Iran’s Regime Reacts To IAEA Resolution Against Its Nuclear Program – OpEd

On November 21, 2024, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors adopted a resolution condemning Iran’s regime for its lack of cooperation with the agency and provide a comprehensive report on its nuclear activities. This resolution, proposed by the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the United States, was approved with 19 votes in favor, 3 against, and 12 abstentions

In an effort to prevent the adoption of the resolution, which could activate snapback sanctions, Iran’s mobilized all available lobbying resources. Despite these efforts, the major European powers ultimately introduced the resolution, which was then approved by the Board of Governors.

According to The New York Times, Abbas Araghchi, the regime’s foreign minister, contacted officials from member states of the Board of Governors, including Brazil, South Africa, Bangladesh, Algeria, Burkina Faso, and Pakistan, asking them to oppose the resolution.

Alongside Araghchi’s lobbying and pressuring of Board of Governors’ member states via phone calls from Tehran and efforts in Vienna, Iranian officials and media issued a series of threats during and after a visit by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi to Tehran, warning of severe retaliatory actions should a resolution be adopted.

However, after the blow of the Board of Governors’ resolution, Iran’s Foreign Ministry and Atomic Energy Organization issued a joint, fearful statement declaring their readiness for “constructive engagement with relevant parties” in the “development of a peaceful and indigenous nuclear program.”

The weak joint statement claimed that the administration of Masoud Pezeshkian had prioritized continuing and enhancing cooperation with the IAEA since its inception to resolve outstanding issues.

This stance contradicts earlier declarations by officials from these same institutions, who had stated that any resolution by the Board of Governors would signal the end of cooperation, mark the start of confrontation, and be intolerable. They had also threatened an immediate, severe, and “regret-inducing” response if such a resolution were adopted.

A state-affiliated media outlet, under the headline “Iran Will Respond to the Counterproductive Actions of the Board of Governors,” wrote: “[Mohammad] Eslami, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, emphasized Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA but announced that if a resolution is adopted against Iran at the next IAEA meeting, Tehran will begin new nuclear measures even before the resolution’s adoption. Iran’s Foreign Minister also stressed this point in diplomatic terms.”

Hassan Ghashghavi, the head of the nuclear committee of the regime’s Majlis (parliament), had explicitly stated before the resolution’s issuance: “If a resolution is prepared against our country by the IAEA Board of Governors, we will undoubtedly and immediately take measures that will definitely be regret-inducing.”

Following the weak joint statement by the Foreign Ministry and Atomic Energy Organization, Kazem Gharibabadi, the regime’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, issued an unconvincing threat, delaying the “immediate and regret-inducing response” until after the snapback sanctions are reinstated. He stated: “If they revert to the snapback mechanism and reinstate UN Security Council sanctions, the Islamic Republic will respond swiftly by withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).”

More absurdly, Gharibabadi foolishly added: “This is a decision that the state made several years ago and has officially communicated to them in writing.” (State television, November 21, 2024).

Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, the former head of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the Majlis, attributed the regime’s weak and anxious response to the resolution’s impact as follows:

“The IAEA resolution was the first sign of a harsh winter for Iran. Europe has aligned itself with Trump’s maximum pressure campaign. They are demanding the rollback of nuclear activities and programs and the increase of inspections without offering any concessions.”

Reuters reported on the consequences of the IAEA Board of Governors’ resolution, stating that it compels the regime to cooperate with the IAEA. The Western powers behind the resolution intend to pressure the regime into negotiating new restrictions on its nuclear activities. However, it remains unclear whether the regime or its counterparts have the appetite or intention for another round of talks.