Iran Rejects IAEA Accusations as Politically-Motivated Fabrications
Executive Summary
Iran has issued a strong rejection of the latest IAEA report accusing it of increasing its uranium enrichment and failing to clarify historic nuclear activities. Tehran denounced the report as politically driven and built on discredited intelligence, accusing Western powers of manipulating the agency to reignite pressure amid stalled negotiations. The escalation comes as the U.S., U.K., France, and Germany prepare a possible resolution against Iran at the IAEA Board of Governors meeting in June, with potential implications for reimposing sanctions under the 2015 nuclear deal.
Analysis
The IAEA’s confidential report released on May 31 claims Iran has increased its stockpile of 60% enriched uranium by 50%, reaching 900.8 pounds—enough for at least one nuclear bomb if enriched further. While the agency frames this as a serious proliferation risk, Iran maintains that its program is peaceful and fully monitored under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement.
Iranian officials argue that the report is based on intelligence provided by Israel, a non-NPT nuclear state, and that it recycles previously closed allegations regarding sites such as Lavisan-Shian, Varamin, Turquzabad, and Marivan. They stress that no undeclared nuclear activity is occurring and that Tehran has provided full access and cooperation. However, Iran continues to refuse the implementation of Modified Code 3.1 and has revoked certain inspector designations, citing sovereign rights and distrust of Western nations.
The U.S. and European allies are using the report to mount diplomatic pressure ahead of a potential resolution at the IAEA Board of Governors, possibly leading to a formal non-compliance declaration for the first time in nearly 20 years. Iran warned it would retaliate with “appropriate measures” should the Board move forward with what it calls a politically charged resolution.
Meanwhile, nuclear negotiations remain in flux. The U.S. has reportedly presented a new proposal to Iran through Oman, though Iranian officials insist that any deal must include a full lifting of sanctions and recognition of Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear development. Both sides appear to be maneuvering for leverage—Tehran through technical nuclear advances, Washington through diplomatic escalation.
Despite the IAEA’s assertion of concern, it also confirmed that there is no current evidence of an active weapons program in Iran. Tehran has reiterated its longstanding fatwa against nuclear weapons and emphasized that the recent increase in enrichment is a negotiation tool, not a step toward militarization.
Iran’s harsh response to the IAEA underscores a deeper erosion of trust between Tehran and the agency, with Iranian officials increasingly viewing the IAEA as an instrument of Western coercion. As the October expiration of the 2015 nuclear deal looms, any move by the West to trigger snapback sanctions risks pushing Iran further from compliance—and closer to crisis.
