By Fereshteh SADEGHI
Iran’s secretive agreement with the UN nuclear watchdog has sparked outrage at home, with critics comparing it to the disastrous 2015 nuclear accord.
Join us on Telegram
, Twitter
, and VK
.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
Three months after the Israeli occupation state’s aerial assault on Iran, the Iranian government reached a new deal with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The agreement, and the fact that IAEA chief Rafael Grossi and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi offered conflicting interpretations of it, has outraged Iranian political circles and the public, many of whom view Grossi as a facilitator of Israeli aggression. Araghchi is now accused of concealing details of the agreement and repeating the mistakes of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal.
Iran signs surprise deal with IAEA after Israeli strikes
During a brief visit to Egypt on 12 September, Araghchi shook hands with Grossi as they announced a deal on the resumption of UN inspections of Iran’s nuclear program. The agreement was significant as Tehran had halted its cooperation with the IAEA in the wake of the Israeli aggression in June, and a parliamentary vote had suspended international inspections. The vote had been ratified after the cessation of the 12-day war between Iran and the occupation state in late June, amid accusations that the IAEA was sharing intelligence on their nuclear facilities and scientists with Israel and the US. Iranian officials claimed two IAEA inspectors smuggled classified documents on the Fordow nuclear site to Vienna. Iran revoked their licenses, but the agency took no punitive action. Fordow was later bombed by US B-52 bombers. Grossi’s 12 June report to the IAEA Board of Governors, which accused Iran of failing to meet its safeguards obligations, is widely seen as having paved the way for the 12-day Israel–Iran war that started one day after on 13 June. The agency’s refusal to condemn Tel Aviv’s attacks deepened Iranian distrust.
E3 pushes for sanctions as Iran tries to avoid snapback
As Iran withdrew from indirect nuclear talks with the US and halted cooperation with the IAEA, Germany, France, and Britain (the E3) announced their intention to reinstate UN sanctions. Those sanctions had been suspended under the 2015 JCPOA. The E3 said it would trigger the snapback mechanism before its expiry in mid-October, claiming that Iran had failed to uphold its commitments.
Seeking to avoid further sanctions, Iran agreed to engage the E3 in talks in late August. In exchange for Iranian cooperation with the IAEA, clarification on 440 kilograms of highly enriched uranium stockpiled before the Israeli attack, and a return to US negotiations, the Europeans offered to extend the snapback deadline by six months. Iran rejected the offer. The E3 then launched the snapback process but gave Iran a 30-day deadline to comply with the UN atomic watchdog’s demands. A week later, IAEA inspectors were scheduled to visit Iran to supervise fuel replacement at the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Araghchi reassured lawmakers that the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) had authorized the inspectors’ visit and insisted all cooperation would comply with the law banning extensive IAEA engagement. A source close to the Iranian Foreign Ministry tells The Cradle that inspectors had also planned to visit other facilities, including the Tehran Research Reactor, but those plans were quietly scrapped under parliamentary pressure. Then, without warning, the Araghchi–Grossi agreement in Cairo was revealed, shocking Iranian society. The deal guarantees renewed Iranian cooperation with the IAEA.
Parliament sidelined, backlash intensifies
One day before Araghchi’s Cairo trip on 9 September, parliamentarian Hussein-Ali Haji-Deligani warned that a new IAEA deal was imminent – one that violated Iranian law and did not protect national rights. He warned Araghchi against signing or risking impeachment. Once news of the agreement broke, reports surfaced that the Iranian legislature, the Majlis, would close for three weeks for lawmakers to visit their constituencies. Critics alleged this was a calculated move to shield the Cairo agreement from scrutiny.
While the Foreign Ministry and the SNSC remained silent, Grossi publicly elaborated:
“The technical document would include access to all facilities and installations in Iran and contemplates the required reporting on all the attacked facilities including the nuclear material present at those and that will open the way for respective inspections and access.”
That statement drew sharp rebuke. Tehran MP Amir-Hussein Sabeti said, “This passive and weak settlement to renew cooperation with the IAEA contradicts national interests, paves the way for new [Israeli] strikes, and clearly violates the law.”
In a televised debate, Araghchi attempted to allay the criticism, claiming the deal was approved by the SNSC. He dismissed Grossi’s remarks as “his own interpretation of the text”, adding, “from now on, the IAEA should request access to each nuclear site and the SNSC will review the requests case by case.”
The Iranian top diplomat stressed that “as long as Iran has not implemented environmental and safety measures at the attacked facilities, the IAEA will not be granted permission to visit them.” He insisted the agreement had nothing to do with the E3’s ultimatum; nevertheless, he contradicted himself by stating, “This settlement will be declared null and void if the Snapback mechanism goes into effect.”
Araghchi faces mounting calls for impeachment
Araghchi’s inconsistent justifications failed to quell the backlash. His repeated references to the SNSC did little to calm MPs. And in Iranian politics, it is an unprecedented event. Tehran’s Hamid Rasaei posted on X, “Ambiguities remain despite Araghchi’s explanations. Therefore, the Foreign Ministry must publish the text of the agreement.” He added sarcastically, “We usually kept deals secret for fear of the enemies. But since the other party is Grossi – the Israeli spy – there’s no reason to hide this deal from the public.” His colleague, Kamran Ghazanfari, went further to threaten Araghchi, “either deny Grossi’s remarks and share the signed document with lawmakers, or get prepared for your impeachment. We are not treating our national interests flippantly.”
Keyhan newspaper openly called the Cairo deal “invalid” because it does not meet the requirements of the Iranian law. Rajanews compared the Cairo document with Lausanne’s nuclear deal, adding, “Back in 2015, the government of Hassan Rouhani and then FM [Mohammad Javad] Zarif refused to publish the relevant fact sheet. Only later, Iranians found out the fact sheet had imposed unprecedented restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program.”
As public scrutiny intensified, the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee summoned Araghchi for a closed-door session. He described the three-hour meeting as “very good and constructive” but revealed no details. According to reports, “Araghchi provided the committee with the text of the memorandum” and “it was decided that cooperation with the IAEA remain only in the framework of the law and its implementation depends on non-happening of the Snapback.” That reassurance did little to assuage critics. Rasaei summed up the mood with a blunt X post, “The three-hour session finished. It’s the JCPOA all over again.”
On 14 September, the SNSC issued a statement indicating that its Nuclear Committee had ratified the Cairo agreement, adding “the committee is backed by the SNSC whose decisions are confirmed by Iran’s leader [Ali Khamenei].” Yet, the statement also stressed that should any hostile action be taken against the Islamic Republic and its nuclear facilities, including the reinstatement of the terminated resolutions of the UN Security Council, the implementation of the arrangements would be suspended. So far, 90 lawmakers have asked Majlis Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf to convene a session on the Cairo memorandum. Ghalibaf has yet to comply.
In a country still reeling from the JCPOA’s consequences, lawmakers are increasingly determined to block another unilateral, opaque agreement made without parliamentary oversight.
Original article: thecradle.co
