Iran has two realistic choices after end of Iran, IAEA game

TABNAK, Dec. 15 - A political scientist from University of South Alabama says that the game between the IAEA and Iran has run its course, adding that Iran has two realistic choices.

News ID: 7039

Date: 15 December 2025 - 17:31

Following the recent developments and difficulties created for cooperation between Iran and the Intertional Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) after the Isaeli-US aggretion on Iran,TABNAK reached out to Nader Entessar, professor emeritus of political science from the University of South Alabama for an interview.

Here is the full text of his comments:

Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, said in an interview with Japan’s Kyodo News that Japan has strong expertise in improving the safety of nuclear facilities, and the knowledge could be shared with Iran. Araghchi raised this point in connection with concerns over the safety of nuclear facilities damaged in the 12-day war. He added that any potential cooperation with Japan in this regard would be separate from the issue of inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), since, according to him, IAEA has no framework for inspecting facilities damaged by such attacks. Could cooperation with Japan on the safety of damaged facilities pave the way for establishing a new agreement framework between Iran and the IAEA?

The status of the heavily damaged Iranian nuclear sites after the Israeli-U.S. attacks during the 12-day war should be of utmost concern to the Iranian people.  We still don't know much about the extent of the damage or potential radioactive leakage and its long-term environmental and health threat to Iran.  As a result, any help Iran can get from a foreign entity like Japan should be welcomed. However, as long as Iran's Safeguard agreement with the IAEA remains in place, this agency will have the last word on this matter.   In other words, Iran cannot use Japan to run around the IAEA's authority because Iran is a prisoner of its membership in the IAEA.

In the same interview, Araghchi referred to the good cooperation between Iran and Japanese inspectors at the IAEA. He said that cooperation with Japanese inspectors and managers at the Agency and elsewhere has been very useful and could continue in the future. Does this imply that Iran may, in the future, request the presence of Japanese inspectors to examine its damaged facilities?

Again, it is the IAEA that sets the parameters of inspections.  Of course, Iran may request the presence of more Japanese inspectors, but ultimately, it is the IAEA that determines the makeup of inspection teams, not Iran.  Unfortunately, Iran remains at the mercy of the IAEA as long as Tehran remains beholden to its Safeguards agreement with the agency.

Given the likelihood of a resolution against Iran at the upcoming IAEA Board of Governors meeting and the possibility of the issue being referred to the UN Security Council, can the model Araghchi outlines prevent such an outcome and lead to renewed cooperation with the IAEA?

The game between the IAEA and Iran has run its course.  We know what the IAEA wants, and based on the agency's past conduct, especially under its current director, Rafael Grossi, we know how it will behave towards Iran.  It seems that those in charge of Iran's foreign policy refuse to remove their blinders and accept this fact.  Iran has two realistic choices: either it will remain under the IAEA's supervision and submit to its dictates, or break loose from the agency's one-sided grip and chart a new course.  It cannot simultaneously have its cake and eat it too.

Based on Araghchi’s remarks, could Japan serve as a bridge to facilitate cooperation between Iran and the IAEA, and subsequently help pave the way for Iran–US dialogue?

Unfortunately, I don't put much weight on this scenario to succeed.  We have traversed this road before without any concrete results.