IAEA Resolution Sparks Severe Fallout as Iran Terminates Pact

ERBIL (Kurdistan24) – In an immediate rebuke to Western powers, Iran has condemned a new resolution passed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as "illegal and unjustifiable," formally terminating a recent cooperation agreement with the UN's nuclear watchdog and accusing the United States and its European allies of weaponizing the agency to exert political pressure on Tehran.

The move, announced by Iran's Foreign Ministry in the early hours of Friday, marks a dangerous escalation in the long-simmering standoff over the country's nuclear program, a crisis that has been dramatically intensified since a brief but devastating war with Israel and the US in June left key nuclear facilities in ruins and shrouded in secrecy.

The IAEA's Board of Governors on Thursday, November 20, passed a resolution proposed by the United States, Britain, France, and Germany, demanding that Iran provide "full and prompt" cooperation and access to its sensitive nuclear sites, particularly those damaged in the recent conflict. The resolution, as reported by Agence France-Presse, was adopted by a vote of 19 in favor, 3 against, and 12 abstentions, a divisive result that Iran immediately seized upon as evidence of a lack of broad international consensus.

Tehran's response was swift and uncompromising.

According to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), the Foreign Ministry issued a scathing statement declaring that the resolution was "passed through the exertion of pressure by the US, Germany, France, and Britain on the member states." The ministry branded the move "another clear sign of their irresponsible approach and their insistence on instrumentally using the Agency to exert pressure on the Islamic Republic."

The Termination of a Fragile Understanding

In the most concrete and immediate consequence of the IAEA vote, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced that a memorandum of understanding reached with the agency in Cairo on September 9 was now "officially considered terminated."

That agreement, as reported by IRNA, had seen Tehran resume a degree of cooperation by facilitating inspections of some nuclear facilities. However, Araghchi stated that by ignoring Iran's "responsible and good-faith performance," the Western powers had "disrupted the positive path created between Iran and the Agency."

In a formal letter to IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, Tehran declared the understanding "is no longer valid and is considered terminated."

This collapse of the recent cooperation framework plunges relations between Iran and the IAEA back into a deep freeze, with the central and most contentious issue being access to the nuclear sites that were bombed in June. In an interview conducted just before the IAEA vote, Foreign Minister Araghchi made it clear that access to these damaged facilities was off the table without a broader deal.

"The facilities that were attacked have their own story, and until a decision is made and a conclusion is reached between us, the IAEA and others, cooperation is not possible," he said, according to an AFP report. He accused the agency of seeking to act as an intelligence-gathering tool for Iran's adversaries.

"The fact that they came and attacked and left... and now the agency comes to prepare a report for them on where (was attacked) and what happened and how much damage was done is not possible, it is clearly not wise," he stated.

A Deepening Standoff Over Damaged Sites

The lack of access to these sites, which include the Natanz uranium enrichment plant and the Fordo underground complex, has become a critical point of contention for the IAEA.

The agency is particularly concerned about verifying Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

A confidential IAEA report seen by AFP stated that Iran possessed some 44.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity when the war began—a significant increase from May and perilously close to the 90 percent needed for a nuclear weapon.

"The stockpile of enriched uranium is still there, so we need to check on that," Grossi said on Wednesday. "We have not been able to go to the attack sites. I hope we will be able. Indeed, we have to go because this is part of Iran's commitments."

Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Reza Najafi, told AFP after the vote that the resolution would have a "negative impact" on relations with the agency and was "counter-productive." He framed the move as a political maneuver by the US and the European troika to "compensate for their defeat in the Snapback Mechanism in New York," referring to a failed attempt to reimpose older, more stringent UN sanctions.

A War of Words: Blame and Accusations

The Iranian Foreign Ministry's lengthy statement, carried by IRNA, was a detailed and furious indictment of the Western powers, whom it accused of hypocrisy and "bullying." Tehran argued that the current standoff is a direct result of the military aggression against it.

The statement noted that "even according to the IAEA Director General’s report... the current situation regarding the halt of the Agency’s verification activities in some Iranian nuclear centers is a direct result of military attacks by the U.S. and the Zionist regime," yet the resolution's drafters "consciously avoided the slightest reference to this fact."

The ministry placed the primary blame on the United States, calling it the "main culprit for the current situation" due to its unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal in 2018 and its "commission of the crime of military aggression against Iran."

It also accused Germany, France, and Britain of complicity due to their "continuous violations of JCPOA commitments" and their subsequent involvement in the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. In this context, the statement declared, the demands made by these four countries are "nothing but a malicious distortion of the facts."

The war of words has effectively derailed any remaining hope for a swift return to the high-level nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington that had begun in April but were abruptly halted by the June conflict.

During those earlier talks, the two sides were at odds over Iran's right to enrich uranium, a right Tehran has consistently defended as "undeniable."

While Iran has said it remains open to restarting talks, it insists they must take place on an "equal footing." Foreign Minister Araghchi, in his recent interview, dismissed current US demands as "detrimental to our national interests" and ruled out any negotiations on Iran's ballistic missile program or other "defense capabilities."

"Negotiating about missiles, for example, to reduce them, to reduce their range, to reduce their number, there is no greater betrayal than this," he stated, according to AFP.

With the Cairo understanding now formally dead and Iran refusing access to its most sensitive sites, the standoff has entered a new and more dangerous phase.

The IAEA's resolution, intended to compel cooperation, has instead triggered a defiant backlash from Tehran, deepening the mistrust and pushing the prospect of a diplomatic solution further out of reach.