Iran urges IAEA not to weaponise technical reports
Iran’s deputy foreign minister accused the IAEA chief of politicising technical reports and ignoring attacks on safeguarded sites. He said Iran’s nuclear programme remains peaceful and within legal commitments.
Intelligence analysis by GPT-5.4 Mini
Kazem Gharibabadi said the IAEA’s latest report and Rafael Grossi’s comments were framing the consequences of attacks on Iranian nuclear sites against Iran instead of addressing the attacks themselves. He argued the agency should not turn technical findings into political pressure.
Iran is saying the nuclear watchdog is acting like a referee who talks only about the mess after a fight, not who started it. Tehran wants the agency to focus on facts, not turn its reports into pressure against Iran.
Analysis
What Iran is saying
Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, used social media to attack the IAEA and its director general, Rafael Grossi. He said the agency’s latest report and Grossi’s remarks about limited access to damaged nuclear sites, uranium stockpiles, and the loss of continuity of knowledge in Iran’s nuclear programme needed a response.
Gharibabadi’s core argument is that the problem did not arise on its own. According to him, safeguarded facilities were hit by U.S. and Israeli military attacks, yet Grossi did not condemn those strikes. In Gharibabadi’s telling, it is unfair to describe the fallout from those attacks as a problem caused by Iran while leaving the attacks themselves unaddressed.
Iran’s legal and political line
He challenged Grossi to take a clear legal position against the attacks, saying they violated Iranian sovereignty, nuclear safety, the safeguards regime, and the credibility of the non-proliferation system. He also questioned how Grossi, who is a candidate for UN secretary-general, could lead independently if his approach is politically dependent.
On enrichment, Gharibabadi said repeated references to 60 percent enrichment and scenarios about weapons are more political than technical. He argued that the NPT sets no limit on enrichment levels and that the legal test is whether material is diverted to military purposes. He said Iran’s programme is peaceful and within its legal commitments.
The broader message
The Iranian official’s warning is that the IAEA should not report the effects of military attacks, ignore the attackers’ responsibility, and then push Iran to bear the technical and political cost. He said that if the agency wants to help a diplomatic solution, it must avoid turning technical reporting into political pressure.
Key points
- Gharibabadi accused the IAEA and Rafael Grossi of acting under U.S. and Western direction.
- He said the agency is treating the effects of attacks on Iranian nuclear sites as if Iran alone must answer for them.
- He argued that the NPT does not set a limit on enrichment levels and that the key issue is diversion to military use.
- He said Iran’s nuclear programme is peaceful and within its legal commitments.
- He warned the IAEA not to turn technical reporting into political pressure.
If the IAEA keeps its work technical and avoids political language, the dispute could leave more room for diplomacy. Clearer reporting may also help rebuild trust around inspections and safeguards, if access and safety can be restored.
If Iran and the IAEA stay locked in this dispute, the gap over inspections and reporting could widen. That could make it harder to settle questions about access, uranium stockpiles, and the status of Iran’s nuclear programme.
