Iran Halts Ties with IAEA Amidst Rising US-Israeli Conflicts
On July 3rd, the directive was dispatched by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian that Iran will pause its association with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), following a series of airstrikes on crucial Iranian nuclear installations by the United States. This move came amidst armed conflicts between Iran and Israel, rampant in Israel’s airspace.
The impending discussions between the Islamic Republic and IAEA are described as intricate and technical by the Foreign Ministry of Iran. This meeting marks the first interaction with the nuclear watchdog since Tehran decided to sever its ties with IAEA in the preceding month, inferred as a significant development in the domains of international diplomacy and nuclear politics.
The camaraderie between Iran and the IAEA has taken a downhill course in the wake of a nearly two-week Israeli-US aerial conflict in June. This period witnessed an attack on major Iranian nuclear infrastructures, thereby escalating the existing tensions in the region.
On June 12, just before the Israeli airstrikes over Iran that instigated the conflict, the IAEA board declared that Iran had not adhered to its non-proliferation commitments. This statement by the board members postmarked a significant pivot point in the then brewing Iranian-Israeli conflict.
As per IAEA’s statement, the agency’s second-in-command official’s visit to Iran would exclude any pre-planned visit to the country’s nuclear installations. Unfortunately, until the moment, IAEA has chosen to keep mum on this aspect, which increases the level of speculation on the exact nature of the visit and the likely outcomes.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmail Baghaei, hinted at a potential meet-up with Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi in the future. Even so, he urged discretion in forecasting the end-results of these discussions since they revolve around complex technicalities.
The Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson also flagged criticism against IAEA’s ‘unique situation’ over the course of the Israeli conflict in June. He derogatively remarked about IAEA’s lack of a tactful and intelligent reaction to the strikes targeting peaceful facilities that were under all-day surveillance. Baghaei expressed his disappointment over the agency’s failure to condemn the incidents as needed in such precarious circumstances.
Earlier, Aragchi had articulated his views about the possibility of the agency’s cooperation needing a green signal from Iran’s premier security institution – the Supreme National Security Council. The exact nature and mechanics of cooperation would be based on a fresh framework, which may end up constraining the abilities of the investigators to monitor Tehran’s nuclear program closely.
The Iranian President’s order to abstain from any interactions with the IAEA came after the dramatic bombings of prominent Iranian nuclear sites by the United States. These bombardments took place against the backdrop of Israel’s vigorous air battles with Iran, leading to nearly 1,100 casualties, multiple of those being high-ranking military officials.
In the act of retaliation against these incidents, Iran orchestrated strikes against Israel, where 28 lives were lost. This hostile back-and-forth has established a new stage of unrest in the region and has alarmed international actors and observers.
Iran’s engagement with IAEA’s inspections has been intermittently limited in the past, acting as a lever during its negotiations with Western nations. However, there is ambiguity surrounding the resumption of discussions between Tehran and Washington over Iran’s nuclear program.
US intelligence and the IAEA have noted that Iran had an organized nuclear weapons program until 2003. Despite this, Tehran’s uranium enrichment levels have seen a disturbing rise up to 60%, a worrisome brevity away from the weapon-grade level of 90%.