As Israel, Iran, and the United States engaged in their 12-day conflict, tensions escalated between Tehran and the UN’s nuclear watchdog, casting uncertainty over the future of independent oversight of Iran’s nuclear program and heightening concerns that global non-proliferation measures could start to deteriorate.
On Wednesday, the Iranian parliament voted to halt cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and expel its nuclear inspectors from the country.
This measure requires approval from the country’s supreme leaders to proceed.
Simultaneously, Iran is contemplating a withdrawal from the UN’s Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
IAEA Director Rafael Mariano Grossi stated it would be unfortunate if Iran chose to withdraw from the NPT.
Experts have informed RTÉ News that such a move would negatively impact global efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and could trigger other nations to exit the treaty as well.
“There is a significant risk that Iran could depart from the NPT, thus undermining the treaty,” said Alistair Burnett, spokesperson for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), “and Saudi Arabia might follow suit, given its apprehensions regarding Tehran’s nuclear program.”
When asked about Iran’s potential withdrawal from the long-established treaty during a news conference this week, Rafael Grossi, IAEA Director General, expressed that it would be “very regrettable.”
“I don’t think this would benefit anyone, especially Iran. It would lead to isolation and numerous problems,” he stated.
He also noted it would result in “serious erosion” of the global nuclear non-proliferation framework.
Central to this conflict is Tehran’s belief that the UN’s nuclear watchdog lacks impartiality—an allegation that UN officials firmly reject.
This discord commenced when the IAEA passed a resolution on June 12, asserting that Iran was in violation of its NPT obligations.
The watchdog also reported that Iran possessed a stockpile of 140 kg of uranium enriched to 60% purity, a level nearing weapons grade.
The following day, Israel targeted Iran’s nuclear and military sites with airstrikes.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to this as a “pre-emptive” strike aimed at preventing Iran from developing a nuclear bomb, asserting that Iran was merely “weeks away” from achieving this capability.
Following the attacks, Mr. Grossi declared that his agency had not found evidence indicating Iran was undertaking “a systematic effort” to produce a nuclear weapon.
However, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei took to social media to accuse Mr. Grossi of being tardy.
“You obscured this truth in your entirely biased report,” Mr. Baqaei wrote on X.
The resolution was utilized as a pretext “to conduct a war of aggression against Iran and to launch an unlawful attack on our peaceful nuclear facilities,” he asserted.
As the US administration pondered involvement in the conflict, Vice President JD Vance also referenced the IAEA report.
“They’ve been found in violation of their non-proliferation obligations by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is hardly a right-wing organization,” Mr. Vance posted on X on June 17.
Five days later, the US bombed Iran’s nuclear sites in Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordow.
Iranian officials continued to channel their frustration toward the IAEA.
During a recent emergency session of the UN Security Council, Iran’s ambassador to the UN criticized Mr. Grossi for “biased conduct.”
“Undoubtedly, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France—three permanent members of this Council—along with the Israeli regime and the IAEA General Director, will bear full responsibility for the death of innocent civilians in Iran, especially women and children, and for the destruction of essential civilian infrastructure,” Amir Saeid Iravani told the 15-member body.
Iran’s ambassador to the UN, Amir Saeid Iravani
The Iranian envoy also lodged a formal complaint against Mr. Grossi with the UN Security Council and the UN Secretary-General, citing “a clear and serious breach of the standard of impartiality.”
Mr. Grossi maintained that the IAEA operated objectively and impartially, asserting that the notion that its reporting on Iran’s nuclear facilities paved the way for military action was “absolutely absurd.”
For years, the IAEA dispatched weapons inspectors to Tehran’s nuclear facilities to verify Iran’s adherence to its NPT commitments.
Additional inspection measures included CCTV surveillance at critical sites, tamper-proof seals, and the collection of dust and residue for analysis.
Access was significantly reduced after the US withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, and re-imposed sanctions in 2018.
At that juncture, the first Trump administration accused Iran of deceiving the international community regarding its nuclear program, claiming the JCPOA had “enriched the Iranian regime and enabled its malign behaviour.”
Now, as Iran’s animosity toward the IAEA escalates, questions arise regarding the possibility of any continued international oversight of Iran’s nuclear endeavors.
“It’s always more challenging for the IAEA to conduct inspection work if the host country is uncooperative,” Erin Dumbacher, a nuclear security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, informed RTÉ News.
Any nation possessing nuclear material, even for energy or medical purposes, should permit inspector access to enhance the international transparency and credibility of their nuclear programs, she emphasized.
“You only require three to five percent enrichment of your materials to utilize it for energy applications,” she added.
Read more: What is the nuclear world order and how did we get here?
“Therefore, any country with enrichment capabilities or materials that exceed that low level needs to clarify its purpose, ensuring that there are no looming additional weapon states,” she noted.
If Iran were to withdraw from the NPT at this juncture, it would certainly undermine regional confidence in Iran’s nuclear activities, she conveyed to RTÉ News.
It should be noted that not all nations have adhered to nuclear non-proliferation.
Israel is an undeclared nuclear power and not a signatory to the NPT, thus avoiding inspections by the IAEA.
India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed nations, as well as South Sudan, which is not, have never signed the treaty.
North Korea’s withdrawal from the treaty in 2003—the only country to do so—preceded its inaugural nuclear test in 2006.
“If other countries perceive Iran following that example, we may observe increased Israeli and US military interventions and even stricter sanctions on Tehran – and additional conflict is the last thing we want in the region,” Mr. Burnett cautioned.
Analysts now express concern that the unfolding events of recent weeks may lead nations to consider atomic weapons as the ultimate insurance against external threats, which could dismantle the NPT and raise the alarm of a new nuclear arms race.
“I fear that recent developments might have a chilling effect on a threshold state or a state that might be ‘hedging,’ in political science terms,” Ms. Dumbacher remarked.
“They may not perceive as much value in international transparency and cooperation with the IAEA,” she concluded.
