U.S. and European trio prepare new Iran nuclear referral at IAEA
A proposed resolution would ask the IAEA Board of Governors to return Iran’s nuclear file to the U.N. Security Council, while Tehran says attacks and security threats have made inspections impossible.
The United States, Britain, France and Germany reportedly prepared a draft IAEA resolution seeking to return Iran’s nuclear file to the U.N. Security Council. Western governments cite alleged Iranian noncompliance and insufficient cooperation, while Tehran says attacks on its nuclear facilities and continuing threats have made inspections unsafe and require a new framework. The IAEA says verification activities should resume, but the diplomatic outcome remains uncertain.
The United States, Britain, France and Germany have reportedly prepared a draft resolution seeking to refer Iran’s nuclear file back to the U.N. Security Council and the General Assembly.
According to reports cited by Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency, the draft was prepared on September 4 and was expected to be considered by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s 35-member Board of Governors on September 7. Western governments argue that Iran has failed to meet its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has not cooperated adequately with the IAEA.
The proposed measure would represent a renewed effort to internationalize the dispute and increase pressure on Tehran. The issue has previously been considered by the Security Council, which adopted resolutions between 2006 and 2010 demanding limits on Iran’s enrichment and reprocessing activities and imposing sanctions. In 2015, the council endorsed the nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers through Resolution 2231.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei rejected the reported initiative, describing it as legally contradictory and politically counterproductive. He argued that the European countries and the United States were seeking to revive a process they had previously claimed was connected to the so-called “snapback” mechanism. Baghaei also said that attacks by the United States and Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities had prevented the IAEA from carrying out inspections, making Western criticism of Iran’s lack of access “self-contradictory.”
IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said in recent interviews that the overall situation had not fundamentally changed from previous months and that the agency was prepared to resume its work. He also said that there was currently no negotiating channel on the nuclear issue.
The IAEA’s latest reported assessment said that, apart from the Bushehr nuclear power plant, the agency had not received the access needed to verify the status of Iran’s other declared nuclear facilities and related nuclear material. The agency reportedly suspended verification activities after military strikes and conducted only one inspection at Bushehr. It described the attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities as creating an unprecedented situation while maintaining that verification activities should resume.
Iran says its decision to restrict cooperation followed attacks on facilities at Natanz and Fordow. Tehran has continued cooperation concerning Bushehr but says inspections of damaged sites require new security arrangements and a specific protocol. Mohammad Eslami, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, said that a law passed by Iran’s parliament governs cooperation and that the IAEA must clarify its procedures and responsibilities concerning facilities subjected to military attack.
The dispute has also affected attempts to establish a new framework for cooperation. IRNA reported that an understanding reached in Cairo between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Grossi, with Egyptian mediation, was undermined after European states activated the snapback mechanism. A subsequent document associated with Islamabad has likewise faced difficulties, according to the report.
Iranian officials argue that continued threats against nuclear facilities make inspections difficult from a security perspective. Tehran is seeking assurances regarding the safety of its sites and a new agreement specifying the purpose, safeguards and responsibilities governing inspections at damaged facilities.
The outcome of any proposed referral remains uncertain. Russia and China have previously opposed or resisted some Western initiatives concerning Iran, and the Security Council’s earlier demands for a suspension of enrichment did not ultimately stop Iran’s nuclear activities. Whether the new initiative advances will depend on the Board of Governors’ vote, subsequent diplomatic negotiations and the positions adopted by Security Council members.