Iran signs a new agreement with the IAEA. Then tries to sell it at home

The National Security Commission of the Iranian Parliament held an emergency session on Saturday to review the agreement signed last week with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The session sought to clarify the practical modalities for the implementation of safeguards in Iran included in the agreement. It was also meant to stop the uproar among Iranian lawmakers over the new agreement.

On September 9, Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, and IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi signed an agreement in Cairo, Egypt, aimed at restarting nuclear inspections in Iran under its NPT safeguards agreement with the agency. In July, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian signed a law adopted by the Iranian parliament halting cooperation with the IAEA after the United States and Israel attacked its nuclear sites. Tehran also threatened to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Diplomatic efforts have accelerated in recent weeks, with IAEA representatives traveling to Iran in August and several rounds of technical discussions being held in Vienna in September. Before the agreement, Grossi said that there was “still time, but not much,” hinting at sanctions, the possibility of further attacks, and Iran’s possible withdrawal from the NPT.

On August 28, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom—a group known as the E3—declared they would reimpose UN “snapback” sanctions against Iran if inspections did not resume within 30 days. And the United States and Israel have threatened to conduct more attacks if Iran continues to enrich uranium or takes steps toward weaponization. Meanwhile, the Iranian parliament was set to vote on the withdrawal of the NPT on September 8. (The vote was postponed at Araghchi’s request to give more time to reach an agreement with the IAEA.)

“This is an important step in the right direction,” Grossi said after signing the Cairo agreement. But in Tehran, the diplomatic success was short-lived after Grossi reportedly said that Iran had agreed to give the IAEA access to its nuclear facilities.

In public remarks to the agency’s board of governors, Grossi declared that the agreement “will open the way for the respective inspections and access.” Although he did not specify when such inspections would happen, Grossi added that the agreement “includes all facilities and installations in Iran” and that “it also contemplates the required reporting on all the attacked facilities, including the nuclear material present at those.”

The remarks infuriated the Iranian parliament, which must approve the agreement before it can be implemented.

Visiting nuclear sites would allow international inspectors to assess the damage done by the US and Israeli airstrikes in June against the enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow, and a nuclear complex at Isfahan. Despite President Trump’s claim that the US strikes had “completely and totally obliterated” these facilities, inspectors haven’t been allowed to access the sites to verify the exact damage.

Lawmakers also feared that IAEA inspections would give away the location of Iran’s enriched uranium. Iran possesses over 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU)—enriched to 60 percent uranium 235—enough to build about 10 crude nuclear weapons without requiring further enrichment. Following Israel’s June 12 attack, the IAEA reported Iran’s HEU as “unaccounted for,” meaning it could be anywhere in Iran. Reports even suggested that Iran may have moved this material away from its underground facilities only hours before the US strikes on June 23, fueling the fear in the West that Tehran may be actively seeking to build a nuclear weapon. (On September 9, as Araghchi arrived in Cairo to meet with Grossi, Iran said, without providing evidence, that its stockpiles of enriched uranium were inaccessible due to the damage to its facilities.)

Feeling the heat, Araghchi attempted to clarify that the agreement would not allow access to the facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, which were bombed by the United States, contrary to what the Iranian parliament had said. Evidently confused over the conflicting statements of Araghchi and Grossi, Iranian lawmakers requested an urgent parliamentary session to review the Cairo agreement.

But despite the outcry, it is not clear why Iranian lawmakers would oppose inspections, as these would inherently be part of any new cooperation agreement with the UN nuclear watchdog. For Ali Alkis, a junior associate fellow at the NATO Defense College who follows the IAEA-Iran negotiations, the issue is a matter of messaging. “If the government allows IAEA [inspections], even in principle, [Iranian officials] need to find a way to sell this idea first to the public.” Alkis told the Bulletin. “Otherwise, they will look weaker in the eyes of the public, while being humiliated by Israel, and nothing happens to Israel, especially with the current situation in Gaza.”

On Monday, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council stated that the details of the agreement had been reviewed by the council’s nuclear committee and confirmed the approval of the Cairo agreement. The council, however, added that the new agreement would be considered void if new “snapback” UN sanctions were imposed or if its nuclear sites were attacked again. The council said the implementation of the new cooperation with the IAEA would require its prior approval. The statement added that Iran would submit its report about its sites under IAEA safeguards “after ensuring necessary security and safety conditions.”

During the opening session of the IAEA annual General Conference on Monday, Grossi hoped the controversy was over. “It is now time to implement the agreement.” But as of Monday evening, it was not clear when Iran would allow inspections to resume, including at its damaged sites. Nor was it clear what Tehran plans to do in the meantime.

“Iran won’t accept full inspections unless it can recover reputational damage,” Alkis said. Iran could also attempt to recover some of its enriched uranium it said is trapped under the damaged facilities.

For Alkis, the situation remains unchanged even now that Iran has approved the new Cairo agreement. “Either [Iran] violates it and gets away with it, or nuclear facilities are going to be attacked again, at no cost to the attacker.”

Hugh Chalmers, a senior researcher at the Verification Research, Training and Information Centre (VERTIC) in London, also welcomed the new cooperation agreement. “The agreement is an important demonstration to concerned states that the IAEA Secretariat and Iran are making some progress towards re-establishing safeguards in Iran”, he said. But Chalmers, who laid out his proposal for reestablishing international nuclear safeguards in Iran in a Bulletin piece last month, was more cautious about what the Cairo agreement can achieve, including in avoiding sanctions. “The E3 are not going to relax the leverage they have gained through triggering snapback without greater assurance that Iran will allow the IAEA to fully account for its nuclear material in a timely manner.”

The three European countries indicated last week that the snapback mechanism was already in motion, and that sanctions could be delayed only if Iran provided immediate and full access to its nuclear facilities, disclosed the location of its enriched uranium stockpiles, and returned to nuclear talks with Washington. In this context, the Cairo agreement appears very fragile. “The Iranian parliament seems reluctant to allow that, and has threatened to withdraw Iran from the NPT if sanctions are snapped back as anticipated at the end of the month,” Chalmers said.

With the IAEA General Conference underway in Vienna, the situation remains fluid. On Monday, Iran introduced a draft resolution—with the support of Russia and China—condemning the strikes on its nuclear facilities and calling for a ban on any future strikes or threats of strikes. “Iran may be looking to score a symbolic victory with this resolution to burnish its reputation at home and calm those reluctant to accept the IAEA,” Chalmers added.