The resolution proposed by three European countries (France, UK and Germany) in cooperation with the US on Iran’s peaceful nuclear program was passed in a committee session of the IAEA Committee.
The resolution, which was adopted with 19 votes in favor, 11 and three votes, accusing Tehran of violating its safeguard commitments without mentioning longstanding broad cooperation with Iran’s IAEA.
The resolution repeats politicized allegations rooted in manufactured documents provided by the Zionist regime, claiming that since 2019, Iran has not been able to cooperate fully and timely with the IAEA on undeclared nuclear materials and activities in several locations.
Iran’s close cooperation with the IAEA in recent years is well known, especially during the implementation of the JCPOA. When JCPOA signing in 2015, all issues related to the allegations against Iran were resolved. The IAEA then issued 15 reports confirming compliance with Iran’s commitments, with no objections or issues raised.
This situation began signaling the US’ intention to withdraw from the JCPOA, and eventually continued until 2018. In response, Iran adopted a “strategic patience” policy for over a year, and then gradually reduced its commitment.
The US was the main reason for the collapse of the deal and the decline in Iran’s interaction with the IAEA, but four resolutions have been issued against Iran since Trump withdrawn from the JCPOA despite Iran granting requested access.
At the time, Vienna’s senior Russian diplomat, Mikhail Ulinov, criticized the resolutions by Britain, France and Germany (US-backed) during the governor’s meeting. He said he doesn’t even care about the IAEA Secretariat providing accurate statistics on the amount of Iran’s verification activities. Last year, 125 inspectors were run in Iran, 493 inspections were conducted, and 144 design information verification (DIV) inspections were conducted, resulting in the on-site activity of 1,260 guards. Iran’s tests rank second in IAEA member states in frequency, with no record of decline in activity.
Therefore, despite the IAEA framework and Iran’s consistent and constructive cooperation within nuclear negotiations, and despite the goodwill in holding indirect consultations between the United States, the US and its European allies, they refused to respond proactively.
Analysts believe that these countries are using the IAEA mechanism to pursue political goals instead of logical engagement and attempt to impose unilateral and excessive conditions, such as the complete exclusion of uranium enrichment capabilities. Iran is always being rejected.
Western countries, particularly the US, France, the UK and Germany, have intentionally collaborated with vague and unfounded technical claims about sites such as Tagezabad and Labasan to create international pressure on Iran. These claims, consistently rejected by Iran, appear to aim to generate negative global views of Iran on the international stage, in order to undermine its legitimate and peaceful nuclear capabilities.
Analysts also believe that the West has no real intention to solve Iran’s nuclear issue logically and sustainably. Instead, nuclear issues are being used as a political lever to undermine Iran’s regional and international status. The ultimate goal of this political strategy is to reconstruct the structure of West Asia to suit Western interests.
Therefore, political approaches and constant pressure from the US and its European allies can disrupt constructive diplomatic processes, as well as escalate tensions and mistrust, and destroy the precious opportunity for a comprehensive long-term agreement.
The adoption of such a politically motivated solution is a serious undermining the IAEA’s reliability and position. The first consequence of this politicization is a serious decline in international confidence in the institution’s technical and expert reports. Today, many countries see their assessment with careful attention and skepticism.
Furthermore, the Council’s political approach entangles the IAEA in international political conflicts and increasingly diverts it from its central professional and technical mission. Many experts are concerned that this politicization will significantly undermine the institution’s ability to resolve technical conflicts between states.
Neutrality, the basis of the IAEA operations, is currently under threat. After the revelation of secret cooperation between the IAEA and the Zionist regime regarding the failure to maintain equity in the nuclear issue, and particularly on sabotage at Iran’s nuclear facilities, the coordination of institutions with certain political interests has seriously damaged the credibility of institutions around the world, particularly among non-western members.
In response to the political resolution of the Governor’s Committee, the Islamic Republic of Iran has adopted a clear, solid, multi-layered stance. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Iranian atomic energy organizations have issued a joint statement denounced the three countries of the US and Europe for misusing international mechanisms to pursue political purposes without relying on technical and legal foundations. The statement emphasized that Iran will be forced to respond in physical form, and that such a response would fall within the framework of international law and the legitimate rights of Iran.
Therefore, the atomic energy organization has announced that new enrichment sites have been established in safe places, in their head order. Additionally, the IR-1 centrifuge at the Shahid Alimohammadi (Fordow) enrichment facility will be replaced by an advanced IR-6 machine. These are technical and legal responses to solutions based on political motivation rather than scientific reality.
While neither Iran’s measures appear to be outside the scope of legal and international frameworks, Tehran will firmly defend nuclear and state rights from illegal pressure. Without a doubt, the responsibility for escalation or instability lies with the sponsor of this resolution.
In this regard, several potential scenarios have been raised by media and analysts, including reducing the level of inspection cooperation, reviewing the voluntary implementation of additional protocols, and considering withdrawing from the NPT if unfair pressure continues.
In this situation, international experts emphasize that institutions should return to their main missions as soon as possible. This is technical and fair monitoring based on international standards. Entering the field of politicization will not only undermine the institution’s professional capabilities, but will also make its role in the international security system ineffective over time.
Maintaining the constructive role of the institution in the international order requires respect for professional principles, fairness, and avoidance of politicization on issues such as Iran’s nuclear programme.
MP/6497403