Rahman Ghahremanpour, in an interview with the website of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations regarding the challenges of Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA under the current circumstances, said: “Iran expected these attacks to be condemned by the IAEA, because according to the provisions of the NPT, the U.S.—a member of the treaty—has attacked another member country, violating the spirit of the non-proliferation treaty. The NPT is based on a balance among three principles: the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons by non-nuclear-weapon states, the right to peaceful nuclear energy for non-nuclear-weapon states, and the movement of nuclear-weapon states toward disarmament while assisting non-nuclear-weapon countries in accessing peaceful nuclear energy. However, by attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, the U.S. not only blatantly violated international laws and regulations but also threatened and undermined the three pillars of the NPT. This issue may push member states to conclude that remaining in the NPT no longer serves their interests.”

He added: “The IAEA not only failed to condemn these attacks explicitly, but the report by the IAEA Director General also somewhat provided the Israeli regime with a pretext to attack Iran. In Rafael Gross’s comprehensive report, unproven allegations about Iran’s nuclear activities—claiming that Iran did not completely halt the AMAD project after 2003—were once again raised. These were claims previously made by hardliners like David Albright and Zionist groups before Grossi. Still, his report in a way legitimized those allegations and became a justification for the Israeli regime’s attack on Iran.”

This international affairs expert emphasized: “Another challenge is related to the trigger mechanism, which is not unrelated to the IAEA. Because the potential activation of this mechanism by Europe could fundamentally alter the situation, Iran may respond by considering withdrawal from the NPT, which would severely disrupt its relations with the IAEA. Thus, two key issues—the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and its consequences, and the potential activation of the trigger mechanism—are major challenges overshadowing Iran-IAEA relations.”

In response to the question of how the suspension of Iran’s nuclear cooperation with the IAEA would affect Iran’s bargaining power in negotiations with Europe or the U.S., Ghahremanpour stated: “From a legal perspective, Iran can justify suspending its cooperation with the IAEA, as its facilities were attacked and an NPT member was involved in the attack. Iran can also argue that it has not benefited from its rights under the treaty, namely the right to peaceful nuclear energy. However, a complete suspension of cooperation sends a clear political message to the world and could create the perception that Iran is threatening international security.”

He continued: “It seems Iran is trying to find a middle ground between a complete suspension of cooperation and full cooperation as before or under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement—neither fully suspending cooperation nor seeking to withdraw from the NPT. Of course, given that Iran’s nuclear facilities have been attacked and a significant portion destroyed, the issue of inspections and physical verification takes on a different dimension. This attack has limited the scope of Iran-IAEA cooperation, as Iran no longer has extensive nuclear activities as before.”

He further noted: “On the other hand, Iran’s relations with the IAEA cannot return to normal after these attacks and the IAEA’s passive response. The recent parliamentary law, which leaves the final decision on the nature and extent of Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA to the Supreme National Security Council, has given relevant officials flexibility to act based on the country’s conditions and interests.”

Regarding the role of Russia and China and their willingness to play a part in Iran’s nuclear issue, Ghahremanpour said: “Today, Russia’s hands are more tied in international organizations than before, especially since Russia has, for the first time in modern history, attacked a Ukrainian nuclear power plant. In reality, just as the U.S. violated its NPT obligations toward Iran, Russia’s actions also violated the NPT. Moreover, Russia’s entanglement in Ukraine has weakened its bargaining power.”

This international affairs expert pointed out: “The situation with China, however, is different. For China, the issue is more about willingness than capability. China can influence international organizations, and its substantial economic power enables it to do so. However, based on its priorities, it is not inclined to play a prominent role, as this would require confronting Western powers—particularly the U.S. and three European countries—in international organizations and incurring costs to advance its agenda. So far, we have not seen such behavior from China in the international arena. Beijing has explicitly stated that it has no strategic allies in the world and is primarily focused on securing its interests.”

He added, “With more active diplomacy, perhaps China could be moved away from its passive role. After all, China’s influence in international organizations and the IAEA is greater than Russia’s. China also has more diplomatic channels with the West and the U.S. than Russia currently does.”