Introduction:

Recently, Mr. Rafael Grossi, the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), stated in an interview with a Japanese news agency that Iran must prove it is not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. He also added that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is merely a “shell” and is not being properly implemented. Such remarks, including his speech at the Davos Forum in which he suggested an agreement between Iran and the United States regarding the nuclear program, have continued over the past few months. It is clear that the Director- General is stepping outside the scope of his organizational duties. The organization he heads, according to its statute, is solely a technical organization and must act within this framework, not in political matters.

It is clear to everyone, the international community, and most importantly the Director-General himself, that the country which initially disrupted this international nuclear agreement with Iran-through its official withdrawal-was the United States during President Trump’s first term. The archives of the United Nations Security Council from August 2020 clearly show that after the U.S. withdrawal and its attempts to activate the “snapback” mechanism, it was met with strong and severe opposition from other JCPOA parties, including the Europeans, and ultimately failed in its efforts to activate it.

Consequences of Such Irresponsible Remarks

Such irresponsible and unfair statements by the Director-General of the IAEA, an organization that is entirely technical in nature, will not only severely undermine trust in this institution, but will also have the following consequences in the international community:

• Concealment by Emerging Countries Planning to Expand and Develop Their Peaceful Nuclear Programs: Emerging countries that are in the process of planning to acquire peaceful nuclear technology are closely monitoring such irresponsible statements by the Director-General. They may conclude in their analyses that a technical international organization is turning into a political one, potentially under U.S. influence. These countries might interpret that if they develop their own peaceful nuclear programs and, at any point, encounter issues with the United States, they could face unfair treatment from the Director-General of the IAEA. As a result, they may be inclined to conceal their nuclear programs.

• Lack of Confidence and Trust in the IAEA Reports: The continuation of such political and biased statements by the Director-General will undermine trust and confidence in the reporting of this technical international organization. Observant countries will conclude that, following such remarks, the IAEA might produce biased reports against their nuclear programs in line with the political objectives behind the organization. Consequently, such arguments will lead to a severe loss of trust in the IAEA and its produced
• Lack of Adherence to and Trust in International Laws and Agreements: The biased and one-sided statements made by the Director-General of the IAEA, which consistently accuse Iran without mentioning the illegal, unilateral, and formal withdrawal of the United States from an international agreement, create doubts among emerging nuclear countries about the IAEA being under S. influence and engaging in political maneuvering. As a result, these behaviors may lead to concerns that any international agreement could collapse over the smallest issues. Therefore, such actions may cause emerging nuclear countries to question the validity of international agreements and their commitment to upholding them.
• Serious Threat to International Security and Acceleration of Nuclear Weapons Development in Other Countries: One of the most significant threats to international security is the proliferation of nuclear weapons globally, an issue to which the international community must remain vigilant and resolute. However, such supportive behavior and the IAEA’s silence regarding Israel’s nuclear program, the Director-General’s biased remarks against Iran’s entirely peaceful nuclear program, the illegal and unilateral S. sanctions on Iran under the pretext of its nuclear program, and the lack of international and U.S. opposition to Israel’s nuclear activities, along with America’s political, financial, and technical support for Israel, lead emerging nuclear countries to argue that the IAEA exhibits a double standard. They observe that the IAEA makes no critical remarks or imposes any restrictions on nuclear programs of countries aligned with the U.S. As a result, these countries may view the development of nuclear weapons as a necessary and legitimate deterrent. This perception could lead to an acceleration in their plans to develop nuclear weapons, thus significantly undermining international security and efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.

• Withdrawal from the NPT and Bilateral Agreements with the IAEA: According to Article 4 of the NPT, every country has the right to research, produce, and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Therefore, when emerging nuclear countries argue that they need to enrich uranium or reprocess spent fuel for the development of their entirely peaceful nuclear programs, yet face one-sided and biased behavior from the S. and the IAEA, this contradicts the IAEA’s statute and goals, which include promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy globally. Such behavior could hinder the global development of nuclear energy or lead to concealment of their nuclear programs. As a result, countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt may begin to feel that the NPT imposes unnecessary limitations on their nuclear programs, potentially leading them to consider withdrawing from the treaty and seeking bilateral agreements with the IAEA.

Despite strong recommendations for the Director-General to maintain the technical nature of this international organization and avoid political maneuvering, while fully and impartially implementing the statute of the agency, this article attempts to respond to these remarks with legal and technical documentation and emphasize that Iran’s nuclear stance is not only within the framework of international law, but also aligned with peaceful and legal objectives.

1.  Iran as a Member of the NPT and Its Commitments

The Islamic Republic of Iran, as a signatory of the Treaty, is firmly committed to its obligations regarding non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. If this were not the case, Iran would not have persistently worked towards the creation of a nuclear- weapon-free zone in the Middle East at the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency, nor would it have called on the IAEA to make efforts to achieve this agreement. Iran has repeatedly stated that, based on its religious principles and the fatwa of its Supreme Leader, it has never sought to develop nuclear weapons and has consistently emphasized the peaceful objectives of its nuclear program.

According to Article 4 of the NPT, every country has the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, provided it is under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran is the only country in the world that has been under rigorous IAEA monitoring and has adhered to all legal provisions of the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement.

2.  IAEA’s Consecutive Reports

According to the reports published by the IAEA over the past years, Iran has consistently adhered to its commitments under the JCPOA and the NPT. The Director-General of the IAEA has repeatedly emphasized that no evidence has been found indicating the diversion of Iran’s nuclear program towards the construction of nuclear weapons. These reports clearly show that Iran has always taken steps toward transparency and full cooperation with the Agency. The international community and the IAEA must not forget that Iran is the only country in the world for which both JCPOA and safeguards agreement reports are produced. If this does not indicate the peaceful and legitimate nature of Iran’s nuclear program, then what does?

3.  The JCPOA: An Agreement with Peaceful and International Goals

Contrary to Article 4 of the NPT, Iran, in good faith and to demonstrate that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful, accepted the JCPOA to limit its nuclear program. This provision does not restrict any country from developing its nuclear program. However, Iran has repeatedly stated that, to build international trust and demonstrate the peaceful nature of its nuclear program, it has accepted these limitations. After the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA, Iran voluntarily implemented the agreement in full for one year and, even afterward, gradually reduced its commitments. This peaceful and entirely professional behavior by Iran, if it does not indicate the entirely peaceful nature of the country’s nuclear program, then what does?

4.  Violation of the Agreement by the Opposing Parties

In response to Mr. Grossi’s remarks regarding the JCPOA being a “shell,” Iran has emphasized that it has always implemented the agreement in good faith. This is in contrast to the actions of the opposing parties, especially the United States, which unilaterally withdrew from the agreement in May 2018 and reimposed sanctions on Iran. This action was not only a blatant violation of the agreement but also acted as a significant obstacle to the full implementation of the JCPOA.

5.  Political Interference in Technical Matters

Iran has consistently emphasized that nuclear energy is a divine resource, widely applicable for peaceful purposes, and should be free from political interference. Iran believes that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should maintain its role as a technical and impartial body and avoid political interference in its assessments and reports. Mr. Grossi’s recent remarks, particularly regarding the need for Iran to prove its lack of intention to develop nuclear weapons, go beyond the Agency’s role as a technical entity. Such statements not only have the potential to undermine the credibility of the IAEA in the eyes of member states but also contribute to complicating issues and exacerbating political tensions.

6.  Emphasis on Continued Cooperation with the Agency

Iran has stated that it remains committed to its obligations toward the IAEA and its nuclear rights. It has emphasized that it will continue cooperating with the Agency to ensure transparency and oversight of its nuclear program. At the same time, according to Iranian sources, Iran has reminded the IAEA to refrain from political interference and focus solely on its technical responsibilities within the framework of international treaties.

Conclusion

Mr. Grossi must consider the consequences of his unfair and irresponsible remarks. Iranian officials have strongly advised him to refrain from making such statements. His recent comments regarding Iran’s need to prove its lack of interest in acquiring nuclear weapons are not only contrary to existing realities but also exceed the IAEA’s technical and supervisory responsibilities, venturing into political matters.

As a member of the NPT, Iran has consistently adhered to its commitments, and there is no evidence of any deviation in its nuclear program toward weaponization. At the same time, Iran continues to emphasize the need for the other parties to return to their commitments under the JCPOA and lift sanctions. Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA must align with technical and legal principles, avoiding any political interference in technical matters.