Is a New Framework with the IAEA Taking Shape?
WANA (Feb 22) – Amid intensified diplomatic activity in Geneva, direct contacts between Tehran and the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog have once again moved to the forefront. The renewed engagement is being viewed by some observers as a sign that a new framework of cooperation between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency may be in the making.
The presence of Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Geneva coincided with the second round of indirect talks between Iran and the United States. The negotiations, mediated by Oman, lasted three and a half hours and focused on identifying guiding principles for a potential agreement.
Direct Contacts and “In-Depth Technical Discussions”
Seyed Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s Foreign Minister, stated in an interview with NBC News: “I am in direct contact with Rafael Grossi and receive his proposals.” Upon arriving in Geneva, Araghchi had announced that he would meet Grossi alongside Iranian nuclear experts for detailed technical discussions. The meeting took place the same day at the Iranian delegation’s residence.
Grossi later described the encounter as “in-depth technical discussions” aimed at preparing the ground for the Geneva talks.
This was not their first recent interaction. The last formal meeting between the two officials had taken place on the sidelines of the 80th United Nations General Assembly in New York, where they discussed Iran’s nuclear program at Iran’s Permanent Mission to the UN.
Phone Call Between IAEA Director General and Iran’s Foreign Minister on Iran–U.S. Talks
WANA (Feb 22) – The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran’s Foreign Minister held a phone call to review the latest developments related to the indirect negotiations between Iran and the United States. During the conversation, Rafael Grossi and Seyed Abbas Araghchi exchanged views on the current status of […]
Two Phone Calls in Less Than a Week
Following their meeting in Geneva, Araghchi and Grossi held two phone conversations within days. During the first call—held one day after the indirect Iran–U.S. talks—the two sides reviewed the outcomes of the Geneva meeting and discussed mechanisms and requirements for drafting a potential negotiation framework.
In their second call, they addressed the latest developments in the nuclear negotiation process between Tehran and Washington. According to Iran’s Foreign Ministry, Grossi offered a positive assessment of the Geneva discussions and expressed the Agency’s readiness to cooperate in shaping a negotiation framework.
The IAEA’s Role: Technical or Political?
Speaking at the Conference on Disarmament at the UN headquarters in Geneva, Araghchi emphasized that “Iran will continue constructive dialogue and engagement with the Agency to resolve technical issues and find an agreed path to close the remaining gaps.”
He reiterated that cooperation with the IAEA must remain “strictly technical and impartial,” free from political pressure or selective interpretations.
As a founding member of the IAEA and a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful. Araghchi stressed that both technical and political commitments exist to ensure the program’s exclusively peaceful nature, adding that “there are certainly technical measures that can be taken to guarantee that Iran’s program cannot even deviate.”
Grossi, in an interview with Fox News, stated: “For there to be an agreement, we need to check what is there and in what condition, and ensure that there has been no diversion of sensitive materials.” He also told Bloomberg Television that the Agency is working on “something concrete” regarding inspections of sites that were bombed in June, noting that “the Agency has proposed several solutions.”
Inspecting Damaged Facilities
One of the most complex issues concerns inspections of facilities that were damaged in June’s military strikes. Araghchi pointed out that neither the IAEA Statute nor the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement provides clear guidance on how to inspect facilities targeted in such attacks. As a result, inspections would require a mutually agreed framework between Iran and the Agency—an issue he said is currently under discussion.
Grossi has acknowledged the complexity of any potential agreement but noted that he has observed willingness on both sides to reach a deal.
A History of Cooperation—and Setbacks
Cooperation between Iran and the IAEA has experienced fluctuations in recent months. Following attacks on certain nuclear facilities and the passage of a parliamentary law suspending parts of Iran’s cooperation with the Agency, some interactions were halted.
After three rounds of consultations, a memorandum of understanding was signed between Araghchi and Grossi. However, that arrangement proved short-lived after three European countries triggered the so-called “snapback” mechanism, effectively nullifying the understanding.
Nevertheless, Iranian officials say inspections at facilities not affected by the attacks have continued upon the Agency’s request and with the approval of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. Tehran maintains that its current level of cooperation is based on domestic law and coordinated with its highest security authorities.
Cairo Agreement between Iran and IAEA. Social media/ WANA News Agency
Is a Framework Emerging?
Taken together, these developments suggest that alongside political efforts to ease tensions between Tehran and Washington, a parallel technical track is also taking shape—one in which the IAEA’s role will be pivotal.
Araghchi has said he has instructed his team to work on various aspects of a potential agreement and that he remains in contact with both Grossi and his American counterparts. While cautioning that a deal will not be reached quickly, Iranian officials argue that the process has begun.
The central question now is whether the ongoing technical dialogue between Iran and the IAEA can help bridge remaining gaps and pave the way toward a verifiable and implementable agreement—one that must withstand scrutiny not only politically, but also technically.
