Iran’s parliament has voted to ban IAEA inspectors and suspend cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, citing a systematic erosion of international law following US-backed Israeli attacks. Tehran’s cooperation with the United Nations watchdog and further unraveling the already fragile nuclear oversight regime in the region.
Of the 223 lawmakers present at the Majlis session, 221 backed the resolution, which halts surveillance and on-site access by IAEA officials until Iran’s nuclear facilities are deemed safe from foreign aggression. The move comes less than two weeks after Israeli airstrikes—reportedly supported by the United States—targeted Iranian nuclear sites in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, prompting international concern and fierce condemnation from Tehran.
Iranian officials accuse the IAEA of tacitly enabling the attacks by publishing a mid-June resolution that claimed Iran had failed to meet its non-proliferation obligations. “The IAEA has compromised itself by failing to condemn the attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities,” Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said during the session, according to reporting by BBC Russian language outlet.
He announced that Iran would now accelerate the development of its peaceful nuclear program and cease all voluntary transparency measures—effectively reversing a decade of international cooperation since the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Iran rejects IAEA claims, defends nuclear energy rights
Kazem Jalali, Iran’s ambassador to Russia, stated that the country would not abandon its right to nuclear energy and emphasized, “We will not deprive our future generations of access to nuclear technology,” Russian language outlet Gazeta reported, pushing back on recent claims by Israel and US officials that Tehran was years away from reconstituting its enrichment capacity.
The ambassador emphasized that uranium enrichment will continue to supply Iran’s growing fleet of nuclear power plants, firmly rejecting the idea that Iran seeks to weaponize its capabilities.
According to Iran’s ISNA, Rafael Grossi, Director General of the IAEA, stated—citing agency data and a Bloomberg survey—that no evidence has been observed of an organized effort by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, despite high enrichment levels.
Meanwhile, in Tashkent, Iran’s top envoy to Uzbekistan, Hossein Parvarish, condemned the June 13 Israeli attacks as “state terrorism” and accused the IAEA of silence in the face of what he called a direct attack on civilian infrastructure. “Iran will not tolerate this aggression,” Parvarish said, warning that Tehran would respond “war with war” if provoked again, according to Podrobno.
Russia backs Iran’s stance as US tensions rise
Russia has publicly supported Iran’s position, urging the global community to respect Iran’s consistent declarations that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons. “We are interested in Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA continuing. We are interested in everyone respecting the repeated statements of Iran, the Supreme Leader of Iran, that Iran does not have and will not have plans to create nuclear weapons,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated, “We are also interested in everyone respecting Iran’s repeated statements that it has no plans and will have no plans to create nuclear weapons,” as cited by BBC.
Lavrov’s comments underscore Moscow’s growing alignment with Tehran as both nations face mounting geopolitical pressure from the United States and NATO allies.
The US, for its part, continues to pursue a hardline approach. At the NATO summit in Brussels, former President Donald Trump declared that the US would “never allow” Iran to restart uranium enrichment. He promised military retaliation if Tehran attempted to reconstruct any part of its nuclear infrastructure.
In an unsettling remark that drew criticism even from some US analysts, Trump compared a potential attack on Iranian nuclear sites to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. “We will not hesitate to act if necessary,” Trump said, during the summit’s closed-door session, according to TRT Global.
IAEA credibility under fire after Israeli-US strikes
Adding to the controversy, a leaked report from the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) suggested that recent US-Israeli attacks failed to destroy key underground centrifuges at Fordow. The report, obtained by CNN and cited by TRT Global, indicated that the facilities’ main enrichment capabilities remain intact—contradicting Pentagon claims that the nuclear threat had been “neutralized.”
In response, IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi demanded immediate access to the bombed sites, warning that 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% were unaccounted for. “The craters visible at Fordow suggest the use of penetrating munitions,” Grossi said, adding, “But no one, not even the agency, can assess the full underground damage at this point.”
As of now, no IAEA team has been granted entry.
Fallout and forward path
The suspension of IAEA inspections by Iran marks a pivotal shift in the region’s nuclear diplomacy, signaling Tehran’s growing impatience with what it sees as a biased and ineffective oversight regime. After years of technical cooperation, the Islamic Republic has now moved to insulate its nuclear facilities from what it describes as externally manipulated inspection mechanisms.
While Iran’s decision follows a string of Israeli airstrikes reportedly backed by the United States, Western media have largely framed the response as escalation—ignoring the pattern of provocation that preceded it. In Tehran’s view, the attacks on nuclear infrastructure and scientific personnel constitute violations of international law, not legitimate security actions.
European powers—specifically France, Germany, and the United Kingdom—now face a strategic dilemma. As original signatories to the JCPOA, they must choose between reviving a viable diplomatic channel or continuing to shadow Washington’s increasingly militarized stance. So far, their silence on Israel’s unilateral use of force and the IAEA’s failure to condemn it has raised doubts about Europe’s independence in this arena.
Iran, for its part, has shifted from diplomatic patience to strategic resilience. Officials have reaffirmed their commitment to peaceful enrichment while rejecting external interference. Enrichment, they argue, is not about weaponization but national sovereignty—a right enshrined in international law and denied only to those outside Western political favor.
The IAEA, once regarded as the cornerstone of global non-proliferation, now faces a credibility crisis. Its reluctance to speak out against Israeli strikes, combined with what many in Tehran and across the Global South view as selective enforcement, has eroded its neutrality. As inspections stall and diplomatic momentum fades, the agency risks becoming a tool of geopolitical coercion rather than a guardian of stability.
