Fresh initiatives needed to break impasse with IAEA
Omid Khazani
Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, said on Wednesday at the Davos summit that the impasse with Iran regarding its high-grade uranium stockpile and inspections of nuclear facilities, targeted by US and Israeli strikes in June, could not continue indefinitely.
Following the US-Israeli aggression in June, Iran reduced its cooperation with the IAEA, and later revoked an agreement brokered by Egypt, after the UN sanctions snapback mechanism was triggered in September 2025. Grossi said he was exercising “diplomatic caution” and would be compelled to declare Iran’s non-compliance with the NPT if the situation persisted.
Omid Khazani, an international relations analyst, told Iran Daily that Tehran needed to shake off its inertia and propose new initiatives to break this deadlock.
IRAN DAILY: How do you see Grossi’s latest stance? Does this position represent a shift in the agency’s approach, or only a warning?
KHAZANI: The IAEA is part of the United Nations framework. Assessing its fairness and impartiality is one matter, but how Iranian diplomats and authorities view this matter is another.
The system may not be entirely equitable; the IAEA chief might hold biased views aligned with the US and Israel. However, this is part of the global order, and major world powers generally adhere to this framework.
Grossi, with an eye toward the UN secretary-general post, has demonstrated a lack of impartiality in his reports and engages in political maneuvering. Nevertheless, the fact is that he remains the reference point for Iran’s nuclear dossier, and his reports guide the agency’s decision-making power, allowing it to rally support against Iran and potentially refer the case back to the UN Security Council.
The IAEA’s approach toward Iran will only become more stringent as Iran adopts a strategy of nuclear ambiguity, which the West finds difficult to accept. Especially with Israeli provocations, this strategy will not sit well with NATO, the US, and Western Europe, and will likely radicalize the agency’s stance. It appears the nuclear watchdog is moving in that direction.
What practical and diplomatic consequences would Iran face if the IAEA declares non-compliance with the agreements and how should Tehran handle it?
Grossi’s upcoming reports on the status of Iran’s 400 kilograms of enriched uranium and the condition of bombed nuclear sites could be seen as an attempt to build consensus against Tehran. Iran revoked the Cairo agreement in response to the instigation of the snapback mechanism, and its level of cooperation with the IAEA has reached a record low, although not entirely severed. Under these circumstances, the AGENCY has the ability to report Iran’s lack of cooperation and compliance and ultimately refer the case to the UN Security Council.
Western countries have largely lined up against Iran, and Grossi’s report could be the final piece of the puzzle. After a decade, since 2015 when Iran was brought under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, it could be brought under this chapter again, paving the way for more serious military action against the country’s nuclear program and infrastructure. This could be part of a larger project.
Iran could argue that this is part of a global strategy led by the US and Israel, and that Grossi is part of this scenario. But it would be better for the country to pursue its own creative strategy since complaining about the IAEA will not bring about significant change.
Page 8