TEHRAN – Iranian officials have sharply criticized IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi's recent assessment of Iran's nuclear program, with several key figures directly addressing his claims. 

Grossi, in an interview with ANSA, stated that Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities are nearing weapons-grade levels, asserting that, "Iran is enriching uranium close to military levels and is rapidly moving towards becoming a nuclear state," and further declaring that "The JCPOA is no longer relevant and a new understanding is needed to take into account the realities of Iran's nuclear program."

These remarks prompted a swift response from Tehran. Mohammad Eslami, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), called upon the IAEA to maintain its impartiality, emphasizing the need to consider the non-compliance of other parties to the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) before pointing the finger of blame at Iran.

Eslami stated, “This international institution has to preserve its impartiality and adopt a professional behavior. It is not acceptable for an international institution to address just one aspect of the issue, in a provocative manner at that, and refuse to point to the main aspect, which is the obligated parties’ non-commitment.”

He further highlighted the agreement's reciprocal nature, stating, "This resolution is of two parts, which address the acceptance of [certain] restrictions on the part of Iran towards building up trust in exchange for the elimination of the [illegal] sanctions [that have been imposed on the country] and implementation of the other parties’ commitments.” Eslami urged the parties to fulfill their contractual obligations and remove sanctions.

Iran did not begin to scale back on some of its JCPOA commitments until 2020, almost two years after Washington withdrew from the deal and reimposed sanctions against the West Asian country. Tehran’s incentive for joining the nuclear deal in 2015 was sanctions relief. 

Separately, Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs, took to X to directly refute Grossi's claims. 

He countered Grossi's assessment, stating, “First, the Director General of a specialized organization is expected to speak based on facts and technical reports from the Agency's inspectors. Reading intentions based on hypothetical scenarios is not part of the Director General's duties and is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Agency's statute.”

Gharibabadi highlighted that Iran's nuclear program is entirely peaceful and operates under IAEA safeguards, stating, “Second, the development of Iran's nuclear program is in line with technical needs and is being carried out fully under the Agency's safeguards supervision.” He also addressed the issue of enrichment levels, clarifying, “Fourth, Iran's enrichment program has no military objectives. Regarding the level of enrichment, it should also be noted that enrichment is not restricted under the Non-Proliferation Treaty as long as it is under the supervision of the Agency and does not deviate from peaceful purposes.”

He further criticized Grossi for ignoring the fundamental reason for the current situation: “Fifth and finally, what Grossi’s statements never mentioned is the root cause of the current situation, which was the failure of the other parties to fulfill their obligations under the JCPOA and the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from it.” Gharibabadi concluded by advocating for constructive dialogue based on mutual respect and balanced commitments, including the lifting of sanctions, as the pathway towards a sustainable resolution.

He emphasized that “From this perspective, regardless of whether the JCPOA is relevant or not, it should be noted that constructive and fair talks based on mutual respect and balanced commitments, including in the area of lifting sanctions, will be a sustainable solution.” 

Iran has repeatedly condemned Grossi for unprofessional conduct in the past year, criticizing him for making comments that are politically biased and lack legal, moral, or technical justification.