WANA (Jun 23) – Iran’s opposition to the participation of Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in the recent talks held in Switzerland has emerged as one of the most notable developments surrounding the negotiations. According to a number of observers, the move went beyond a procedural disagreement and reflected Tehran’s level of trust in the current leadership of the agency.

 

The issue gained further attention after several U.S. officials claimed that Iran had accepted new commitments regarding cooperation with the IAEA during the negotiations. Iranian officials, however, firmly rejected those claims, insisting that no new agreements or obligations had been accepted.

 

In this context, international affairs analyst Mohammad Marandi responded to reports circulated by Western officials and media outlets, writing on social media: “Iran has no intention of purchasing American agricultural products, and there was no discussion yesterday about allowing IAEA inspectors to enter Iran. Ignore the Western propaganda.”

 

Marandi’s remarks came after U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed that Iran had agreed to allow IAEA inspectors into the country. Tehran quickly rejected the assertion. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei stated that “Iran’s interaction with the International Atomic Energy Agency continues in accordance with existing procedures and legal requirements.” He also stressed that no discussions on the nuclear file took place during the 18-hour negotiations in Switzerland and that Iran accepted no new commitments.

 

Baghaei Says IAEA Cooperation Will Continue Under Existing Framework, Denies New Nuclear Commitments

WANA (Jun 22) – Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson said Tehran’s cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will continue under existing procedures and in accordance with parliamentary legislation and decisions of the Supreme National Security Council.   Earlier, the U.S. Vice President and Treasury Secretary claimed that Tehran had agreed to invite IAEA inspectors […]

Read More...

 

At the same time, criticism of both the IAEA and Grossi has intensified within Iran’s political sphere. Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, publicly called for Grossi to be excluded from the negotiations. Subsequent reports suggested that Iran had indeed opposed the IAEA chief’s participation in the talks.

 

Several Iranian media outlets described the decision as part of a broader set of measures adopted by Tehran during the negotiations. According to these reports, the objective was to prevent outside actors from influencing the course of the discussions. Within this framework, opposition to Grossi’s attendance was portrayed as a sign of Iran’s commitment to its declared red lines.

 

Critics of the IAEA argue that the agency has increasingly moved away from a purely technical role and has become influenced by political considerations. They point to controversial reports on Iran’s nuclear program, what they describe as the agency’s failure to strongly condemn attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, and its silence regarding the killings of Iranian nuclear scientists as evidence of a decline in its impartiality.

 

Some Iranian analysts further contend that IAEA reports have, at various times, contributed to political pressure campaigns against Iran. From this perspective, the decision to block Grossi’s participation was not merely symbolic but rather an effort to keep the negotiations free from the influence of a figure who faces significant criticism within Iran.

 

Supporters of the move therefore, view Grossi’s exclusion from the Switzerland talks as an attempt to preserve the independence of the negotiating process and prevent issues outside the agreed agenda from shaping the discussions. In their view, Tehran’s dispute with the current leadership of the IAEA extends beyond a temporary diplomatic disagreement and has evolved into a broader question of trust and credibility surrounding the agency itself.