Iran presidential decree officially suspends cooperation with IAEA
Al Mayadeen | July 2, 2025
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has issued a decree suspending the country’s cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), according to a report by Tasnim news agency on Wednesday.
The decision comes amid heightened tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program and follows recent legislative developments from the Iranian parliament.
Last week, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf announced that lawmakers had enacted a law mandating the suspension of cooperation with the IAEA, which he described as “Israel’s protector and servant.”
Ghalibaf argued that continued cooperation with the IAEA was untenable as long as the security of Iran’s nuclear facilities remained unresolved, claiming the agency’s impartiality had been compromised by its ties to “Israel”.
Grossi barred from Iran’s nuclear facilities
Meanwhile, Deputy Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Hamid Reza Haji Babaei, announced on Sunday that IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi has been barred from accessing Iranian nuclear facilities or placing surveillance cameras there, after Iran suspended all cooperation with the nuclear watchdog.
“We will no longer give Grossi permission to be present at [Iran’s] nuclear facilities and install cameras [there] because we saw information about our facilities in documents received from … the Israeli regime,” Haji Babaei told ISNA news agency.
The Islamic Republic further exposed profound cooperation between the IAEA and the Israeli occupation, which prompted Iran to obtain, through a major intelligence operation, a vast trove of highly classified strategic documents and information tied to “Israel”, well-informed sources told Al Mayadeen last month.
The sources told Al Mayadeen that the data included “thousands of documents related to the Israeli occupation’s projects and its nuclear facilities.”
According to the sources, the operation took place some time ago, but the enormous volume of documents and the need to safely transport the entire haul into Iran “required keeping the matter under secrecy.”
US Bombing of Iran Harms Non-Proliferation
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | July 1, 2025
Iran didn’t violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the United States did. When the U.S. bombed Iran’s civilian nuclear facilities on June 23, they didn’t just violate the cardinal rule of international law by attacking a sovereign nation, without Security Council approval, that had neither attacked it nor threatened to attack it. They also violated the NPT. In doing so, the U.S. may have done irreparable harm to the non-proliferation regime.
As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran was protected by the “inalienable right to a civilian [nuclear] program.” Iran and the world watched, not only as that nonnuclear umbrella collapsed and failed to protect Iran, but as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the guardian of the non-proliferation regime, whispered barely a criticism. Iran’s parliamentary speaker has criticized the IAEA for having “refused to even pretend to condemn the [American] attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.”
Iran has accused IAEA director general Rafael Grossi of issuing a “biased” report on Iran’s nuclear program right as Trump’s sixty day window for diplomacy was closing that could be used as a “pretext” for the attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The U.S. was complicit in using the resolution that followed the report, since only 19 out of 33 countries voted in favor of it after the U.S. pressured eight countries they saw as “persuadable… to either vote with the US on the IAEA vote or not vote at all.”
After Grossi clarified that the IAEA “did not find in Iran elements to indicate that there is an active, systematic plan to build a nuclear weapon” and concluded that “We have not seen elements to allow us, as inspectors, to affirm that there was a nuclear weapon that was being manufactured or produced somewhere in Iran,” Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the clarification came “too late.” He blasted Grossi for “obscure[ing] this truth in your absolutely biased report that was instrumentalize by E3/U.S. to craft a resolution with baseless allegation of ‘non-compliance’; the same resolution was then utilized, as a final pretext… to launch an unlawful attack on our peaceful nuclear facilities.” Baghaei finished with the accusation that Grossi “betrayed the non-proliferation regime.”
On June 20, Iran filed a formal complaint against Grossi to the Security Council, accusing him of a “clear and serious breach of the principle of impartiality.” Iran’s Ambassador to the UN, Amir Saeed Iravani, criticized Grossi’s failure to condemn American and Israeli threats and use of force against its peaceful nuclear program as demanded by IAEA resolutions “which categorically prohibit any threat or use of force against nuclear facilities dedicated to peaceful purposes.” He said that Grossi’s “passivity… amounts to de facto complicity.”
On June 25, the Iranian parliament approved a bill suspending – but not yet terminating – its cooperation with the IAEA. Parliamentary speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf explained the passage of the bill by saying that the IAEA “has put its international credibility up for sale” because it “did not even formally condemn the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.” “For this reason,” he said, “the AEOI [the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran] will suspend its cooperation with the Agency until the security of its nuclear facilities is guaranteed.”
The next day, the Guardian Council approved the bill. The spokesperson for the Council said that “considering… the attacks carried out… against the peaceful nuclear facilities of our country… the government is obliged to suspend any cooperation with the IAEA until the principles ensuring… the security of nuclear scientists’ centers and ensuring the inherent rights of the Islamic Republic of Iran to benefit from all rights stipulated in Article 4 of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, particularly concerning uranium enrichment.” Having been approved by the Guardian Council, Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, says the bill is now “binding.” That means, he says, that “From now on, our relationship and cooperation with the [IAEA] will take a new form.”
The great risk now is that Iran could withdraw from the NPT altogether. When I asked former Iranian nuclear negotiator [ret] Ambassador Seyed Hossein Mousavian if this failure of the NPT might move Iran to withdraw from the treaty, he answered, “Perhaps Iran does not rush to withdraw but ultimately this could be a serious option.”
Having its legal nuclear facilities bombed by a nuclear power who is a signatory to the NPT could convince Iran that membership in the NPT is harmful to it. Mousavian has pointed out that countries that did develop nuclear weapons – which Iran did not – outside of the NPT “have remained immune from military attacks.” Trump and the U.S. have not bombed North Korea. “It is only natural that following the military attack,” Mousavian writes, “Iran would reconsider its nuclear strategy, including its continued membership in the NPT.” And that, Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, says “is quite likely.”
The danger is that the American bombing could eliminate a civilian nuclear program that was operating under the watchful international eye of an unprecedented inspection regime with one that is rebuilt entirely out of the eyes of international inspectors.
Sina Toossi, senior non-resident fellow at the Center for International Policy, told me that “far from neutralizing Iran’s nuclear capabilities, the war may have pushed Tehran closer to covert weaponization under a hardened doctrine.”
Withdrawal from the NPT would not entail that Iran has made the decision to build a nuclear weapon. Blinding the international community, led by the United States, may be seen by Iran as the only viable strategy for reconstituting a civilian nuclear program that would otherwise be bombed each time it reemerged.
The decision by the Trump administration to drop bunker buster bombs on Iran’s legal, civilian nuclear facilities, whether it “severely damaged” them, “obliterated” them or merely “set them back,” is that much more than the nuclear facilities were damaged. Under the guise of preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran, the U.S. may have so discredited the NPT that they have “severely damaged” and “set back” the world’s hard won non-proliferation regime.
Ted Snider is a regular columnist on U.S. foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets. To support his work or for media or virtual presentation requests, contact him at tedsnider@bell.net
Spying on Iran: How MI6 infiltrated the IAEA
Leaked confidential files indicate the IAEA was infiltrated by a veteran British spy who has claimed credit for sanctions on Iran
By Kit Klarenberg | The Grayzone | July 1, 2025
A notorious British MI6 agent infiltrated the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on London’s behalf, according to leaked documents reviewed by The Grayzone. The agent, Nicholas Langman, is a veteran intelligence operative who claims credit for helping engineer the West’s economic war on Iran.
Langman’s identity first surfaced in journalistic accounts of his role in deflecting accusations that British intelligence played a role in the death of Princess Diana. He was later accused by Greek authorities of overseeing the abduction and torture of Pakistani migrants in Athens.
In both cases, UK authorities issued censorship orders forbidding the press from publishing his name. But Greek media, which was under no such obligation, confirmed that Langman was one of the MI6 assets withdrawn from Britain’s embassy in Athens.
The Grayzone discovered the résumé of the journeyman British operative in a trove of leaked papers detailing the activities of Torchlight, a prolific British intelligence cutout. The bio of the longtime MI6 officer reveals he “led large, inter-agency teams to identify and defeat the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons technology, including by innovative technical means and sanctions.”
In particular, the MI6 agent says he provided “support for the [IAEA] and Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW] and through high level international partnerships.”
Langman’s CV credits him with playing a major role in organizing the sanctions regime on Iran by “[building] highly effective and mutually supportive relations across government and with senior US, European, Middle and Far Eastern colleagues for strategy” between 2010 and 2012. He boasts in his bio that this achievement “enabled [the] major diplomatic success of [the] Iranian nuclear and sanctions agreement.”
The influence Langman claimed to have exerted on the IAEA adds weight to Iranian allegations that the international nuclear regulation body colluded with the West and Israel to undermine its sovereignty. The Iranian government has alleged that the IAEA supplied the identities of its top nuclear scientists to Israeli intelligence, enabling their assassinations, and provided critical intelligence to the US and Israel on the nuclear facilities they bombed during their military assault this June.
This June 12, under the direction of its Secretary General Rafael Grossi, the IAEA issued a clearly politicized report recycling questionable past allegations to accuse Iran of violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Three days later, Israel attacked the country, assassinating nine nuclear scientists as well as numerous top military officials and hundreds of civilians.
Iranian former Vice President for Strategic Affairs Javad Zarif has since called for the IAEA’s Grossi to be sacked, accusing him of having “abetted the slaughter of innocents in the country.” This June 28, the Iranian government broke ties with the IAEA, refusing to allow its inspectors into the country.
While Iranian officials may have had no idea about the involvement of a shadowy figure like Langman in IAEA business, it would likely come as little surprise to Tehran that the supposedly multilateral agency had been compromised by a Western intelligence agency.

Langman’s name placed under official UK censorship order
In 2016, Langman was named a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George, the same title bestowed on fictional British spy James Bond. By that point, the supposed secret agent held the dubious distinction of being publicly ‘burned’ as an MI6 operative on two separate occasions.
First, in 2001, journalist Stephen Dorril revealed that Langman had arrived in Paris weeks prior to Princess Diana’s fatal car crash in the city on August 31 1997, and was subsequently charged with conducting “information operations” to deflect widespread public speculation British intelligence was responsible for her death.
Then, in 2005, he was formally accused by Greek authorities of complicity in the abduction and torture of 28 Pakistanis in Athens. The Pakistanis, all migrant workers, were suspected of having had contact with individuals accused of perpetrating the 7/7 bombings in London, July 2005.
Brutally beaten and threatened with guns in their mouths, the victims “were convinced their interrogators were British.” When Greek media named Langman as the MI6 operative who oversaw the migrants’ torture, British news outlets universally complied with a government D-notice – an official censorship order – and kept his identity under wraps when reporting on the scandal.
London vehemently denied any British involvement in torturing the migrants, with then-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dismissing the charge as “utter nonsense.” In January 2006 though, London admitted MI6 officers were indeed present during the Pakistanis’ torture, although officials insisted the operatives played no active part in their arrests, questioning or abuse.
Following his withdrawal from Athens, Langman returned to London to head the UK Foreign Office’s Iran Department, a shift which highlights his importance to MI6 and suggests the British government had no qualms about his allegedly brutal evidence gathering methods.
Britain’s Foreign Office collaborates closely with MI6, whose agents use it as cover just as the CIA does with State Department diplomatic postings.
MI6’s man on Iran takes credit for “maximum pressure” strategy
While leading the Foreign Office’s Iran Department from 2006 – 2008, Langman oversaw a team seeking to “develop understanding” of the Iranian government’s “nuclear program.”
It’s unclear exactly what that “understanding” entailed. But the document makes clear that Langman then “generated confidence” in that assessment among “European, US and Middle Eastern agencies” in order to “delay programme [sic] and pressurise Iran to negotiate.” The reference to “Middle Eastern agencies” strongly implied MI6 cooperation with Israel’s Mossad intelligence services.
In April 2006, Tehran announced it had successfully enriched uranium for the first time, although officials denied any intention to do so for military purposes. This development may have triggered Langman’s intervention.
The Islamic Republic has rejected any suggestion it harbors ambitions to possess nuclear weapons. Its denials were corroborated by a November 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate expressing “high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted” any and all research into nuclear weapons. This assessment remained unchanged for several years, and was reportedly shared by the Mossad, despite Benjamin Netanyhau’s constant declarations that Iran was on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon.
Langman’s IAEA support work overlaps with Iran sanctions blitz
International governmental attitudes towards Iran changed abruptly between 2010 and ‘12. During this period, Western states and intergovernmental institutions initiated an array of harshly punitive measures against the country, while Israel ramped up its deadly covert operations against Iran’s nuclear scientists.
This period precisely overlapped with Langman’s tenure at the Counter-Proliferation Centre of the UK Foreign Office. His bio implies he used this position to influence the IAEA and other UN-affiliated organizations to foment a campaign of global hostility towards Iran.
In June 2010, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1929, which froze the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ assets, and banned overseas financial institutions from opening offices in Tehran. A month later, the Obama administration adopted the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act. This set off a global chain of copycat sanctions by Washington’s vassals, who often imposed even more stringent measures than those levied by the UN and US.
In March 2012, the EU voted unanimously to cut Iranian banks out of the SWIFT international banking network. That October, the bloc imposed the harshest sanctions to date, restricting trade, financial services, energy and technology, along with bans on the provision of insurance to Iranian companies by European firms.
BBC reporting on the sanctions acknowledged European officials merely suspected Tehran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but lacked concrete proof. And behind the scenes, the MI6 operative Langman was claiming credit for helping legitimize the allegations against Iran.
Nuclear agreement lays foundations for war
Following the Western-led campaign isolation of Iran from 2010 – 2012, over its purported nuclear weapon program, the Obama administration negotiated a July 2015 agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Under the JCPOA’s terms, the Islamic Republic agreed to limit its nuclear research activities in return for sanctions relief. In the years that followed, the IAEA was granted virtually unlimited access to Tehran’s nuclear complexes, ostensibly to ensure the facilities were not used to develop nuclear weapons.
Along the way, IAEA inspectors collected vast amounts of information on the sites, including surveillance camera photos, measurement data, and documents. The Iranian government has since accused the Agency of furnishing the top secret profiles of its nuclear scientists to Israel. These include the godfather of Iran’s nuclear program, Mohsen Fakrizadeh, who was first publicly named in a menacing 2019 powerpoint presentation by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The following year, the Mossad assassinated Fakrizadeh in broad daylight with a remote-controlled machine gun.
Internal IAEA documents leaked this June indicated that IAEA Secretary General Rafael Grossi has enjoyed a much closer relationship with Israeli officials than was previously known, and suggested he leveraged his cozy ties with Tel Aviv to secure his current position.
During a June 24 interview with Fox News’ war-crazed anchor Martha MacCallum, Grossi did not deny making the inflammatory claim that “900 pounds of potentially enriched uranium was taken to an ancient site near Isfahan.” Instead the IAEA director asserted, “We do not have any information on the whereabouts of this material.”
Well before Grossi rose to the top of the IAEA with Western and Israeli backing, the agency appears to have been penetrated by a British intelligence agent who took responsibility in his bio for engineering the West’s economic attack on Iran.
The IAEA has not responded to an email from The Grayzone seeking clarification on its relationship with Langman and the MI6.
Can international institutions be reformed?
By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 30, 2025
It appears that Israel and Iran have postponed World War III and, for now, seem to adhere to the ceasefire negotiated by Donald Trump (likely with the help of other countries). But even if the “12-Day War” has stopped and missiles are no longer flying back and forth, doubts remain about the fate of Iran’s nuclear program.
The U.S. government insists that Iran’s nuclear program no longer exists, while Iran maintains that its nuclear program is still operational. All signs indicate that the Iranians are correct and that the U.S. is once again constructing a purely simulated parallel reality for the sake of narrative power projection.
But the main issue is not this—it is, in fact, something few have mentioned, as recently noted by Sergey Lavrov: the role of Rafael Grossi and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The IAEA was founded in 1957 as an “autonomous” agency—though linked to the UN—with the goal of monitoring nations’ use of nuclear energy to promote peaceful applications and prevent the construction of nuclear weapons. In this capacity, IAEA teams visit nuclear power plants, research centers, and other facilities related to national nuclear programs to conduct safety checks and oversee enrichment levels.
However, it is important to note that despite its claims of “autonomy,” the IAEA was established at the insistence of the U.S., shortly after the abandonment of the post-WWII “utopian” idea of keeping nuclear weapons under the exclusive control of the UN. The institution has always been closer to the interests of the Western Bloc than to those of the Eastern Bloc or the Non-Aligned Movement.
That said, in the past, the IAEA did challenge U.S. claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, under the leadership of Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei.
But even during ElBaradei’s tenure, there were signs of a shift toward Western alignment. In writings from that period, ElBaradei advocated for a revival of the utopian, globalist vision of nuclear energy monopolized by a “multinational” agency—much like the various Western agencies controlled or influenced by the U.S. ElBaradei himself became a collaborator with the U.S. after his term ended, participating in the color revolution orchestrated in Egypt against Hosni Mubarak.
It was only during Yukiya Amano’s leadership that the IAEA’s collaboration with the U.S. became evident, thanks to WikiLeaks revelations. According to documents obtained by Julian Assange, in a meeting between Amano and U.S. diplomats, Amano explicitly stated that he was aligned with the U.S. regarding staffing decisions and the stance to be taken on Iran’s nuclear program. This, of course, meant that Amano filled the IAEA with U.S. collaborators. He was later accused by IAEA staff themselves of having a pro-Western bias.
This context helps explain the behavior of Rafael Grossi, Amano’s successor.
Fast-forward to June: Grossi prepared a report accusing Iran of failing to meet its obligations to the IAEA and scheduled a board meeting for the same day Trump’s 60-day ultimatum on negotiations with Iran expired. According to CNN, the U.S. contacted several board members to persuade them to vote in favor of Grossi’s resolution. The purpose was to lend an institutional veneer of legitimacy to Israel’s attacks against Iran.
Grossi’s report was entirely based on information provided by Mossad, which alleged the existence of previously unknown nuclear facilities containing traces of enriched uranium.
All evidence suggests that Grossi was aware of the imminent attack and collaborated in creating a pretext to justify Israel’s actions. This is further corroborated by the fact that Grossi has never once turned his attention to Israel’s nuclear program, which remains entirely opaque, free from any international inspections.
In light of these revelations, it is alarming that, as Grossi told the Financial Times earlier this year, he intends to run for UN Secretary-General. Given his track record, it is plausible that he will have U.S. backing, which would greatly aid his candidacy.
Cases like this are not isolated. We have seen how the International Criminal Court (ICC) moved to accuse Vladimir Putin and Russia of “kidnapping” Ukrainian children. The World Health Organization (WHO), meanwhile, attempted to override national sovereignty during the pandemic. The IMF is routinely used to deindustrialize Third World countries.
The list could go on.
The key issue, however, is this: Given the current state of international institutions, can they be reformed?
Or will we need to abandon them—as Iran did with the IAEA—and build new ones from scratch?
Zarif accuses IAEA’s Grossi of aiding war crimes, calls for removal
Al Mayadeen | June 27, 2025
Former Iranian Foreign Minister and ex-Vice President for Strategic Affairs, Mohammad Javad Zarif, issued a scathing condemnation of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Secretary-General Rafael Grossi on Friday, accusing him of facilitating war crimes through politically charged actions and rhetoric.
In a statement posted on his official X account, Zarif said Grossi had “abetted the slaughter of innocents” by issuing what he described as a fictitious IAEA report, and warned that the director-general is now laying the groundwork for further crimes against Iran.
Grossi accused of promoting false narratives
Zarif sharply criticized Grossi’s recent suggestion that Iran might be concealing uranium at World Heritage Sites in Isfahan, calling the claim “reckless musing” and part of a broader campaign to provoke further military escalation. “@rafaelmgrossi is now conspiring to abet more war crimes,” Zarif wrote.
The former top diplomat added that the IAEA should remove Grossi from his post, calling him a “disgrace” to the agency and launching the hashtag “#Fire_Grossi” to amplify the demand.
Mounting criticism over IAEA’s politicization
The remarks add to a growing number of Iranians accusing the IAEA of losing its impartiality and enabling acts of aggression by the Israeli occupation and the United States.
This also comes after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced Friday that the Iranian Parliament had voted to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) until the safety and security of the country’s nuclear infrastructure can be guaranteed.
The decision follows days of mounting tension over the US and the Israeli regime’s attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, which Tehran says were politically facilitated by the IAEA’s leadership. Araghchi directly blamed IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi for contributing to what he called “a sordid state of affairs.”
In a statement published on X, Araghchi accused Grossi of playing a “regrettable role in obfuscating” the fact that the IAEA had closed all past issues with Iran’s nuclear program a decade ago. Instead of upholding that record, Grossi, according to Araghchi, enabled the IAEA Board of Governors to adopt a “politically-motivated resolution” against Iran.
That resolution, Araghchi said, directly set the stage for recent bombings of Iranian nuclear sites by the US and the Israeli occupation.
Iran to defend its sovereignty
Araghchi condemned Grossi’s silence in the face of these attacks, calling it a “betrayal” of his statutory responsibilities. “In an astounding betrayal of his duties, Grossi has failed to explicitly condemn such blatant violations of IAEA safeguards and its Statute,” Araghchi said.
He further criticized Grossi’s insistence on visiting bombed sites under the pretext of inspections, calling such efforts “meaningless” and “possibly even malign in intent.”
Iran, Araghchi emphasized, reserves the right to take any measures necessary to defend its sovereignty, people, and national interests. He reiterated that cooperation with the IAEA would not resume until credible guarantees are in place to protect Iran’s nuclear facilities from further attacks.
“The IAEA and its Director-General bear full responsibility for what has transpired,” Araghchi stated, underscoring Iran’s growing distrust of the agency’s impartiality amid a broader climate of Western pressure and aggression.
Araghchi outlines post-war nuclear diplomacy, warns against sanctions
Al Mayadeen | June 27, 2025
In a televised interview with Iranian broadcaster SNN TV, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi asserted that both the United States and “Israel” had mobilized their nuclear capabilities and coercive strategies to force Iran into submission, but ultimately failed.
Araghchi praised the Iranian people’s steadfastness, describing it as a “historic symbol of resistance” during a critical national moment, emphasizing that despite years of sanctions, threats, and failed negotiations, the Iranian nation remained united in defense of its nuclear rights.
“Neither pressure nor diplomacy deprived us of our legitimate rights,” Araghchi declared.
The minister criticized US President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign, describing it as marked by mixed messages, threats coupled with calls for dialogue.
While Iran rejected direct talks with Washington, Araghchi noted that Tehran was considering indirect negotiations under new conditions. After diplomatic efforts failed to impose US terms, Araghchi accused Washington of unleashing “the Zionist enemy to commit hostile acts,” which he described as a betrayal of diplomacy.
Addressing Iran’s retaliatory actions, he stated that Tehran’s missile attacks on US bases were a direct response to American threats and aggression, clarifying that no agreement had been reached to initiate new talks and that the outbreak of war had undermined Iran’s readiness to propose a balanced negotiation framework.
He revealed that this framework rested on three pillars: the continuation of uranium enrichment within Iran, the complete removal of sanctions, and a firm commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons.
“If these three conditions are met, an agreement is possible,” he said.
Iran’s response to military strikes and diplomatic breakdown
In his interview, Araghchi stressed that diplomacy following the recent war would differ sharply from previous efforts, warning that “Future international relations will reflect how each country behaved during the crisis.”
He noted that the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) is currently conducting technical assessments of damage caused by the strikes, describing them as “serious and extensive.” Meanwhile, Iran’s Foreign Ministry has tasked its international affairs division with identifying the aggressors and seeking compensation through the United Nations.
“Reparations are now a key component of Iranian diplomacy,” he added.
The minister urged European countries, particularly Germany and France, to uphold their stated commitment to international law, issuing a stark warning to France and the UK, both permanent members of the UN Security Council, against triggering the snapback mechanism that would reinstate UN sanctions on Iran.
He labeled such a move as “the most dangerous strategic error Europe could make,” warning that it would exclude them from any meaningful role in Iran’s nuclear dossier.
“Military strikes and snapback sanctions won’t weaken Iran—they will eliminate Europe’s place at the table,” he asserted.
No plans to host IAEA chief amid inspection concerns
The Foreign Minister confirmed that Iran currently has no plans to host IAEA Director Rafael Grossi, noting that the issue of inspector access is under careful legal and political review.
“With some facilities damaged, inspections could inadvertently reveal sensitive details about the extent of destruction,” he said, emphasizing that all decisions must comply with recent legislation passed by Iran’s Parliament.
IAEA Failed to Protect Iran’s Nuclear Sites From US and Israeli Attacks
Sputnik – 25.06.2025
Iran suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) comes as Tehran realizes that there is simply no benefit on continuing it, Foad Izadi, associate professor at the University of Tehran, tells Sputnik.
“Iranian lawmakers realize that being a member of NPT has no value for Iran. There is no logical reason for Iran to be a member of NPT,” he says.
While attacking nuclear sites, especially those under the IAEA supervision, is illegal under international law, that did not deter Israel and the US from attacking the Iranian nuclear facilities, Izadi points out.
Hence the question: why work with the IAEA at all?
“IAEA has a budget of $35 million, and $22 million out of that $35 million is spent inspecting Iran. So, by suspending the link, Iran is actually saving IAEA money,” Izadi remarks.
He also observes that the IAEA does not inspect Israel because it is not a member and is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), hence raising the question whether Iran should withdraw from the NPT too.
“The reason IAEA doesn’t bother with Israel is that Israel is not a member. So if Israel cannot be a member, Iranian officials, Iranian parliament members have decided that Iran cannot be a member, can leave IAEA, can leave NPT, and that’s what they’re planning to do,” he says.
Europe bears ‘share of the blame’ for Israel’s attack on Iran – Russia
RT | June 24, 2025
European leaders pressured the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to issue a negative assessment of Iran and “bear a share of the blame” for Israel’s attack on the Islamic Republic, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.
Israel attacked Iran shortly after the UN nuclear watchdog declared Tehran to be in breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), despite Iran’s claims its uranium enrichment program is peaceful. The US joined the Jewish state’s air campaign to strike Tehran’s nuclear sites shortly before Washington announced a ceasefire had been reached between Israel and Iran.
Speaking at the Primakov Forums meeting in Moscow on Tuesday, Lavrov accused European leaders of pressuring the IAEA’s director, General Rafael Grossi, into publishing an accusatory report on Iran.
“The Europeans have taken a purely neocolonial position… They were actively preparing Grossi so that he would put the most ambiguously negative formulations into his report,” the top diplomat said.
The UK, France, Germany, and later, the US ran with the IAEA assessment and pushed a resolution through the IAEA Board of Governors that condemned Iran for allegedly violating the NPT, he added.
“A few days later, Israel launched its attacks,” Lavrov said.
The Europeans bear a share of the blame for this happening and for the fact that such attacks were carried out.
This highlights that the West “exerts very serious influence on international organizations, and has even privatized them to an extent,” Lavrov said, adding that most such bodies are no longer “guided by the requirement of impartiality.”
Weeks before the escalation, Reuters cited anonymous diplomats as saying that Western powers were pressuring the IAEA to declare Tehran in breach of its NPT obligations, at the height of US-Iran nuclear talks.
Tehran has since accused Grossi of taking sides and turning a blind eye to Israel’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear energy facilities. Multiple IAEA resolutions state that any use of force against peaceful nuclear facilities is illegal under international law.
Moscow has condemned Israeli and US attacks against Iran as “illegitimate.” The recent ceasefire, announced by US President Donald Trump on Tuesday, “can and should be welcomed,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. Moscow hopes that it “proves to be sustainable,” he added.
Ritter’s Rant Ep. 5: Grossi’s got to go
The IAEA’s incestuous relationship with Israel has destroyed its credibility
Scott Ritter | June 16, 2025
AEOI slams IAEA’s silence despite Israeli aggression on nuclear site
Al Mayadeen | June 13, 2025
The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) has issued a sharp rebuke of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its Director General, Rafael Grossi, denouncing the agency’s failure to condemn the Israeli aggression on Iran, most notably its Natanz nuclear facility. The AEOI called the IAEA’s silence a “form of cooperation” with the Israeli entity.
The condemnation came in the aftermath of the ongoing Israeli aggression on Friday, which targeted the Shahid Ahmadi Roshan enrichment complex at Natanz, in addition to residential buildings, military sites, and nuclear facilities.
In a statement, the AEOI confirmed that although sections of the site sustained damage, no casualties occurred and no radiation or chemical leaks were detected. “Investigations are underway to determine the level of the damage,” the agency said.
Iran’s nuclear authority stated that the attack violated international law and multiple resolutions issued by the UN Security Council, the IAEA Board of Governors, and the IAEA General Conference. The AEOI also denounced the IAEA’s longstanding inaction in the face of repeated Israeli threats against Iranian nuclear facilities.
“The Agency has practically distanced itself from professionalism and impartiality by preparing biased political reports based on fake information received from the Zionist regime,” the AEOI emphasized.
IAEA ‘lost its credibility’
The organization further accused the IAEA of having “lost its credibility as a valid international organization,” warning that its continued inaction has turned it into “a tool in the hands of the Zionist regime.” The attack, the statement noted, represents a “setback for the IAEA due to the Director General’s unjustifiable shortcomings and failure to play a professional and impartial role.”
Reaffirming Iran’s commitment to peaceful nuclear advancement, the AEOI declared that “political and military pressure will not derail Iran’s nuclear program” and added, “These great people, much to the enemies’ chagrin, will pursue the country’s lofty goals in further advancing the nuclear industry with double motivation.”
‘Nuclear sites must never be attacked’
Shortly after Iran’s statement, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi remarked that “nuclear sites must never be attacked,” yet pointedly refrained from condemning the Israeli aggression on Iran’s nuclear facility, an omission that Tehran views as tacit complicity.
Meanwhile, a growing number of states denounced the Israeli aggression against Iran, warning against escalation risks and far-reaching international consequences.
“This development is deeply concerning… I reiterate that any military action that jeopardizes the safety and security of nuclear facilities risks grave consequences for the people of Iran, the region, and beyond,” Grossi said in a message to the IAEA Board of Governors.
He added that he was “ready to travel to Iran at the earliest” to assess the situation and reaffirm the agency’s oversight. Grossi confirmed that Iran’s Fordow enrichment plant and a site in Esfahan were not impacted and that radiation levels at Natanz remained normal.
After Israeli attack, Grossi calls for restraint
Calling for restraint, Grossi urged both sides to step back from escalation. “Despite the current military actions and heightened tensions, it is clear that the only sustainable path forward, for Iran, for Israel, the entire region, and the international community, is one grounded in dialogue and diplomacy to ensure peace, stability, and cooperation,” he said.
Earlier today, the IAEA announced that Iran’s Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant remains unharmed and that no increase in radiation has been detected at the Natanz nuclear site, despite the massive Israeli aggression on Iran.
Iran condemns ‘biased’ IAEA, announces enrichment countermeasures
Al Mayadeen | June 12, 2025
Iran has sharply rejected a resolution passed by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Board of Governors, accusing it of being “politically driven” and “biased”. In a joint statement released Thursday by the Foreign Ministry and the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), Iranian officials condemned the resolution and unveiled a series of countermeasures aimed at accelerating the country’s nuclear program.
This comes shortly after the IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution against Iran on Thursday, claiming Iran was in breach of non-proliferation obligations. The vote passed with 19 countries voting in favor, 3 opposing, and 11 abstaining, according to diplomats cited by Reuters. Two countries were absent and thus did not vote.
The resolution, marking the first formal accusation in nearly two decades that Iran has violated its nuclear non-proliferation obligations, was passed during a closed-door session of the 35-member board. The move, described as “politically motivated” by Iranian officials, was initiated by the United States along with the E3, Britain, France, and Germany.
IAEA resolution lacks ‘neutrality’
The joint statement asserted that Iran remains committed to its obligations under the Safeguards Agreement, adding that no IAEA report to date has ever confirmed any deviation or non-compliance. Iranian authorities described the IAEA’s latest move as lacking “neutrality” and being manipulated by Western powers, particularly the United States, Britain, France, and Germany, to pursue geopolitical goals.
In a direct response, Iran announced the activation of a new uranium enrichment facility at a secure site and plans to upgrade the Fordow nuclear plant by replacing older centrifuges with sixth-generation advanced models.
Iran blasts Western double standards on nuclear disarmament
Iranian officials criticized the IAEA and its Western backers for what they described as selective enforcement of nuclear obligations. The joint statement accused the US and its European allies of reviving “25-year-old allegations” that had already been settled under the 2015 nuclear deal, while turning a blind eye to “Israel’s” undeclared nuclear arsenal and refusal to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
“The United States, Britain, and France have failed to comply with Article VI of the NPT regarding nuclear disarmament,” the statement read, adding that Germany remains in possession of “inhumane weapons of mass destruction.”
Iran further warned that continued political maneuvering within the IAEA would render any future engagement futile. “This political approach toward Iran, which has always honored its obligations and cooperated extensively with the Agency, forces us to conclude that the path of engagement and cooperation is futile,” the statement asserted.
Iran thanks allies opposing the resolution
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, strongly condemned the resolution passed Thursday by the IAEA Board of Governors, calling it a politically motivated effort by Western powers to undermine the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.
Baghaei specifically denounced the role of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, accusing them of exploiting the IAEA to “cast doubt on the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.”
He firmly rejected the allegations outlined in the resolution, which he said were based on “baseless and unfounded claims” and stemmed from a political report by the IAEA Director General. The resolution, jointly submitted by the four Western states, was described as “an unjustified, groundless, and cruel move,” aimed at exerting “maximum pressure on Iran to deviate from the legitimate rights and interests of the Iranian people in the peaceful use of nuclear energy.”
Baghaei warned that those behind the resolution will be held accountable for its repercussions. “The Islamic Republic of Iran will take proportionate measures in response to this move to secure and protect the interests and inalienable rights of the Iranian nation in benefiting from peaceful nuclear energy,” he said.
He also expressed deep concern over the conduct of the IAEA Director General, criticizing his public statements and what he described as provocative interviews on Iran’s nuclear activities. Baghaei accused the agency chief of undermining the organization’s neutrality, stating that he “must adhere to his missions and duties in accordance with the Agency’s statute.”
Furthermore, the Iranian diplomat extended gratitude to China, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Belarus for issuing a joint statement rejecting the resolution. He praised their “responsible and legal positions” and reaffirmed the Iranian nation’s determination to defend its rights and interests as outlined in the United Nations Charter and the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iran’s IAEA representative Najafi slams politicized resolution
Iran’s representative at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Reza Najafi, strongly criticized the agency’s recent resolution against Iran, denouncing it as politically motivated and based on unreliable sources. Speaking on Thursday, Najafi warned that such moves undermine the IAEA’s credibility and threaten the rights of member states under its founding charter.
Najafi emphasized that any draft resolution brought forward by the Board of Governors should rely strictly on unbiased, verifiable evidence, not intelligence supplied by specific states with vested interests. “Basing reports on questionable or politicized information undermines the agency’s objectivity,” he stated, in clear reference to data provided by Western governments and the Israeli occupation.
US current approach risks setting a dangerous precedent
He warned that the United States’ current approach risks setting a dangerous precedent, one that could erode trust and cooperation between the agency and its member states. Najafi asserted that such behavior contradicts the IAEA’s stated commitment to impartiality and transparency.
Reaffirming Iran’s position, Najafi made it clear that the Islamic Republic would not tolerate any attempt to erode its sovereignty through international pressure.
“Iran categorically rejects any pressure or mediation that seeks to undermine its sovereignty. We will defend our national interests, independence, and dignity,” he declared.
Politicized resolution in disguise
Najafi also expressed Iran’s outright rejection of what he described as a politicized resolution disguised as a technical safeguard concern, echoing Tehran’s longstanding understanding that the IAEA is being used as a tool for Western geopolitical agendas.
In a pointed warning to the E3, Britain, France, and Germany, as well as the United States, Najafi made it clear that Iran’s response would be firm. “These measures will not pass without consequences. They must take full responsibility for the repercussions and Iran’s strong reaction,” he said.
Kamalvandi: Political pressure will escalate Iran’s nuclear program
Behrouz Kamalvandi, Deputy Head of the Atomic Energy Organization, reinforced the government’s defiant tone, declaring that political pressure would only accelerate Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
“It is a strategic mistake to think that political pressure will push Iran to abandon its legitimate positions,” Kamalvandi said, warning that the current approach would “backfire”.
He confirmed that Iran would soon launch a third uranium enrichment facility, in addition to boosting enrichment capacity at existing sites. “We will develop sixth-generation centrifuges and increase uranium enrichment significantly,” he stated.
More Western pressure, more Iranian countermeasures
Iran’s latest response underscores its growing rejection of Western pressure and marks a new phase in the country’s nuclear trajectory, one increasingly independent of multilateral negotiations and oversight mechanisms perceived by Tehran as compromised.
This development comes just days ahead of the sixth round of indirect nuclear talks between Iran and the United States, set to take place this Sunday in Muscat, Oman. The announcement was confirmed by Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, who wrote in a post on X: “I am pleased to confirm the 6th round of Iran-US talks will be held in Muscat this Sunday, the 15th.”
Tehran and Washington have held five rounds of talks since April to carve a new nuclear deal to replace the 2015 accord that Trump unilaterally withdrew from during his first term in 2018.
Trump to Netanyahu: No green light to attack Iran, pursue deal
Al Mayadeen | June 10, 2025
US President Donald Trump has reportedly told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that “Israel” does not have a “green light” to launch a military strike against Iran, emphasizing that diplomacy remains Washington’s preferred path.
According to Israeli Channel 12 sources, Trump stated during a phone conversation on Monday, “You don’t have a green light, there will be a deal with Iran. The attack (on Iran) needs to be taken off the agenda right now.”
The firm statement came in response to Netanyahu’s demand that Trump abandon ongoing negotiations with Tehran and support an Israeli military operation. Netanyahu reportedly insisted that Washington should “cease talks and support direct military action.”
Despite Netanyahu’s warning that “negotiations with Iran are futile, and they are trying to deceive you; all they want is to buy time,” Trump pushed back, reiterating that “nothing closes the door” and that “work is underway to reach an agreement.” Israeli Channel 12 previously reported that Trump expected a “not-so-good response” from Iran but remains committed to diplomacy.
Trump also addressed the war in Gaza during the call, urging Netanyahu to de-escalate. “I want you to work on ending the war in Gaza, not just the Deal of the Century, the war has exhausted itself,” he said.
Intelligence Blow to “Israel” Changes Strategic Calculus
The conversation took place against the backdrop of a major intelligence breakthrough by Iran, which, according to Iranian and regional sources, has obtained thousands of highly sensitive documents detailing “Israel’s” nuclear infrastructure and strategic projects.
On June 7, Al Mayadeen cited Iranian intelligence sources who revealed that the trove includes photos, videos, and technical data on “Israel’s” nuclear facilities, some previously undisclosed. The volume of data, the sources said, was so vast that reviewing it all “would take an exceptionally long time.”
Iran’s Supreme National Security Council announced on June 9 that this intelligence enables Tehran to carry out a proportional retaliatory strike on hidden Israeli nuclear sites if Iran is attacked. “Today, access to this information… has allowed the warriors of Islam to give a clearly proportionate response to a possible attack by the Israeli regime,” it stated.
Meanwhile, Iran has accused the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of leaking confidential communications to Israeli intelligence, claiming this had led to the targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. “These documents clearly show that instead of playing a neutral role, the IAEA has become an instrument serving the objectives of the Zionist regime,” a source told Fars News on June 10.
Broader Implications
The revelations have added urgency to Trump’s diplomatic posture, as US intelligence officials increasingly warn that a unilateral Israeli strike could unravel the fragile state of nuclear negotiations and trigger a regional war. According to the Wall Street Journal and New York Times, “Israel” had been preparing to strike Iran’s nuclear sites but delayed the move at Washington’s request.
Iranian officials, meanwhile, have warned that any Israeli military action will be met with devastating counterstrikes. IRGC Commander Major General Hossein Salami recently said that it is not Iran’s nuclear sites that will be destroyed, but the “targets of the Israeli occupation entity.” Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh echoed that sentiment, stating, “Any hostile action by Israel against Iran would inevitably result in its destruction.”
With Iran holding what it describes as “one of the most significant intelligence blows” ever dealt to “Israel,” and with talks in Washington still on the table, analysts say that Trump’s call to de-escalate may reflect a growing US effort to avoid being drawn into a full-scale conflict.

