The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of the IAEA’s New Iran Agreement

The agency’s head has vowed not to close a four-year-old investigation of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear work. Does he mean it this time?

By and
7

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Saturday in Vienna that even if the United States reaches a new nuclear deal with Iran, his agency will not artificially close a nearly four-year-old investigation into Tehran’s undeclared atomic work. To date, the Islamic Republic has not cooperated with the probe and seeks its end in order to facilitate its return to a new version of the July 2015 nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Rafael Grossi, the IAEA’s director general, and Mohammed Eslami, a vice president of Iran and the head of its Atomic Energy Organization, issued a joint statement following Grossi’s visit to Tehran that lays out a path forward for the investigation. According to this plan, Iran must provide written explanations in response to the IAEA’s outstanding questions by March 20. The agency then has two weeks to evaluate the information and send any questions back to Iran, which then has one week to respond. The agreement stipulates that Grossi “will aim to report his conclusion by the June 2022 Board of Governors” meeting.

The Grossi-Eslami agreement has positive, negative, and very negative implications for U.S. efforts to prevent Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon. 

The positive. The new arrangement probably constitutes an improvement over the IAEA’s shamefully premature decision in 2015 to close an investigation into whether Tehran had a clandestine nuclear weapons program. This time around, Grossi said the IAEA would not accept an Iranian refusal to cooperate with a renewed investigation of Iran’s nuclear program that is now in its fourth year.

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
7
By and
Comments (7)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    One can only hope that the scenario of the positive implications is what plays out instead of the very negative.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    Dear lord we are so screwed on foreign policy.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Shepherd

    This is cogent. I'm curious if dissenting opinions will be equally logical and based on evidence?

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Ruby Girl

    I really appreciate that the Dispatch offers articles like this, depressing as it is. It makes me really angry that our leaders are choosing wishful thinking over reality.

    Collapse
  5. Brook

    Very informative. Thanks for this report.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Nick H

    It certainly seems like we've given up on trying to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and the only thing that keeps them from saying it publicly is the inevitable backlash when Iran finally tests one. I suppose the assumption is that Iran would never be stupid enough to actually use one, knowing they would be destroyed in response. I'm of the opinion that that's a very bad assumption to make. We should be doing more to prevent a nuclear armed Iran, not watering down an already weak agreement.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Bill Nelson

    Question: is there anyone who does not believe that the Iranian government does not want a nuclear weapon?
    No.
    And is there anyone who believes that Iran will actually uphold, and live up to, any agreement which constrains it’s activities in any way?
    No.

    Collapse