 12 offices in Mexico due to funding cuts following Donald Trump’s decision to freeze US$700 million in funding to the agency. This will result in around 200 people losing their jobs and a 30 per cent reduction in the UNHCR’s global operational capacity. Mexico received almost 80,000 asylum applications in 2024, and this reduction in institutional capacity comes at a time when demand for protection services is intensifying, placing a disproportionate burden on CSOs with limited resources.

What are the consequences of the closure of UNHCR offices?

The reduction in the UNHCR’s presence has created multiple crises. The closure of several offices has drastically limited refugees’ access to counselling, legal support and basic services such as medical care. However, the impact goes further: the UNHCR funds the Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance, and reduced support could seriously weaken the agency’s ability to respond to the increase in asylum applications, particularly given the significant backlogs it was already experiencing.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that the National Migration Institute has also stopped issuing visitor cards for humanitarian reasons. This leaves many refugees without immigration documentation, exposing them to arbitrary detention and hindering their access to formal employment. In many cases, this leads them to abandon the asylum application process altogether. While applications were resolved in three days to six weeks in 2024, there are currently cases where the wait exceeds three months. This is part of an institutional setback that threatens the exercise of fundamental rights.

What risks do refugee women and girls face?

Refugee women and girls often experience a cycle of violence that is not broken by migration. They flee their countries of origin to escape gender-based violence, but this violence continues along migration routes. During transit, they lack access to sexual and reproductive healthcare, including menstrual products, antenatal care and family planning services.

On arrival in Mexico, they encounter further obstacles in their quest for childcare, continued education and decent employment. These difficulties are exacerbated by the absence of local support networks that could facilitate their integration.

How is civil society responding?

In the face of funding cuts, Mexican civil society has taken a leading role in the humanitarian response. Civil society’s strength lies in its in-depth knowledge of the context and refugees’ needs, which enables it to tailor its services to diverse groups.

However, the impact of the funding cuts is undeniable. Many of these organisations were previously supported by the UNHCR and provided legal advice during the asylum application process, significantly increasing chances of success.

In this context, Mexico needs the support of the international community, particularly the states that have adopted the Cartagena Declaration – the regional framework for the protection of refugees in Latin America – to strengthen regional cooperation and ensure the protection, integration and regularisation of displaced people. At the same time, the Mexican state must take responsibility and allocate resources to address human mobility, fulfilling its international commitments with a long-term vision.

What are the local financing alternatives?

Mexico has mechanisms that could be activated. One option would be to reactivate the public calls for proposals of the National Institute for Social Development, a scheme in which CSOs compete for funds to help migrants and refugees. For this to work, these calls must be governed by the principles of transparency, shared responsibility and citizen participation.

There are also more innovative state models. In Chihuahua state, for instance, the Chihuahua Business Foundation and the Trust for Competitiveness and Citizen Security have successfully channelled business funds into state-supervised trusts via taxes. These resources fund services in areas such as education, food and public safety, which are awarded through public calls for proposals. This model could be replicated in other parts of Mexico to create a national network of alternative financing.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
The disappeared: Mexico’s industrial-scale human rights crisis CIVICUS Lens 22.Apr.2025
Mexico’s first female president: an opportunity for change CIVICUS Lens 21.Jun.2024
Migration in the Americas: a dream that can turn deadly CIVICUS Lens 15.Apr.2024

By Sarah Strack and Christelle Kalhoule
SEVILLE, Spain , Jun 23 2025 – Can the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4) be a turning point? The stakes are high. The international financial system—so important to each and every one of us—feels out of reach and resistant to change, because it is deeply entrenched in unjust power imbalances that keep it in place. We deserve better.

Under its current form, the Compromiso de Sevilla – the outcome document of FFD4 adopted on June 17 ahead of the conference – reads like a mildly improved version of business as usual with weak commitments. To avoid being derailed, decision-makers at FFD4 must act with clarity and courage, and here’s why.

With predatory interest rates, the international financial system is pushing hundreds of millions into misery as several nations continue to be shackled by a deepening debt crisis. While millions struggle without adequate food, healthcare, or education – basic services and rights – their governments must funnel billions to creditors.

Shockingly, 3.3 billion people – almost half of humanity – disproportionately in Global South nations, live in countries where debt interest payments outstrip education, health budgets and urgent climate action. This imbalance is particularly pernicious toward women, who bear the brunt of the failure of the gender-blind global financial architecture. This system fails to acknowledge and redistribute care and social reproduction responsibilities, resulting in women, especially those located in the Global South, lacking access to adequate essential services and decent jobs.

“The current model of international cooperation is not working, and its financing is also not working while we are facing a series of interconnected crises,” says Mafalda Infante, Advocacy and Communications Officer at the Portuguese Platform of Development NGOs, sharing their recently released Civil Society Manifesto for Global Justice calling for change and a restoration of fairness at FFD4 and beyond.

“Gender equality perspectives are absolutely central to how we understand global justice and financial reform, because let’s be clear: the current system isn’t neutral. It produces and reinforces inequalities, including gender-based ones. The debt crisis and climate emergency disproportionately affect women and girls, especially in the global south. We’ve seen it again and again when public services are cut, when healthcare is underfunded or when food systems collapse, it’s women who carry the heaviest burden. But at the same time, feminist economics also offer solutions. They challenge the idea that GDP growth is the ultimate goal. They prioritise care, sustainability and community well-being. They demand that financing should be people-centered and rights-based and accountable as well. So the role of civil society has been to bring these ideas into the FFD4 space to connect macroeconomic reform with everyday realities and to insist that justice – economic, climate, racial, gender justice – is indivisible,” Infante adds.

FFD4 offers an opportunity to reimagine a financial architecture that can be just, inclusive, and rights-based. This is not a technical summit for experts alone. It is the only global forum where governments, international institutions, civil society organisations, community representatives and the private sector sit together to shape the future of global finance, and it’s happening after 10 years since the latest edition in Addis Ababa.

But there are realities that decision-makers just can’t shy away from. While some powerful countries borrow at rock-bottom rates, other nations face interest charges nearly four times higher. We must thus ask ourselves: is this really a pathway to truly sustainable development or a continuation of profound financial injustices through something akin to “financial colonialism” ?

“Many countries like us in the South, are totally concerned that there can be no development with the current debt situation not discussed. The issue of debt vis-a-vis taxes is vitally important. The money that countries are collecting from the domestic mobilization of resources is all channeled to self-debt servicing. And debt handcuffs social policy. Without these resources, these countries cannot deliver on public services like health and education. There can be no way of improving people’s social indicators without addressing the question of debt stress,” says Moses Isooba , Executive Director of the Uganda National NGO Forum (UNNGOF).

Forus is attending FFD4 as a global civil society network with one clear message: the current model must change.

We call for a radical transformation of global finance that moves away from a system that enables “tax abuse” and outsized influence from a powerful few.

A crucial step for transformation is creating a UN Convention on Sovereign Debt to fairly and transparently restructure and cancel illegitimate debt, as many countries spend more on debt than on essential services.

In today’s context of shrinking development aid, the role of public development banks is ever more important in support of Agenda 2030 and the Paris Agreement on climate change. Forus therefore calls on public development banks to work in partnership with civil society and community representatives through a formal global coalition and local engagement to ensure development finance is locally-led and reflects the real needs of people, rooted in consent and mutual trust.

Official development assistance (ODA) must be protected and increased, reversing harmful aid cuts that damage civil society as well as urgent and basic services. The UN has warned that aid funding for dozens of crises around the world has dropped by a third, largely due to the decrease in US funding slashed US funding and announced cuts from other nations.

Finally, governments should support a new UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation, adopting gender-responsive, environmentally sustainable fiscal policies while disincentivizing polluters and extractive industries.

“Development financing must not perpetuate cycles of debt, austerity, and dependency. Instead, it must be grounded in democratic governance, fair taxation, climate justice, and respect for human rights. It’s also crucial to promote inclusive decision-making by strengthening the role of the United Nations in global economic governance, countering the dominance of informal and exclusive clubs such as the OECD,” says Henrique Frota, Executive Director of the Brazilian Association of NGOs (ABONG) and former C20 Brazil Chair.

FFD4 must ensure that there is a genuine space for civil society engagement, where all voices are heard and can influence financial decision making, to strengthen accountability and transparency, and to promote greater inclusion.

“The voices of the communities most affected should be included, otherwise large-scale development projects are not sustainable. Local communities and local civil society are the point of contact to make implementation more inclusive,” says Pallavi Rekhi, Programmes Lead at Voluntary Action Network India (VANI), reinforcing that FFD4 must shift from vague aspirations to binding, systemic reforms that rebalance power and serve justice.

“Don’t take stock of what has been done. Instead, look at what has not yet been done at this conference and you will see the immense challenges that lie ahead for the future of our planet,” says Marcelline Mensah-Pierucci, President of FONGTO, the national platform of civil society organisations in Togo.

“The continuous cycle of unfairness and social inequality must come to an end. The time to act is now,” adds Zia ur Rehman, Chairperson of Pakistan Development Alliance.

For many, the road to Sevilla has been long and hard and still, the world’s majority are left behind on this journey. The hard work continues after FFD4 on the need for bold leadership, real action and transformative change that can lead to a more effective and responsive global financial architecture.

IPS UN Bureau

Excerpt:

Sarah Strack, Forus Director and Christelle Kalhoule, Forus Chair