IAEA has published on its website the public part of its Safeguards Implementation Report for 2024 . What IAEA says about its relationship with Iran is instructive. Here is a condensed version of the information about Iran in the Background to the Safeguards Statement and Summary ; it comes in two parts, first on NPT implementation and second on JCPOA implementation.  States with NPT CSAs in force but no APs in force -- Islamic Republic of Iran  In 2024, the IAEA Board of Governors adopted two resolutions, in which it reaffirmed that it was “essential and urgent in order to ensure verification of the non-diversion of nuclear material that Iran act to fulfil its legal obligations and, with a view to clarifying all outstanding safeguards issues”, take without delay the actions specified in these resolutions. [ In June 2025, a further Board resolution found Iran in noncompliance. ]  Nevertheless, outstanding issues on Iran’s NPT obligations remained unresolved, specifically,...

On July 25, the Times of Israel published a story titled Strikes on Iran thwarted fission and fusion nukes, and ‘electronic pulse’ bomb . It was based on a column published by David Ignatius in the Washington Post. Besides the writeup on the title story, there was also this:  The damage to Iran’s nuclear and missile programs was compounded by Israel’s assassination of [11 persons in] the first tier, second tier and most of the third tier of Iranian physicists and nuclear scientists. Israeli officials were cited as saying it was expected that younger Iranians would be deterred from pursuing careers in those fields as a result of the killings.  More insight into that last sentence was given in the July 15 report by David Albright’s Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) titled Significance of the Targeted Nuclear Scientists in the 12-Day War . In Albright’s report we find the following:  In an apparent effort to pre-empt recovery and recruitments, Israel th...

There was a lot of reporting on July 25 about the Iran conundrum. Here are summaries on two topics with some comments.  E3 Snapback  E3 and Iran met on July 25 in Istanbul. The E3 had agreed to snapback United Nations sanctions on Iran on August 29 if there is no progress on a nuclear deal. However, E3 does have the ability to defer snapback beyond October 18 —the date the snapback provision expires, ten years after JCPOA was adopted. E3 offered Tehran a temporary delay in triggering the snapback mechanism, on condition that Tehran re-engage diplomatically, cooperate fully with the IAEA, and address concerns over its rapidly growing uranium stockpile. They want Iran to take concrete steps to convince them to extend the October 18 deadline by up to six months. E3 and Iran agreed to continue discussions.  This sideshow keeps bubbling along. Only the Iranian reports emphasize that sanctions removal was number one on Iran’s discussion list. Iran wants E3 to try to influence ...

In his July 16 report about the E3 and snapback, Kian Sharifi, RFE/RL, wrote: ‘ While the expiration window to reapply the sanctions closes in October, the Europeans can choose to delay the snapback beyond the expiry date in order to allow more time for further negotiations .’  Let’s see what the E3 have in mind. Here are the relevant parts of UN Security Council RES/2231 (2015).  UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)   Adopted by Security Council at its 7488th meeting, on 20 July 2015  Terminations   7 . Decides, acting under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations, (a) The provisions of resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010) and 2224 (2015) shall be terminated.  8 . Decides, acting under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations, that on the date ten years after the JCPOA Adoption Day [October 18, 2025], as defined in the JCPOA, all the provisions of this resolution shall be terminated,...

Kian Sharifi, RFE/RL, reported on July 16 that Ali Vaez, director of Iran program at International Crisis Group, says the E3’s “ ultimatum [on snapback] is very serious .” He [said] the West is becoming increasingly more confident that the mechanism is “ leverage that should not be lost ” in order to compel Iran to, at the very least, allow international inspectors to visit its nuclear sites and, at most, strike a deal with the United States.  It continues to surprise me how little the experts on Iran understand about how inspections by the IAEA work. “ Compel Iran to, at the very least, allow international inspectors to visit its nuclear sites ”?? Sorry Ali and Kian, that ain’t the way it works.  NPT safeguards fundamentals : Determined by safeguards agreement between State and IAEA based on IAEA document INFCIRC/153; State submits declarations of its nuclear material in standard documents giving locations, types, amounts, based on State’s measurements; IAEA visits locations ...

That is a New York Times headline story on July 17, 2025. They write that the Europeans intent is to’ push Iran into renewed negotiations on restricting their nuclear program .’ Why are the Europeans making Steve Witkoff’s deal making more difficult by bringing up ‘ snapback ’ sanctions? This blog will give the full story on what the “Europeans” are messing with.  Barak Ravid of Axios gave a good report on July 15: ‘ U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the foreign ministers of France, Germany and the U.K [E3]. agreed on July 15 that the end of August is the deadline for reaching a nuclear deal with Iran. If no deal, E3 plan to trigger the "snapback" mechanism that automatically reimposes all UN Security Council sanctions that were lifted under the JCPOA. The snapback provision will expire [with UNSC/RES/2231 (2015) on October 18]. The process of activating "snapback" takes 30 days, and E3 want to conclude the process before Russia assumes the UN Security Counci...

Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi summed up Iran’s positions in speeches on Saturday, July 12. Here is a compilation with some comments.  Iran-U.S. Talks . “ [Iran] is examining timing, location, form, ingredients, and the assurances it requires ” for possible negotiations with the U.S. “ First of all, there should be a firm guarantee that such actions will not be repeated. The attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities has made it more difficult and complicated to achieve a solution based on negotiations .”  “ If negotiations are held … the subject of the negotiations will be only nuclear and creating confidence in Iran’s nuclear programme in return for the lifting of sanctions. No other issues will be subject to negotiation. " Iran’s position on the need to continue enriching uranium on its soil was reaffirmed.  If Donald Trump is made aware of Araghchi’s statements by Steve Witkoff, he would probably shout, ‘ Who does he think he is setting conditions for me! I set conditions...

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, asked on July 9 in Washington about Iran’s enriched uranium, said “ The one thing that we didn’t deal with that we knew we didn’t deal with was the enriched uranium… We think we know where it is … It has to be made clear to [Iran], and I think it has been, that they don’t get this enriched uranium. ”  Satellite imagery shows Iran is digging out entrances to Fordow and Isfahan. That will take time. Why should Iran be in a hurry? In any case, Iran will consider what they find is their business and no one else’s. What Iran is likely to do is state publicly that much, perhaps all, of the enriched uranium inventory at Fordow was destroyed by Trump’s so successful “ obliteration ”. They may declare some amount of recovered enriched uranium to IAEA. Something similar would be done for the enriched uranium that was stored underground at Isfahan; some amount of recovered enriched uranium might be declared to IAEA. The total declared will be a fract...

If Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi meets with Donald Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, I can imagine Araghchi’s message would be something like this:  • Tell President Trump that we are ready and willing to restart talks if the U.S. guarantees that there will be no military strikes on Iran during the negotiations by the U.S. or by Israel. If there are military strikes by Israel and/or the U.S., Iran will give its 3-month notice of withdrawal from the NPT because the U.S. will have demonstrated that it is an existential threat to Iran.   • Also tell President Trump that, to ensure the safety of IAEA inspectors while in Iran, we have suspended our cooperation with IAEA under our NPT safeguards agreement until the U.S. guarantees no military strikes by Israel and/or the U.S.   • Further, tell President Trump that there is no hurry . As Jennifer Kavanagh and Rosemary Kelani wrote in Foreign Affairs on June 25, 2025:          ...

Here is a compilation of some of what world leaders have been reported as saying in the past week about Iran and IAEA.   Iran President Pezeshkian  • [I] ordered the country to cut ties with the nuclear watchdog [IAEA]. A bill to suspend cooperation had already been passed in the Iranian parliament and approved by the country’s Guardian Council. Guardian Council spokesperson Hadi Tahan Nazif said the decision had been taken for the “ full respect for the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic of Iran ”. The bill itself says the suspension “ will remain in effect until certain conditions are met, including the guaranteed security of nuclear facilities and scientists .” [July 2]  Iran Foreign Minister Araghchi  • “ Grossi’s insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent .” “ Iran reserves the right to take any steps in defence of its interests, its people and...

One reads or hears little about the illegality of the military attacks on Iran under international law. Here are excerpts from what one organization that dares to address that subject has published. It deserves wider circulation. The Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF) published on June 19 a blog explaining how Israel’s attacks against Iran constitute unlawful military aggression, made possible only by the impunity it has so far received from Western states for the attacks it has launched throughout the Middle East.  Israel’s bombing of nuclear installations, Iranian officials and civilian buildings in Iran violates international law. At the time of writing, Israeli airstrikes have targeted hospitals, markets, water and fuel infrastructure, killing 406 Iranians, more than 90 per cent of them civilians.  Israel claims that it launched these attacks to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But Israel’s attacks were timed to wreck the negotiations...

Search for the term “suspension” in the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and you won’t find it. You will find “withdrawal” in Article X. That’s what North Korea did.  Once again Iran has played its “suspension” card and that is raising such a fuss that Donald Trump might be applauding Iran getting so much attention, almost stealing the show from him for a bit.  Iran has twice suspended the implementation of the Additional Protocol to its CSA, the only government to do that. And, remarkably, it has gotten away with it.  This time it is a “ suspend until ” card. A national law has been passed and signed by President Pezeshkian which states that the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran will suspend its cooperation with the IAEA until the security of the nuclear facilities is guaranteed . Any future inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would need approval by the Supreme National Security Council. The installation of surveillance cameras and filing of reports...