Ex-IAEA official criticizes Iranian officials' explanation about fate of 60% enriched uranium

TABNAK, Nov. 19 - Former IAEA official criticized Iranian officials' explanations about fate of the remaining 60% enriched uranium after US bombing, adding that Iran is required to routinely report to the Agency on nuclear material and related activities in normal times and under peacetime conditions; but there is no obligation related to military attacks.

News ID: 6949

Date: 19 November 2025 - 15:25

The former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency's transparency department says that Iran is required to routinely report to the Agency on nuclear material and related activities in normal times and under peacetime conditions; but there is no obligation related to military attacks.

Ahead of IAEA Board of Governor meeting, TABNAK reached out to TABNAK reached out to Tareq Rauf, former head of the Transparency Department of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Following is the full text of his comments:

The International Atomic Energy Agency is seeking to pass a resolution that calls on Iran to provide a report on the status of its 60% enriched uranium stockpiles and to allow IAEA inspectors access to the damaged sites. What are the reasons for proposing this resolution?

Unfortunately the IAEA report of 12 November states that: "Under its NPT Safeguards Agreement, Iran is required to provide a special report without delay on the status for safeguards purposes of the nuclear material and facilities affected by the military attacks: it has yet to do so." This is incorrect, there is no such requirement in Iran's NPT safeguards agreement. Iran does have an obligation to report to the IAEA on nuclear material and activities in a routine manner during normal peace times; but there is no such obligation connected to military attacks. The Agency recognizes the special situation at the bombed sites but then goes on to make the claim cited above. The E3/EU are now a spoiler in the international security arms control system, and building on the IAEA report, wants to put up a resolution that it is "essential and urgent" that Iran provide the reports referred to above.  In this the E3/EU will have the support of the US and allies. China and Russia will resist, and many global south countries will abstain. The Board will remain divided and yet again show that it is bitterly divided and the Board is technically incompetent.

The Wall Street Journal has reported that it is unlikely Iran's dossier to be referred to the UN Security Council in this session. Does this mean Iran is being pressured to cooperate, and if cooperation is not achieved in future sessions, will the dossier be referred to the UN Security Council?

The new resolution reportedly will not require reporting to the Security Council.

Iran's Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, has stated that all 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium are under rubble and Iran has no intention of retrieving them. Given the pressure from the IAEA, can Iran continue with this approach?

I don't know why senior Iranian officials are commenting on the enriched uranium, that it has survived, the nuclear programme will continue, etc. These are not helpful and will only lead to motivating Israel and US to attack Iran again and perhaps even Bushehr though that would really anger Russia.

Iran has announced that it has received requests to negotiate with the United States. This issue was raised by Tehran before the potential IAEA resolution. Are these two issues related? In other words, would Iran start talks to reduce the pressure from the IAEA?

The world now knows that to engage the Us president is to flatter him. Iran diplomacy at the UN end of September did not result in engaging the US administration. Iran needs to find intermediaries to set up a new engagement with the US, but the US wants zero enrichment so stalemate